© Science AdminsThis is a spin-off from the Iron Sun Aether Converter Discussion thread, which got into a discussion of EM forces in volcanoes.
Its also possible that the electrical activity drives magma activity and volcanoes. In the more silcasis lava you would have ohmic heating and in the more ferrous lavas you would have inductive heating. Electrical activity may also drive plate formation in that it makes plates softer and more malleable....
I agree that electricity drives volcanoes, though for different reasons. ;) I think that pressure causes ionization. This means that when rock fractures, pressure is relaxed, meaning de-ionization, driving a neutralizing electric current. Ohmic heating from that current increases the pressure, causing a secondary fracture, which then relaxes the pressure even more. This explains the semi-random sputtering of volcanoes. If they were just the effects of thermal bubbles forcing their way up through a rigid crust, there would be fractures, but there wouldn't be any sputtering, much less explosive sputtering.So do you think that applies to continous pumping process like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DceHEBGVfj4
Here is an interesting clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwBVG0Si7rs&feature=player_detailpage#t=302
So do you think that applies to continous pumping process like this?Yes, albeit to a lesser extent.In a catastrophic eruption, I'm saying that pre-rupture pressurization ionizes the magma, and the expelled electrons cause ohmic heating, increasing the pressure, and thus the ionization, and thus the ohmic heating. This positive feedback loop can then create a runaway pressurization that ultimately fractures the crust. When the crust ruptures, the pressure is relaxed, enabling recombination, and thus an electric current going in the other direction, and thus another dose of ohmic heating, resulting in a secondary eruption, possibly more violent than the first, even though the vent has already been opened, and therefore has no business re-pressurizing. So the alternating pressure/release creates an alternating current, and sputtering ohmic heating becomes significant, resulting in sporatic eruptions of a violent nature.In a continuous eruption (e.g., Kīlauea, Aetna, etc.), there isn't any of that alternating pressure/release electric current. So the only ohmic heating is just charge recombination as magma from deep inside the Earth, under sufficient pressure to be supercritical, rises to a level at which ionization is no longer forced. This ionization threshold is probably several or many kilometers below the surface. Nevertheless, the magma vent might be a better conductor than the surrounding solid rock, and thus the deionization occurring at depth might still be responsible for ohmic heating all of the way through the vent."If" such an electric current exists, it would explain why continuous eruptions would be possible in the first place. We can't really say that Kīlauea keeps erupting because the crust is heavier than the underlying asthenosphere, because even the lightweight basalt is heavier than water.In other words, we could understand if we took a huge steel plate with a hole in the center, and dropped it into a pool of water — the steel will sink, and the pressurized water under it will shoot up through the hole. But if we lay a sheet of plywood on the water with a hole in the center, there isn't going to be a fountain of water shooting up through the hole, because the plywood will float on the water. To get a geyser shooting up through a buoyant shell, there has to be another energy source. If there's an electric current that prefers the water in the hole instead of the plywood, the ohmic heating will boil the water, creating the geyser. Similarly, electric currents running through Kīlauea's magma vents might be what is pumping the magma.
In a catastrophic eruption, I'm saying that pre-rupture pressurization ionizes the magma, and the expelled electrons cause ohmic heating, increasing the pressure, and thus the ionization, and thus the ohmic heating. This positive feedback loop can then create a runaway pressurization that ultimately fractures the crust.Ok. So going back a little bit. Where does the area preferential pressurization come from? We see the the gravity field around the earth varies depending on location and time(eclipse etc...).
Do volcanoes match up with high gravity areas? Is that the right way to look at it?
I think the Kimberlite tubes were form by a large lightning bolt or electric current discharging from one planetary body to another, or the electric currents responsible for current volcano activity were much bigger in the past.What are you thoughts on this?
