EARTHQUAKE!!!!!

[moneymaker]

“[afx114]We were taking some out of town buddies up to see the city from Cabrillo, so we didn’t feel a thing being in the car. Some kids ran up to us at a stop sign saying, “whoa, did you feel that?” We didn’t know what the hell they were talking about and thought they were just being dumb. Then we find out what happened and now we feel totally gypped.

My wife was born in Mexicali and we have family there. It’s a pretty crappy dusty desert town. They are all fine, but a few houses collapsed. Pretty amazing considering this was larger than the Haiti quake (7.2 vs 7.0). The difference was in the depth (20mi in Baja, 6mi in Haiti).

For you conspiracy buffs: There’s a volcano in Mexicali that is used by a geothermal plant to generate a large percentage of Baja’s electricity. The rumor amongst the residents is that the extraction of heat from the volcanic vents is what is causing the recent increase in activity there.”

Withdrawing geothermal energy would actually help reduce earthquakes if we could do it to power everything. The amount of energy released during a quake like the 7.2 is amazing. Any engineering types here want to guess at how it compares to a nuke going off.

[garysears]

“Any engineering types here want to guess at how it compares to a nuke going off.”

Interesting exercise. With Google/Wiki nobody has to guess or even be an engineer.

Wiki gives the formula for explosive energy as a function of magnitude (x) as (10^(x))^(3/2) in kg of TNT. That means a 7.2 quake is 63.1 megatons of TNT explosive equivalent.

According to Wiki, the largest U.S. nuke is up to 1.2 megatons TNT equivalent. The Trident missile warheads are each .475 megaton.

So my answer is around 52 of the big nukes or 132 Trident warheads or 16 1/2 Trident missiles if we are talking the treaty limit of 8 warheads per missile.

The article notes that most of the energy of an earthquake is absorbed by the crust and not transmitted to the surface (which would explain why shallow quakes are more destructive than deep quakes of the same magnitude). On the other hand, much of the energy of a nuke is transmitted to the surface. That is kind of the point of the weapon.

[garysears]

“Any engineering types here want to guess at how it compares to a nuke going off.”

Interesting exercise. With Google/Wiki nobody has to guess or even be an engineer.

Wiki gives the formula for explosive energy as a function of magnitude (x) as (10^(x))^(3/2) in kg of TNT. That means a 7.2 quake is 63.1 megatons of TNT explosive equivalent.

According to Wiki, the largest U.S. nuke is up to 1.2 megatons TNT equivalent. The Trident missile warheads are each .475 megaton.

So my answer is around 52 of the big nukes or 132 Trident warheads or 16 1/2 Trident missiles if we are talking the treaty limit of 8 warheads per missile.

The article notes that most of the energy of an earthquake is absorbed by the crust and not transmitted to the surface (which would explain why shallow quakes are more destructive than deep quakes of the same magnitude). On the other hand, much of the energy of a nuke is transmitted to the surface. That is kind of the point of the weapon.

[garysears]

“Any engineering types here want to guess at how it compares to a nuke going off.”

Interesting exercise. With Google/Wiki nobody has to guess or even be an engineer.

Wiki gives the formula for explosive energy as a function of magnitude (x) as (10^(x))^(3/2) in kg of TNT. That means a 7.2 quake is 63.1 megatons of TNT explosive equivalent.

According to Wiki, the largest U.S. nuke is up to 1.2 megatons TNT equivalent. The Trident missile warheads are each .475 megaton.

So my answer is around 52 of the big nukes or 132 Trident warheads or 16 1/2 Trident missiles if we are talking the treaty limit of 8 warheads per missile.

The article notes that most of the energy of an earthquake is absorbed by the crust and not transmitted to the surface (which would explain why shallow quakes are more destructive than deep quakes of the same magnitude). On the other hand, much of the energy of a nuke is transmitted to the surface. That is kind of the point of the weapon.

[garysears]

“Any engineering types here want to guess at how it compares to a nuke going off.”

Interesting exercise. With Google/Wiki nobody has to guess or even be an engineer.

Wiki gives the formula for explosive energy as a function of magnitude (x) as (10^(x))^(3/2) in kg of TNT. That means a 7.2 quake is 63.1 megatons of TNT explosive equivalent.

According to Wiki, the largest U.S. nuke is up to 1.2 megatons TNT equivalent. The Trident missile warheads are each .475 megaton.

So my answer is around 52 of the big nukes or 132 Trident warheads or 16 1/2 Trident missiles if we are talking the treaty limit of 8 warheads per missile.

The article notes that most of the energy of an earthquake is absorbed by the crust and not transmitted to the surface (which would explain why shallow quakes are more destructive than deep quakes of the same magnitude). On the other hand, much of the energy of a nuke is transmitted to the surface. That is kind of the point of the weapon.

[garysears]

“Any engineering types here want to guess at how it compares to a nuke going off.”

Interesting exercise. With Google/Wiki nobody has to guess or even be an engineer.

Wiki gives the formula for explosive energy as a function of magnitude (x) as (10^(x))^(3/2) in kg of TNT. That means a 7.2 quake is 63.1 megatons of TNT explosive equivalent.

According to Wiki, the largest U.S. nuke is up to 1.2 megatons TNT equivalent. The Trident missile warheads are each .475 megaton.

So my answer is around 52 of the big nukes or 132 Trident warheads or 16 1/2 Trident missiles if we are talking the treaty limit of 8 warheads per missile.

The article notes that most of the energy of an earthquake is absorbed by the crust and not transmitted to the surface (which would explain why shallow quakes are more destructive than deep quakes of the same magnitude). On the other hand, much of the energy of a nuke is transmitted to the surface. That is kind of the point of the weapon.

[UCGal]

Did anyone feel that 5.5 about a half hour ago?

Shook our building at work… But it’s a steel/concrete building that rattles if someone runs down the hall too fast.

[UCGal]

Did anyone feel that 5.5 about a half hour ago?

Shook our building at work… But it’s a steel/concrete building that rattles if someone runs down the hall too fast.

[UCGal]

Did anyone feel that 5.5 about a half hour ago?

Shook our building at work… But it’s a steel/concrete building that rattles if someone runs down the hall too fast.

[UCGal]

Did anyone feel that 5.5 about a half hour ago?

Shook our building at work… But it’s a steel/concrete building that rattles if someone runs down the hall too fast.

[UCGal]

Did anyone feel that 5.5 about a half hour ago?

Shook our building at work… But it’s a steel/concrete building that rattles if someone runs down the hall too fast.

[NotCranky]

[quote=UCGal]Did anyone feel that 5.5 about a half hour ago?

Shook our building at work… But it’s a steel/concrete building that rattles if someone runs down the hall too fast.[/quote]
Yes, I did in Jamul, very briefly though.

[NotCranky]

[quote=UCGal]Did anyone feel that 5.5 about a half hour ago?

Shook our building at work… But it’s a steel/concrete building that rattles if someone runs down the hall too fast.[/quote]
Yes, I did in Jamul, very briefly though.

[NotCranky]

[quote=UCGal]Did anyone feel that 5.5 about a half hour ago?

Shook our building at work… But it’s a steel/concrete building that rattles if someone runs down the hall too fast.[/quote]
Yes, I did in Jamul, very briefly though.

[NotCranky]

[quote=UCGal]Did anyone feel that 5.5 about a half hour ago?

Shook our building at work… But it’s a steel/concrete building that rattles if someone runs down the hall too fast.[/quote]
Yes, I did in Jamul, very briefly though.

[Author]

Posts