|
Post by justsomeguy on Jun 23, 2011 15:58:33 GMT
Nothing now.
When is the next data from Drs. Livingston and Penn?
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 23, 2011 16:38:55 GMT
Nothing now. When is the next data from Drs. Livingston and Penn? In about a week
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jun 29, 2011 11:59:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jun 29, 2011 12:00:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 29, 2011 12:39:01 GMT
Yes, it was updated through June 17. And still looks good. The distribution of field year by year also supports the hypothesis:
|
|
|
Post by vukcevic on Jun 29, 2011 14:52:45 GMT
Any further information for some notable differences between two graphs ?
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jun 29, 2011 17:46:32 GMT
The differences look small enough to me to accounted for by the June 17 update.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 29, 2011 18:04:15 GMT
Any further information for some notable differences between two graphs ? The old one was made with a variable bin size, the new one with a fixed bin size [100 G]. The latter makes it possible to calculate the average curve for each color [the thick curves]. There are, of course, no real differences in substance.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 18, 2011 23:26:12 GMT
Latest L&P plot: updated through July 8th.
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jul 19, 2011 1:10:22 GMT
WOW! Thanks, also appreciate the increased density. Is that simply because we have more spots now or that you guys get more time?
It continues...and increases (?) ... we need the Nature paper...
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 19, 2011 3:44:10 GMT
WOW! Thanks, also appreciate the increased density. Is that simply because we have more spots now or that you guys get more time? It continues...and increases (?) ... we need the Nature paper... It is going down, actually. The higher density is just because there are more spots.
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jul 19, 2011 13:40:49 GMT
Agree, I was talking about the density of the data - which is great as it adds significance to the argument.
When does the paper come out? Is it in review yet?
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 19, 2011 17:11:15 GMT
Agree, I was talking about the density of the data - which is great as it adds significance to the argument. When does the paper come out? Is it in review yet? Not yet. Patience.
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Jul 28, 2011 17:19:34 GMT
Hi Leif
Since I've been away I've had a chance to ponder a few items and have come up with some suppositions and some questions about the endeavor Bill Livingston and Matt Penn have embarked on.
To me there appears to be enough data from L&P research to ascertain that the variation of the sun's magnetic field intensity is independent from the 10.7 year solar cycle. Is that a safe assumption ? I ask this because from what L&P have reported their data is inverse to the rise phase of Cycle 24 thus far.
Second your response to questions on the matter of L&P findings indicate that there would seem to be Cyclic variation of this phenomenon. Something on the order of 50 years if my memory serves me. Do you think that over time research could determine the period of this cycle or come up with a formula that gives at least a pseudo-accurate representation of what is happening ? Could it be possible the period is purely random ?
Now delving into to specifics of the future course of the research. It would appear that an extended period of study may well be necessary to determine these factors. With the possible closure of McMath-Pierce a distinct possibility will L&P work be transferred to ATST ? Will Matt Penn continue the work when Bill retires ? Has Mark Giampapa stated anything about what he sees about the future of the study ?
Sorry to load you down. Maybe I ought to post more often.
BTW congratulations on the grant for the historical study you proposed. It looks like quite a few people will be banging around libraries thumbing through tombs.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 28, 2011 23:07:50 GMT
Hi Leif Since I've been away I've had a chance to ponder a few items and have come up with some suppositions and some questions about the endeavor Bill Livingston and Matt Penn have embarked on. To me there appears to be enough data from L&P research to ascertain that the variation of the sun's magnetic field intensity is independent from the 10.7 year solar cycle. Is that a safe assumption ? I ask this because from what L&P have reported their data is inverse to the rise phase of Cycle 24 thus far. Second your response to questions on the matter of L&P findings indicate that there would seem to be Cyclic variation of this phenomenon. Something on the order of 50 years if my memory serves me. Do you think that over time research could determine the period of this cycle or come up with a formula that gives at least a pseudo-accurate representation of what is happening ? Could it be possible the period is purely random ? Now delving into to specifics of the future course of the research. It would appear that an extended period of study may well be necessary to determine these factors. With the possible closure of McMath-Pierce a distinct possibility will L&P work be transferred to ATST ? Will Matt Penn continue the work when Bill retires ? Has Mark Giampapa stated anything about what he sees about the future of the study ? Sorry to load you down. Maybe I ought to post more often. BTW congratulations on the grant for the historical study you proposed. It looks like quite a few people will be banging around libraries thumbing through tombs. Bob 1) It looks [so far] that L&P is independent of the cycle. After one more year, we'll know for sure. 2) I don't think there is a longer cycle. We need to go back to the Maunder minimum 350 years ago, to find another L&P . This is VERY uncertain.
3) We have submitted a paper to Science on this. If accepted it will go a long way to enable us to continue. Bill L is already retired.
|
|