5 ms·
”The reported magnitude is not directly comparable to an earthquake of similar size because the explosion occurred at the surface where seismic waves are not as
by eCa 6y ago
”The reported magnitude is not directly comparable to an earthquake of similar size because the explosion occurred at the surface where seismic waves are not as efficiently generated.”
Should this be interpreted to mean that the blast had more force than a 3.3 earthquake?
- EarthIsHome 6y ago> Should this be interpreted to mean that the blast had more force than a 3.3 earthquake? Yes. While "force" might not be the right word, your intuition is correct.
- dredmorbius 6y agos/force/energy release/
- gpsx 6y agoWatching a video of the blast, you can see a very large shock wave in the air. A large amount of energy was dissipated this way which would not happen in a normal earthquake. I am sure the fraction could be estimated. In fact, in a fluids physics course I had the teacher said Russia was able to estimate the power of one of the first US test nuclear explosions by watching its video.
- infinite8s 6y agoEnrico Fermi was able to do perform a similar estimate, based on the distance traveled by pieces of paper he dropped from his hand during the blast - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem
- me_me_me 6y agoI think they mean its different. The seismic wave it way more devastating to the infrastructure. Leading to collapsing buildings, ripped gas pipes etc. Explosion like this one move most of the energy into the heat and air displacement. The immediate area is shattered but the building outside have only windows smashed. The explosion look terrifyingly massive but the number of victims seams small in comparison.
- rtkwe 6y agoThe numbers are definitely going to rise as they dig deeper into the rubble and as some people die because of the overwhelmed hospitals.
- dredmorbius 6y ago...the number of victims seams small ... In large-scale disasters, a low initial casualty count can be quite deceptive. It often means victims simply cannot be reached, identified, or tallied. In amount of explosive material (not necessarily yield), the Beirut blast compares with the Halifax Explosion of 1917, with 1,950 dead in that incident. Circumstances, construction, and crowd response (the burning Mont-Blanc had attracted a large shoreside crowd) differ. But beware premature assessment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion
- t-writescode 6y agoIt does not. The Halifax explosion was calculated at around 2200ktons. Ish. I’m not looking at numbers right now. Calculations (not maximum estimations) of this explosion put it at < 500 tons.
- randallsquared 6y agoThe Wikipedia link mentioned above claims only 2.9 kilotons, rather than thousands of kilotons. I'm not sure how AN compares to TNT, but there were reportedly 2700 tons of AN, some fraction of which exploded. In any case, it looks like the same order of magnitude, or at max one order, rather than 3 or 4. ETA: the linked USGS actually says 1.1 Kt, but that assumes all the AN participated.
- SomewhatLikely 6y agoI think they meant to type 2200 tons / 2.2 ktons.
- perlpimp 6y ago
- mikhailfranco 6y agoAn explosion only generates compression waves, which are longitudinal waves, like sound, where the particle motion is along the direction of motion (and back again). For earthquakes, these are known as P-waves, or primary waves, because they travel the fastest and arrive at distant locations first. Explosions do not generate transverse side-to-side motions, which are caused by shear forces. For earthquakes, these are known as S-waves, or secondary waves, because they travel slower and arrive at distant locations later. The S-waves usually cause more damage to buildings in an earthquake, because they last longer and induce a shaking or swaying motion.