The Earth's Molten Core

If you place a bowl of water on a turntable rotating at constant velocity and wait a while, eventually (because of the viscous drag) all the water will be rotating at the same rate as the turntable (as if it were a solid disk). The Earth has been rotating for quite a while...

Nice post.

Not that I have the answer, but I often wonder, with the incredibly massive amounts of energy that the earth expends, why haven't we come up with efficient ways to harness it?

The things that we think we understand are so minuscule compared to the things that we don't..............it truly boggles the mind.

I'm thinking semi solid core.............................never mind. I can't comprehend how the inside of the earth has remained hot and molten for billions of years................I just can't.

Don't even get me started on where the universe ends. It can't. There will always be something on the other side of the end.

I'm thinking semi solid core.............................never mind. I can't comprehend how the inside of the earth has remained hot and molten for billions of years................I just can't.

Maybe it isn't as old as "we" think it is

Yikes!

I'm glad I'm leaving on vacation tomorrow.

I'll leave this one to the experts. Don't kill each other while I'm gone.

I can't comprehend how the inside of the earth has remained hot and molten for billions of years

The Earth is constantly being tugged and pulled by gravitational energy, primarily from the sun. You can see this on a smaller scale with the moons of Jupiter. There are a multitude of other forces, but at least we can measure gravity and see the effects.

This is a fasenating hypothysis. I would like to have some detailed references. What you are describing seems to be a clasic chaotic system. This would certainly help explain the history of the earth's magnetic reversals.

How about a solid core?

If the core was solid there would be no magnetic field to protect the earth.

Ron

Er, not exactly. We view the energy balance at the Earth's surface, that is on a rough average is at room temperature (300K). Then, roughly 1/3 flows up, fueled by radioactive decay, 2/3 is received from the Sun as irradiation.

As I can see, parts of the magnetic core do interact with each other, and with Earths's and Sun's external fields. Yes, they are all weak. But, they have 100,000 to million years to achieve a pole reversal, for example. Relatively, not a heavy lifting. It affects us, but that is a different story.

As the molten core spins the magnetic field is produced. On another note i saw one theory that a BLACK HOLE is powering the whole shebang.

So when you see the event horizon coming at you, jump very high!!! (wait ,you wont be able to jump).

Ron

There is heat generated inside the earth due to radioactivity and this causes convection of the liquid core, so the core doesn't just rotate with the earth. This circulation transfers angular momentum for the outer part of the core toward the axis of rotation, so the inside would rotate faster than the outside.

A radioactive core is certainly a possibility. Physicist J. Marvin Herndon has postulated this for years, and has some pretty good research that points in that direction. He thinks the core is mostly Uranium, which is undergoing fission. Other scientists have thought it might be fusion (e.g. nickle-to-copper, for instance).

This would account for the earth not "cooling off" in 4 billion years.

Hey Mr. Woodward;

Is it possible that radiant flux at and near the IR is the only significant means of thermal transfer to space from our planet? If so then could an atmosphere of the correct composition account for the retention of residual heat without the need for nuclide decay heat to put us where we are today in terms of equilibrium temperature?

Consider for a moment that the rate of radiant cooling is exponentially inverse to the absolute temperature of the planet.

I find The Stefan - Boltzmann law quite enlightening when considering planetary cooling.

Gavilan

I really don't know how fast the earth could or should radiate all of its heat to outer space, but so far it has taken over 4 billion years to do it.

I still subscribe to the possibility that lots of different chemical and nuclear reactions are happening inside the earth which can generate energy. Fission is one possibility, but fusion is also possible. Consider the 9,000 or so experiments in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions which have succeeded in generating more energy than was input. The success rate in LENR experiments is now approximately 85 %. Can some of those processes be occurring naturally in the earth? Can nickle and hydrogen combine to form an unstable copper, which can later decay and generate more energy? This is being done in labs routinely now.

Dear Mr. Woodward;

This is very interesting stuff to me.

"Can nickel and hydrogen combine to form an unstable copper, which can later decay and generate more energy? This is being done in labs routinely now."

The hypothesis that earth is generating heat through nuclear process is quite interesting. I would love to review some material on this. If you could give me some links to this it would be much appreciated.

Have you ever considered the possibility that some of the rotational energy of the earth is being converted to thermal energy via the process of electromagnetic induction?

