'Electric Earth' Could Explain Planet's Rotation 153
sciencehabit writes "When it comes to Earth's rotation, you might think geophysicists have pretty much everything figured out. Not quite. In order to explain some variations in the way our planet spins, Earth's mantle — the layer of hot, softened rock that lies between the crust and core — must conduct electricity, an ability that the mantle as we know it shouldn't have. Now, a new study (academic paper) finds that iron monoxide, which makes up 9% of the mantle, actually does conduct electricity just like a metal, but only at temperatures and pressures found far beneath the surface."
And that's why (Score:2, Funny)
arXiv link (Score:5, Informative)
Magnetic field + conductor = Electricity? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Magnetic field + conductor = Electricity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Electricity is remarkably lazy, and doesn't do anything it isn't forced to do. It will always follow the path of least resistance, and will never flow from a point of lower voltage to higher (that would be like water flowing up hill). If there's electricity flowing, you have to ask what's causing it to flow. What's increasing the voltage between the two points? If you harvest the electricity without unerstanding why it's flowing in the first place, you won't know what the consequences may be.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I may be about to commit a major nerd faux pas but I think it was Dyson who envisioned wrapping a planet in a coil of wire. You could draw energy from the coil and slow the planet down, or put energy into the coil and speed it up. Unfortunately there's a company called "Dyson Motors" so... sigh. But I thought it was called a "Dyson Motor". Can't find anything. Maybe someone else knows more, or can correct me.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably more like harvesting water from the Pacific Ocean. There is comparatively little water in the Mississippi, let alone the Colorado.
Re:Magnetic field + conductor = Electricity? (Score:5, Informative)
Path of least resistance does not apply to electricity. It follows every field gradient and takes every path as fast as it can. The current through each path is limited by the reduction of the gradient caused by the charge already along the path, a.k.a. resistance.
Re: (Score:2)
Path of least resistance does not apply to electricity. It follows every field gradient and takes every path as fast as it can. The current through each path is limited by the reduction of the gradient caused by the charge already along the path, a.k.a. resistance.
The "path of least resistance" explanation always bugged me too when I heard it in high school... if it was true, all the electricity in your house (and by extrapolation, your street) would only flow through the appliance with the least resistance and would refuse to flow though all the other appliances, which is clearly not the case.
The internal resistance of the battery supplying the power might make it look like this is what's happening if you put a very low resistance device in parallel with a higher re
Path of least resistance (Score:2)
V = IR
For constant voltage, a high resistance will have a low current, and a low resistance will get a high current. If you connect two loads to one constant voltage source (in parallel), the lower resistance (the path of least resistance in this discussion) will get more current. The other gets current also; just less of it.
That's assuming your source can produce enough current. Using a good thick copper wire to ground an average battery will probably result in a reduced voltage for all loads. And a ho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Electrons have a negative charge. They move from negative to positive.
Ions, including those positive, can conduct electricity too.
Re: (Score:2)
Voltage isn't the same thing as charge, it's an expression of potential energy; that is to say, the difference in charge between two places. High voltage means electrons are colleted at one place and somehow absent from another. You're not going to take MORE electrons from the low point, obviously.
Re:Magnetic field + conductor = Electricity? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, his work was buried so Edison could make a buck with inferior technology.
Re:Magnetic field + conductor = Electricity? (Score:5, Informative)
There's a problem with your theory. His name was George Westinghouse.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Don't even pursue this line of inquiry.
Re: (Score:2)
This may or may not be germane (I didn't RTFA but I guess I should), but my dad was an electrical lineman for a lot of companies and did quite a bit of construction on the grid, building towers and stringing high tension cables. A careless lineman building these is in danger of electrocution even before the power is switched on. He would weld his initials on the towers he built by wrapping a 12 gauge wire around the cable and shorting it to the tower.
He never could figure out what caused it, but when he tol
Re: (Score:2)
My brother was doing some sort of Geo survey work where they ground a wire in a creek and then run it quite a distance to another location for sensing purposes. He told of big static discharges that could really set you down on your ass by contacting the wire once it was at the other location.
Re: (Score:2)
So, care to work out how to power NYC with your "floating gigantic fusion reactor"? The best number I can find is 5GW (must be the "instantaneous" load of the city). How much land do you need to provide that sort of power with the sun? What will effect will reducing the amount of light that makes it there cause? How do you provide the required night time load?
