PSN-L Email List Message
Subject: Re: Standards use can follow
From: Barry Lotz barry_lotz@.............
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 05:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
Couple of quick thoughts:=0A-"PSN" sounds like a good network name.=0A-I gu=
ess we all have our interests ( local,regional,teleseismic) that is good.=
=0A-I think a sensor frequency response plot is essential in evaluating the=
sensors =0Aproperties.=0A-It might be a goal to have a network output disp=
lay like LISS does with the GSN =0Astations. I think a number of us have re=
al time plots on our websites and =0ALarry's site. I seems better if they w=
ere together some how. I noticed the LISS =0Adisplay all use the same displ=
ay amplification. This might to be difficult with =0Adifferent sensor type=
s. We might have group the sensors by frequency response. =0ABroad band is=
my interest but not not necessarily others. =0A=0A- Eventually, maybe by =
clicking on the network heliplot there would be a link to =0Athe sensor and=
station specifics. See: =0A=0Ahttp://earthquake.usgs.gov/monitoring/operat=
ions/heliplots_gsn.php=0A=0A- I am not familiar enough with the software pa=
ckages that Branden mentioned. I =0Ahave to do my research. Sounds like the=
y would work to group our stations. =0A=0A =0A=0A Regards=0ABarry=0Awww=
..seismicvault.com=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFr=
om: Stephen Hammond =0ATo: psnlist@...............
=0ASent: Thu, July 26, 2012 10:44:04 PM=0ASubject: RE: Standards use can fo=
llow=0A=0A =0AHi all, my 2c worth. I have been following this thread to see=
where it went for =0Aa few weeks. This topic is also one of my hot button =
items. I first want to =0Asay, Branden and Berry, your comments are excell=
ent and show a considerable =0Aamount of insight. There was a comment in th=
e thread about the PSN stations not =0Abeing creditable and I have to disag=
ree. I respect IRIS and the USGS and all you =0Aneed to do is search =E2=80=
=9DPSN=E2=80=9D on the IRIS site =0Ahttp://www.iris.edu/hq/search?cx=3D0118=
35713541211780569%3Aw8gihycyx-y&cof=3DFORID%3A9&ie=3DUTF-8&q=3Dpsn&x=3D32&y=
=3D6=0A and you will see that the PSN format developed with inputs from Te=
d Blank, =0ALarry, John Lahr, Ed Cranswick and others is recognized, compat=
ible and =0Asupported. Please keep in mind that one of the more important f=
actors in the PSN =0Astations is that fact that we install sensors where th=
e people live. Not up on =0Atop of a hill but right down in the valley mud.=
That sets us apart and makes =0Amany of our installation unique. As statio=
n operators we see site response =0Achanges that do not get noted by any of=
those uphill sites. If you operate one =0Aof these unique systems you kno=
w that there will be site response changes with =0Athe first real rain foll=
owing the long dry summer heat. When the PSN San Jose =0Astation was locate=
d in the San Jose south valley the light rail provided a =0Awonderful consi=
stent source. Many of us see the noise generated from buses, =0Atrucks and =
other domestic sources and can gage the operational status of our =0Ainstal=
lations. In the deep mud in the south valley in San Jose there would be a =
=0Adramatic shift in the site response with the first miserable amount of r=
ain. =0AThis is one area the armature seismologist can contribute to the bo=
dy of =0Aknowledge. Another area is the many remote stations that have been=
installed in =0Athe PSN network around the world. Data from these stations=
is most likely the =0Afirst seismic data ever recorded and placed into the=
public domain. It is =0Aimportant to remember that in 1995 we were asked t=
o provide codified station =0Anames, locations and sensor information so th=
at we could contribute to the =0Aworld-wide seismic station list which we d=
id. Those lists are still maintained =0Ain the Iris archives. If you look a=
t http://www.sydneystormcity.com/map.htm you =0Awill also see a station lis=
ting that has been in place for a number of years. =0A =0AI would suggest =
that if we want to move forward we form working groups to =0Aaddress some =
