On gravity from SST, geoid from Seasat, and plate age and fracture zones in the Pacific

A composite map produced by combining 90 passes of SST data show good agreement with conventional GEM models. The SEASAT altimeter data were deduced and found to agree with both the SST and GEM fields. The maps are dominated (especially in the east) by a pattern of roughly east-west anomalies with a transverse wavelength of about 2000 km. Comparison with regional bathymetric data shows a remarkedly close correlation with plate age. Most anomalies in the east half of the Pacific could be partly caused by regional differences in plate age. The amplitude of these geoid or gravity anomalies caused by age differences should decrease with absolute plate age, and large anomalies (approximately 3 m) over old, smooth sea floor may indicate a further deeper source within or perhaps below the lithosphere. The possible plume size and ascent velocity necessary to supply deep mantle material to the upper mantle without complete thermal equilibration was considered. A plume emanating from a buoyant layer 100 km thick and 10,000 times less viscous than the surrounding mantle should have a diameter of about 400 km and must ascend at about 10 cm/yr to arrive still anomalously hot in the uppermost mantle

GaAs transistors formed by Be or Mg ion implantation

N-p-n transistor structures have been formed in GaAs by implanting n-type substrates with Be ions to form base regions and then implanting them with 20-keV Si ions to form emitters. P-type layers have been produced in GaAs by implantation of either Mg or Be ions, with substrate at room temperature, followed by annealing at higher temperatures

Global detailed gravimetric geoid

A global detailed gravimetric geoid has been computed by combining the Goddard Space Flight Center GEM-4 gravity model derived from satellite and surface gravity data and surface 1 deg-by-1 deg mean free air gravity anomaly data. The accuracy of the geoid is + or - 2 meters on continents, 5 to 7 meters in areas where surface gravity data are sparse, and 10 to 15 meters in areas where no surface gravity data are available. Comparisons have been made with the astrogeodetic data provided by Rice (United States), Bomford (Europe), and Mather (Australia). Comparisons have also been carried out with geoid heights derived from satellite solutions for geocentric station coordinates in North America, the Caribbean, Europe, and Australia

Global detailed geoid computation and model analysis

Comparisons and analyses were carried out through the use of detailed gravimetric geoids which we have computed by combining models with a set of 26,000 1 deg x 1 deg mean free air gravity anomalies. The accuracy of the detailed gravimetric geoid computed using the most recent Goddard earth model (GEM-6) in conjunction with the set of 1 deg x 1 deg mean free air gravity anomalies is assessed at + or - 2 meters on the continents of North America, Europe, and Australia, 2 to 5 meters in the Northeast Pacific and North Atlantic areas, and 5 to 10 meters in other areas where surface gravity data are sparse. The R.M.S. differences between this detailed geoid and the detailed geoids computed using the other satellite gravity fields in conjuction with same set of surface data range from 3 to 7 meters

Ultra-Light Scalar Fields and the Growth of Structure in the Universe

Ultra-light scalar fields, with masses of between m=10^{-33} eV and m=10^{-22} eV, can affect the growth of structure in the Universe. We identify the different regimes in the evolution of ultra-light scalar fields, how they affect the expansion rate of the universe and how they affect the growth rate of cosmological perturbations. We find a number of interesting effects, discuss how they might arise in realistic scenarios of the early universe and comment on how they might be observed.Comment: 12 pages, 11 figure

Gravity model comparison using Geos-1 long arc orbital solutions

Gravity model comparison using Geos-1 long arc orbital solution

Evaluation of the Goddard range and range rate system at Rosman by intercomparison with GEOS 1 long-arc orbital solutions

Evaluation of Goddard range and range rate system at Rosman by intercomparison with GEOS 1 long-arc orbital solution

M2 ocean tide parameters and the deceleration of the moon's mean longitude from satellite orbit data

An estimation was made of the principal long period spherical harmonic parameters in the representation for the M sub 2 ocean tide from the orbital histories of three satellites - 1967-92A (TRANSIT), Starlette, and GEOS-3. The data used were primarily the evolution of the orbital inclinations of the satellites, with the addition of the longitude of the ascending node from GEOS-3. The results are: (1) C sub 22 superscript + = 3.42 plus or minus 0.24 cm; (2) sub 42 superscript + = 0.97 plus or minus 0.12 cm; (3) epsilon subscript 22 superscript + = 325 D.5 plus or minus 3.D9; (4) epsilon subscript 42 superscript + = 42 = 124D.0 plus or minus 6 D.9. These values agree quite well with recent numerical models and another recent determination from satellite data. The M sub 2 parameters obtained here infer an N of -25 plus or minus 3 arc seconds/century squared, in good agreement with other investigators. The range of current determinations of N is from -24.6 to 27.2 arc second/century squared

Tidal perturbations on the satellite 1967-92A

The orbit of the 1967-92A satellite was studied to ascertain the extent to which tidal forces contribute to orbital perturbations. Parameters describing the ocean tide potential-in particular for the M2 and S2 constituents-were estimated. Since the ocean tide potential is less well known than the solid Earth tide, the ocean tide parameter estimation is based upon the use of a value of 0.3 for the solid Earth tide Love number in the orbit determination procedure. These tidal parameter values are in good agreement with those appearing in numerical models of the M2 and S2 tides derived from surface data

Wanted Dead or Alive? The Relative Value of Reef Sharks as a Fishery and an Ecotourism Asset in Palau

Over the last 20 years, ecotourism to view and interact with marine megafauna has become increasingly popular (Higham and Lück 2008). Examples of this type of tourism include turtle and whale watching, snorkelling with seals and shark diving (Jacobson and Robles 1992; Anderson and Ahmed 1993; Orams 2002; Kirkwood et al. 2003; Dearden et al. 2008; Dicken and Hosking 2009). The occurrence of many aggregations of megafauna along the coasts of regional areas remote from centres of population means that such tourism also provides significant flow-on effects and diversification to local economies where few alternative sources of income exist (Milne 1990; Garrod and Wilson 2004). Importantly, the development of a well-managed ecotourism industry based on megafauna provides the opportunity for local people to utilise natural resources in a sustainable manner over the long-term (Mau 2008). The economic value of tourism based on marine megafauna is enormous. In 2008, a study of whale watching estimated that this form of tourism was available in 119 countries, involved approximately 13 million participants and generated an income to operators and supporting businesses (hotels, restaurants and souvenirs) of over US$2.1 billion (O'Connor et al. 2009). This industry is estimated to have the potential to generate annual revenues of over US$2.5 billion (Cisneros-Montemayor et al. 2010). The development of whale watching has been paralleled by growth in tourism based on other types of marine megafauna. In particular, tourism to observe sharks and rays has become increasingly common. At the forefront of this relatively new market are industries that focus on whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) with estimates calculated in 2004 suggesting that these generated more than US$47.5 million worldwide, providing important revenues to developing countries such as Ecuador, Thailand and Mozambique (Graham 2004). Diving with other species of sharks has followed a similar trend of growing popularity. In 2005, it was estimated that approximately 500,000 divers were engaged in shark-diving activities worldwide (Topelko and Dearden 2005). An increasing range of opportunities for this type of tourism are available, including cage diving, shark feeding and drift diving with reef and oceanic sharks. Shark-diving tourism can be found in more than 40 countries (Carwardine and Watterson 2002), with new destinations and target species being established rapidly, due to the increasing recognition of the economic potential of this activity (Dicken and Hosking 2009; De la Cruz Modino et al. 2010)