Skip to main content

If volcanoes get their magma from the crust below them, what can you say about the silica content of Earth's crust under the oceans?

The crust under the oceans would be low in silica. This is because the crust under the ocean is likely to be made of basalt. If low levels of silica are present then there are non-explosive volcanoes.  We know that basalt has low silica content and therefore basalt lave has a low viscosity. Since it has a low viscosity the lava can travel for long distances. Viscosity is a measure of a fluid’s resistance to flow. Low viscosity lava would be thinner and travel much faster. On the other hand, continental crust is made of granite rock. Granite has a high silica content, producing explosive volcanoes. This type of lava has a high viscosity so it flows much slower because it is thicker.


Low silica -> non-explosive volcanoes -> basaltic crust


High silica -> explosive volcanoes -> granitic crust

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more