swansont Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 What is going to make those charges move? They're already moving. The earth is rotating, and there is convection in the core. If the core's rotation slowed, wouldn't the outer layers speed up to conserve angular momentum?
Robittybob1 Posted February 27, 2015 Author Posted February 27, 2015 They're already moving. The earth is rotating, and there is convection in the core. If the core's rotation slowed, wouldn't the outer layers speed up to conserve angular momentum? Moving as in rotating? They need to move within the system itself. Like a bike generator doesn't work simply by being attached to a moving bike. I know that was a silly example but I'm left wondering what you mean by they are moving. As I could see convection will be in all directions too and I would doubt if you could keep up a steady current for millions of years at a time. I respect the idea of swirling thermals and the coriolis effect but the motion in the Outer Core due to a displaced Inner Core is so demonstrable I went with that idea first, and now I'm looking for a way of changing the polarity of the Inner Core molten metal from being slightly negative to slightly positive, something like that, to change the Earth's magnetic field polarity. It is very difficult to fathom out. "If the core's rotation slowed, wouldn't the outer layers speed up to conserve angular momentum?" There was the strange situation where the Inner Core (IC) is moving faster than the Mantle, and the Outer Core (OC) is moving slower than both the IC and the Mantle. So to keep this situation going obviously there is very little friction in the molten Outer Core and the OC is being held back by the displaced IC. The physics of that motion seemed to be correct and I was able to see these motion differences in a simple experiment.
Robittybob1 Posted February 28, 2015 Author Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Wikipedia on Earth's Magnetic Field: Studies of lava flows on Steens Mountain, Oregon, indicate that the magnetic field could have shifted at a rate of up to 6 degrees per day at some time in Earth's history, which significantly challenges the popular understanding of how the Earth's magnetic field works.[36]Temporary dipole tilt variations that take the dipole axis across the equator and then back to the original polarity are known as excursions.[35] I live and learn. So we can get sideways magnetic fields. I must see if I can read that cross reference "35", for I'd like to know if that is pointing to one place on the equator or in a moving spot. I trying to see an estimate on the power that would be needed to produce the Earth's magnetic field. There was one calculation in StackExchange: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/139750/how-much-power-would-be-needed-to-make-a-substitute-for-natural-earth-magnetic-f Now for a field of 0.5 Gauss, we would need... 1.6GAWow - Giga amperes. I may have to rethink that 1 cm copper wire... if it has about 0.2 ohms resistance per km (from resistivity of 17 nOhm meter), resistance of the loop is 4 kOhm. So power to keep the current flowing would be about I2R=1.5E22W. That's a bit steep. Let's increase the copper wire by 100,000 (making it a 10 square meter section) and drop that to a more reasonable (?) 1.5 E 17 W. Because that thin wire would need 100x more power per second than is used by the USA in a year... With a tip of the hat to @CuriousOne who noticed I had a few zeros missing.But that's not yet estimating the power to ramp the magnetic field up... because that's given by 12LI2, so from the above requires an energy ofW=0.5⋅160⋅(1.6⋅109)2=2⋅1020JInterestingly, according to Wolfram alpha that's almost exactly twice the total energy use of the USA per year..... How accurate would that be? What is certain is that the magnetic field is fading. http://www.icr.org/article/182/ A relatively recent NASA satellite preliminary report shows a rapid decay in the earth's magnetic field. No knowledgeable scientist debates the fact of the rapid decrease in the earth's magnetic field, nor does he question that the associated electric current in the core of the earth is using up energy. The present rate of loss is seven billion kilowatt hours per year. So there are some figures to start with. Edited February 28, 2015 by Robittybob1
swansont Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 What is certain is that the magnetic field is fading. http://www.icr.org/article/182/ Any science "knowledge" gleaned from the ICR is not certain.
Robittybob1 Posted February 28, 2015 Author Posted February 28, 2015 Any science "knowledge" gleaned from the ICR is not certain. I thought you might have commented on that but it appears to be what is happening at the moment. -1
swansont Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 I thought you might have commented on that but it appears to be what is happening at the moment. If that's the case then you should be able to find a credible source. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html http://infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/magnetic_field.html 1
Robittybob1 Posted March 1, 2015 Author Posted March 1, 2015 I thought you might have commented on that but it appears to be what is happening at the moment. Not that easy to get a good reference but this one speaks on the subject: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5775/900.full "Fall in Earth's Magnetic Field Is Erratic" Earth's magnetic field has decayed by about 5% per century since measurements began in 1840. Directional measurements predate those of intensity by more than 250 years, and we combined the global model of directions with paleomagnetic intensity measurements to estimate the fall in strength for this earlier period (1590 to 1840 A.D.). We found that magnetic field strength was nearly constant throughout this time, in contrast to the later period. Extrapolating to the core surface showed that the fall in strength originated in patches of reverse magnetic flux in the Southern Hemisphere. These patches were detectable by directional data alone; the pre-1840 model showed little or no evidence of them, supporting the conclusion of a steady dipole up to 1840. there that's better.