Also; we assume that the core is under great compression. But is it really?

Could thermal conduction alone explain the thermal gradient between the core and shell?

If nuclear processes are one of the several possible sources of thermal energy within our planet; what isotopes do you suggest?

I would love to read some papers on the possible nuclear processes taking place within our planet.

Any direction you could offer me would be greatly appreciated.

Also; 4 billion years seems like quite a long time; but as stated earlier - nearly all of the energy lost to space is done so through radiation; and a molten earth would contain a lot of thermal energy given the phase energies of its composition.

Why would earth maintain thermal nuclear processes and Mars did not?

If we assume that both planets formed in the same time frames, from the same accretion disk, then the material distribution of Mars and Earth would not be that different. The decay rates of the nuclides would be the same; this would result in a quite different thermal state that we see today in terms of the equilibrium temperatures of these two planets.

Perhaps residual heat combined with the surface area to volume ratio of a sphere better explains the different cooling rates and associated conditions between Earth and Mars.

Gavilan

Here is a comprehensive list of LENR papers published from the early days of "cold fusion" to today's LENR approaches. You can spend weeks reading these PDF files because they are so interesting. I have no doubt that LENR will solve our power generation problems in the next couple of decades, and with no pollution or radioactive waste to store. Please do a search on "E-CAT Rossi Focardi" to see what is happening with a Nickle-to-Copper" reactor, with forecasts of commercial furnaces coming in early 2012.

Why did Mars not wind up with Nuclear power sources? First of all, we are not sure that earth IS doing that, but we do know that the gaseous giants are. Secondly, maybe Mars DID have a nuclear power source for a few billion years, but the proper mix(es) have disappeared (temporarily?).

To me, it is possible that each planet was formed from very different chemical mixes, just as various stars were. Also, I believe that all of the chemicals on all of the rocks and planets were derived by fusion processes from the elementary hydrogen that is so abundant in the universe. Now, many of the heavy elements are decaying to release energy.

"the rate of radiant cooling is exponentially inverse to the absolute temperature of the planet."

That is not correct. The cooling rate would be a direct exponential relationship to temperature; not the inverse. Is that right???

Gavilan

The Earth has two cores, an outer core that is molten Fe-Ni, and a solid inner core that is of the same composition, and it is the heat in the lower mantle that causes the mantle to move in upwards currents, which then go down again to the hotter region, the earths crust is solid, and it floats on the upper mantle, and the movement in the mantle causes the crusts plates to continually move, earthquakes occur when two of the plates either meet or goes under the next plate, the movement is stopped for a while, building up a great force, when the force is high enough then the one plate either glides over the other plate or the two meeting plates collide!

Nobody knows for sure what the composition of the earth's core is. It may contain ALL of the heavy elements that are in the known periodic table (and many more that are not known).

Yes we know that, but those would only be minor components!

Radio active , solid cores what rot, what keeps our sun alive Radio Activity, I don`t think so.

If the earths core was radio active would not we all be dead, If the earths core was solid

we would have no gyro effect and the planet would be totally unstable, you take oil and millions of tons of metal ore out of the earth and sent it to China and the US and other parts of the world, This must effect its balance or is that off balance effect I feel the earth or the Scotch I drink,A soft center is our Gyro and the earth is cooling at a very slow rate and control by the sun, take it away and the earth dies It is the same with the carbon we produce that feeds our trees, take that away and we all die, what people produce would not be 5% of what volcanos produces and without it everything dies.

The world travels in an oval orbit and this is why we have global warming not from carbon as we are led to believe, and give it an other few hundred years and we go back into a cold time as we have for millions of years as we again move away from the sun.

we should have global warming come and go every year not over a few hundred years.

Just one comment: I like to call it summer

Totally correct,and this mantel floats as it cools, exactly the same as molted steel in a ladle.

a arnold Be Mba Jp

And it may be radioactive.

Les than a minute on Google, and I have found your answer.

I completely agree that the inner core and outer core contain iron. This was very clever research to prove that the two rotate at different rates, and generate electrical current.

It does not conclude that there is or isn't heavier elements in these two cores.

The OP question is about the unknown/hypothetical nature of the earth's core and one of the later Posts questioned definitive statements made about what has happened or is happening.

