Skip to main content
Log in

Convection and the Constant Q-Mechanism

  • Letter
  • Published:

From Nature

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Abstract

IT has been argued1 that the data on the Q value of the Earth's mantle do not militate against convection currents because the range of frequency over which Q has been proved constant in the laboratory (10−4<f<106 Hz) does not lie entirely within that which can be explained by the Lomnitz law2 of creep in rocks (10−8<f<1 Hz). The Lomnitz law is characterized by a decreasing rate of creep that forbids convection and McCann rightly points out that according to this law the mechanism which accounts for the constant Q over the laboratory proven range is inexplicable and so convection is, in fact, allowed as the law is not representative of rocks thought to make up the Earth's interior. There are several comments to be made on this reasoning. (i) The processes responsible for damping in the mantle are not the same as those dominant in the laboratory. Experiments made at atmospheric pressure are dominated by microcracks, as noted by Anderson3 and Orowan4. These cracks are closed by pressures of only 2 or 3 kbar, corresponding to a depth of approximately 10 km. Thus, laboratory data that show a wide range of frequency-independent Q are not of any use at depth unless special experimental arrangements are made. (ii) Most experiments on damping are inherently unsatisfactory because they are made on the width of the damping peak in amplitude, that is liable to be broadened by numerous effects (ref. 2, page 334). (iii) Lomnitz5 in his original work used a torsion method to investigate the anelastic response of rocks to a suddenly applied stress, P, and arrived at the law where ε is the strain at time t, μ is the rigidity, and q, a are constants. It is an empirical creep law, and needs connecting with an explicitly stated damping process before any fundamental connexion between the two can be attempted6. Indeed, there may well be no connexion between the creep processes and the damping processes operative in the Earth, as they are rate-controlled in different ways on an atomic scale.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. McCann, C., Nature, 228, 656 (1970).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Jeffreys, H., The Earth, fifth ed. (Cambridge University Press, 1970).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, D. L., Geophys. J. Roy. Astron. Soc., 14, 135 (1967).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Orowan, E., Geophys. J. Roy. Astron. Soc., 14, 191 (1967).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lomnitz, C., J. Geol., 64, 473 (1956).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gordan, R. B., Geophys. J. Roy. Astron. Soc., 14, 163 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Murrel, S. A. F., Geophys. J. Roy. Astron. Soc., 14, 4 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wesson, P. S., Quart. J. Roy. Astron. Soc., 11, 312 (1970).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

WESSON, P. Convection and the Constant Q-Mechanism. Nature 232, 251–252 (1971). https://doi.org/10.1038/232251a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/232251a0

  • Springer Nature Limited

Navigation