swansont Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 As mentioned my links, one can't ignore the quadrupole moment in looking at the total magnetic field strength. Your link only mentions the dipole component. It;'s hinted at ion the paper, when they say that the dipole losses are larger in the southern hemisphere than in the north. That can't happen for a purely dipole field. https://books.google.com/books?id=MUckFaE5hfYC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=earth+magnetic+field+quadrupole+moment&source=bl&ots=QV-1dQTTvi&sig=bwltSZMGqmzWidOWTJWkLkGj7lU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NtvyVI26LMv8yQTV1oHgAg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=earth%20magnetic%20field%20quadrupole%20moment&f=false
Robittybob1 Posted March 1, 2015 Author Posted March 1, 2015 As mentioned my links, one can't ignore the quadrupole moment in looking at the total magnetic field strength. Your link only mentions the dipole component. It;'s hinted at ion the paper, when they say that the dipole losses are larger in the southern hemisphere than in the north. That can't happen for a purely dipole field. https://books.google.com/books?id=MUckFaE5hfYC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=earth+magnetic+field+quadrupole+moment&source=bl&ots=QV-1dQTTvi&sig=bwltSZMGqmzWidOWTJWkLkGj7lU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NtvyVI26LMv8yQTV1oHgAg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=earth%20magnetic%20field%20quadrupole%20moment&f=false What I am tending toward, in my recent thinking at least (last couple of days), that there is was no such thing as a global magnetic reversal but it might be accounted for by a quadrupole. My preferred method of the production of the magnetic field would tend to produce two faster streams of molten metal around the displaced IC so a quadrupole is likely but having a way of reversing the poles completely has been the difficult bit. This quadrupole concept could give localized regions of reversed polarity without having to completely reverse the polarity of the electromagnets. That is the idea I'm wanting to explore. Is there any evidence that it was a truly global polarity change? I opened the links (you gave) and because their theme was about arguments related to a young Earth, something which never enters my head, I wasn't too sure why you linked those papers and I don't have time to read pointless arguments for and against a young Earth. I'm definitely into the Earth being in the 4.6 billion years old range. Is there any evidence that it was a global polarity change? (rather than the way the quadrupoles of varying strengths interacted together.)
swansont Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Is there any evidence that it was a global polarity change? (rather than the way the quadrupoles of varying strengths interacted together.) That would be something that someone with the above conjecture should investigate.
Robittybob1 Posted March 2, 2015 Author Posted March 2, 2015 That would be something that someone with the above conjecture should investigate. It would be an interesting study for someone. By quadrupole do you mean like two electromagnets side by side (nearly parallel)? ( I saw an image like that yesterday in an article but can't locate it again in a hurry.)
swansont Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 It would be an interesting study for someone. By quadrupole do you mean like two electromagnets side by side (nearly parallel)? ( I saw an image like that yesterday in an article but can't locate it again in a hurry.) It's your conjecture. Your info to research and before you propose it, you should know what a quadrupole is. "two electromagnets side by side" does not specify a field. There is no standard electromagnet geometry.
Robittybob1 Posted March 2, 2015 Author Posted March 2, 2015 It's your conjecture. Your info to research and before you propose it, you should know what a quadrupole is. "two electromagnets side by side" does not specify a field. There is no standard electromagnet geometry. I'll try and find it again but it was like the Earth having a split magnetic field with 2 North Magnetic Poles and two South Magnetic Poles.
swansont Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 I'll try and find it again but it was like the Earth having a split magnetic field with 2 North Magnetic Poles and two South Magnetic Poles. It's like that, but magnets side-by-side (as I envision it) is not the configuration that gives you a quadrupole.
Robittybob1 Posted March 3, 2015 Author Posted March 3, 2015 The name Gary Glatzmaier seems worth researching for he has simulated magnetic reversals. "Simulations of magnetic fields - Gary Glatzmaier (SETI Talks)" (audio is of poor quality) but when I get a spare hour I'll look at the talk.
hypervalent_iodine Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 ! Moderator Note Robittybob1, A reminder of rule 2.7: Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. ! Moderator Note I mean, seriously, if you haven't even bothered to watch it, why on Earth should anyone else be expected to? In general, please try and avoid posting hour-long videos. Summarise your arguments and text form and link the video if you feel it absolutely necessary.
