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 <ch...@chriscaudle.org> To: time-nuts@febo.com 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 -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.