Where does the area preferential pressurization come from?"Pre-rupture pressurization" in excess of the normal gravitational loading could only be the consequence of ohmic heating.Let me think out loud for a second, and see if this makes sense to either of us... ;)Suppose there is a thermal bubble that is rising up through the asthenosphere, and begins to melt its way into the lithosphere. As soon as the column of magma develops any significant penetration into the solid rock above, it becomes like a lightning rod for electric currents in the vicinity. So all telluric currents will prefer that channel, instead of flowing through the solid rock, because the conductivity of magma is so much better. Hence the thermal bubble picks up a new heat source. The additional heat gives it the ability to melt more of the lithosphere, and rise up even more. The additional pressure gives it the ability to fracture rock in its way. And the electric current flowing through the rock from above pre-heats the channel.The source of the telluric currents isn't static gravitational loading. Rather, the static loading causes charge separations (due to electron degeneracy pressure). Then, fluctuations in the pressure (due to tidal forces) cause electric currents. Increases/decreases in pressure raise/lower the degree of ionization. So that's 4 surges of current per day, from 2 high tides and 2 low tides. At high tide, the pressure is relaxed, enabling de-ionization at depth, and thus a downward flow of electrons. At low tide, the pressure at depth is restored, so the electrons are expelled again.Obviously, these electric currents will follow the path of least resistance. And since hotter magma is a better conductor, it's a winner-take-all situation. Wherever the rock was a little bit hotter, it will get most of the current, and then it will get much hotter, and then it will get all of the current. Once it gets to that point, that magma tube is destined to make it all of the way to the surface, because the melting from the ohmic heating, and the thermal buoyancy, will continue until there is a surface eruption.As concerns the Kimberlite tubes, I wonder if the diamonds are manufactured by the extreme pressures from plasma discharges? There isn't any theoretical limit to the temperatures that can be achieved with electric currents through confined matter. The conductivity goes up with temperature, but the ohmic heating continues despite the absence of resistance, due simply to electron bombardment. The pressure on the surrounding rock could be enormous, and this "might" form diamonds. Hence it's possible that the estimates of the depth of the tubes at the time of the diamond formation, just on the basis of gravitational loading, are exaggerated, because they weren't thinking that it was gravitational loading plus telluric currents that graduated to plasma discharge channels.New Thread for This?
Charles, would you like to start a new thread on volcanism? Or do you expect the discussion to end too soon?
Plastic Rock?
I studied the Kola Peninsula drill hole project a few years ago and read that, when the drill got down to a bit over 7 miles deep, or 12 km, the rock at that depth was a bit plastic and resulted in the bore hole tending to close up, so they weren't able to drill any deeper. Charles, I think you stated in your geophysics blog somewhere that rock doesn't become plastic under pressure, but it just breaks due to brittleness. If the Kola info is accurate, can you explain how the bore hole would have tended to close up? Do you know if some rock is more plastic than others? "The temperature was measured to be 205 C, or about 400 F." "I think gneiss is what they were encountering for the last few miles."
Anaconda said: ""This is a quote of a citation taken from Wikipedia regarding the Kola Borehole which is the deepest hole ever drilled. "The rock there had been thoroughly fractured and was saturated with water, which was surprising. This water, unlike surface water, must have come from deep-crust minerals and had been unable to reach the surface because of a layer of impermeable rock.[8] Another unexpected discovery was the large quantity of hydrogen gas, with the mud flowing out of the hole described as "boiling" with hydrogen.[9]" The water and hydrogen were found deeper tham 5km. Their explanation is that it was trapped there for billions of years but IMO it's far more likely it was recently produced by the Earth, and if it can produce these base materials why not more complex hydrocarbons as well; under the right circumstances.""
CC: The depth at which plasticity is achieved is an interesting topic. I'm still using the working hypothesis that the plasticity is ionization, which weakens the crystal lattice. CI is a function of pressure, but also of the chemical composition of the rock. So the pressure at which plasticity (i.e., CI) is achieved might vary, depending on differences in composition.
That's what you said on Nov 24 last year. Do you have anything to add or change now? If ionization occurs at 7 miles deep at least in some places, does that mean there must be telluric currents in the vicinity? Would such currents be vertical or horizontal?