Ant Sinclair Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 What I am tending toward, in my recent thinking at least (last couple of days), that there is was no such thing as a global magnetic reversal but it might be accounted for by a quadrupole. My preferred method of the production of the magnetic field would tend to produce two faster streams of molten metal around the displaced IC so a quadrupole is likely but having a way of reversing the poles completely has been the difficult bit. This quadrupole concept could give localized regions of reversed polarity without having to completely reverse the polarity of the electromagnets. That is the idea I'm wanting to explore. Is there any evidence that it was a truly global polarity change? I opened the links (you gave) and because their theme was about arguments related to a young Earth, something which never enters my head, I wasn't too sure why you linked those papers and I don't have time to read pointless arguments for and against a young Earth. I'm definitely into the Earth being in the 4.6 billion years old range. Is there any evidence that it was a global polarity change? (rather than the way the quadrupoles of varying strengths interacted together.) Iam beginning to think that there could be a quadrupole associated with Earth, if You look at the attached drawing showing the earth and its' inner core, the molten outer core around the solid inner Iron core is non-magnetic and acting like a fluidic bearing. The Earths' Crust being one third Iron then too is magnetised, so the crusts magnetic north would line up with the inner iron cores magnetic south. Could the inner solid Iron core be driven in an opposite direction to the crust be by a Universal energy flow and the crusts rotation be driven by the suns magnetic fields direction?
swansont Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Iam beginning to think that there could be a quadrupole associated with Earth There is. The question is not a matter of its existence. The earth's field is mostly a dipole field, but not exclusively a dipole. It's a matter of how strong each multipole component is. Could the inner solid Iron core be driven in an opposite direction to the crust be by a Universal energy flow and the crusts rotation be driven by the suns magnetic fields direction? This is not the thread to be asking such questions.
Robittybob1 Posted March 4, 2015 Author Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) There were two names of respected scientists that came up in a video I had watched on the Earth's Magnetic field and they were Dr. Mario Acuna (and he has a page on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Acu%C3%B1a (deceased) and this article in the NY Times refers to his achievements as well. "Magnetism on Mars Suggests a Geology Once Like Earth's" http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/30/us/magnetism-on-mars-suggests-a-geology-once-like-earth-s.html The discovery of magnetized bands in the oldest Martian crust, detected by the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft, was being hailed by planetary scientists as a major addition to the growing body of evidence suggesting that Mars and Earth seemed to start out much alike, then evolved into very different worlds.If the observations are confirmed by further research, scientists said, this would be one more indication that Mars, though cold, arid and placid now, was a more active world in its early history, also possibly a warmer place with water on the surface and the beginnings of life.''We are really excited about this totally unexpected and serendipitous discovery,'' Dr. Mario H. Acuna, a leader of the group reporting the magnetic findings, said yesterday at a news conference at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in Washington. The other name was Gary Glatzmaier, many references to him, but one of note he is mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal. This is one aspect of science that has always moved me immensely is the dedication that some put into their work to advance scientific knowledge. That was the main reason for plugging his talk above for I feel he deserves some honour for the work he has done. That said, back to the subject of seeing if the reversals were "global". Edited March 4, 2015 by Robittybob1
swansont Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 That said, back to the subject of seeing if the reversals were "global". The subject was the magnetic field purportedly causing the earth to slow down.
Robittybob1 Posted March 4, 2015 Author Posted March 4, 2015 The subject was the magnetic field purportedly causing the earth to slow down. To understand that the whole mechanism needs to be understood better. (Or do I need to start a new thread every time we will need to look at different aspects of the Earth's Magnetic Field?) They are absolutely related in my way of thinking. The last two documentaries I have listened to say the field is powered by the motion of the molten metallic Outer Core, so does that use of motion slow the Earth? If we could understand what causes the reversals maybe better understanding of what connection to the Earth's spin there was? For the direction of spin doesn't change yet the field changes, so will this falsify my speculation? Weren't you previously suggesting that I should explore this aspect?
swansont Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 do I need to start a new thread every time we will need to look at different aspects of the Earth's Magnetic Field? Pretty much. One topic per thread. You can't build speculation on top of other speculation. The last two documentaries I have listened to say the field is powered by the motion of the molten metallic Outer Core, so does that use of motion slow the Earth? It certainly could — angular momentum will be conserved — but then it would be the change in the motion of the outer core causing the slowdown, not the magnetic field. Any change in the field would simply be another effect from the change in the core's motion.
Robittybob1 Posted March 4, 2015 Author Posted March 4, 2015 Pretty much. One topic per thread. You can't build speculation on top of other speculation. It certainly could — angular momentum will be conserved — but then it would be the change in the motion of the outer core causing the slowdown, not the magnetic field. Any change in the field would simply be another effect from the change in the core's motion. When the angular momentum has obviously been lowered, because the Earth's rotation is slower, and they know the Moon's tidal acceleration has only taken a little of that, how do you think angular momentum is conserved? I'm struggling with that idea.
swansont Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 When the angular momentum has obviously been lowered, because the Earth's rotation is slower, and they know the Moon's tidal acceleration has only taken a little of that, how do you think angular momentum is conserved? I'm struggling with that idea. Where has it been claimed that the moon has only taken a small part of the angular momentum? (by someone other than you, that is) I can't find any post in this thread that says that.
Robittybob1 Posted March 4, 2015 Author Posted March 4, 2015 Where has it been claimed that the moon has only taken a small part of the angular momentum? (by someone other than you, that is) I can't find any post in this thread that says that. Well that has to be definitely cleared up. It sounds like you think 100% of the Earth's angular momentum reduction has been transferred to the Moon. Well I'll be very surprised if it has.
Recommended Posts