re: 6.7 magnitude earthquake has hit 25 miles south of British Columbia

Posted by Clames

Member since Oct 2010

16556 posts

Posted on 4/23/14 at 11:53 pm to lsu480

quote:
Right....and this clown is saying it would cause over 10,000 times as much damage!

No, tardnugget, I'm talking about the energy involved. Damage depends on a lot of other factors such as duration, proximity to infrastructure, and the crushing weight of your own stupidity.

Posted by lsu480

Downtown Scottsdale

Member since Oct 2007

92876 posts

Posted on 4/23/14 at 11:54 pm to cattus

They are the worst things ever. Even though I have lived over 10 years of my life in Southern California I still need to double my Xanax dose whenever I visit!

Posted by Jim Rockford

Member since May 2011

98165 posts

Posted on 4/23/14 at 11:54 pm to BRgetthenet

Just checked with my relative who lives near Seattle. They didn't feel anything there.

Posted by Clames

Member since Oct 2010

16556 posts

Posted on 4/23/14 at 11:54 pm to beaver

quote:
8.2

1960 Valdivia was a 9.5

Posted by lsu480

Downtown Scottsdale

Member since Oct 2007

92876 posts

Posted on 4/23/14 at 11:55 pm to Clames

quote:
No, tardnugget, I'm talking about the energy involved. Damage depends on a lot of other factors such as duration, proximity to infrastructure, and the crushing weight of your own stupidity.

Ya....I am stupid. How many earthquakes have you been in **** Boy?

Posted by tgrbaitn08

Member since Dec 2007

146214 posts

Posted on 4/23/14 at 11:56 pm to lsu480

quote:
The magnitude scale is really comparing amplitudes of waves on a seismogram, not the STRENGTH (energy) of the quakes. So, a magnitude 8.7 is 794 times bigger than a 5.8 quake as measured on seismograms, but the 8.7 quake is about 23,000 times STRONGER than the 5.8! Since it is really the energy or strength that knocks down buildings, this is really the more important comparison. This means that it would take about 23,000 quakes of magnitude 5.8 to equal the energy released by one magnitude 8.7 event. Here's how we get that number:

One whole unit of magnitude represents approximately 32 times (actually 10**1.5 times) the energy, based on a long-standing empirical formula that says log(E) is proportional to 1.5M, where E is energy and M is magnitude. This means that a change of 0.1 in magnitude is about 1.4 times the energy release. Therefore, using the shortcut shown eartlier for the amplitude calculation, the energy is,

32 * 32 * 32 / 1.4 = 23,405 or about 23,000

The actual formula would be:

((10**1.5)**8.7)/((10**1.5)**5.8) = 10**(1.5*(8.7-5.8))
= 10**(1.5*2.9)
= 22,387

This explains why big quakes are so much more devastating than small ones. The amplitude ("size") differences are big enough, but the energy ("strength") differences are huge. The amplitude numbers are neater and a little easier to explain, which is why those are used more often in publications. But it's the energy that does the damage.

Earthquake calculator

LINK

A magnitude 9 earthquake is 1000 times bigger than a magnitude 6 earthquake on a seismogram, but is 31622.776 times stronger (energy release).

This post was edited on 4/23/14 at 11:56 pm

Posted by cattus

Member since Jan 2009

13423 posts

Posted on 4/23/14 at 11:56 pm to Jim Rockford

quote:
They didn't feel anything there.

Chillin by a fire, this thread was the first I heard of it.

Posted by Clames

Member since Oct 2010

16556 posts

Posted on 4/23/14 at 11:58 pm to lsu480

quote:
Ya....I am stupid. How many earthquakes have you been in **** Boy?

Enough to know what I'm talking about in explaining relative earthquake magnitudes. You are the only raging retard with a drumset here that read "damage" when the discussion was on relative power. Go take your pills.