gus
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by gus on Oct 6, 2010 3:34:30 GMT
Hunterson, What do YOU think is fueling the Earth's techtonics? The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and would've cooled off about 4 billion years ago if it wasn't for the heat generated by radioactive decay. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_EarthAlso, the solar minimum is now buddy. Fasten your seat belt. Katla's gonna blow!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by nemesis on Oct 6, 2010 21:24:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Oct 6, 2010 23:43:14 GMT
Hunterson, What do YOU think is fueling the Earth's techtonics? The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and would've cooled off about 4 billion years ago if it wasn't for the heat generated by radioactive decay. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_EarthAlso, the solar minimum is now buddy. Fasten your seat belt. Katla's gonna blow!!! ;D I think the Earth's tectonics is fueled mostly by radioactive decay and a tiny bit by gravity flexing. What I was referring to being wrong is the idea that isotopic decay is variable by some interaction with the Sun.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Oct 7, 2010 6:33:12 GMT
Hunterson, What do YOU think is fueling the Earth's techtonics? The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and would've cooled off about 4 billion years ago if it wasn't for the heat generated by radioactive decay. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_EarthAlso, the solar minimum is now buddy. Fasten your seat belt. Katla's gonna blow!!! ;D I think the Earth's tectonics is fueled mostly by radioactive decay and a tiny bit by gravity flexing. What I was referring to being wrong is the idea that isotopic decay is variable by some interaction with the Sun. The problem is we really don't know. How does the black hole at the center of a galaxy effect the outer edges? We don't know but it does. The stuff on the outer edges should be moving slower but it doesn't. I think there is a lot we don't understand yet.
|
|
gus
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by gus on Oct 7, 2010 21:38:36 GMT
Ok hunterson and now scpg02, I'm not a volcanologist or seismologist. I remember that the big Mount Tambora 1815 eruption was during the Dalton Minimum and that there seems to be an increased number of volacanic eruptions during the current solar minimum. The recent Science Daily report that described Solar activity measureably slowing radioactive decay rates ( www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100825093253.htm ) gave me an "AHAAA..." moment. The way I see it is that the decay rates WOULD be expected to be higher now during the current solar minimum. The increased decay rates with the resulting increase in heat inside the Earth would explain at least to me the surge in volcanism that we seem to be having during the current solar minimum. I think that KATLA is the one to watch.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Oct 7, 2010 22:42:50 GMT
Ok hunterson and now scpg02, I'm not a volcanologist or seismologist. I remember that the big Mount Tambora 1815 eruption was during the Dalton Minimum and that there seems to be an increased number of volacanic eruptions during the current solar minimum. The recent Science Daily report that described Solar activity measureably slowing radioactive decay rates ( www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100825093253.htm ) gave me an "AHAAA..." moment. The way I see it is that the decay rates WOULD be expected to be higher now during the current solar minimum. The increased decay rates with the resulting increase in heat inside the Earth would explain at least to me the surge in volcanism that we seem to be having during the current solar minimum. I think that KATLA is the one to watch. Firstly, there is strong evidence decay rates are constant. Secondly, the energy of decay is very small as we have a very low number of high energy particles. So the heat is generated slowly over thousands of years. Even if there was a measurable change in the decay rate - the % change is so small that there would be no observable effect in any human lifetime. If there is a solar cycle correlation with eruptions, then it is more likely due to magnetic field interaction with the Earth's mantel.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Oct 8, 2010 6:37:46 GMT
If there is a solar cycle correlation with eruptions, then it is more likely due to magnetic field interaction with the Earth's mantel. That makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Oct 8, 2010 18:01:42 GMT
Kiwi - a quibble please. There is strong evidence that radioactivity in a small sample, up to several hundred kilos, at ordinary temperature and pressure, at room temperature, in the Earth's relatively weak magnetic field is constant.
But the appropriate data for radioactives in the mantle have not been taken. What heat, pressure, and a more concentrated magnetic field will do to the rate of radioactive decay should be filed under (?). Which is another cogent argument for the Mohole.