Kimberlite Pipes I'll finish later
Telluric Current Channels
That's what you said on Nov 24 last year. Do you have anything to add or change now?I can add a few comments about other indications of ionization at depth. There is a distinct change in wave transmission speed at about 40 km below the surface, known as the Moho Discontinuity. I was thinking that this was the first degree of ionization. Then there is the transition from the rigid lithosphere to the plastic asthenosphere at roughly 80 km below the surface, below which the rock flows instead of fracturing. So at that point, the crystal lattice is lacking so many of the valence electrons that it no longer supports fracturing, and rather becomes fluid. Hence that's several degrees of ionization. The interesting thing about the Kola Hole is that they saw plasticity at only 12 km below the surface, meaning that compressive ionization is already taking place. Like I said before, different atoms and molecules have different ionization potentials, so this exact depth at which plasticity might vary. But this needs to be taken into account in our understanding of near-surface phenomena, such as mountain roots and subduction zones.If ionization occurs at 7 miles deep at least in some places, does that mean there must be telluric currents in the vicinity?Yes.Would such currents be vertical or horizontal?I'm thinking that they're mainly vertical. If you pressed down on one specific place on the crust, you'd chase electrons out of the rock at depth, creating a radial horizontal current, as well as an upflow. But the tidal forces that are doing the pushing and pulling act on large areas, and it would be easier for the electrons to move up and down than to have to move halfway around the world.I was late for church, because of my previous post. I don't normally attend the "service", but I'm a new member today and they wanted to introduce the new members. They introduced me late.
Getting back to this discussion, it's fun to get quick, intelligent replies.
Gniess vs Granite
When I studied the Kola project, I found a good illustration of the rock strata that were encountered all the way down, but I couldn't find it this morning. I remember there was quite a bit of sedimentary rock at first, then it was mixed with layers of tuff, which is volcanic, then eventually it was just gniess at the bottom, apparently. I believe gniess is metamorphic, as is granite and basalt. The latter two may have the same chemical composition, if I recall right. I don't remember if gniess is also the same. But the continents are said to have mostly granite metamorphic rock, while the oceans are basalt. But the continents are also 75% sedimentary, I think. Juergens made a footnote in his On the Moon and Mars paper saying that he thought granite is sedimentary rock that underwent electrical breakdown. The granite in New Hampshire sure looks like hardened sedimentary rock. That would be part of the impulse mountains formed by Shock Dynamics. Do you suppose there would have been ionization of the rock in the impulse areas? If that's correct, then all of the continental strata may have been initially sedimentary. Then, with the Shock Dynamics impact/s some of it metamorphosed into granite and some was intruded on by volcanism.*11395
Kimberlites and Nanodiamonds
Your kimberlite diamond theory is interesting. You've previously said that the magnetic pinch effect wouldn't be able to provide the pressure to make solids. It is said that it takes 725,000 or 850,000 lb/sq in to make diamond. Does that prove that Earth isn't hollow and that gravity isn't a surface phenomenon only?*11397 Livescience.com mentioned another way to make diamonds: place a piece of diamond into a depressurizing chamber, then zap natural gas with a microwave beam. As the gas is heated to almost 2,000 degrees, carbon atoms "rain
" down onto the diamond in the chamber and stick to it, growing a perfect sheet of diamond overnight. I wonder if nanodiamonds may have formed in a similar way on or near the Earth's surface during major impact events.
Telluric Current Channels
I also wonder if telluric current channels have mostly formed during the Shock Dynamics continental drift event and stayed open ever since then. And that brings me to dating the continents and life on them.
Age of Life on Earth
Mike Fisher has an article linked on his newgeology.us site about carbon dating of dinosaur bones. The data show that all of those dated by C14 dating date to between 22,000 and 40,000 years ago. The amount of helium in the atmosphere also suggests that the atmosphere is not over 30,000 years old, or maybe 50,000. I guess that depends on if there's only one or more than one way to form helium. C14 dating depends on if the half-life of C14 has always been what it is now and if the percentage in the atmosphere has always been about the same as now, I think. C14 is said to form presently by cosmic rays or neutrons in the upper atmosphere transmuting nitrogen into carbon.
There apparently was a supercontinent, which was formed from rapid deposition of sediment, i.e. lime, sand and clay, as shown somewhat at sedimentology.fr. The grand canyon apparently formed within a few hundred years after the shock dynamics event, while the sediments were still soft. That suggests that the supercontinent breakup occurred shortly after the supercontinent formed.
It would be good to try to make more sense out of the data on the age of the continents and life on the continents. Would you like to tackle that mystery?*11398
