Hi Jason (and others'),  please don't misunderstand my comments. I'm a
college professor and tend to make my concerns heard. This time I happened
to make my comment heard during the middle off grading mid-terms when I took
a little time to do my Email... I think the PSN should have guidelines for
data. I just don't think they should be any specific requirements to submit
data to Larry's site other than what Larry requires. Larry has rejected a
few of my datasets recently when converting to his new serial data
collection system using WinSDR because of data integrity issues. I didn't
have the correct information in some of the required fields. I think that
Larry acted correctly in doing so.

My concern with the original suggestion was that we are an open group and
all that wish to contribute should be allowed to do so. I think that every
point that was made in the original note is a valid point and we should have
a guideline for each point made. But, it should be in the form of goals and
not rules / requirements for the data. This is armature seismology group and
my first seismograph was built from a 3/8 brass rod with water filled toilet
tank float for mass weight. The guys' from the USGS would ask me to keep the
cover closed when there was a photographer around. However, that did not
stop me from taking part or them from evaluating and reviewing my data. I
think we should continue with the same tradition.

I suggest we start working on the "Data Collection Goals" and that they be
described in a FRQ. What do you think the SPS goal for a distant seismic
event should be? I'm current running my AT1 and AT2 devices at 25 SPS based
on Ed Cranswick suggestion. Do you feel this is too high or to low? Why?

On item 3. CALIBRATE YOUR SENSOR, Bob, this sounds like you have put a lot
of work into this. Could you send me the write-ups or are they posted some
place? I would be happy to try your methods. I'm already certain the damping
magnets on my LP's are not strong enough. I have them right up agents the
brass bar and the WAWA test looks OK on one but the other is questionable. I
have been using events to fine tune the settings in WinSDR for sensor
correction values. A few event-mag values have been correct and a few have
not. I'm about 50/50 right now.

Regards, Steve Hammond PSN San Jose   Aptos, CA

-----Original Message-----
From: psn-l-request@..............
[mailto:psn-l-request@................. Behalf Of Jason Brady
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 1:23 PM
To: PSN-L@..............
Subject: What is your advice?


All,

I appreciate Bob's suggestions.  Straightforward, succinct guidelines like
this are invaluable for newcomers like me.  If I understand correctly, he
is striving for quality and uniformity of data.  Ensuring that an
instrument is calibrated and processing parameters correctly set/optimized
is crucial to achieving that goal.  On the other hand, it appears that
amateur instruments and processing environments are unique--so how does one
define and enforce a set of reasonable standards for data submission?  I'm
too new to even guess at this point.  But perhaps Bob is on the right track
with his suggestions.

Regarding event data, what would really be helpful is a guidebook with
examples to assist new people with understanding how to use their seismo
equipment.  Examples: how to recognize actual events vs. background noise
and understand the intricacies of recording seismic events.  Math and
engineering aren't my strong suits (I've got precious few of them anyway)
and need all the help I can get.  Perhaps something like this already
exists?

Just my $.02.

Thanks,
Jason Brady

__________________________________________________________

Public Seismic Network Mailing List (PSN-L)


__________________________________________________________

Public Seismic Network Mailing List (PSN-L)