I don't know why I thought of this aside from the detail that I'm doing Thermodynamics in Physics this semester. It just seemed to make some weird sort of sense to me. I would classify myself somewhere between plasma and gas.
Main Three:
Solid - things are done in static, well defined, amount of times (schedule oriented)
Liquid - the quintessential procrastinator - all productivity rests at the bottom of the available amount of time with nothing happening before that.
Gas – Fairly evenly distributes productivity through the given amount of time thus resulting in gradual progress. This type is mostly affected by an increase in pressure.
Other States:
Plasma - extremely productive for extremely short periods of time
Liquid Crystal - procrastination intermixed with periods of structured productivity
Superfluid – the person is superficially productive, but fundamentally a procrastinator.
If you can think of a way to extend this metaphor into the Ideal Gas Law, let me know.
I have a favorite pair of headphones. However, the problem with them is that the foam pads fall off all the time. I've tried various methods to keep them attached, but in the end, either my hair gets stuck or they continue to fall off.
The best solution so far is to use double sided tape on the main speaker area. This stops the pad from sliding enough to fall off. Essentially it provides enough friction to stop them from moving around.
Does anyone know a source for obtaining replacement pads (somewhere between free and inexpensive, inclusively)?
At this point, the question still lingers over what size nuclear device North Korea detonated. However, the larger, overarching question for most people is whether or not they actually did set off "the bomb."
The latter question has a reasonably simple answer. It is easy to differentiate between an earthquake and an artifical explosion. The Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, explains the primary characteristics of an artificial seismic event:
"Since the explosion is typically an impulsive source concentrated in space, it produces elastic energy that is characterized by waves with a short duration and with frequencies that are greater than the earthquakes ones."
The difference is easier observed when comparing the seismograph output of artificial and natural seismic events (via NIGV):
Underground nuclear explosion (A) performed on 14th July 1984 in Kazakistan and earthquake (B) occurred on 5th October ’85 in Western Canada, both the recordings are from in the Castel Tesino seismographic station of the I.N.G.V. National Seismic Network.
It is easy to see the difference between ithe high frequency and short wavelengths of the nuclear explosion and the relatively longer ones of the natural event. That does not explain the difference between a chemical based exploson and a nuclear one. In a recent LA Times article, they explain the current quandary the experts are in:
"But officials said the relatively small size of Monday's blast might make it difficult to use seismic data to determine whether the explosion was caused by a nuclear device or conventional explosives. Analysts haven't ruled out that the seismic shock could have been caused by conventional explosives, but a consensus seemed to be forming Monday that a nuclear device had been detonated."
However, in order of pull off a hoax of this magnitude, two million pounds of TNT would be required. The shear amount of conventional explosives required makes this extremely unlikely. Furthermore, there the experts allude to nuclear weapons having a distinct seismic signature.
The former question, about the size of the detonation is more difficult to answer. The geological characteristics of the region must be taken into account as well as the facility it was detonated in. Little analysis has been forthcoming about the current event. However, Armscontrol.org provides insight into India’s 1998 nuclear test does provide some information about the present situation.
"Geological explanations for the discrepancy between announced yield and the recorded seismic signals could include the possibilities that the explosion was poorly coupled to the surrounding rock, or the region surrounding the test site does not transmit seismic waves efficiently. Recordings of earthquakes and other seismic evidence indicates that the region of the Indian test site transmits seismic waves quite well, ruling out the latter explanation. Poor coupling to surrounding rock could occur if the seismic signals were muffled by detonating the explosion in a large underground cavity."
The actual calculation of the size is quite naturally left to the experts. However, it can likely be assumed that the test was either a fizzle or was significantly damped in order disguise the true size.
For additional reading, Wikipeida has an interesting article about the size of earthquakes, their yearly frequency, the associated magnitude in tons of TNT, and their equivalent in weapons. Also, there is my coverage of the location of the event.
On Sunday, October 08, 2006 at 8:35:27 PM (EST), North Korea apparently detonated a nuclear device. This registered as a seismic event in South Korea and beyond. Ignoring the geo-political consequences of this event, let's look at what data currently exists.
The Announced Location On October 3rd, the North Korean government announced the location of its long threatened nuclear test. Global Security.org has since published an article with that location: 41°16'00"N 129°06'00"E. That test site is easily found with Google Maps:
The Actual Location According to the USGS the location of yesterday's North Korean test was 41.294°N, 129.134°E. That location has a horizontal uncertainty of 9.6 kilometers (5.9 miles). Location in North Korea.
The interesting part of the incident is that the location has virtually zero proability of seismic activity. Here is a map of the region provided by the USGS that displays this fact.
Distance between 41 16' 0"N 129 6' 0"E and 41.294N 129.134E is 2.5880 statute miles. This calculation assumes the earth is a perfect sphere with a radius of 3963.1 statute miles.
This puts the announced location of the test well within the uncertainty radius of the actual event.
The Venue Articles prior to the actual test suggested that North Korea would use a mine shaft deep underground to test the nuke. The satellite evidence suggests that they used that or some form of a facility under a mountain to do so.
The Explosion There are conflicting reports as to the strength of the test. The official North Korean source reported that the explosion was equivalent to 1000 Tons of TNT. According to an AP article, the Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said “it was far more powerful, equivalent to 5,000 to 15,000 tons of TNT.” The USGS extrapolation places the explosion at 550 tons of TNT.
However, if the USGS figured is compared with bombs of the past, it is a tiny device. According to Hyper Text Book The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was approximately 15,000 tons of TNT and the Nagasaki bomb was about 20,000 tons. In the case of the latter bomb, it had a fireball with a radius of .2 km (1/10 of a mile).
Note: If the device was detonated inside a large cavern, this would have a damping effect on the shockwaves. The actual yield could be much larger than current guess of 550 Tons and closer to either the stated yield or the Russian estimate. The Washington Post has a great FAQ about detecting nuclear blasts. I also wrote another article about detecting underground detonations.
The Investigation The surprising part is that only the Russians and North Koreans are sure that it was actually a nuclear weapon. This could be an extremely convincing hoax acting as a deterrent and trying to buy some international leverage.
Updated 10-10-06 - If you have any additional information or insight please comment below.
I am a sophomore studying Computer Science at Grove City College. My passions are programming, graphics design, video production, writing, politics, and education.
