Abstract
IN a recent communication, Stott and Stacey1 report on a “crucial experiment” from which they conclude: “This excellent agreement between the dip and the directions of artificial thermoremanent magnetization of the stressed and unstressed rocks indicates that large systematic errors due to magnetostriction are most improbable in igneous rocks of types normally used for palæomagnetic work”. This experiment was intended to test the proposals2 and measurements3 bearing on the role of magnetostriction in rock magnetism. We present here our reasons for believing that the experiment was not crucial and that the conclusion is not justified.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
References
Stott, P. M., and Stacey, F. D., Nature, 183, 384 (1959).
Graham, J. W., J. Geophys. Res., 61, 735 (1956); Adv. in Phys. (Phil. Mag. Supp.), 6, 362 (1957).
Graham, J. W., Buddington, A. F., and Balsley, J. R., J. Geophys. Res., 62, 465 (1957).
Kawai, N., Kume, S., and Yasukawa, K., Proc. Japan Acad., 32, 455 (1956). Kawai, N., Kume, S., and Sasajima, S., ibid., 30, 588 (1954).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
GRAHAM, J., BUDDINGTON, A. & BALSLEY, J. Magnetostriction and Palæomagnetism of Igneous Rocks. Nature 183, 1318 (1959). https://doi.org/10.1038/1831318a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/1831318a0
This article is cited by
-
Magnetic study of a metabasic dyke in Dhaiya, Dhanbad (Bihar)
Pure and Applied Geophysics PAGEOPH (1971)
-
Stress-induced Magnetic Anisotropy of Rocks
Nature (1960)
-
Stress-Dependent Magnetization in Some Quartz-Dolerites
Nature (1960)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.