vukcevic: Btw. my polar field formula http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/LFC2.htm is far superior solution to your 1/1000 theory.
    L.Svalgaard.: The amount of polar flux is not theory, but is an observed quantity. As far as I know, you have no understanding or explanation of how your formula might work.

    ...explanation of how the above formula might work.

    Landscheidt , Hose, Fairbridge, Charvatova, Wolff and Patrone,  Willson and others, as far as I understand, base their ideas on assumptions that planetary system supplying extra energy input in order to power solar cycles.
    This, I think is wrong.
    Amount of energy in the sun's surface is so huge, that unless one of these planets plunged into the sun directly,  would hardly make any difference.
    It is likely to be the other way around, and I was suggesting  it for some time now.
    It is the change in the energy outflow (not inflow) from the sun,  that makes planetary connection work!

    I could forward an electric analogy, but that may not be wise, so consider this:
an ordinary magnet sitting on your desk hardly makes any difference to surrounding area (after few short microseconds after being placed there).  Bring in its proximity a conductor or ferromagnetic substance than its presence will manifest itself, not only on that object, but influence of that object on the magnet itself , through the magnetic field lines connecting two; the magnet may even physically move.
    How does this translate to the solar system?
    Sun radiates electro-magnetic energy in huge amounts continuously. Solar wind, flares (x-rays), coronal holes,  CMEs, provide energy moving ahead towards edge of the heliosphere and not much happens.
    Now bring in huge magnetosphere and what is the effect:
    L.Svalgaard : NASA says that the magnetic field is connected to the Sun [which it is]. The solar magnetic field and the Earth's (Jupiter and  Saturn too, my insertion) magnetic field can reconnect if their geometry is right. The reconnected field lines are then stretched down the geomagnetic tail by the solar wind. This stores magnetic energy in the tail. The tail is unstable [flaps around] and tail field lines can reconnect and ‘snap' back towards to earth restoring the magnetic field to what it was before. That rapidly changing magnetic field induces an electric field that accelerates whatever particles are present in the tail, resulting in the charges precipitating in the ionosphere [a la Birkeland's discharges] exciting the atoms of the air to glow as the bright aurorae. ;
     do remember the magnetic field is connected to the Sun all the time.
    So what is happening here:
there is a 'magnetic short circuit' in the path, but Dr.S may say 'that this can't reflect back to the solar surface through magnetic field lines', of course it can:  NASA says that the magnetic field is connected to the Sun [which it is].
and remember the above example: you can move magnet on your table, by bringing peace of iron, through magnetic field lines connecting two.
    Well, in this case the sun does not move, but its surface magnetic configuration reacts to the presence of a short circuited magnetic lines by a magnetosphere via: ...the magnetic field is connected to the Sun [which it is] .
    This reaction is manifested in change in the velocity of meridional flow. This is a surface, or at best, shallow effect.
    L.Svalgaard :Schatten's theory is one of the explanations of the solar cycle. It is still as good as any, perhaps better. Recent work by Brandenburg et al. discuss their work 'in the context of a distributed solar dynamo where active regions and sunspots might be rather shallow phenomena' arXiv:0910.1835.

    Is there any theoretical work that may support above outlined hypothesis reflected in the formula?
Not exactly, but there are two very important studies on meridional flow relationship to the polar fields  formation from:
    1.  Wang , Lean , and Sheeley - Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/577/1/L53/fulltext
    2.. Solanki, Baumann, Schmitt, Schussler - Max-Planck-Institut fur Sonnensystemforschung,  Germany
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2004/42/aa1024/aa1024.right.html
 
    Their studies produce waveforms which highly correlate to the results demonstrated in my formula as you can see here:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/LFC17.htm
   

That is the explanation of how the polar fields formula works.

    There you have it.
 

 

More charts can be found here: Graphs and Formulae