Hi Charles. I guess you made some changes to this paper. There are a few statements that remain unclear to me.
Your paper says:
"Further to the point, it takes a running average of 10^15 watts of power to grind crustal plates past each other, which is 96% of the total near-surface power, while radiative heat loss is only 4%. (See Table 1.) If hot magma from the Earth's interior was driving plate motions, the power of radiative heat loss would be greater than tectonic friction."
What do you mean by the "total near-surface power"? And could you explain the second sentence there better re "If hot magma ..."? What are you getting at by saying heat loss would be greater than friction between over-riding plates?
"The rupture of a subduction fault starts with the slippage of the lithosphere with respect to the underlying asthenosphere, without loss of traction along the fault. ... The lower (oceanic) plate has forces on both sides of it, but the upper (continental) plate has nothing above it, so it buckles upward."
Could you show in Figure 2 or Figure 7 what you mean by lithosphere and aesthenosphere? And maybe you should suggest there to "See Figure 2 above and/or Figure 7 below". And in Figure 7 could you show the Moho, so readers can see where the charging comes from?
"(See in Figure 7.) A runaway expansion of the crust, coupled with a loss of traction, guarantees a rupture."
Then you show Figure 7. Are you suggesting that earthquakes are nearly horizontal slippages between two crusts that are overlapping? I previously thought of quakes as vertical slippage, but your diagram is more plausible, if I'm understanding it. Could you indicate in the last part of the diagram that it's the leading edge of the upper crust that moves forward a short distance?
"Yet slippage at the fault sends a negative pressure wave back through the rock, re-opening the discharge channels."
Do you explain anywhere how this negative pressure wave forms and opens the channels?
For now I'll skip down to Figure 10. Do you feel it's necessary to show that Figure? If so, why not show your model alongside of it? Otherwise, I think readers will tend to think Figure 10 is your model too.