PSN-L Message - Subject: RE: Standards use can follow

Hi all, my 2c worth. I have been following this thread to = see where it went for a few weeks. This topic is also one of my hot button items. = I first want to say, Branden and Berry, your comments are excellent and = show a considerable amount of insight. There was a comment in the thread about = the PSN stations not being creditable and I have to disagree. I respect IRIS and = the USGS and all you need to do is search ”PSN” on the IRIS site = http://www.iris.edu/hq/search?cx=3D011835713541211780569%3Aw8gihycyx-y&= amp;cof=3DFORID%3A9&ie=3DUTF-8&q=3Dpsn&x=3D32&y=3D6 and you will see that the PSN format developed with inputs from = Ted Blank, Larry, John Lahr, Ed Cranswick and others is recognized, = compatible and supported. Please keep in mind that one of the more important factors in = the PSN stations is that fact that we install sensors where the people live. = Not up on top of a hill but right down in the valley mud. That sets us apart = and makes many of our installation unique. As station operators we see site = response changes that do not get noted by any of those uphill sites. If you operate one of these unique systems you know that there will be site = response changes with the first real rain following the long dry summer heat. = When the PSN San Jose station was located in the San Jose south valley the light = rail provided a wonderful consistent source. Many of us see the noise = generated from buses, trucks and other domestic sources and can gage the operational = status of our installations. In the deep mud in the south valley in San Jose there = would be a dramatic shift in the site response with the first miserable amount = of rain. This is one area the armature seismologist can contribute to the = body of knowledge. Another area is the many remote stations that have been = installed in the PSN network around the world. Data from these stations is most = likely the first seismic data ever recorded and placed into the public domain. It = is important to remember that in 1995 we were asked to provide codified = station names, locations and sensor information so that we could contribute to the = world-wide seismic station list which we did. Those lists are still maintained in = the Iris archives. If you look at http://www.sydneystormcit= y.com/map.htm you will also see a station listing that has been in place for a number = of years.

I would suggest that if we want to move forward we = form working groups to address some of the issue:

1. Calibration.

2. Consistent amplifier filtering and gain = settings.

3. A complete world-wide listing of stations including = sensor type, location, amp gain, operators info, data exchange format, install dates, related website address, data website storage address and any special information.

4. Site self evaluations standards. An example would be the = PSN San Jose site located in Aptos, CA. ATE, ATN and ATZ on a scale of 1-5(high) = I would rate a 3. They are HS-10 geophones with a gain of 2,100, 50 sample/sec, = timing is via GPS using Larry’s data collection system. The exact location = is 36.58.41.700N / 121.53.55.824W at an alt of +39.53m. What is lacking on = these three sensors is that I cannot tell you when I ran the last calibration = test on these geophones. If you were to ask me about the AT1 and AT2E long = period sensors I would rate them at a 1 as they are both considered to be = experimental and I would tell you to treat the data accordingly. =

My thoughts, Regards Steve Hammond PSN San Jose, Aptos = CA.

From:= psnlist-request@.............. [mailto:psnlist-request@............... = On Behalf Of Branden Christensen
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:04 PM
To: psnlist@..............
Subject: Re: Standards use can follow

Barry:

Angel's partner here. I generally do not weigh in on these = discussions but you are hitting on an area of seismology I am passionate about: = metadata.

Fortunately, much of what you so keenly propose already exists. Take = the two biggest registries for example: IRIS amd GFZ. In recent times a few = industry standards have emerged:

Data Exchange Protocol: SeedLink
Waveform Protocol: MiniSeed
Metadata protocol: Dataless Seed

Together the miniseed and dataless create a complete Seed volume. = MiniSeed files contain waveform data and a header to identify the Station Network Channel Location or SCNL, etc. The dataless is really amazing. It = contains the station SCNL, lat lon alt depth, description, serial numbers, sensor and digitizer flavor, acquisition start and end dates/ times and the full = response information: poles, zeros and gain- or exactly the required information = to construct the systems transfer function and remove the instrument = response. Most real time software packages such as Earthworm, Earlybird and = SeisComP and post processing systems such as Seisan automatically use this dataless information to remove the instrument response. This permits the software = to produce magnitudes and event locations or stuff sensative to the real amplitudes and phase of the input signal.

All of this seed information is passed around via SeedLink Servers in = real time.

