There might be two Qs: one relating to the axil rotation and another concerning
the volume behavior of the earth as a giant bowl of Jello. But you'd have to
figure out how to really slam the planet to excite the entire volume.
Earthquakes are probably too wimpy.
Ron
From: Chris Caudle <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Q/noise of Earth as an oscillator
On Wed, July 27, 2016 10:33 am, Chris Caudle wrote:
> Does that imply that this value is not constant:
>>> And if you take the classic definition
>>> Q = 2 pi * total energy /energy lost per cycle
>>> then it would seem earth has a Q factor.
After re-reading "The Story of Q" I agree that Q of a rotating body could
be non-constant, but also consistent with the original definition of Q as
the ratio of reactance to resistance of an inductor, which of course would
vary almost completely linearly over a wide frequency range where the
resistive dissipation was not frequency dependent (i.e. where skin effect
was negligible).
Perhaps a more useful question is whether that is still a useful
definition compared to how the term is more typically used now to refer to
resonance bandwidth.
--
Chris Caudle
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
