Talk:Stellar magnetic field

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Stellar magnetic field is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Comment[edit]

Hi Bob, nice job in setting up this page. One comment: the terms "sunspot" and "solar flare" refer to the Sun. The term "starspot" is in common use, and other stars certainly have "flares" (although I don't recall seeing "stellar flare" in the literature). Timb66 11:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Timb66. Note that I only used sunspot because, on wikipedia, starspot is a redirect to sunspot. But I've modified the page to say starspot instead. — RJH (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't think starspot should redirect to sunspot. Nor should stellar flare redirect to solar flare. Timb66 09:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

When there are separate articles for those topics then the links will point to the appropriate pages. (I seem to recall there may have been a separate "starspot" article at one time, but it was merged into "sunspot".) Alternatively the terms could be defined on this page and the redirects pointed here. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree "starspot" is the correct term, as I understand it "sun" can apply to any star with an associated solar system, so "sunspot" can be considered a valid substitution. Don't know if the same can be said for stars without orbiting bodies, though.--Scorpion451 21:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I concede that another star might be call a "sun" in colloquial use, but this is not done by astronomers. And using this to say that a spot on another star could be called a "sunspot" is certainly stretching it a bit far. Timb66 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Image credit[edit]

Are you sure that the image of the CME at the top is from NOAA and not NOAO (National Optical Astronomy Observatory)? That image of the CME looks like it is from the SOLIS at Kitt Peak, and as far as I know, NOAA does not study the sun nor do they have solar satellites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.111.254.11 (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The image appears to come from an NOAA web site about space weather. Unfortunately they don't list any image credits.—RJH (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Why restrict to main-sequence stars?[edit]

Any reason why the lead sentence mentions the main sequence? Subgiants and giants can surely have magnetic fields, too. Timb66 (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No specific reason and yes they can.[1][2]RJH (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)