Skip to main content

How long will it take a secondary wave to travel 2000 km in an earthquake?

Earthquakes emit two types of body waves: primary waves (p-waves) and secondary waves (s-waves). Both waves originate at the epicenter of an earthquake.


Primary waves, so named because they are the first wave to be emitted during en earthquake, travel through rock and liquid. These waves are the first to reach seismic stations, which alert seismologists of tectonic activity. Following the primary waves are s-waves, which travel through rock like p-waves, but cannot travel through liquid. The speeds of p-waves and s-waves depend on many factors, but most importantly depend on Earth's surface material.


The speed of an s-wave ranges from 1 km/sec to 8 km/sec and is mostly determined by Earth's surface material. In loose, unconsolidated sediments, an s-wave may only travel 1 km/sec, whereas deeper beneath the surface, s-waves can move as fast as 8 km/sec.


Because the speeds of p-waves and s-waves are dependent on their environment, it is impossible to assign an exact speed to p-waves and s-waves. However, by looking at material, it is possible to estimate body wave speed and determine how long it would take for a wave to reach a specific distance.


This question asks how long it will take for an s-wave to travel 2000km in an earthquake. Depending on the forcing factors, an earthquake's s-wave could reach this distance in anywhere from approximately 4 minutes (at a speed of 8km/s) to 33 minutes (at a speed of 1km/s).

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