Talk:Richter magnitude scale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

5.0 is 10 times larger than 4.0[edit]

In the article, it states that: "an earthquake that measures 5.0 on the Richter scale has a shaking amplitude 10 times larger than one that measures 4.0".

I believe this is grammatically incorrect and consequently misleading. Instead, it should state: "an earthquake that measures 5.0 on the Richter scale has a shaking amplitude 10 times as large as one that measures 4.0.

Ten times larger is equal to eleven times as large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turk Lewis (talkcontribs) 19:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? I can certainly see where you're coming from (you're treating it as equivilent to a percentage increase: "100% bigger" means "the same again", i.e. 2x the size; so 200% bigger = 3x the size; 1000% bigger = 11x etc), so by the same principle, "one times larger" would mean 2x as large and "ten times larger" would mean eleven times as large. But I've never actually seen anyone use "one times larger" to mean "100% more" (in fact I've never seen anyone use "one times larger" at all). And I'm pretty sure whenever I have seen someone use "n times larger" they mean "n times the size", not "n+1 times the size". Wardog (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
"Ten times larger" means 10x. A "1000% increase", however, means 11x. Argyriou (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Seems to me that the question is grammatical, not arithmetic. It means the right thing, but is it the right way to say it? Gah4 (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I would change the word measures to 'calculates to' or 'has', since it is not an actual measurement but a derived number on the scale from measurements Dave mathews86 (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually example of a 4.5[edit]

I just corrected what appears to be a topological error over on [2006 Tajikistan earthquake]. According to the references on the page and another one I found in researching the earthquake the 2006 Tajikistan earthquake was a 5.5 not a 4.5 earthquake.http://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/earthquake.php?id=36713

As such it is probably wise we chose a different 4.5 earthquake to be representative on the scale.Donhoraldo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

PEPCON fuel plant explosion[edit]

The article for the PEPCON fuel plant explosion states that it was equivalent to a 2.7 kiloton explosion (total for all explosions), not 2.7 tons as stated in the table here. From the massive shock wave, I can only assume the former figure is the more correct. It made a quake measuring up to 3.5, but this article is talking about equivalent enegry release not size of the actual quake. I'll leave it to someone else to verify and fix. --Adx (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Determined from" is weak (the Richter scale is "determined from" M_L)[edit]

For a simple minded reader attempting to nail down the interpretation of "Richter magnitude", "determined from" seems to be maddeningly imprecise.

Could we have "the Richter scale, M_L, is determined from the logarithm according to this exact precise equation following the colon:" or something of that nature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.164.12 (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"Death toll usually over 100,000"[edit]

This "average earthquake effect" for a 10.0+ magnitude earthquake has no reference. Moreover, that same magnitude was, according to the table, "never recorded". It seems misleading to use "usually" in the context of an event that has never been recorded, as it implies that this event has already happened, maybe even more than once. Perhaps this is an estimate? ("Average death toll estimated to be over 100,000"? or something of the sort..)

I checked reference [18], which seems to be the basis of this claim, and did not find any mention of such a number. Please, can someone either post the reference, change the wording, or remove it completely?

Jadhachem (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out. I'd removed it before, but hadn't noticed that it was re-added. Dawnseeker2000 03:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Table comparing earthquakes to nuclear yields is way out of whack[edit]

For example, it lists the Oklahoma City Bombing as being equivalent to 2.7 kilotons of TNT. Timothy McVeigh may have conceivably packed enough ANFO into his rental truck to equate 2.7 tons of TNT but not 2.7 thousand tons of it—because that's what a kiloton, a thousand tons. If he had blown up a device of that magnitude, he would have taken out all of downtown OKC, not just one building. Not to be facetious, but he would also have collapsed the truck's suspension long before he got there—imagine a Ryder truck laden with 5.4 million pounds of anything. It's because of things like this that Wikipedia is the butt of so many jokes.Wfgiuliano (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

After checking Oklahoma City bombing I've moved it to 3.0, which seems much more plausible. There's still a mismatch between the yield of his carbomb and the seismic energy but much less and explainable by the very approximate measure of the earthquake magnitude and the fact that only part of the explosion had a seismic effect.

Earthquake magnitude -0.2[edit]

Is there such thing as earthquake magnitude -0.2? How can a negative earthquake magnitude be real?

