PSN-L Message - Subject: Re: diamagnetic levitation seismometer possibility

Angel & Dave I agree. How do we move forward? My 2 cents: I work for a structural testing and inspection lab. Our lab and inspectors comply with certain standards so that our results/inspections are credible ( eg NIST, ASTM, AWS, ICC). Maybe it would be possible to have an accepted protocol for our stations with sensor(s). I would like to comment on the items you mentioned. >"We have noisy instruments" It seems possible to determine the instrument noise by maybe "nesting"? Site noise could be evaluated over "X" time during day,night or both. Could it mirror the evaluation of professional systems? It seems a threshold could be determined for credibility station/sensor noise limits. Do we use the NLNM graph with an envelope of limits? >"We do not calibrate" Could a accepted standardized procedure be described for horizontal and vertical sensors, that all could use? I am familiar with methods that Dave and Brett use for our FBV's. >"We do not have accurate time" Would , as an example, larry's SDR program and ADC unit with GPS time be sufficient? What would be an accepted variational allowance? >"We do not use a standard format for data exchange" Could a documented conversion program(s) be used to convert from say psn to an "standard" format? Maybe it already exists. > "We do not use standard naming conventions" Should we have a described procedure for this? I think Dr Weilandt has programs which could address some of the noise and calibration issues above. I haven't completely read it but is the NMSOP what professionals use? Could we have something similar with more nuts and bolts procedures and info? General agreement maybe the biggest hurdle, but I agree we should make an effort to have more credible stations and sensors if we desire. Maybe we just needs some agreed upon documented standards to try to achieve. Regards Barry ________________________________ From: "sismos@.............." To: psnlist@.............. Sent: Sat, July 14, 2012 12:48:51 PM Subject: Re: diamagnetic levitation seismometer possibility On 07/14/2012 12:38 AM, Thomas Dick wrote: > 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. Yes, they do hold us in low esteem and this is our own fault. We have noisy instruments We do not calibrate We do not have accurate time We do not use a standard format for data exchange We do not use standard naming conventions The academic and professional seismologists can already locate and characterize (within a few minutes) all events over about 4.2 Mb, They don't need us for that. Where we could excel and make a meaningful contribution is in the seismicity of our own backyards, the small events less than one degree from our instruments. Recording those is a bit harder than picking up the squiggles from a 6.5 Mb 10 degrees away. These are just a few things we do and do not do and until we do we will just be amateurs. Just my two cents Angel __________________________________________________________ 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.

Should we have a described procedure for this?

I think Dr Weilandt has programs which could address some of the noise and calibration issues above. I haven't completely read it but is the NMSOP what professionals use? Could we have something similar with more nuts and bolts procedures and info?
General agreement maybe the biggest hurdle, but I agree we should make an effort to have more credible stations and sensors if we desire. Maybe we just needs some agreed upon documented standards to try to achieve.

Regards
Barry

From: "sismos@.............." <sismos@..............>
To: psnlist@..............
Sent: Sat, July 14, 2012 12:48:51 PM
Subject: Re: diamagnetic levitation seismometer possibility

On 07/14/2012 12:38 AM, Thomas Dick wrote:
> 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.

Yes, they do hold us in low esteem and this is our own fault.

We have noisy instruments
We do not calibrate
We do not have accurate time
We do not use a standard format for data exchange
We do not use standard naming conventions

The academic and professional seismologists can already locate and characterize (within a few minutes) all events over about 4.2 Mb, They don't need us for that. Where we could excel and make a meaningful contribution is in the seismicity of our own backyards, the small events less than one degree from our instruments. Recording those is a bit harder than picking up the squiggles from a 6.5 Mb 10 degrees away.

These are just a few things we do and do not do and until we do we will just be amateurs.

Just my two cents

Angel

__________________________________________________________

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.

PSN-L Email List Message