'Electric Earth' Could Explain Planet's Rotation

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Electric Earth' Could Explain Planet's Rotation

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday January 21, 2012 @08:53AM from the thought-it-was-gas-powered dept.

sciencehabit writes "When it comes to Earth's rotation, you might think geophysicists have pretty much everything figured out. Not quite. In order to explain some variations in the way our planet spins, Earth's mantle — the layer of hot, softened rock that lies between the crust and core — must conduct electricity, an ability that the mantle as we know it shouldn't have. Now, a new study (academic paper) finds that iron monoxide, which makes up 9% of the mantle, actually does conduct electricity just like a metal, but only at temperatures and pressures found far beneath the surface."

16 of 153 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

arXiv link by fishicist · 2012-01-21 09:00 · Score: 5, Informative

Full text available on the arXiv, for those without a subscription to PRL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.5068
Magnetic field + conductor = Electricity? by atchijov · 2012-01-21 09:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

Is there any electricity flowing and if there is, how can we harvest it?
1. Re:Magnetic field + conductor = Electricity? by NoobixCube · 2012-01-21 09:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Electricity is remarkably lazy, and doesn't do anything it isn't forced to do. It will always follow the path of least resistance, and will never flow from a point of lower voltage to higher (that would be like water flowing up hill). If there's electricity flowing, you have to ask what's causing it to flow. What's increasing the voltage between the two points? If you harvest the electricity without unerstanding why it's flowing in the first place, you won't know what the consequences may be.
  
  --
  Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
2. Re:Magnetic field + conductor = Electricity? by Ethanol-fueled · 2012-01-21 09:27 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Tesla had that all figured out a little less than a century ago.
  
  Of course, his work was buried so Edison could make a buck with inferior technology.
3. Re:Magnetic field + conductor = Electricity? by John+Hasler · 2012-01-21 10:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Of course, his work was buried so Edison could make a buck with inferior technology.
  There's a problem with your theory. His name was George Westinghouse.
  
  --
  Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
4. Re:Magnetic field + conductor = Electricity? by dak664 · 2012-01-21 13:12 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Path of least resistance does not apply to electricity. It follows every field gradient and takes every path as fast as it can. The current through each path is limited by the reduction of the gradient caused by the charge already along the path, a.k.a. resistance.
this is all fine and dandy by circletimessquare · 2012-01-21 09:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

as long as this story doesn't bring out the electric universe trolls

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Not to be confused with.... by tverbeek · 2012-01-21 09:04 · Score: 4, Informative

Not to be confused with the Electric Universe Theory.

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Iron Monoxide? by Doctor+Morbius · 2012-01-21 09:06 · Score: 5, Informative

FeO is Ferrous Oxide not Iron Monoxide.

--
If I disagree with you it's because you are wrong.
1. Re:Iron Monoxide? by tqk · 2012-01-21 09:16 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  FeO is Ferrous Oxide not Iron Monoxide.
  The topic at the moment is geology, not chemistry. Try to keep up.
  Bloody chemists. Grumble, mumble, ...
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
2. Re:Iron Monoxide? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-21 10:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  They are synonyms according to Chemical Book.
3. Re:Iron Monoxide? by istartedi · 2012-01-21 10:41 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  As long as it isn't dihydrogen monoxide. That stuff's dangerous!
  
  --
  For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
4. Re:Iron Monoxide? by LtGordon · 2012-01-21 10:48 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  FeO? That stuff is ugly.
5. Re:Iron Monoxide? by Tacvek · 2012-01-21 12:12 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  FeO has not been Ferrous Oxide in many years.
  As of the IUPAC Redbook 2005, the preferred name would be "Iron(II) Oxide", however the name "Iron Monoxide" is a valid stoichiometric name for the substance.
  The classic name "Ferrous Oxide" is no longer considered acceptable. I quote from Table III's second definition of the suffix "-ous":
  
  Ending formerly added to stems of element names to indicate a lower oxidation state, e.g.
  ferrous chloride, cuprous oxide, cerous hydroxide. Such names are no longer acceptable.
  The "-ous" suffix is still permitted as part of acid names like "seleninous acid", or "arsorous acid".
  
  --
  Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
Re:Could explain the _torque_ by Hognoxious · 2012-01-21 12:25 · Score: 4, Funny

inverse mountains
Downtains?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Where did you think the electricity went? by mbstone · 2012-01-21 13:06 · Score: 4, Funny

One side of every electrical circuit is connected to a cold water pipe. And all the cold water pipes are connected to the earth's mantle. This is why there is electricity in the earth's mantle. The solution? Just connect your circuits to an antenna instead of grounding them. This way all the electrons will be radiated into the ionosphere, and you'll once again be able to touch the earth's mantle without getting a nasty shock.