112.198.90.25 (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The instruments used have become more sensitive, so now it is possible to detect earthquakes that are smaller than the orginal value for 0. See http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/502877/Richter-scale Therizinosaurian (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Units for displacement[edit]

The formulae towards the bottom of the page could be tidied up. "A" is used for both seismometer displacement and ground-displacement, which caused me some major confusion. Similarly, D is used for distance sometimes, and capital-delta elsewhere, although they both mean the same thing (except when delta is in degrees, not km). Astro-Kitten (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of examples[edit]

Examples were present for several years and potentially informative, but appear to have been removed wholesale without any discussion by Dawnseeker2000. Whatever their weaknesses, this removal seems more like vandalism than editing to me. AlanS1951 (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

How dare you. You're rather ignorant. Dawnseeker2000 04:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I support removal of the table - it attracts constant expansion and contains a deal of OR. Mikenorton (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't be an asshole, Dawnseeker. Argyriou (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

My response was appropriate. To call an established user's effort to improve the encyclopedia "vandalism" by removing unsourced material that has strayed from the topic is ridiculous, just like your statement. Dawnseeker2000 17:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Really a log10 scale??[edit]

If a magnitude 0 earthquake on the Richter scale means a maximal total displacement of 1 micrometer 100 km from the epicenter and that this displacement scales exponentially with a base of 10 for every magnitude unit, like it says in the article, then an earthquake of magnitude 8 would mean a maximal displacement of 100 m !! That cannot be true, can it? More importantly, a quake of magnitude 8.9 like it happened already within the past centuries, that would mean a max. displacement of almost 1 km ! Now that most certainly cannot be true. Ideas, anyone? --Felix Tritschler (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons the Moment magnitude scale was developed. The instrument response isn't terribly accurate above about ML 6.5 or 7. Read the "development" and "details" sections of this article. Also, slip of tens of meters isn't unheard of in the very largest earthquakes, but it also happens over so much larger an area that the instrument response doesn't scale directly - the movement happens over a longer time, and larger movements are damped more. Argyriou (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

TNT equivalents[edit]

Are the given values really useful? TNT equivalent is mostly used when discussing explosions registered by seismographs. When the media reports the "TNT equivalent", it's not the equivalent amount of Radiated seismic energy, but the much larger amount of TNT that would cause such a seismic event. And those numbers are based on the assumption that the explosion of 1 kTon TNT causes a tremor of 4.0 magnitude. (Of course such numbers are based on assumptions about seismic efficiency, and the real explosion may have been be much larger or smaller.) That seems to be the "normal" usage of TNT equivalent in relation to seismic magnitude.

a magnitude 1.0 earthquake is roughly equivalent to the energy release from an explosion of about 70 pounds of TNT (a mid-sized construction site blast), a magnitude 2.0 earthquake is similar to an explosion of 1 metric ton of TNT, and a magnitude 4.0 earthquake is approximately equivalent to the energy release from an explosion of 1,000 tons of TNT (a small nuclear blast).

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2008/08_02_21.html

Corresponding values can be found on: http://www.english.ucla.edu/all-faculty/335-kelly-kiloton-index-of-earthquake-moment-magnitudes

Also, the given examples are not consistently placed: some explosions are placed with their corresponding seismic magnitude, others with their corresponding explosive force. The PEPCON explosion was about 30 times more powerful than the explosion at Chernobyl, but the table suggests that Chernobyl was the largest of the two. Ssscienccce (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

An important secondary source on development no longer exists[edit]

The block quote from Richter himself in the Development section is linked to a secondary source that has ceased to exist. This is unfortunate, since the quote bears directly on the many discussions on how the scale is actually defined. The only source for the same material I have found is the Caltech Oral History project, but citing that directly smacks of OR. FWIW, here is the link to the primary source: http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechOH:OH_Richter_C Brian Hill (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Magnitude template?[edit]

I am looking to see if there is any interest in a template for formatting and tracking use of "M". Please see discussion at Talk:Seismic_scale#On_formatting_M. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Earthquake Richter Scale.jpg[edit]

I agree that the top image is tacky and looks more like an impact PowerPoint slide than an encyclopedia figure. Many recent textbooks have very good figures that illustrate how frequency, damage, energy equivalents (even manmade events and volcanic), etc. change with magnitude. Is it possible to include one of those? Your table is at least a cleaner approach than the current figure. Dave mathews86 (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

(Experiment, in case anyone else disagrees with the concept of text as images)

