Hi Barry,

This email fell into some sort of black hole.

I will work on a "more better" answer  and get it to you

I also changed the name of the thread.

Saludos,

Angel



On 07/17/2012 02:19 AM, Barry Lotz wrote:
> 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.


__________________________________________________________

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.