Would magn. pole reversal actually mess up electronic equipment?
in [Design]
|
Prev: Integrated AGC 100kHz-10MHz
Next: Piezo Amplifier
From: Paul Keinanen on 24 Dec 2009 01:59 On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:05:00 -0500, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >"JJ" <santa(a)temporaryinbox.com> wrote in message >news:49680269-4c38-4569-9956-3bd58443e556(a)s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com... >> Hi >> >> this has perhaps been asked before(?) >> >> Apologies in that case. >> >> What I wanted to ask is, if earths magnetic pole now would manage to >> flip in a really quick timespan (let's say less than 5 minutes), would >> that have any effect on electronic equipment, and if so, why? >> >> I mean I would think that the would not be any effect. After all, >> electronic equipment do not rely on earths magnetic field in some way. >> How would they? >> >> Or would there be some effect on electronic equipment if the flip >> happened in less than 30 seconds? >> >> Thanks in advance, > >If you are alive during the next flip, it may be that the *least* of your >worries may be the effect on electronic equipment. > >The Earth's magnetic field acts like an invisible protective shield that >"steers" the solar wind -- and the high energy particles contained >therein -- around and away from the surface. During a reversal, the position >and intensity of this "shield" will change. During the reversals, the field strength drops significantly and some minor magnetic anomalies (like the South Atlantic Anomaly) are the strongest poles, so there might be four, six or even more weak "poles" during the reversal. While during normal magnetic fields, part of the charged particles are routed around the Earth into the tail, part of particles are trapped into the Van Allen radiation belts and when the solar wind is strong enough, part of these particles penetrates into the atmosphere, creating aurora borealis/australis. The aurora is visible on a ring around the magnetic poles known as aurora oval http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DEaurora.gif The atmosphere quite effectively blocks these charged particles, so no at lest obvious mutations are observed in the area covered by the aurora oval. However, at least some airlines have restrictions how often pregnant flight personnel are allowed to cross the polar region, since above 10 km altitude, the radiation levels are much higher than on the surface of the earth. >It is possible that during this change, the Earth -- and the critters living >on it -- may be subjected to anything from inconvenient levels of radition >to life-threatening and/or mutation-inducing doses. During the reversal, there are likely to be aurora rings around the minor poles as well or possibly aurora will be observed on the whole planet. There are typically several reversals in a million years, but not so frequent extinctions. The atmosphere is quite capable of stopping those charged particles. Lunar astronauts even survived several days in an aluminum can outside of the protection of the Earths magnetic field, while the Sun was inactive. Granted, they would have been killed, if the Sun had erupted during the flight.
From: Bill Miller on 29 Dec 2009 10:51 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20091225000712.6cffc188.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > Paul Keinanen <keinanen(a)sci.fi> wrote: > >> >> >> The atmosphere quite effectively blocks these charged particles, Well... yes, but that's not the entire story. A fairly energetic interaction is taking place "up there" between the high energy particles and the atmosphere. The most well known is probably the interaction between High Energy stuff and Nitrogen. The result is C14. This is radioactive and drifts slowly down to the ground where some of it gets ingested by living things. When they stop living, they stop ingesting it and it decays and we have a neat way of measuring how long ago it happened. Now crank up the impacts a few thousandfold (as might happen during a reversal -- or a partial reversal called an "excursion".) We now have a "rain" of radioactive Carbon. Oh, and some other radioactive stuff like Strontium and Iridium and Berrylium. BTW the KT layer contains these plus others. >>so no >> at lest obvious mutations are observed in the area covered by the >> aurora oval. However, at least some airlines have restrictions how >> often pregnant flight personnel are allowed to cross the polar region, >> since above 10 km altitude, the radiation levels are much higher than >> on the surface of the earth. It is left as an exercise for the student to discuss the likely effects of "rains" of radioactive elements on the life expectancy of existing life forms as well as the likelihood of mutations. > > It should be possible