|Outer core has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science, Physics. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|WikiProject Geology||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
I cleaned up the text to be a little more precise and scientific. As I am not a geologist, nor versed in the field, I'm not going to attempt to expand it. It does need attention from a subject matter expert, however.Mzmadmike (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe the Outer Core is as thick as you say considering the mantle being thicker than any other layer and you say that it is much, much larger than the mantle.
Need to have someone with some knowledge clarify this. "Its outer boundary lies 5,200 km (3,200 mi) beneath the Earth's surface. The transition between the inner core and outer core is located approximately 5,150 km beneath the Earth's surface." How can the inner core lie closer to the surface than the outer core? Bdevoe (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Please couldn't you Inteligent people write it down in a children's version please and that rude note just ignore it who ever wrote it i think you are perfect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Because of its high temperature, modeling work has shown that the outer core is a low viscosity fluid (about ten times the viscosity of liquid metals at the surface) that convects turbulently.
"Ten times the viscosity of liquid metals at the surface" would suggest a high viscosity fluid. Perhaps what is meant here is "one tenth the viscosity of liquid metals at the surface"? Dforest (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
No. It means 10 times GREATER viscosity than liquid metals under 1 atm (essentially zero) pressure. The higher the viscosity, the less it will flow. BUT Mercury has a viscosity of 0.0015 Pa.s at 20°C which is almost exactly the viscosity claimed for the outer core at core conditions. So which 'liquid metals' is article referring to !!!?!? This statement is very misleading (if not simply wrong) and ought to be removed! ( NOTE that the reference cited, G.A. de Wijs, et al, concludes: "...that viscous forces are indeed negligible when compared with the Coriolis force. This supports [magnetohydrodynamic, ie. magnetic field] models based on the assumption that the viscosity of the core is negligible." I have doubts that this supports the Wikipedia article's claim that turbulent flow is occurring. Anyone care to comment? Does "convects turbulently" imply turbulent flow, or does it mean something else? The same article claims that convection is via small scale cells (but what is "small" when talking about a planet's core? IDK). Also, viscosity estimates for the outer core historically have ranged over 12 orders of magnitude, with 0.0015 Pa.s being at the low end of this range. It would be great to compare this to lava, asphalt, honey, water and air... Silicic lavas have viscosities of up to 100,000 times that of water, while ultramafic lava at its higher temperature can have about the same viscosity as water, 0.009 Pa.s (pascal.seconds). Air has a viscosity of 0.00018 Pa.s, honey 2-10 Pa.s, peanut butter (and also lard) 250 Pa.s., asphalt has a viscosity of 1,000,000 Pa.s at reservoir conditions (heat and pressure))126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)