Talk:Stellar wind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Stellar wind is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


That stellar wind might be neutrally charged could require a bit of elaboration as well as a reliable source. --Harald Khan Ճ 14:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Stellar Wind[edit]

The code name for the National Security Agency (NSA) collection activities that were previously unknown to all but a tiny number of officials at the White House and in the U.S. intelligence community was referred to as Stellar Wind.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladoo37 (talkcontribs) 04:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That article got nothing to do with this one; thus a reference should not be added under the 'see also' section as it is completely irrelevant. If the article survives, a reference could be added at the start of the article, like for example here. --Harald Khan Ճ 13:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Stellar Wind"[edit]

The usage of Stellar Wind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Stellar Wind (code name) -- (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


Seems a bit odd that slow winds have (v = 10 km/s) whereas very high velocities (v > 1–2000 km/s). If "slow" is 10 how can "very high" include "slow" in its range? Vsmith (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Speculating here, but perhaps "1-2000 km/s" was meant to mean "1000-2000 km/s". I haven't changed it because I haven't confirmed this from reliable sources, but it seems reasonable. --Yaush (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Digressive source[edit]

Ref 1, "Dust Envelopes" doesn't refer to or explain how pressure of light can overcome the gravity of the star. Unless a more relevant source can be referred to, the concerned statement should be removed or at least worded as speculative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by As110 (talkcontribs) 17:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's basic physics and not at all mysterious. Light carries momentum. A sufficiently strong outward flow of radiation can deposit enough momentum in dust to overcome gravity. This is completely noncontroversial, textbook stuff. --Yaush (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Spare me the peremptory attitude. Not collimated particle streams, the article only refers to isometric dust shells. -- As110 (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It's still basic textbook stuff. Not the least speculative. --Yaush (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for displaying your ignorance on the matter, Yaush. Now please present some sources on the specific matter, including of course the acceleration of the collimated streams. -- As110 (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The short article could use more references. If unsourced material is questionable, the proper approach is to A: find and add references, or B: add a citation needed tag to the questioned content. Simply removing the information and adding your own unsourced commentary to the article ("though it's undetermined how pressure of light can overcome the gravity of the star") is not acceptable. Also, please assume good faith and avoid making negative comments about your fellow editors. Vsmith (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, VSmith. The statement being sourced is that the massive winds of red giants and supergiants are driven by radiation pressure on dust grains in their outer atmospheres. The source I added to support this utterly noncontroversial statement of the general consensus is a university web page that talks about how dust in red giant and supergiant atmospheres is an efficient absorber of radiation momentum, which dominates the dynamics. I don't understand why the statement in this article is at all controversial to anyone the least familiar with the field, and why the source is not thought to be supporting the statement. Since collimated streams are not mentioned either in the article or the source, I'm not sure why As110 is bringing it up. --Yaush (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Being "not sure" is usually accompanied with being humble, except for some wikipedia editors it seems. Collimated stellar winds exist, and ESA doesn't know how they work, maybe you should call them and say that it's basic textbook stuff: ... But no point in arguing since you have clearly made up your mind already, so I'm not gonna waste any more of my time and just leave this as another example why editing wikipedia is awful. -- As110 (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The solar wind is not a massive cool dusty wind. Complete different phenomenon. The fact you don't know the difference between the solar wind and a massive cool dusty wind from a red supergiant suggests we are, indeed, wasting our time arguing: You don't know what you're talking about and you aren't going to let anyone educate you. WP:CIR seems to apply here. --Yaush (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I'm sure you got all the facts straight. :) Keep following your WP:BS rules. -- As110 (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)