to do simulations that would get more precise > results than your handwaving. The arctic ions have had their direction > changed and the ones from the sun would have come in at an oblique angle > anyway, passing thruogh lots and lots of air. Noon on the equator would > be a shorter path. Etc. I don't know the answer here but I don't think > you do either. NASA satellites are currently exploring the "bow wave" where the solar wind is in approximate balance with the magnetosphere. After some exciting pictures of *very* powerful explosions (their term) and "magnetic ropes," the literature seems to have been (oddly?) silent about the nature of these explosions and what kinds of particles (if any) that have been generated. >> >It is possible that during this change, the Earth -- and the critters >> >living on it -- may be subjected to anything from inconvenient levels >> >of radition to life-threatening and/or mutation-inducing doses. >> >> During the reversal, there are likely to be aurora rings around the >> minor poles as well or possibly aurora will be observed on the whole >> planet. >> >> There are typically several reversals in a million years, but not so >> frequent extinctions. See below. >>The atmosphere is quite capable of stopping >> those charged particles. Agreed. But what about the atmosphere's ability to stop the *results* of theses charged particles that impact -- and change -- the elements? Empirically, we know that a light "rain" of C14 drizzles more-or-less constantly onto us all. IOW the atmosphere may great at shielding us from direct damage, but is less effectivein shielding us from fallout. > Agreed, we don't have big extinction events nearly as often as we have > magnetic reversals. Thank god or whoever. As far as reversals go, this is "sorta" correct. But magnetic excursions are far more common. The Earth precesses with a period of about 23,000 years. The half-period of 11,500 years seems to correlate with numerous "recent" magnetic excursions *and* with layers of sediment containing the above-mentioned elements. Here is a representative list: (KYA = Kilo Years Ago) The names represent areas where the magnetic anomalies were first seen . 11 KYA Gothenburg Magnetic Excursion. 70% of Large Mammal Species extinct. Spikes in C14, Beryllium-10, Iridium. Glaciation starts and ends abruptly.. Major vulcanism and flooding. 23 KYA Mono Lake Magnetic Excursion. Euro Forest Elephant disappears, Spikes in Be and C14. Glaciation starts. Major Vulcanism. 34 KYA Lake Mungo Magnetic Excursion, Neanderthal disappears. Spikes in Be and C14, Short term Ice buildup then ends abruptly. Major vulcanism. 43 KYA Laschamps Magnetic Excursion. Spikes in Be and C14, Rapid onset of glaciation. 58 KYA No Magnetic Excursion Documented. Spike in Be. Mass extinction of giant pigs, giant baboons, three-toed horses. Ice Age ends. Major vulcanism 69 KYA No Magnetic Excursion Documented. Spike in Be. Ice Age Begins, Yellowstone erupts 80 KYA No Magnetic Excursion Documented, Ice Age Ends, 91 KYA No Magnetic Excursion Documented, Spike in Be. Ice Age Begins abruptly. Heavy vulcanism 103 KYA No Magnetic Excursion Documented. Spike in Be. Ice age ends. 115 KYA Blake Magnetic Reversal. Spikes in Strontium and C14. Ice age starts. Sea levels rise and fall by abot 70 feet in less than a century. Conclusive? Nope. Causal? Maybe. Reason to look closely at these events and their timing? Naw. Let's just ignore them. > >> Lunar astronauts even survived several days in an aluminum can outside >> of the protection of the Earths magnetic field, while the Sun was >> inactive. Granted, they would have been killed, if the Sun had erupted >> during the flight. > > And the sun has its magnetic reversal roughly every 11 years? So if the > earth's reversal takes more than say 12 years we're certain to > experience such an eruption.... It would be important to us how long the > reversal takes. Of course, this is a long-term concern. In the short run > I care more about my job. And compared to the magnetic reversal, we're > going to burn all the oil in the short run. This would be true *if* oil were a fossil fuel. There is emerging evidence that petroleum is a naturally occurring and ongoing phenomenon based on High heat and pressure involving Carbonates, Water and Iron (as a catalyst.) This hypothesis has been replicated in the laboratory. And please recall that, despite many attempts, there has not been any laboratory authentication of the "settled science" hypothesis that petroleum is formed by "regular" organic material that is subjected to heat and pressure. IOW, no Dinosaurs were killed in order to fuel your automobile and heat your house. This will be a great relief to the PETA folks! It's also probably OT. (But that's never stopped me before!0 All the best, Bill Miller