Richter scale of earthquake energy
Each level is 10 times stronger than the previous level
Description Occurence In Population Movement
1 Small Daily Every minute Small
2 Small Daily Every hour Small
3 Small Daily Every day Small
4 Small Daily Every week Moderate sudden
5 Moderate Monthly Every 10 years Strong sudden
6 Moderate Monthly Every 30 years Strong sudden
7 Major Monthly Every 50 years Severe sudden
8 Great Yearly Every 100 years Very severe
9 Great Yearly Every 300 years Very severe
10 Super Rarely Every 1000 years Extreme

suzukaze (tc) 04:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Approx. # of quakes per year, globally.
Mag. Class. #
M = 8 Great 1
M = 7 Major 15
M = 6 Large 134
M = 5 Moderate 1319
M = 4 Small ~13,000
The figure is an interesting approach, but my initial reaction is that it doesn't work, on multiple grounds. E.g., the "occurence" rate (surely you meant "occurrence") is vague, doesn't clearly state the parameters (like, where?), even implies a regularity (every day) that is not correct. In this regard I think a simple table (adjacent) works better. The "population" column needs explanation. The "movement" column is intriguing, as I would expect something about the amount of movement (or offset), which can be roughly scaled with magnitude. But "sudden" suggests a rate or acceleration, such as intensity of shaking felt at a given location (which involves local factors) in terms of 'g' (acceleration).

Error in text[edit]

Quote: an earthquake that registers 5.0 on the Richter scale has a shaking amplitude 10 times that of an earthquake that registered 4.0, and thus corresponds to a release of energy 31.6 times that released by the lesser earthquake

The energy goes like the square of the amplitude, and the square of 10 is 100, not 31.6. There is something wrong. Bo Jacoby (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC).

Regarding earthquake energy: the so-called "Richter" scale compares the intensity (shaking) of an earthquake as felt at a given location, relative to other earthquakes; that's what is scaled exponentially. The total energy released by an earthquake is seismic moment, which is scaled on the moment magnitude scale. Somewhere not too far out of reach I have some sources on this stuff, if anyone is interested. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
USGS has a decent explanation of the 32x energy increase https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/how_much_bigger.php Dave mathews86 (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Does the graph make sense[edit]

I am having trouble interpreting the user generated graphic [[Image:Earthquake_severity.jpg|thumb|| ]]. Sure. there is a correlation between magnitude and deaths or damage costs. But the graph has jumps in scale (top axis), seemingly arbitrary "Venn diagram" circles rating disruption/disaster/catastrophe, and how do you use the minutes-to-years axis? I love visual representations of data, but this seems to obscure any underlying information. Can you help me interpret or improve. @Webber: --Lucas559 (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Examples[edit]

I have removed the recently added "1.93 M" example of the recent bombing in Turkey as being unuseful. It seems to me the basis for adding it is more on the basis of seeming au courant with current events, without adding any thing of value to the article. It is not the kind of thing with which the vast majority of readers would have any experience, and the effects of blast in open area air is not really comparable with the release of the same energy underground. And most certainly, terrorist bombings are not rated on the basis of Richter magnitude, nor is earthquake intensity rated on the basis of the number killed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Table two[edit]

using the formula: M = 2/3 log w/w0 where w0 = 15 grams of TNT, it gives the all values correctly (checked) except line final. it should be corrected to 12.5
100 Teraton TNT = 10^20 grams, so M = 2/3 log (10^20 / 15) = 12.549272
some certified examples:
w = 50 megatons = 5*10^13 grams, M = 2/3 log (5*10^13 / 15) = 8.34858583 (true)
w' = 9.5 metric tons = 9.5*10^6 grams, M = 2/3 log (9.5*10^6 / 15) = 3.867754897 (true)
w" = 480 kg = 4.8*10^5 grams, M = 2/3 log (4.8*10^5 / 15) = 3.00343332 (true)
w‴ = 800 megatons = 8*10^14 grams, M = 2/3 log (8*10^14 / 15) = 9.151332485 (true)
Tabascofernandez (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent copy-edits[edit]

I see several problems with your edits (which I am about to revert, per WP:BRD). E.g., replacing "As measured with a seismometer" with "As an example" rather misses the key point: that basis of "Richter's" scale is as measured on a seismometer. (I.e., there is no physical basis other than the measurement on a particular seismograph.)

