Sun?

[kristina3313]

<div id="yiv1902076279"><div>I am currently using an on line source to&nbsp;gain some knowledge&nbsp;in the subject of physics.&nbsp;The following is from a book that was written I believe in 1998:</div><div>"The&nbsp;solar wind&nbsp;observations have revealed a new 1.3-1.4 year periodicity in the Sun. The reason for it is not yet known, but as any variability in the solar wind, it is reflected in the geomagnetic activity. According to one of these ground-based studies, the importance of this new variability fluctuates with a roughly 65-year period, with maximums in about 1948 and 2013. This agrees with the fact that the period has not been observed in solar wind before 1987."</div><div>So I am lost here, can someone translate this for an <span><span>amateur</span></span>! I've tried searching myself but most of what I've found is a bit too advanced for me. Thank you!</div></div> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am currently using an on line source to&nbsp;gain some knowledge&nbsp;in the subject of physics.&nbsp;The following is from a book that was written I believe in 1998:"The&nbsp;solar wind&nbsp;observations have revealed a new 1.3-1.4 year periodicity in the Sun. The reason for it is not yet known, but as any variability in the solar wind, it is reflected in the geomagnetic activity. According to one of these ground-based studies, the importance of this new variability fluctuates with a roughly 65-year period, with maximums in about 1948 and 2013. This agrees with the fact that the period has not been observed in solar wind before 1987."So I am lost here, can someone translate this for an amateur! I've tried searching myself but most of what I've found is a bit too advanced for me. Thank you! <br />Posted by kristina3313</DIV><br /><br />Can you give us a link to your source so we can investigate a bit? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[kristina3313]

<p>&nbsp;</p><p>http://www.oulu.fi/~spaceweb/textbook/content.html</p><p>the one that is under the solar system... 1.3 solar periodicity</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am currently using an on line source to&nbsp;gain some knowledge&nbsp;in the subject of physics.&nbsp;The following is from a book that was written I believe in 1998:"The&nbsp;solar wind&nbsp;observations have revealed a new 1.3-1.4 year periodicity in the Sun. The reason for it is not yet known, but as any variability in the solar wind, it is reflected in the geomagnetic activity. According to one of these ground-based studies, the importance of this new variability fluctuates with a roughly 65-year period, with maximums in about 1948 and 2013. This agrees with the fact that the period has not been observed in solar wind before 1987."So I am lost here, can someone translate this for an amateur! I've tried searching myself but most of what I've found is a bit too advanced for me. Thank you! <br />Posted by kristina3313</DIV><br /><br />The 1.3 year period corresponds to the velocity of the solar wind.&nbsp; Apparently the amplitude increases and decreases over a 65 year period.&nbsp; So as the amplitude increases towards the end of the 65 year period, it becomes evident.&nbsp; In other words the change in the velocity over the 1.3 year period was too small to be obvious before 1987.</p><p>Here is a link to a MIT paper that sounds like it was the source for the book:</p><p>ftp://space.mit.edu/pub/plasma/publications/jdr_per/jdr_per.withthumbs.pdf</p><p>I didn't see much on the net besides this paper so I wonder what any new data says about this,,</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kristina3313]

<div>Thanks for the link origen!&nbsp;Then in 2013&nbsp;the change&nbsp;will&nbsp;be evident enough to observe it then?</div><div>About the net... I wondered the same as well, because I did try to search the subject on line, but there was really not much more info about it,&nbsp;so then my main concern&nbsp;was that maybe there were&nbsp;resent updates on the subject that I couldn't locate.</div> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kristina3313]

Sorry... origin...that was a typo!!!&nbsp;&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks for the link origen!&nbsp;Then in 2013&nbsp;the change&nbsp;will&nbsp;be evident enough to observe it then?About the net... I wondered the same as well, because I did try to search the subject on line, but there was really not much more info about it,&nbsp;so then my main concern&nbsp;was that maybe there were&nbsp;resent updates on the subject that I couldn't locate. <br />Posted by kristina3313</DIV><br /><br />Well, actually it can be seen now and has been able to be measured at least since 1987, it will be at the peak (according to the article) in 2013.&nbsp; So the amplitude (the difference between the high velocity and the low velocity) over the 1.3 year&nbsp;period will be the largest.&nbsp;&nbsp;After 2013 the&nbsp;change in the velocity will then begin to become smaller.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kristina3313]

OK, now I finally&nbsp;got it, thanks again! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>