From: Bill Miller on 29 Dec 2009 17:27 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20091229155326.79864524.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > Paul Keinanen <keinanen(a)sci.fi> wrote: >> > > > I'll put that on my list of things to look at when I find the time. My > list of interesting science stuff has gotten too long and I have to put > most of it aside if I'm going to look at anything in sufficient depth. > I'll look for an opportunity to tie it in with something I've already > started. I have a similar list. > >> > Agreed, we don't have big extinction events nearly as often as we >> > have magnetic reversals. Thank god or whoever. >> >> As far as reversals go, this is "sorta" correct. But magnetic >> excursions are far more common. >> >> The Earth precesses with a period of about 23,000 years. The >> half-period of 11,500 years seems to correlate with numerous "recent" >> magnetic excursions *and* with layers of sediment containing the >> above-mentioned elements. Here is a representative list: (KYA = Kilo >> Years Ago) The names represent areas where the magnetic anomalies were >> first seen . >> >> 11 KYA Gothenburg Magnetic Excursion. 70% of Large Mammal Species >> extinct. Spikes in C14, Beryllium-10, Iridium. Glaciation starts and >> ends abruptly.. Major vulcanism and flooding. >> 23 KYA Mono Lake Magnetic Excursion. Euro Forest Elephant disappears, >> Spikes in Be and C14. Glaciation starts. Major Vulcanism. >> 34 KYA Lake Mungo Magnetic Excursion, Neanderthal disappears. Spikes >> in Be and C14, Short term Ice buildup then ends abruptly. Major >> vulcanism. 43 KYA Laschamps Magnetic Excursion. Spikes in Be and C14, >> Rapid onset of glaciation. >> 58 KYA No Magnetic Excursion Documented. Spike in Be. Mass extinction >> of giant pigs, giant baboons, three-toed horses. Ice Age ends. Major >> vulcanism 69 KYA No Magnetic Excursion Documented. Spike in Be. Ice >> Age Begins, Yellowstone erupts >> 80 KYA No Magnetic Excursion Documented, Ice Age Ends, >> 91 KYA No Magnetic Excursion Documented, Spike in Be. Ice Age Begins >> abruptly. Heavy vulcanism >> 103 KYA No Magnetic Excursion Documented. Spike in Be. Ice age ends. >> 115 KYA Blake Magnetic Reversal. Spikes in Strontium and C14. Ice age >> starts. Sea levels rise and fall by abot 70 feet in less than a >> century. >> >> Conclusive? Nope. >> Causal? Maybe. >> Reason to look closely at these events and their timing? Naw. Let's >> just ignore them. > > Let's assume for the moment that there's something periodic here. A C14 > spike indicates nitrogen exposed to neutrons. Ditto beryllium. This > could happen if the magnetic field lets more ionising radiation through, > or if there is more ionising radiation in the first place. Agreed. > > Iridium can come from meteorites. There have been theories connecting > the carolina bays to a recent extinction event and a proposed extended > meteor shower, but dating their formation is still pretty controversial. The physical orientation of Carolina Bays looks a *lot* like a spray of "stuff" originating somewhere over Canada. But there appear to be no meteors anywhere in or near any of them. There is strongly held opinion that they are aeolian (wind) artifacts but this is unconvincing (to me) given their orientation and quantity. Dating seems to rely on C14 of detritus found in the bays. But if they were formed in conjunction with some type of ionization in the upper atmosphere, then C14 dating becomes highly problematical. There are also some near Perth, Australia. Dating unknown. Shapes essentially identical. It's almost as though a flock of fairy tale giants flew in formation from north to south while blowing. Hmmm... Here's a thought. There appears to be temporal linkage with the elimination of the Ice Shield over Canada and the Carolina Bays event(s). What if something "blasted" into the Canadian Ice Shield?. The result might be something like a flock of flying icebergs that then impacted the ground over a widespread area? They hit at an angle, causing oval shaped holes with a "lip" at the edge furthest from the impact point. Then they melt, leaving no residue. (Sorta like the classic mystery murder weapon -- an icicle.) > It doesn't seem particularly plausible to me that an increase in > ionising radiation could trigger a magnetic reversal, The reverse seems more likely. > but I could > vaguely imagine great big impacts doing it. Can you get a gyroscope to > flip over if you hit it with a big enough hammer? The hammer might not need to be very big. In Beltrami's text, "Mathematics for Dynamic Modeling," he considers two different models for the Earth, and shows that it takes a very small "nudge" to set things chaotically awry. > I think there may be > room for multiple explanations, assuming there's something here to > explain. Multiple explanations seem likely. But the