May I add to your comments ---
1. first, there was a 3.1 in Oklahoma around 10:30 UTC, a 2 in Tenneesee 
and a whole series of Texas quakes starting around 23 UTC --- these are 
LISTED on regional networks .... BUT, there could be unlisted minor 
events BUT shouldn't these events be in the .6 Hz/period of 1.5 for 
regional events which is higher than what I was seeing

and what I was questioning....
2. "Quiet weather all over U.S. right now. Starting about 18:30 on 10/30 
I began seeing a large amplitude signal coming in. It peaks at ~.2 Hz or 
5 sec period It is twice as strong as the earthquake in Texas (~5 on Oct 
31) here in southern Indiana. Is anyone else seeing this?"  
and probably some form of weather phenonmena???


Bob Hancock wrote:
> Without knowing the epicenter of the event, you cannot draw too many 
> conclusions.  I downloaded the event using VASE, and look at it with 
> SAC.  I used the unfiltered raw data from the IU/TUC station (STS-1) 
> and believe the P wave arrival time is 13:36:20 for that station.  I 
> can pick out the Love & Rayleigh waves.  However, the S wave is of 
> very low amplitude.  I observed one very low amplitude oscillation 
> that could correspond to an S wave about 13:37:25, for a S-P time of 
> 65 seconds or 4.47 degrees ( 496.75 km).  In addition, the rayleigh 
> waves are much more pronounced on the vertical and north channels 
> which would be consistent with an event that is more southerly from 
> the receiving station than southwest.  The Love waves first appear 
> about 13:37:45, and the Rayleigh waves appear about 13:38:25.  Without 
> more information, it is not really possible to draw any conclusions on 
> why there was a diminished S wave.  I have not looked at the event 
> with other than my station and Tucson.  To me, it looks like a normal 
> regional event, but with a magnitude of less than 4.0, most likely 
> south of the border in Mexico.
>
> Keep in mind one big problem in analyzing regional events is there is 
> insufficient time for good wave separation.  They are all together and 
> that can complicate trying to pick out individual waves.
>
> Bob Hancock
>
>
>
> On Nov 2, 2008, at 2:11 AM, Geoff wrote:
>
>> Hello Bob;
>> me Not being a physics major or math person.
>> Thats Interesting since I had a s-p or s-L time
>> of 2 minutes and that translates to
>> 600 + miles maybe 700. This event set off
>> my automatic recording which usually does
>> not happen unless the quake is about 4.0
>> at 400 miles. For some reason more energy then
>> expected has arrived at this station sort of like
>> what bubbleheads ( submarine sailors )
>> might call a convergence zone
>> which happens in the ocean with sound waves.
>> Maybe quake waves in the earth behave like
>> sound waves in the ocean and are lazy which
>> will focus the energy at discreet distances
>> from the event. By lazy I mean they seem
>> to bend ( refract ) to the slowest velocity hitting the surface
>> with concentrated focused energy
>> in concentric rings around the event out to
>> some distance. Such behavior requires enough
>> depth of the strata to allow for this bending to happen.
>> Does this mean possibly deep crust or from the mantel ?
>> I should imagine the moho would keep a CZ zone
>> from the crust because it would reflect at that point
>> and divide the energy instead of refracting it.
>> What do you think might be going on that
>> would concentrate the energy from a less than
>> usual quake to set off my recording alarm ?
>> I understand wave velocity changes is the best way
>> to guess how waves are effected as they propagate.
>> Any sudden change is like a mirror and a gradual
>> change is like a lens.
>> I understand a transmitted ( radio wave ) signal can be bent
>> by having a series of antennas with a phasing
>> slightly later from antenna to antenna so that
>> the delaying of the phases of a single wave
>> will make the antenna behave as a massive
>> variable lens thus the phased array kind of antenna
>> or wullenwebber array.
>> Since we can not do what mother nature has
>> not already done in one way or another I can
>> imagine the earth itself is somehow making
>> areas of more and less energy as energy spreads
>> away from the focal point. I must have been
>> in an increased energy point if the quake
>> was less than 4.0 and 600 miles away.
>>
>> Regards;
>> geoff
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Hancock" 
>> To: 
>> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 8:16 PM
>> Subject: Re: unusual frequency
>>
>>
>>> This event appears to be consistent with other low magnitude events  
>>> that  have occurred to the Southwest of Tucson, AZ.  I have seen 
>>> other  events that are similar, and no information was ever posted 
>>> on them.   I noticed the event was visible across the lower 48 
>>> states, and  southern Alaska.  It is most likely less than M 4.0 as 
>>> that is the  USGS minimum cutoff for display of information on 
>>> international events.
>>> Bob Hancock
>>> On Nov 1, 2008, at 2:53 PM, Geoff wrote:
>>>> Hello Mr. Thomas Dick;
>>>> My Sensor located very close to 33.42138N  -111.57477W about  
>>>> 507Meters above mean sea level.
>>>> I saw that TUC near Tucson also saw this signal about 1336 to 1338  
>>>> on 31OCT2008 UTC.
>>>> I have not analyzed it to get an accurate and precise time simply  
>>>> because I can not
>>>> tell for sure it is in fact an Earthquake. If no one else is  
>>>> reporting it I do not trust
>>>> what I am looking at. In order for me to properly read a signal it  
>>>> takes extra effort
>>>> which translates to opportunity costs ( such as Battlefield 2142  
>>>> time ) so I will not
>>>> pursue more knowledge in detail if I can not verify the source  
>>>> beforehand.
>>>> The distance seems 600 miles to 700 miles from here maybe magnitude 4
>>>> but nothing seems to match that as of my last look.
>>>> Regards;
>>>> geoff
>>>>
>>>> -
>>> __________________________________________________________
>>> Public Seismic Network Mailing List (PSN-L)
>>> To leave this list email PSN-L-REQUEST@.............. with the body 
>>> of the message (first line only): unsubscribe
>>> See http://www.seismicnet.com/maillist.html for more information.
>> __________________________________________________________
>>
>> Public Seismic Network Mailing List (PSN-L)
>>
>> To leave this list email PSN-L-REQUEST@.............. with the body 
>> of the message (first line only): unsubscribe
>> See http://www.seismicnet.com/maillist.html for more information.
>>
>
> __________________________________________________________
>
> Public Seismic Network Mailing List (PSN-L)
>
> To leave this list email PSN-L-REQUEST@.............. withthe body of 
> the message (first line only): unsubscribe
> See http://www.seismicnet.com/maillist.html for more information.
>

__________________________________________________________

Public Seismic Network Mailing List (PSN-L)