PSN-L Email List Message

Subject: Re: What are the implications of a M2.8 quake near the San
From: George Bush ke6pxp@.......
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 08:22:39 -0700


Thanks Barry-

That is a nice display, I will save the URL.

George

At 04:15 PM 7/18/2010, you wrote:
>I keep an eye on this site. nice calif activity display
>http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/US10/32.42.-125.-115.php
>
>Regards
>Barry
>http://www.seismicvault.com
>
>
>
>From: GPayton 
>To: psn-l@..............
>Sent: Sun, July 18, 2010 2:58:02 PM
>Subject: Re: What are the implications of a M2.8 quake near the San 
>Andreas fault?
>
>Hi George,
>
>I will do a flimsy attempt in answering you question.  Yesterday, I 
>received the August issue of  EARTH magazine with contained a sort 
>article about the Nazca Plate adjacent to Peru.  The article was 
>titled Peruvian Plates Move With and Without Earthquakes.
>
>If I understood the article correctly, it was asking the question as 
>to why a block of the plate might move seismic and another part 
>generate an earthquake.  It pointed out that the majority of the 
>earthquakes occur inland and not actually off shore at the 
>subducting ridge itself.
>
>In humble opinion, that may be because of lubrication from the 
>seawater, which would be less and less at the wedge-shaped plated 
>subducted underneath the South American Plate.  THAT is strictly a 
>guess on my part, as I have NO technical training in geology or seismology!
>
>In regard to your question, I would think the same process "may" be 
>in play there and there may or may not be a direct interaction, who 
>knows.  One might think that jostling a already stressed block might 
>cause it to release; and again it might just lessen the stress.
>
>I'd be interested in others opinions.  Who knows, I might learn 
>something........Naaaaaa.
>
>Regards,
>Jerry
>
>----------
>----- Original Message -----
>From: George Bush
>To: psn-l@..............
>Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 4:32 PM
>Subject: What are the implications of a M2.8 quake near the San Andreas fault?
>
>Hello-
>
>This morning we had a M2.8 quake about 4 miles west of us out in the
>ocean and about 5 miles from the San Andreas fault that runs to the
>East of us. It was on a minor fault that runs parallel to the San
>Andreas. The shock knocked my data acquisition computer off-line, but
>was strong enough to jiggle the pen on my drum recorder that also 
>was off line!
>
>I am wondering if the movement of the minor fault will add strain or
>relieve strain on the San Andreas fault (add or decrease the chances
>of the San Andreas fault letting-go).
>
>I would appreciate any thoughts or opinions on this from you PSN folks.
>
>
>George Bush
>Sea Ranch, CA, USA
>38.73775N, 123.48882W
>
>__________________________________________________________
>
>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.



Thanks Barry-

That is a nice display, I will save the URL.

George

At 04:15 PM 7/18/2010, you wrote:
I keep an eye on this site. nice calif activity display
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/US10/32.42.-125.-115.php
 
Regards
Barry
http://www.seismicvault.com



From: GPayton <gpayton@.............>
To: psn-l@..............
Sent: Sun, July 18, 2010 2:58:02 PM
Subject: Re: What are the implications of a M2.8 quake near the San Andreas fault?

Hi George,
 
I will do a flimsy attempt in answering you question.  Yesterday, I received the August issue of  EARTH magazine with contained a sort article about the Nazca Plate adjacent to Peru.  The article was titled Peruvian Plates Move With and Without Earthquakes.
 
If I understood the article correctly, it was asking the question as to why a block of the plate might move seismic and another part generate an earthquake.  It pointed out that the majority of the earthquakes occur inland and not actually off shore at the subducting ridge itself.
 
In humble opinion, that may be because of lubrication from the seawater, which would be less and less at the wedge-shaped plated subducted underneath the South American Plate.  THAT is strictly a guess on my part, as I have NO technical training in geology or seismology!
 
In regard to your question, I would think the same process "may" be in play there and there may or may not be a direct interaction, who knows.  One might think that jostling a already stressed block might cause it to release; and again it might just lessen the stress.
 
I'd be interested in others opinions.  Who knows, I might learn something........Naaaaaa.
 
Regards,
Jerry

----- Original Message -----
From: George Bush
To: psn-l@..............
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 4:32 PM
Subject: What are the implications of a M2.8 quake near the San Andreas fault?

Hello-

This morning we had a M2.8 quake about 4 miles west of us out in the
ocean and about 5 miles from the San Andreas fault that runs to the
East of us. It was on a minor fault that runs parallel to the San
Andreas. The shock knocked my data acquisition computer off-line, but
was strong enough to jiggle the pen on my drum recorder that also was off line!

I am wondering if the movement of the minor fault will add strain or
relieve strain on the San Andreas fault (add or decrease the chances
of the San Andreas fault letting-go).

I would appreciate any thoughts or opinions on this from you PSN folks.


George Bush
Sea Ranch, CA, USA
38.73775N, 123.48882W

__________________________________________________________

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.

George


[ Top ] [ Back ] [ Home Page ]