This is not to say that not covering the roofs/side/etc of all building in NYC with solar panels is a bad idea, or worthless, just that it won't provi
Re: (Score:2)
So you either move the power or move the demand. Moving the power might mean supertankers of liquid hydrogen, or long possibly superconducting cables. Moving the demand is basically a matter of pricing, so that it's more economic to spread energy-intensive activities out rather than concentrate them in cities.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, NYC covers about 790 square kilometers, so that's 790 million square meters. It gets a yearly average of 147.08 watts per square meter of sunlight (this includes nighttime). In January, NY's worst month for solar power, it gets 69.58 watts per square meter. So, that's an average of 116 GW for the average and about 55 GW for the worst month. So, to work on solar power, NYC needs to find a way to turn about 9% of that solar power hitting it to electricity for January numbers or 4.3% for the average. In
Re: (Score:2)
You can spin an engine with electricity. Propeller airplanes are powered by rotating engines. Therefore, you can make an airplane that can fly with electricity and not fuel.
It might not be a 747 but it'll still fly.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with electricity for propellers or turbines is that if there's any sort of resistance to the propeller or turbine (say, goose in the prop or turbine intake), your electrically-powered prop has a pretty good chance of stopping altogether. Gas-powered props/turbines are more likely to continue to operate - you know, V = nRT/P.
You seem to be confused. Electric motors tend to increase their torque at lower speeds due to reductions in inductive resistance. A bird-strike is more likely to damage the blades than to cause the motor itself to fail. (What's more, there have been a number of fully electric planes built already, and they have been around for years; the problem at the time was making them practical when carrying a large payload. Maybe with the better batteries and motors — areas where there have been significant adva
Re: (Score:2)
If the fusion reactor floats... you are already flying. Just attach some small propellers, add a few seats and a dining car... and you have a luxury blimp.
Re: (Score:2)
There are at least two approaches:
1. Use solar power to make chemical fuel. For instance you could electrolyze water to make hydrogen, and either use the hydrogen directly, or react it with CO2 to make something like methanol.
2. Use satellite mounted lasers to heat a target mounted on the top of the 747, then use that heat to heat air in the engines (this only works for the cruise phase of the journey, you still need some other heat source for takeoff and landing.
Re: (Score:2)
It should be easy to harvest it; you just stop the planet's spin and then... Oh, you don't know how to do that? And your species is dependent on the planet's magnetic field because you can't stand up to much radiation? Well then you can't harvest that current... We Q could do it, but don't need any puny electricity.
You are no longer a member of the Continuum. Your superiors have decided to punish you!
this is all fine and dandy (Score:5, Insightful)
as long as this story doesn't bring out the electric universe trolls
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
stand in line behind the quantum gravity trolls
Re: (Score:2)
LOL
Not to be confused with.... (Score:5, Informative)
Not to be confused with the Electric Universe Theory [holoscience.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I switched off when I saw the Lovecraft quote.
Re:Not to be confused with.... (Score:4, Funny)
I switched off when I saw the Lovecraft quote.
Of course it did. That is a defense mechanism because your mind is to puny to comprehend and/or confront the madness of the abyss......
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not surprised. They don't know what they're talking about, so why would you be able to figure it out?
Time was when any astronomical or earth science story on /. would bring out legions of very sincere electric universe crazies.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a little bit familiar with the Electric Universe Theory and the way some comparative mythologists such as David Talbott and Troy McLachlan have incorporated the Electric Universe into their very interesting work. But I'm not clear on why this story is not connected with the EUT.
I'm not a physicist or an astronomer, so if you know a little bit about this can you try to clarify? My field was the analysis of texts, so I can deal with the comparative my
Re: (Score:2)
It's not connected in the same way that the Jimi Hendrix album Electric Ladyland is not connected. By being about something completely different, but it just happens to start with the same word. :)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You haven't listened to Electric Ladyland the way I've listened to Electric Ladyland.
It's connected to everything. Listen to side three after a couple of hits of the orange sunshine and tell me it's not.
I remember one time, I was out on the back porch of my friend's place up in Wisconsin, and I was staring up at the night sky just as I was peaking and and about halfway through side 3, when "1983... (A Merman
Iron Monoxide? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Iron Monoxide? (Score:5, Funny)
FeO is Ferrous Oxide not Iron Monoxide.
The topic at the moment is geology, not chemistry. Try to keep up.
Bloody chemists. Grumble, mumble, ...
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the history of chemistry. Suffixes like -ous and -ic and prefixes like per- and sesqui- were dropping out of use (i.e. the newer textbooks tended to use Roman numeral in brackets notation) when I last did chemistry twenty-some years ago.
GP probably still believes in Phlogiston.
Re: (Score:2)
GP probably still believes in Phlogiston
Phlogiston does exist, it's a nickname for highly entropic kinetic energy.
Re: (Score:1)
Yep and the AEther in the heavens is dark /matter energy,
Re: (Score:2)
Yep and the AEther in the heavens is dark /matter energy,
Aether has referred to many different things over the millennia, things we now refer to as dark matter, dark energy, the magnetic permeability of free space, the space-time continuum, and quantum foam. Like phlogiston, the problem was never that these 'aethers' didn't exist, but that they had different properties than people first supposed.
