On 7/27/16 5:43 AM, Michael Wouters wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Attila Kinali <[email protected]> wrote:
"I am not sure you can apply this definition of Q onto earth."
It doesn't make sense to me either.
If you mark a point on the surface of a sphere then you can observe
that point as the sphere
rotates and count rotations to make a clock. If you think of just a
circle, then a point on it viewed in a rectilinear coordinate system
executes simple harmonic motion so the motion of that point looks like
an oscillator, so that much is OK.
But unlike the LCR circuit, the pendulum and quartz crystal, the
sphere's rotational motion does not have a
resonant frequency. Another way of characterizing the Q of an
oscillator, the relative width of the resonance, makes
no sense in this context.
There's also the thing that "things that resonate" typically have energy
transferring back and forth between modes or components: E field and H
field for an antenna; kinetic vs potential energy for pendulums and
weight/spring; charge and current (C & L, really E field/H field again).
Spinning earth is more of an "rotational inertia and loss" thing, with
zero frequency, just the exponential decay term.
If you think of a single measurand in any of these scenarios you have at
the core some sort of exp(-kt)*cos(omega*t+phi) and we're relating Q to
the coefficient k.
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