From a scientific basis, we don't really know the what or the how. We really understand very little about how all the different facets of this earth are intertwined and impact eachother. We just know that it is working and staying together.

I am fascinated by the knowledge of many of the contributors here at CR4. Everyone brings their different specialties and experiences to the table and it makes for some good education. There certainly are many "what if's" that can be kicked around and discussed. Many of which we don't have definitive answers for.

This is true.

Since religion is specifically not allowed by the rules, I suspect that the moderator determined that the converstion was leaning too far into a purely religious argument.

I didn't catch the deleted posts, but I suspect that the deletions were justified. There are many religions on the planet..................each one knows that they're right, and everyone else is wrong. So arguments become endless and pointless.

There really can be doubt in anything.

Consider...if you will...the Theory of Electricity

There are many EE's on the site, yet they are considered experts in a field that only operates on overarching theories. There are many laws in this particular field, but as a whole; still a theory. Knowing a lot about something doesn't necessarily mean we know nearly enough. If you know a lot about something and you don't know how big the set really is you cannot put a percentage on it to quantify or qualify a statement such as that.

"We" know a lot about the weather, but people still end up wet on a "sunny day" and carry umbrellas when it doesn't rain all day.

Now lets throw theological and cultural beliefs on that pile and watch it burn. It gets to be quite inflammatory.

The is an evident cultural fear that the abuse of technology means that the whole spectrum of human scientific knowledge is basically wrong, as if it was conceived in sin.

This fear led many these days to deny any achievement ever made by science, clearly mistaking and misplacing science with technology. this misplacement is ignorant, and it leads to further and deeper ignorance yet.

I agree that a lot of data is hard to get, some data is yet impossible to get, but still there is a big difference between "We know a lot of overlapping, real, practical knowledge" which we cannot deny because we all use the fruits of this knowledge with our every day technology, to that annoying, repeating "Science have no real grip on reality", "Science is only real if you believe in it", "We were all brainwashed by science to adopt it's illusive view of things", - as all those slogans are a marker of evident ignorance. Not of an open mind.

On the other hand, any one who understands what empirical thought is about, to check and validate any finding made by research, is called upon to have an "Open-Mind" and reject the whole lot by the sweep of "land-slide" doubt, in order to deny anything and everything.

Doubt for them is not for being objective - as it should be. It is in order to deny the fruits of honest human effort to understand the world.

"Question anything and everything" really means to them "Deny anything and everything"

It's like a child having trouble to grasp a mathematical concept. So, instead of putting the extra effort to get hold of the concept, the child instead, throws of math off as "unreal" and "irrelevant". The same with physics, geology, chemistry - you name it.

Calling the whole human effort of empirical knowledge, namely modern science, by the same, is indeed a clear marker of ignorance.

But even if there's a lot of data yet missing, the rest of our proven knowledge is coherent, overlapping, and in rational agreement with everything else we all know and trust. Denying if for theological reasons doesn't disprove any of it, unless it comes with an overall proven comprehension equally measured to the scope of modern science as a whole.

Science is no faith. It is (supposed to) a honest, human way, to measure the actual behaviour of nature as a whole.

You're right about knowing a lot of the what and how of nature. But there is so much that isn't known or understood, otherwise we would be able to predict weather patterns, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. more accurately. We would be able to find cures for many diseases, etc. We don't really know how the brain works. We don't know how the little machines in the smallest of cells work.

The conclusions that are made in science are only drawn after looking at the limited data that is known at the time. So, what happens when new things are discovered and the previous conclusions are shown to be false/faulty? Do you accept the new data and draw new conclusions or do you simply seek to discredit the new information, like many are prone to do? That is done routinely when the discoveries support a young earth.

Who are the "You guys"?

"You guys can't comprehend the puzzle into a coherent understanding, so you throw the table cards included, by posing your over-all doubts as if those were the real issue here. that you mentioned?"

What pieces of the old earth puzzle have you put together that is coherent? There aren't any! You have to go through great machinations and distortion of real facts to try and support an old earth.

"Uttering "we don't really understand what's going on" is more a sign of ignorance to the history of science and current actual tested knowledge than anything else"

If one thinks they have accumulated so much knowledge and data that they can say they understand our Earth, it simply shows how little they do know and understand about the complexity of our Earth and Universe of which we are a tiny inhabitant of.