Re:Iron Monoxide? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Iron monoxide" is a perfectly cromulent synonym for ferrous oxide.Like dihydrogen monoxide, and hydrogen hydroxide, it is sometimes the better choice for clear communications. Depending of course on exactly what you intend to communicate.
Re: (Score:2)
"Iron monoxide" is a perfectly cromulent synonym for ferrous oxide.
"Rust"?!? Iron-able oxygen?!?
And in the spirit of your insightful riposte (seriously, honest!), I'd just like to say that was the Scotch talking, not me (and it may still be ...). I don't actually have any quarrels with chemists to speak of. In fact, having known a few, any of them over the age of 35 are damned near miraculous to me. All hail the inventor of the fume hood. And if you want to live to be 40, get out of chemistry. :-)
Coffee! ...
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it is just the Sunday morning sleepies, but this whole discussion about taking away the legitimacy of ferrous oxide strikes me as ironic.
Re: (Score:2)
... this whole discussion about taking away the legitimacy of ferrous oxide strikes me as ironic.
Punny! [wiktionary.org] Not much related to chemistry, but still enlightening.
Puns; gotta love 'em.
Re: (Score:1)
Also, I prefer iron(II) oxide personally.
Re:Iron Monoxide? (Score:4, Informative)
They are synonyms according to Chemical Book [chemicalbook.com].
Re:Iron Monoxide? (Score:5, Funny)
As long as it isn't dihydrogen monoxide. That stuff's dangerous!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Iron monoxide would be the modern standardized name.
Re: (Score:3)
The preferred name would indeed be "iron(II) oxide". The name "iron monoxide" is however correct for a purely stoichiometric name. Such a name does not indicate the exact number of each element in a molecule, only the relative numbers. It also does not indicate the bonding in any way.
See the IUPAC Red Book 2005 for more details.
Re:Iron Monoxide? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
FeO is Ferrous Oxide not Iron Monoxide.
And FeB is Ferrous Bueller. What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure it isn't the second month of the year?
Re:Iron Monoxide? (Score:5, Informative)
FeO has not been Ferrous Oxide in many years.
As of the IUPAC Redbook 2005, the preferred name would be "Iron(II) Oxide", however the name "Iron Monoxide" is a valid stoichiometric name for the substance.
The classic name "Ferrous Oxide" is no longer considered acceptable. I quote from Table III's second definition of the suffix "-ous":
Ending formerly added to stems of element names to indicate a lower oxidation state, e.g.
ferrous chloride, cuprous oxide, cerous hydroxide. Such names are no longer acceptable.
The "-ous" suffix is still permitted as part of acid names like "seleninous acid", or "arsorous acid".
Re: (Score:1)
According to the IUPAC nomenclature rules (http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/28/1/0001/pdf/), it is iron(II) oxide.
Re: (Score:2)
FeO is Ferrous Oxide not Iron Monoxide.
More support for my push to rename Hydrogen to Stupidium or Ignoranium. It is the most abundant element after all.
Was that headline intended to set off the kooks? (Score:2)
n/t
Re: (Score:2)
I hope so. I haven't seen that Electric Universe guy post in forever. Where's he gone to?
Re: (Score:2)
The scientology troll ate him
So the takeaway... (Score:2, Interesting)
is that, conductivity can be induced in compounds that are normally non-conductive, but only at geologic pressures and temperatures.
Is it safe to say, in general then, pressure and temperature play a role for conductivity in all non-conductive 'metal'-based compounds?
Physics Question. (Score:2)
Is there anyway to tell if the Earth is electrically neutral or has a net charge?
Re:Physics Question. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It does. And the smaler ones also do.
Does that mean the Earth is electric?
That's where my socks have been going... (Score:2)
That's where my socks have been going! They are being sucked right out of my dryer into the Earth's mantle!
Re: (Score:1)
Uhm, the Earth is effectively a bar magnet moving through space ==> when you move a magnet you create electricity.
Therefore there is untapped free electricity.
QED.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Why are there SO many scientifically illiterate people on Slashdot? Is it because programming is neither science nor engineering, but depends on both to exist?
Re: (Score:2)
Why are there SO many scientifically illiterate people on Slashdot?
Okay, we don't normally advertise this to just anybody, but if you really wanna come hang out with us real smart scientist-types, here's where it's at: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/index.html [foxnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A brilliant answer. Pity it has nothing to do with the question.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, just waving a magnet around achieves nothing without a conductor there in which to generate the current.
Re: (Score:3)
One thing we do know is the force from any net charge on the Earth is completely overwhelmed by gravity, the weakest of the fundamental forces. Remember, electromagnetism is about 10^36 times stronger than gravity. This would make detection very hard, indeed, but also suggests that any net charge is very small.