If you are thinking of how the amateur community might contribute, = then Angel made a good point about the need for detecting local seismicity = below 4. But also consider the civil defense applications of seismology. = Magnitude and locations are really an academic pursuit- pretty much meaningless to the general public who want to know 1) did it shake and, if so, 2) how much. = So lots and lots of amateur neural networks of accelerometers could make a difference. Imagine piping all of that data into a real time system that created shake maps with color intensities displaying how hard the ground = shook and where. These maps benefit from lots and lots of nodes, be they = amateur or professional.

Great thread, keep it coming.

Best,

Branden Christensen

On Jul 26, 2012 8:11 PM, "Barry Lotz" = <barry_lotz@.............>= wrote:

Hi Angel
Thank you. The links you listed shed light on the USGS station name I = have been monitoring. Should the network have some significance in the name? Does "WE" refer to something? Maybe the network registry could = eventually contain the station's sensor specifics. Maybe a some of these station properties could be listed which would show organization , = professionalism, & completeness. Maybe some items might be:
- type of sensor ( feedback or not? , homemade? , mfg new?, mfg restored or modified?)

- calibrated or = not
- method of timing
- if calibrated, is there a frequency response plot available.
- some kind of station noise quality. Sensor noise is a subject in = it's self, but maybe a combined noise plot or related value could be = determined which would the combined site/sensor noise, which is ultimately what = affects the sensors output. Maybe something comparing the station sensor to the = NLNM or NHNM. It probably should be similar to how the professional = stations are evaluated.
- availability of digital data?
- ?
Just some thoughts to keep the thread live.

Regards
Barry
www.seismicvault.com

From:= "sismos@.............." <sismos@..............>
To: psnlist@..............
Sent: Wed, July 25, 2012 6:03:49 AM
Subject: Standards use can follow

HI Barry,

I might have to take this in parts. I think that there are some = very easy steps we can take that cost nothing. We can follow the channel = naming convention.

All of the modern softwares and mainly earthworm and seiscomp refer to = channels as SCNL

Station
Channel
Network
Location

STATION name can be up to 5 characters, letters and numbers, no = special characters and can not start with a number. My main station for = the last 12 years is BRU2. If the station name are to be shared the need to = be unique. There is an agency that keeps a big station book. We = could probably come up with a scheme that was unique to us, for example all or = our station names would end in 99 so maybe a new site for me would be = ALR99.

CHANNEL name is a bit harder but but more or less defined here.

http://www.iris.washington.edu/manuals/SEED_appA.htm

NETWORK code we would have to apply for one, if we haven't, I could do = it, it would be easy, They are assigned by the FDSN, Federation of Digital = Seismic Network. We might ask for one, maybe "WE", as far as I = can tell numbers are allow in this field, so maybe we could get a pair of = numbers.

http://www.fdsn.org/station_book/

LOCATION is just a two character field, numbers and letter. Normally 00 = for the main station. The usefulness is that if we have many instruments co-located we can tell them apart. Dave has many vertical at the = same place so they would all have the same station name, the same channel = name and the same network code and we could tell them apart by the location code. = So...

My main station has SCNLs as follow

BRU2 HHZ PA 00
BRU2 HHN PA 00
BRU2 HHE PA 00

Dave's might be

DFN99 HHZ WE 00
DFN99 HHZ WE 10
DFN99 HHZ WE 20

This would be the SCNL for three co-located vertical high gain = broadbands from the station DFN99 sampled at more than 80 samples per second in the = network WE.

Other easy things we can do is to have our station coordinates
Then the time thing, GPS is best but WWV if fine and cheap and there is = NTP network time which I also think is ok as long as we can regulate the = computer time to less than 100 milliseconds for regional locations. Small tight = networks need better time.

Many latin american country networks have nothing more, They only pick P = and S report coda magnitudes. You do not need to calibrate your = instruments to do that. To calculate other magnitudes we would need to calibrate = our instruments.

Most of use have Larry's digitizer which easily integrates into = earthworm and once we had our data in earthworm sharing our data in real time would be easy. We would need an earthworm ID but that would be easy and we = could all share the same ID.

More latter, questions and comments welcome. Who wants to be our registrar??

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
>
>
>
>
> = ------------------------------------------------------------------------<= br> > *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@.............. <mailto: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.

PSN-L Email List Message