past seems to be full of evidence (like iridium at the KT layer) or 'buckyballs" and radioactive material at the Clovis layer for which conventional explanations seem lacking. >On the other hand, there's so much new information coming in > that I can't process very much of it and there could easily be > definitive proof of something-or-other that I simply haven't heard > about. > >> >> Lunar astronauts even survived several days in an aluminum can >> >outside> of the protection of the Earths magnetic field, while the >> >Sun was> inactive. Granted, they would have been killed, if the Sun >> >had erupted> during the flight. >> > >> > And the sun has its magnetic reversal roughly every 11 years? So if >> > the earth's reversal takes more than say 12 years we're certain to >> > experience such an eruption.... It would be important to us how long >> > the reversal takes. Of course, this is a long-term concern. In the >> > short run I care more about my job. And compared to the magnetic >> > reversal, we're going to burn all the oil in the short run. >> >> This would be true *if* oil were a fossil fuel. There is emerging >> evidence that petroleum is a naturally occurring and ongoing >> phenomenon based on High heat and pressure involving Carbonates, Water >> and Iron (as a catalyst.) This hypothesis has been replicated in the >> laboratory. And please recall that, despite many attempts, there has >> not been any laboratory authentication of the "settled science" >> hypothesis that petroleum is formed by "regular" organic material that >> is subjected to heat and pressure. IOW, no Dinosaurs were killed in >> order to fuel your automobile and heat your house. > > I'd say there's pretty strong evidence that some oil has organic > sources. But that doesn't say it all does. If it turns out that oil > precursors are formed deeper and then percolate upward through the rock, > to sometimes get captured by oil domes where they gradually get > converted into polycyclic forms -- we might be able to collect more of > it in the precursor form, beyond just getting it from existing domes. It appears that the Russians may be doing just this. It can't be an accident that WWII era Russia was extremely oil-poor, and they are now one of the world's leading exporters. It seems that they suddenly learned where to look! > There are more exciting possibilities than I can keep track of, and I > have no idea to tell which handful of them will actually pay off. Yep. The most fascinating for me are associated with Mills' controversial hydrino (blacklightpower.com) concepts. If he's right, then it may not matter where oil comes from! Bill
From: Bruce McFarling on 29 Dec 2009 23:25 On Dec 29, 5:27 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: > It appears that the Russians may be doing just this. It can't be an accident > that WWII era Russia was extremely oil-poor, and they are now one of the > world's leading exporters. It seems that they suddenly learned where to > look! Yes, the reason that Hitler was striking south for the Caucasus oil fields and the reason that Stalingrad was the decisive turning point in the European theater of WWII was because Russia had no oil in WWII. That's also the reason that after the tide was turned that the Soviet T-34's, the most produced tank of WWII, was not fueled by Soviet produced oil. Or perhaps the reality is that the Soviet Union was the second largest oil producer in the world in WWII, far behind the US but with over 20% more production than the UK (which at the time was in possession of the major producing Middle Eastern oil fields in Iran (ex-Persia) from 1908 and Saudi Arabia from 1938), and producing 290%+ more than the European Axis production of crude oil ... 180% as much as the European Axis including synthetic, 290% as much crude oil as the European Axis. Soviet Oil at managed prices was the cornerstone of the COMECON from the 1950's through the 1980's and depletion of the Soviet Union's original inexpensive to pump oil was offset through the 1970's by rising oil prices, financing the growing trade deficit with the West in manufactures until the opening of the spigot by Saudi Arabia a few years into the 1980's let to a collapse in the profitability of Soviet oil fields and the economic crisis that paved the way for first Perestroika and then the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and then the Soviet Union itself. If you are going to spout loose speculations premised on falsehoods that can be uncovered in a few minutes searching, could it be loose speculations about Forth?
From: don on 30 Dec 2009 00:29
Bruce McFarling wrote: > If you are going to spout loose speculations premised on falsehoods > that can be uncovered in a few minutes searching, could it be loose > speculations about Forth? Oil is not a write only language. don |