PSN-L Email List Message

Subject: Re: Representative stations?
From: Dave Nelson dave.nelson@...............
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:20:44 +1100


Hi Dan
              I dont think representitive is a good way to describe them
There is the WWSSN,  world wide standard seismic network, run by the USGS
and partners. the closest thing to representitive is that they all use the 
same gear.
  Their locations around the world are chosen for ease of access, quality 
of site etc
  see other comments sprinkled through yours......

At 08:47 PM 15/03/2011, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>In seismology, is there a concept of a 'representative station', a
>station that collects very similar information to others? Or is the
>information from *every* station just as valuable (informative) as all
>the others?
>Are there lists of representative stations?

USGA have lists of all their World Wide stations  http://www.liss.org/


>If I were the funding god, and I told you to axe all but 20, 50, 200,
>or 500 stations, which stations would you choose to keep and why?

ALL stations are important, in fact the more stations the better CANT have 
enough
stations  :)  More stations allow for more accurate determination of 
epicentre of an
event as well as the magnitude. Close stations may signal saturate and it may
only be the more distant stations that are able to provide useable data for 
that
particular event.
We can use the seismograms from more stations to provide better
information about deep earth structure ... lithosphere - mantle, mantle - core
boundary regions  etc by comparing travel times from multiple stations.


>My thinking is that 10 stations in one relatively small area must be
>collecting similar data, and you can (perhaps) represent *nearly* all
>10 by picking just one of them (the most 'representative' one). Each
>'new' station must add more information, but at some point, the amount
>of information gain from each additional station must plateau.
   see my previous comments and also  because stations are spread out it means
that the geology of where they are loacated also varies greatly.  soft 
soils, solid
rock different types of solid rock all resopnd differently to shaking  of a 
local event
to the sensor or even to the seismic waves passing through it from a 
distant event.
Thus again telling us lots about the local and regional geological 
structure of an
area.


>Does any of that make any sense?
>Who should I be asking this question of?
>Sincerely,
>Dan.


there's a few thoughts for you  :)
cheers
Dave
Sydney


__________________________________________________________

Public Seismic Network Mailing List (PSNLIST)

To leave this list email PSNLIST-REQUEST@.............. with 
the body of the message (first line only): unsubscribe
See http://www.seismicnet.com/maillist.html for more information.

[ Top ] [ Back ] [ Home Page ]