"Modern science asks a question and lets nature itself provide an answer it's own way."

The nature or data still needs to be interpreted and our philosophical mindset (starting point) will determine what conclusion is drawn from the data. An old earth viewpoint says it took millions of years for oil to be produced. A young earth viewpoint looks at evidence collected when Mt. St. Helens erupted and found that oil was produced in less than 2 years.

"... when the discoveries support a young earth."

Please give some examples of the discoveries.

"...there is so much that isn't known or understood, otherwise we would be able to predict weather patterns, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. more accurately. We would be able to find cures for many diseases, etc. We don't really know how the brain works. We don't know how the little machines in the smallest of cells work..."

- All you did here was count the work still in progress as if it's already a "done-with" kind of failure.

"...So, what happens when new things are discovered and the previous conclusions are shown to be false/faulty? Do you accept the new data and draw new conclusions or do you simply seek to discredit the new information, like many are prone to do?..."

- You take any new discovery/research data/new findings, check and re-check it's validity - in an empirical way - especially if and when it contradicts known and verified previous knowledge, and if and when it checks to be valid, you have to weave it into the established set of data of mainstream knowledge, otherwise you abuse science. Explaining it is then a new challenge - but not at all to be avoided. That's how science work, not as you misunderstood it to: "...simply seek to discredit the new information..."

- I guess the empirical is simply foreign to you - or - completely unheard of

"...What pieces of the old earth puzzle have you put together that is coherent..."

- Carbon Dating, Geological Strata Sectioning, Isotope Decay Analysis, to name but a few, which you probably never heard of, because you are too busy denying everything and anything, instead of learning what these are.

"...You have to go through great machinations and distortion of real facts to try and support an old earth..."

- What and which 'real facts' are you talking about ? Any of those validated by cross-reference and repeated measure yield as done the "old-school" empirical way with any "proper" scientific finding ? - Or, instead, they are just thrown into the air to gain some aura of "legitimacy" ?

"...If one thinks they have accumulated so much knowledge and data that they can say they understand our Earth, it simply shows how little they do know and understand about the complexity of our Earth and Universe of which we are a tiny inhabitant of..."

- The amount of accumulated knowledge is there (in any relevant library and data-base) waiting for you to see, is open for you to check and re-check, even taunting you to disprove it ! - but no ! you'd rather simply doubt it without checking.

"...The nature or data still needs to be interpreted and our philosophical mindset (starting point) will determine what conclusion is drawn from the data..."

- Data is data. There is no "Nature" to data. You cannot argue with verified fact. You can argue as to their implication, context, their relevance to other verified findings.

"...Who are the "You guys"?..."

The way you describe it here, shows that you think that the validity of a fact is determined by a "philosophical mindset"...

- People who think so and believe it to be true, are whom I call "You Guys"...

- According to your own admission, you in fact have completely misunderstood what science is all about. If science was done your way, we would have no real knowledge, only "philosophical mindsets" (as you call it), to determine what's real enough to be trusted, let alone any resulting technology, which now allows you to argue against it's very origin...

"...A young earth viewpoint looks at evidence collected when Mt. St. Helens erupted and found that oil was produced in less than 2 years..." - Can you please enlighten us about that ?

When I search for

Mt. St. Helens erupted and found that oil was produced in less than 2 years

I end up here

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml

I say this bit sums up the view

The Evidence

As "evidence" to support their theory, most books on evolution include a reference list (bibliography) of other books and articles that also support the theory of evolution. We spent a great deal of time examining these sources and saw only a "circle of information," with each document pointing to the next source as their "proof." In college, we cynically called this procedure the "tower of babble." (Yes, "babble" is the right word-this phrase is a pun.) To perform this procedure, the graduate student wrote their thesis based on the work and assumptions made by a previous graduate student. Of course that previous student did the same thing using the material of a still earlier student. By adding plenty of scientific terms and classifications, you not only sounded scholarly, but the thesis looked impressive to your family and friends!

a classic tactic

accuse the opposition of the method being employed

Do you see a common thread in the article? They are all evolutionists who interpret the data from that starting point. They look at fossils, etc. and try to make them fit their predetermined conclusions.