Faster please.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Oct 8, 2010 18:12:29 GMT
Kiwi - a quibble please. There is strong evidence that radioactivity in a small sample, up to several hundred kilos, at ordinary temperature and pressure, at room temperature, in the Earth's relatively weak magnetic field is constant. But the appropriate data for radioactives in the mantle have not been taken. What heat, pressure, and a more concentrated magnetic field will do to the rate of radioactive decay should be filed under (?). Which is another cogent argument for the Mohole. Faster please. Stranger Think of the implications of the factoid Dr. S has presented us: It takes many thousands of years for a photon generated in the sun's core to make it to the surface on how heat is moving in the Earth. Decay rates are observed, I believe, in astronomy as well. The evidence for variable decay seems to be one set of experiments that even the publishers admit could be due to instrument issues. We do not need variable radioactivity to get the Earth we have. And the implications of variable rates may make life as we know it, and the universe as we know it, impossible. Look, I am all for FTL transport and communications. But, except for some very marginal experimental results, not even FTL communications seems possible. But I would still love to be able to sail out into the universe Star Trek style. But it does not appear likely at all. The universe seems relentlessly steady, certain cosmic scale issues aside.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Oct 9, 2010 1:57:15 GMT
Let's get this is perspective, we are not talking of rates of radioactive decay of twice as fast, even 1% faster - those experiments hinted at changes at the very limits of detectability.
Apart from relativity, where indeed, decay rates of short lived particles moving close to the speed of light do indeed slow down, there is no indication that radioactivity is effected by "chemistry" - that is, things external to the nucleus itself.
But even if there are changes in the rates of a small fraction of a %, so what? the magnitude of that decay wouldn't change anything in the macro world (volcanoes, climate etc) in any measurable way.
|
|
|
Post by Maui on Oct 9, 2010 15:14:34 GMT
It's fusion, not fission.
The Sunspot Number is zero again today.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Oct 10, 2010 0:50:25 GMT
True enough, a 0.1% or a 1% decline in the rate of radioactive decay would make little difference in the world as we know it. Nearly 60 years ago I calculated the number of plutonium atoms remaining in the Earth's core, taking the common assumptions as "true." A difference of a few hundred surviving Pu-244 atoms in the mass of the Earth could hardly be expected to affect the availability of milk.
On the other hand, once one finds something unexpected, it should be anyone's guess where it will lead. Even a 0.1% change in the rate of radioactive decay could conceivably lead to FTL drives - and a desire for FTL communications.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Oct 15, 2010 11:59:49 GMT
Katla has been relatively quiet recently, but this does not mean it won't explode. There is another volcano on the main Icelandic icecap which is also showing signs of activity; en.vedur.is/earthquakes-and-volcanism/earthquakes/vatnajokull/GPS measurements are showing a rapid rise in the volcano, to quote: "Posted on October 10, 2010 by Jón Frímann I see that many people think that Grímsfjall has started to deflate due to a drop in GPS measurements. But the “Up” part of the GPS measurements have been dropping over the past few days from about 85mm and down to about 65mm today. As that may be true that the mountain has started to deflate from the top. It is not to say that deflation process has started at Grímsfjall. As the GPS data clearly shows that a inflation process has just moved from the top and to the south. But current GPS measurement clearly show that Grímsfjall is now inflating to the south (15mm today) with minor inflation to the east (about 15mm today). So it is clear that the magma is moving inside the volcano from one location to a other over the past few days. What that means is unclear at the moment. But it appears that the inflation to the south is speeding up at current time. This might get interesting soon in my opinion. Regardless if there is a eruption or not." It would be truly awful if both these volcanoes erupted at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by byz on Dec 23, 2010 6:51:23 GMT
A very big upsurge of activity over the last 24 hours
|
|
|
Post by byz on Jan 3, 2011 7:14:08 GMT
Well Eyjafjallajökull is making noises again. I've found a good blog in English following Icelandic volcanic activity www.jonfr.com/volcano/enjoy ;D
|
|