On 7/13/2012 5:55 PM, Dave Nelson wrote:
> The number of possible seismic instrument configurations which will 
> provide some response  to seismic motions is vast. The question is the 
> practicality/utility of a given configuration.
> The key figure of merit for any instrument configuration  is the 
> instrument self noise and response as a function of frequency. This 
> directly determines the minimum seismic motion the instrument is 
> capable of detecting and then providing useful data for analysis.
> If one is willing to wait for that rare magnitude 7 or 8 event the 
> simplest / noisiest instrument may do the job in some contexts, such 
> as classroom demonstrations .
> The amateur astronomer community has evolved to the point where it 
> provides useful  ( if not essential)  information to the astronomy 
> scientific community. I believe the amateur seismology community could 
> do a similar service but not with inadequate instrumentation.
>  The goal should be to develop amateur instruments with 
> characteristics near the performance of professional instruments and 
> then operating  them in reasonably low noise sites. (An instrument in 
> a residential basement  will work reassembly well if carefully done.)
> Larry Cochrane has  already provided us with  excellent equipment to 
> handle the sensor data and connect it to a network. Some work needs to 
> be done in this area but we have a good start.
> _*My challenge is to include instrument self noise and generator 
> constant, both as a function of frequency, as a FIRST PRIORITY when 
> evaluating  the utility of an instrument concept. *_
> Just another gadget that will respond if you shake it is not where we 
> want to spend our efforts and resources.
> I do  NOT  mean to imply there are not some truly innovative and 
> possibly revolutionary ideas out there but we should  look at each of 
> them  carefully to determine early whether they justify significant 
> effort or belong in the "that was interesting" stack.
> Just where determination is made is a personal choice but it should be 
> based on some form of analysis and/or test.
> Comments Please.
> Dave Nelson
> Rolling Hills Estates, California
My impression is that most academia and professional seismologists hold 
the amateur in very low esteem.


  
    
  
  
    
On 7/13/2012 5:55 PM, Dave Nelson
      wrote:

    
    

      
      
      

          
 
        
      
The number of
          possible seismic instrument configurations which will provide
          some response  to seismic motions is vast. The question is the
          practicality/utility of a given configuration.
      
 
      
The key figure
          of merit for any instrument configuration  is the instrument
          self noise and response as a function of frequency. This
          directly determines the minimum seismic motion the instrument
          is capable of detecting and then providing useful data for
          analysis.
      
 
      
If one is
          willing to wait for that rare magnitude 7 or 8 event the
          simplest / noisiest instrument may do the job in some
          contexts, such as classroom demonstrations .
          
 
          
The amateur
              astronomer community has evolved to the point where it
              provides useful  ( if not essential)  information to the
              astronomy scientific community. I believe the amateur
              seismology community could do a similar service but not
              with inadequate instrumentation. 
        
      
 
      
 The goal should
          be to develop amateur instruments with characteristics near
          the performance of professional
          instruments and then operating  them in reasonably low noise
          sites. (An instrument in a residential basement  will work
          reassembly well if carefully done.) 
      
 
      
Larry Cochrane
          has  already provided us with  excellent equipment to handle
          the sensor data and connect it to a network. Some work needs
          to be done in this area but we have a good start.
      
 
      
My
              challenge is to include instrument self noise and
              generator constant, both as a function of frequency, as a
              FIRST PRIORITY when evaluating  the utility of an
              instrument concept. 
      
 
      
Just another
          gadget that will respond if you shake it is not where we want
          to spend our efforts and resources.
      
 
      
I do  NOT  mean
          to imply there are not some truly innovative and possibly
          revolutionary ideas out there but we should  look at each of
          them  carefully to determine early whether they justify
          significant effort or belong in the "that was interesting"
          stack.  
      
 
      
Just where
          determination is made is a personal choice but it should be
          based on some form of analysis and/or test.
      
 
      
Comments Please.
        
      
 
      
Dave Nelson
      
Rolling Hills
          Estates, California
      
 
      
 
    
    My impression is that most academia and professional seismologists
    hold the amateur in very low esteem.