Now, I'm no cosmologist, but my understanding is that current theories require that the universe itself be electrically neutral (but I don't know why this has to be true, personally). So, for the E
Re: (Score:2)
Good point, because, after all, magnetism can compress matter to such a degree that the cumulative magnetic field strength is so high that even gravity can't escape... Oh, wait, I have that backwards, it's the other way around.
Re: (Score:3)
If Earth had any significant net charge you'd stick to it. Really hard. Much harder than gravity pulls you.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if I had a significant charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that rest on the assumption that neither you, nor any of your ancestors, nor anything you or they ate, had made electrical contact with the Earth?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if the Earth had a significant net charge, everything in electrical contact with the Earth (like you and me) would have close to the same potential. The Earth would repel us, not attract us.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point.
Diamond-Anvil Cell has issues (Score:2)
Communication medium? (Score:2)
Satellites are great, but because of the ionosphere, it would be better to send terrestrial messages through the mantle. Can signals be reliably transmitted and received?
Tesla (Score:1)
In 1895 Tesla was harnessing the electrical conductivity of the earth. From Wikipedia:
A "world system" for "the transmission of electrical energy without wires" that depends upon the electrical conductivity of the earth was proposed, in which transmission in various natural media with current that passes between the two points are used to power devices. In a practical wireless energy transmission system using this principle, a high-power ultraviolet beam might be used to form a vertical ionized channel in
Re: (Score:2)
No. He was conducting electromagnetic waves through the athmosphere. Electric conductivity is a completely diffferent thing.
You can't even have the same material conducting both electromagnetic waves and electricity.
Could explain the _torque_ (Score:3)
The issue is not really the source of the long-period "decade" fluctuations in the length of the day (LOD). It has been known for decades that these have to be caused by "weather" (fluid magnetohydrodynamics) in the liquid outer core. Has to be, as there is no other suitable source of angular momentum. The atmosphere and oceans up here on the surface simply fall short, by as much as an order of magnitude, and nothing else (ice, groundwater, tectonics, etc.) can even match them. The "weather" in the core is dynamically rather different than the weather up here - the heat source is radioactivity and precipitation of solid iron, while the core is quite conductive, and so the dynamics are MHD, not just HD. We don't know much about fluid motions in the core, but we do know that they have to exist, to drive the observed LOD variations (and also drive the observed changes in the geomagnetic field).
What the real question is is the nature of the torque between the mantle and the core. The two leading contenders are pressure torques (differences in pressure across whatever inverse mountains there are at the core mantle boundary) and electromagnetic torques. The E&M torques would be enhanced if the mantle is conducting.
So, this is a plus for the E&M torque theorists, but I wouldn't expect this issue to be really resolved for some centuries, if not longer. The core is not that far away, but it's hard to see through thousands of kilometers of rock...
Re:Could explain the _torque_ (Score:5, Funny)
Downtains?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Nietzsche[1] was a Russian, but when you gaze into Abbeys the Abbeys gaze into YOU!!!
[1] Maybe I'm thinking of Poincaré. I always get them confused because one of them is next to each other in the dictionary.
Re: (Score:2)
Nyet, she's Deutsch.
I read that as "the Abbess gauzes into you", and shuddered. Not, it should be said, in anticipation. Or hope.
Huh? Oh, I see. "confused" and "conjecture".
Time to go and swat a church.
Where did you think the electricity went? (Score:5, Funny)
One side of every electrical circuit is connected to a cold water pipe. And all the cold water pipes are connected to the earth's mantle. This is why there is electricity in the earth's mantle. The solution? Just connect your circuits to an antenna instead of grounding them. This way all the electrons will be radiated into the ionosphere, and you'll once again be able to touch the earth's mantle without getting a nasty shock.
Hot molten metal can be a battery (Score:3)
It's already been shown that molten metals and rocks in layers can be charged like batteries. Is it no surprise that they conduct? http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-04/molten-metal-batteries-could-store-extra-juice-power-grid [popsci.com]
If only there was something condutive that covered (Score:1)
most of the earth... a fluid that could conduct electricity.... sort of like salt water.
Mars? (Score:2)
Carbon Footprint (Score:2)
But what is the carbon footprint of all this electricity that Earth is using? Surely that can't be good. We need a treaty with the other planets that curtails Earth's inordinate use of the universe's electricity! Why, it just might throw the interstellar ecosystem out of balance unless we get it under control!
Re: (Score:2)
So does this mean people will start taking Immanuel Velikovsky [wikipedia.org] seriously? I mean people aside from James Hogan?
Naa...
Despite this popularity, overwhelming rejection of its thesis by the scientific community forced Macmillan to stop publishing it and to transfer the book to Doubleday within two months, and that pretty much puts "Paid" to that
Re: (Score:2)
they're they're know
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit.
I had to watch some of this. I don't know why, but I couldn't stop. I am in disbelief at just how retarded this is.