As to "moment magnitude" being currently used by the USGS: well, yes, it is indeed used currently. But that carries a sense of "perhaps not in the future", which is totally misleading. And implies that "Richter's" scale – really the ML scale – is not used, which is false. But the key fact that the "Richter magnitude" the newspapers (public generally) refer to is really ML really does belong in the lead. That qualifiying that to "in the United States" and "used by the USGS" is parochial: I agree. But the fix is not to downgrade this key information, but to remove the qualification.

But that section is so buggered up (not your fault!) it should be enitrely re-written. (Which I might do myself. Easier than having to explain the various aspects.)

Shoving those two lines into a sub-section, with no other related content at that level (i.e., parallel subsections) is rather skewed. Likewise with splitting the "Richter magnitudes" section into "Magnitudes" and a "Richter" sub-section. What is the point of that? Are you confusing "Magnitudes" with magnitude scales? Are you thinking of adding other kinds of "magnitudes" (or magnitude scales)?

I think "Energy release" is a potentially viable section, but that is not the same as "Energy release equivalents". Which, at any rate, I am planning to remove (as previously mentioned).

I do not see what needs to be fixed with the picture. Inserting an expilict break in the caption is really unnecessary.

Finally: Richter did not "base" his scale on the astronomical scale of brightness. He incorporated the concept of a logarithmic scale.

The article probably should have a total rewrite. If you (or anyone else?) want to take it on I can point you to some sources. Otherwise I may get to it in a month or so. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm an editor, not a scientist, so I will be happy to look at your new version "in a month or so." Cheers! Just let me know when you need a checkup! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Just try to make it simple enough for a layperson to understand (that's who we're writing for). Tnx again. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, that is always the challenge: "simple enough ... to understand", but also accurately conveying real (and interesting) information that doesn't mislead. It's not really so hard, but (sigh) many editors don't seem willing to make the effort. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The never ending story about the wrong and useless use of the richter scale[edit]

discussed there. --Itu (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Re Gutenberg as co-inventor[edit]

IP 140.112.54.158 please note the following.

If you have not yet read WP:BRD (describing how Reverts are to be followed by DISCUSSION, not by repeated addition of disputed material) please read it now.

After you have read about BRD you will understand: you should not revert a reversion. Come to Talk and Discuss. (Edit summaries are NOT a proper discussion.)

Continuing: when I initially reverted your Bold edit (re Gutenberg as co-inventor) I explained (here): "Please don't add Gutenberg without an authoritative source that says he was a co-inventor." To which you responded (in your edit summary): "It says so in the begging of the "Development" section and in Beno Gutenberg page."

Please note: First, that something is said somewhere is of no significance or effect here. You have to point to where that something is said, which we do by citing sources.

Second: we do not cite Wikipedia as a source. Each article has to do its own citation of outside sources.

Third: you do need to check any sources you cite. Don't take some other editor's word that the source supports the material; check the source yourself. And if you check the USGS page cited for that paragraph at "Development" you might notice that Gutenberg is mentioned only once, in connection with a different scale. So: even the the sources you allude to do not support your edit asserting Gutenberg as a co-inventor of the so-called "Richter scale".

I will be reverting (again) your edit. I strongly suggest you leave it be. Even if you come up with an incontrovertible source supporting "Gutenberg as co-inventor of the 'Richter' scale" – which, to judge by my reading of literature, is simply not the case – discuss it here first. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Page 137 of this biographical memoir on Gutenberg, cited in his Wikipedia biography, argues for a larger contribution by Gutenberg. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I suspect you are conflating Richter's individual effort in devising the ML scale with his collaboration with Gutenberg on magnitudes generally, and specifically in devising the Ms scale. Your source does not argue "for a larger contribution by Gutenberg"; it only says: "Gutenberg had an important influence on Richter's publication in 1935 of the local magnitude scale." [Emphasis added.] Of course Gutenberg "had an influence" on Richter – they were close colleagues. Also having influence on him, and explicitly credited by him for a suggestion and prior work, are H. O. Wood, Maxwell Allen, and Kiyoo Wadati. None of whom worked with him on devising the Local scale, and none of whom are deem a co-inventor. Gutenberg is mentioned several times, but only for his data.
The bottom line is that Richter was the sole author of the paper that first presented what became the "Local" ("Richter") scale, and is so credited by reliable sources. That hundreds (?) of unreliable web pages credit Gutenberg as a co-inventor of the Local magnitude scale, without attribution to a reliable source, is of no consequence for us. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. To be honest, I didn't have the time to look closely at the issue - just thought I'd make sure you'd seen this source. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually, no, I had not seen that particular source. But being the sole author of the original paper is, I think, pretty compelling. And I have seen enough material to be pretty certain there were no notable challenges, like perhaps a dispute about credit. I've "quartered" that topic well enough to be pretty confident there aren't any elephants in view. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the rude reversion. I am not famaliar with the rule about reversion. It is nice to put the controversy to open discussion. I found an interview with Charles Richter. Richter said:[1]

