|
Post by Bob k6tr on Aug 2, 2011 18:31:26 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 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. Science = NSF ?
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Aug 3, 2011 0:13:23 GMT
Science is one the top science peer reviewed journals in the world, Nature being the other. Just getting it into review is a big step and says something about the science presented.
NSF is the National Science Foundation, a US national department that funds science projects, largely at universities. It funds non-health related stuff in general, NIH funds the health related projects.
|
|
|
Post by semimadscientist on Sept 3, 2011 17:54:52 GMT
It seems that the 1500 Gauss mark will be reached in 2023 if the current trend persists; the curve, if there ever really was one, is flattening, it would appear. I wonder if there is a slight effect of where in the cycle we are, on the L&P effect. In theory, it shouldn't make a difference, but could it be that now we are nearing maximum, the Gauss values are increased just a tad?
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 3, 2011 18:31:24 GMT
Semimad-
Show your work, I do not disagree but just do not see it in the sea of data.
|
|
|
Post by semimadscientist on Sept 3, 2011 18:58:47 GMT
Semimad- Show your work, I do not disagree but just do not see it in the sea of data. The line of best fit as it appeared a year ago was more curved than it is now. If you're interested in proving this, just delete the past year's data, and you'll find that the curve, when extrapolated, hit 1500 Gauss around 2018, but with the past year's data, it is now nearer 2023. As there is so little data to go by, I'm not predicting that it WILL be 2023, just that at a quick glance and a bit of back- of- the envelope extrapolating, it appears that the "deadline" is moving further ahead. As for the bit about a possible effect on magnetic field measurements of the position in the cycle, that was a question rather than an hypothesis; there's very little evidence in the data, but I was wondering whether there's anything in theory which supports this.
|
|
|
Post by cometchaser on Sept 5, 2011 11:50:11 GMT
First post! Long time lurker. I have to wonder if rather than flattening, what we are seeing is a truncation of the data for low gauss spots? If 1500 Gauss is the magic number then I'd expect the line of best fit to flatten, as the lower gauss spots become invisible, thus removing themselves from the observation. Observational bias?
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Sept 5, 2011 12:15:20 GMT
First post! Long time lurker. I have to wonder if rather than flattening, what we are seeing is a truncation of the data for low gauss spots? If 1500 Gauss is the magic number then I'd expect the line of best fit to flatten, as the lower gauss spots become invisible, thus removing themselves from the observation. Observational bias? There will be a flattening, but if all spots fall below 1500 Gauss...
|
|
|
Post by cometchaser on Sept 5, 2011 12:27:35 GMT
First post! Long time lurker. I have to wonder if rather than flattening, what we are seeing is a truncation of the data for low gauss spots? If 1500 Gauss is the magic number then I'd expect the line of best fit to flatten, as the lower gauss spots become invisible, thus removing themselves from the observation. Observational bias? There will be a flattening, but if all spots fall below 1500 Gauss... Then the 'line of best fit' intercept trends toward the year infinity, before it stops being updated for a few decades?
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Sept 5, 2011 17:26:04 GMT
There will be a flattening, but if all spots fall below 1500 Gauss... Then the 'line of best fit' intercept trends toward the year infinity, before it stops being updated for a few decades? No it doesn't. Imagine the situation just before the last spots disappear [say for the argument in 2020] then there will be a few spots right at 1500 and the best fit will go through those and then hit the 1500 Gauss line.
|
|
|
Post by cometchaser on Sept 6, 2011 7:53:11 GMT
Then the 'line of best fit' intercept trends toward the year infinity, before it stops being updated for a few decades? No it doesn't. Imagine the situation just before the last spots disappear [say for the argument in 2020] then there will be a few spots right at 1500 and the best fit will go through those and then hit the 1500 Gauss line. Excuse my sloppy language then, I did mean the 'line of best fit' heads toward an asymptote along to 1500 line (hence the intercept tending to infinity), then stops being updated as subsequent 'spots' drop beneath the 1500 line
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Sept 6, 2011 18:44:41 GMT
No it doesn't. Imagine the situation just before the last spots disappear [say for the argument in 2020] then there will be a few spots right at 1500 and the best fit will go through those and then hit the 1500 Gauss line. Excuse my sloppy language then, I did mean the 'line of best fit' heads toward an asymptote along to 1500 line (hence the intercept tending to infinity), then stops being updated as subsequent 'spots' drop beneath the 1500 line It crosses the 1500 Gauss line in 2020 or so.
|
|
|
Post by cometchaser on Sept 7, 2011 8:16:58 GMT
My bad, the earlier post speaking of flattening/ being curved made me think of 1500 Gauss being an asymptote for this now curved line of best fit... Whatever, it's damned interesting! I've been lurking and following for a number of years
|
|
N9AAT
Level 3 Rank
DON'T PANIC
Posts: 153
|
Post by N9AAT on Sept 16, 2011 13:59:39 GMT
I'm a lurker, too. I think everyone including school kids should have at least a rudimentary class in statistics. How many people even know what a mean is?
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 21, 2011 4:03:02 GMT
Leif-
I can never wait for the next update, any idea when it is or if they had good viewing this month?
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Sept 25, 2011 9:35:50 GMT
Leif- I can never wait for the next update, any idea when it is or if they had good viewing this month? Bill just had an observing run. I was with him. Give him a few days to reduce the data.
|
|