Thanks Dave, that's very informative.

My background is bioinformatics, where the concept of a
'representative sequence set' is very important, which is why I used
the term 'representative' here.


Cheers,
Dan.

On 15 March 2011 11:20, Dave Nelson  wrote:
> Hi Dan
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I dont think representitive is a good way to desc=
ribe them
> There is the WWSSN, =A0world wide standard seismic network, run by the US=
GS
> and partners. the closest thing to representitive is that they all use th=
e
> same gear.
> =A0Their locations around the world are chosen for ease of access, qualit=
y of
> site etc
> =A0see 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 =A0http://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 hav=
e
> enough
> stations =A0:) =A0More 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 f=
or
> 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 =A0etc 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.
>
> =A0see my previous comments and also =A0because stations are spread out i=
t means
> that the geology of where they are loacated also varies greatly. =A0soft
> soils, solid
> rock different types of solid rock all resopnd differently to shaking =A0=
of a
> local event
> to the sensor or even to the seismic waves passing through it from a dist=
ant
> event.
> Thus again telling us lots about the local and regional geological struct=
ure
> 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 =A0:)
> 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.
>
__________________________________________________________

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.