I refrained from attaching my personal name to it for a number of years... this somewhat underrates Gutenberg's part in developing it for further use...

According to the interview, it is Beno Gutenberg to suggest the logarithmic form in the definition of Richter magnitude scale. Also in another interview[2] (the same source that be cited in the end of the section "Development"), Richter said:

Incidentally, the usual designation of the magnitude scale to my name does less that justice to the great part that Dr. Gutenberg played in extending the scale to apply to earthquakes in all parts of the world.

I think it is fair to recognize Gutenberg as one of the contributors.140.112.54.158 (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Does not matter. The criterion for stating that Gutenberg was a co-inventor is NOT what you (or us generally) think is fair, but WHAT THE SOURCES STATE. This has been explained to you, but as you seem to be deaf I feel I must repeat this: we go by WHAT THE SOURCES STATE.
As has been explained above (are you blind as well as deaf?): 1) Richter was (and remains) the sole author of the paper that presented his "magnitude" scale, which makes a strong case for being the sole inventor; 2) Richter did not credit (in the paper) Gutenberg as a contributor, though he did credit others; and 3) there is no indication that there has been any question of disputed, or even unfair, attribution.
Your behaviour here has not been of impartial consideration of some point to the end of improving the article; it is the pursuit of a particular point. That violates one of our core policies, that of WP:Neutral point of view. Your continuance in that mode, of a point that cannot be verified, your rejection (or ignoring) of input, your failure to "get the point", is tendentious. All of which are elements of WP:disruptive editing. Please note: disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@J. Johnson: Please take a deep breath. At the moment it is your behavior that is problematic. You are threatening this IP editor and making ad hominem attacks because they had the temerity to discuss this issue, as you requested. And why is an interview with Richter not a source? RockMagnetist(talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
My comments on apparent deafness and blindness are not "of the man", but of the evident behavior. I have no objection to discussion (nor even temerity), except that this discussion is getting tendentious. Nor have I denied your source, or anything it actually says, or what Richter actually says, or even the proposition that Gutenberg had an influence. However, none of that says that Gutenberg's contributions made him a co-inventor. What is the basis for saying otherwise? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
To be clarified, I did not state Gutenberg as a co-inventor, but "... developed by Richter and Gutenberg." Richter first INVENTED it only for earthquakes in southern California. Later, Gutenberg and Richter DEVELOPED it further for earthquakes in whole world. [3] Finally, stop calling others blind or deaf which violates WP:NPA 140.112.54.158 (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I am glad that you grasp the concept that Richter "first INVENTED" the so-called "Richter scale". But that is not what the edit you desire says. You want to say that Richter and Gutenberg were co-developers. But you (and the article, in its current form) completely overlook that only one of them INVENTED the "magnitude" scale. In leaving out that significant fact you imply that they were equal contributors, and even equal INVENTORS, from the first. However, that is factually untrue. Sure, the lede uses the weasely qualification of "in the 1930s", which (it could be argued) brings in the four Gerlands Beiträge papers. But that leaves out the significant revisions in the 1950s. And the beginning of the "Development" section, that you explicitly reference, specifically pins this co-equal "development" to 1935, when Richter's paper presented the "magnitude" scale for the first time. The subsequent development of ML can be attributed to Gutenberg and Richter together, but it was RICHTER, and Richter alone, that "first INVENTED" it. To leave that out (what a lawyer would call "omission of a material fact") and imply – as you do — that Gutenberg was a co-inventor is historical revisionism, and a fraud upon the reader.
The article is very poorly written (embarrassingly so), and (not surprisingly) very poorly researched. It needs a major rewrite. Which I will start on when I get some time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I have started a re-write. Haven't decided just how far I will go. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)