That's what happens when they find a piece of bone fossil and pretty soon they have "miraculously" fashioned an animal, bird or fish that they have conceived in their imagination. They take extreme license with the fossilized evidence at hand in order to "connect the links". They will be looking forever because there are no links between different species!

This isn't a "religious" view, it is a common sense conclusion drawn from looking at facts, not with the jaundiced eye of evolution.

"...the jaundiced eye of evolution."

Evolution (or more specifically biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals. (Wikipedia)

Are you telling us that evolution does not occur?

Of course it doesn't.

God created all the animals at once (5000 years ago) and some were doomed by a divine will of the heavens, to become extinct - the evidence for that is in the fossil record, the record which we are allowed by God, to discover.

Was I way off ?

You said it. I didn't, but in essence you are correct.

You point out the fossil record; which clearly shows many times that there are supposedly different evolutionary time period animals, fish or birds that did in fact exist during the same time period.

Fossils are simply a track record of history. What you do with the evidence is what brings about a different conclusion.

Doorman, evolution did and does take place. Only it happens within a species not between species (macroevolution). There are small changes due to environment, conditions, diet, etc.

The Flagellum Motor is one example of a designed structure. It is so complex that it could never have evolved to that function on it's own. Like has been said before you don't get complexity and order out of chaos and randomness. What you get it a deteriorated condition of the organism. Your body and mine are examples of what happens with an organism over time. We deteriorate, we don't keep getting better. Go and try to buck bales like you did when you were 20 years old. We don't get better with age.

"...it happens within a species not between species..."

So, if I read this entire Wikipedia Portal on Evolutionary Biology it will have been a waste of time? I particularly liked the Molecular Clock Hypothesis article.

One final question: How did this thread get here from "The Earth's Molten Core"?

I'm not on his side, but did you read how to calibrate the molecular clock? It's by assumptions from the fossil record. It's a point in his favor.

This indeed is a point to weaken or negate the validity of said molecular clock, and they should soon find a valid way do to it rather than base something, anything, on an assumption.

But while a molecular clock is some ruler we may use, Isotope Decay Analysis tells us nature's own version of things.

Since you cannot hasten or delay the rate at which isotopes decay - here is nature's own calibration taking the "guesswork" out of the equation.

"...you don't get complexity and order out of chaos and randomness..."

- Is that so ?

"...We deteriorate, we don't keep getting better. Go and try to buck bales like you did when you were 20 years old. We don't get better with age..." - does this apply to a developing embryo as well ? - Let's see...

Out of chaotic set of gene mixture, a complex creature is composed and develops further more - from a simple set of two unspeciated cells into a complex organism being built, simple into complex - within some twenty years... and voila ! Man - the most complex creature by it's own measure and standards... The very Crown of Creation.

Wasn't the earth once a chaotic blend of primordial elements, slowly puzzled into a complex interweaving set of myriad ecosystems, nurturing their evolving, developing creatures day in and day out?

"...don't get complexity and order out of chaos and randomness..." - Really ?

The second law of thermodynamics explains that given enough invested energy, which is imported into a defined system, order is created out of chaos, given further more energy will deepen that complexity, and given less invested energy or no invested energy, order will deteriorate back into chaos, namely, in the absence of potential enrgy to be exployted, by any given system, the level of Entropy will tend to rise.

Facilitiesmgr don't you find it just a tad strange that every single form of life on this planet from the smallest microbe to human beings use the same way of telling how the living structure should be constructed.

Every single thing has DNA some simple strands other more complex and it works the same way in every living thing. Also there are a not insignificant number of similarities between the genetic structure of different species, for example the primates share huge chunks of identical coding as much as 97% of the code for a human.

To me that smacks of a system that slowly over time built up the code making differences that sometimes were good and sometimes were bad but slowly and surely building complexity until we reach human beings and ultimately we will change into something even more complex.

It's not that unlike the way you write software, first you start off with the simple core and then add complexity until you get the end result you want. It then often evolves further over time as new features are added, some good some bad and the good features cary on while the bad ones get deleted.

The simplicity of the system that can make something as simple as a microbe yet at the same time build something as complex as a human has to make us related at a very fundamental biological level. The fact that we can also take chunks of genetic code from one species and splice it into another to transfer a trait from one species to another also reinforces this concept.

Mind you, I don't know why I'm wasting my time writing this because it will probably end up getting deleted by the administrators with the rest of the horrendously off topic discussion.

