Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: How Much Energy Required To Raise Mountains Via Ye Olde Flood (was Re: zzzz)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 23:28:47 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: University of Ediacara
Lines: 23
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <cpHbMjAtSXJAFwDc@meden.demon.co.uk>
References: <1g85zka.1k9v7n93kim2N%john.wilkins@bigpond.com><mip810pse1acv792snqtipr1f45kj205v8@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1076196527 5557 128.100.83.246 (7 Feb 2004 23:28:47 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 23:28:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S <HqM9aSlMKPAGBRMnG2JsTbnGUV>
X-Spamscanner: mailbox8.ucsd.edu (v1.4 Oct 30 2003 22:20:52, 0.0/5.0 2.60)
X-Spam-Level: Level
X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 98479 i17NUCmJ012382 mailbox8.ucsd.edu)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2212
In article <c03qd6$42l$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey <noway@jose.com>
writes
>> To be conservative, start with giving the mountains a low average
>> density, say 2.2 g/cm^3 ==> 2.2 tonnes/m^3.
>>
>> Noelie
>
>In what way is that low when it is so much higher than than of sandstone,
>chalk or coal?
It is indeed much higher than that of coal, but the proportion of the
crust which is composed of coal is low. It is at the low end of the
range for sandstone (i.e. definitely not much higher than the density of
sandstone). It is lower than the range given for limestone, and is
appreciably less (i.e. definitely not much higher than the density of)
than a figure given for chalk.
http://www.mininglife.com/Miner/general/Density.htm
http://www.reade.com/Particle_Briefings/spec_gra2.html
--
alias Ernest Major
|
|