"...According to some reports, we share half our genes with a banana (New Scientist , 1 July 2000, pp4-5)!..."

- In fact, human beings share common genes in their genome, with plants, insects and marine life...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor

http://www.dnalc.org/view/16854-Problem-40-Living-things-share-common-genes-.html

it won't be deleted

you are no where near the "R" word

I don't think the commonalities of every living thing exclude Divine possibilities

the short time line argument is absurd & the result of adherence to a certain rigidity of mindset in the face of evidence to the contrary.

where the cosmological decimal point is placed, has very little to do with the bigger picture

I agree - provided that "divinity" in that context is the evident laws of physics and chemistry - as an expression to the evident behaviour of nature - including the evident and apparently rare occurrence of Life - itself as an expression of the force of creation in nature - The Creator if you will.

Just because life is a miraculously rare occurrence doesn't mean it's existence is contrary to the laws of nature, but instead, a live and kicking proof to the validity of these laws.

You may then extend the scope of the latter statement to state that the Laws of Nature are in fact the observable Will of God.

"divinity in that context is the evident laws of physics and chemistry - as an expression to the evident behaviour of nature - including the evident and apparently rare occurrence of Life - itself as an expression of the force of creation in nature - The Creator if you will."

The laws of physics, chemistry and nature are not the Creator of life. Those laws were established by the Creator. That is where life comes from; for man, animals and the Universe in which we live. Once we understand that more of the puzzle pieces fit into place.

To believe and have faith in the evolutionary process would require a "miracle" (except a miracle still requires a Power to exact the miracle, which evolutionists disavow). It would be like having a steel manufacturing plant which experiences a catastrophic explosion at a point in time and millions or billions of years later a person is walking down the street and finds an intricate, pristine condition, flawlessly working watch. That is what you have to believe with evolution. The order and precision which we can observe in science comes about because of a plan, a design and a Designer.

You're right with your statement, "the Laws of Nature are in fact the observable Will of God."

ah once again turning it all around I see

the credibility of faith & superstition don't supersede observable data

Not turning it around, just pointing out the absurdity of the belief in evolution. Isn't the steel plant and the watch illustration clarifying enough? That's what is supposedly has happened over ?millions/billions of years with the evolutionary process.

of course you are tuning it around

belief in a work of fiction is not fact or in any way credible as it relate to science

one out of context example, [which I haven't seen]

I'll give you a GA until this post gets deleted. Recent remarks are much more religious in nature than the ones that got deleted before IMHO. Yuval, you have really turned yourself around since #93. There you defined God as the law's of nature, now you are saying God created them! That has been my opinion for some time. (I don't find evolution and creation mutually exclusive.)

I don't find the laws of nature, as discovered and expressed by empirical science, and the deep notion of God, mutually-exclusive at all.

For me it is only natural that the Almighty Creator, whom 'we' (all life forms) call 'Our Father' - and for a very good reason - has set reality into being, the way we honestly observe, measure and reason, - because it is all His Creation in the first place.

Our main trouble with trying to grasp the depth and scope of life, it too comes from our mental limitation to come to terms with the apparent lack of morality we witness, when observing life-forms murder, rob, steal, and cheat each other, because we cannot imagine an all merciful creator allowing this to happen in his so-called Kingdom, or Domain.

Once again, we attribute a human moral sense, to the creating force which let ourselves too, into it's creation. We project the morality of human relations, onto the Almighty, towards it's own creation as a whole.

A hint: Man will kill if only to sweep off boredom, an animal kills to save itself - be it hunger, predation, or other lethal threats.

And then we still wonder why religion is being called "Anthropocentric" by the non religuous...

And by the way:

This little earth is not the Creator's kingdom - the whole universe is.

If any, this earth is man's kingdom, by terms of a loan to a keeper or manager, and by the mere fact that man has become top-predator, alpha-ruler over all life-forms here.

The degree to which we are keeping this responsibility intact towards the Creator is the degree of respect and gratitude we show towards the Creator - and don't get me started on that...

The gravity of this responsibility, is in direct proportion to the rarity of apparent life in the universe - and this is no joke at all.

That's where I was going (should have read all the posts first!). Thanks Yuval, better put than mine I think (note to self: eat more meals and get some sleep!)