of the issue:=0A1. Calibration. =0A2. Consistent amplifier filt=
ering and gain settings.=0A3. A complete world-wide listing of statio=
ns including sensor type, =0Alocation, amp gain, operators info, data excha=
nge format, install dates, related =0Awebsite address, data website storage=
address and any special information.=0A4. Site self evaluations stan=
dards. An example would be the PSN San Jose =0Asite located in Aptos, CA. A=
TE, ATN and ATZ on a scale of 1-5(high) I would rate =0Aa 3. They are HS-10=
geophones with a gain of 2,100, 50 sample/sec, timing is via =0AGPS using =
Larry=E2=80=99s data collection system. The exact location is 36.58.41.700N=
/ =0A121.53.55.824W at an alt of +39.53m. What is lacking on these three s=
ensors is =0Athat I cannot tell you when I ran the last calibration test on=
these geophones. =0AIf you were to ask me about the AT1 and AT2E long peri=
od sensors I would rate =0Athem at a 1 as they are both considered to be ex=
perimental and I would tell you =0Ato treat the data accordingly. =0A=0AMy =
thoughts, Regards Steve Hammond PSN San Jose, Aptos CA. =0A =0AFrom:psnlist=
-request@.............. [mailto:psnlist-request@............... On =0ABehal=
f Of Branden Christensen=0ASent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:04 PM=0ATo: psnl=
ist@......................... Re: Standards use can follow=0A =0ABarry:=0AA=
ngel's partner here. I generally do not weigh in on these discussions but y=
ou =0Aare hitting on an area of seismology I am passionate about: metadata.=
=0AFortunately, much of what you so keenly propose already exists. Take the=
two =0Abiggest registries for example: IRIS amd GFZ. In recent times a few=
industry =0Astandards have emerged:=0AData Exchange Protocol: SeedLink=0AW=
aveform Protocol: MiniSeed=0AMetadata protocol: Dataless Seed=0ATogether th=
e miniseed and dataless create a complete Seed volume. MiniSeed files =0Aco=
ntain waveform data and a header to identify the Station Network Channel =
=0ALocation or SCNL, etc. The dataless is really amazing. It contains the s=
tation =0ASCNL, lat lon alt depth, description, serial numbers, sensor and =
digitizer =0Aflavor, acquisition start and end dates/ times and the full re=
sponse =0Ainformation: poles, zeros and gain- or exactly the required infor=
mation to =0Aconstruct the systems transfer function and remove the instrum=
ent response. Most =0Areal time software packages such as Earthworm, Earlyb=
ird and SeisComP and post =0Aprocessing systems such as Seisan automaticall=
y use this dataless information to =0Aremove the instrument response. This =
permits the software to produce magnitudes =0Aand event locations or stuff =
sensative to the real amplitudes and phase of the =0Ainput signal.=0AAll of=
this seed information is passed around via SeedLink Servers in real time. =
=0A=0AIf you are thinking of how the amateur community might contribute, th=
en Angel =0Amade a good point about the need for detecting local seismicity=
below 4. But =0Aalso consider the civil defense applications of seismology=
.. Magnitude and =0Alocations are really an academic pursuit- pretty much me=
aningless to the general =0Apublic who want to know 1) did it shake and, if=
so, 2) how much. So lots and =0Alots of amateur neural networks of acceler=
ometers could make a difference. =0AImagine piping all of that data into a =
real time system that created shake maps =0Awith color intensities displayi=
ng how hard the ground shook and where. These =0Amaps benefit from lots and=
lots of nodes, be they amateur or professional.=0AGreat thread, keep it co=
ming.=0ABest,=0ABranden Christensen=0AOn Jul 26, 2012 8:11 PM, "Barry Lotz"=
wrote:=0AHi Angel=0AThank you. The links you li=
sted shed light on the USGS station name I have been =0Amonitoring. Should =
the network have some significance in the name? Does "WE" =0Arefer to somet=
hing? Maybe the network registry could eventually contain the =0Astation's =
sensor specifics. Maybe a some of these station properties could be =0Alist=
ed which would show organization , professionalism, & completeness. Maybe =
=0Asome items might be:=0A- type of sensor ( feedback or not? , homemade? ,=
mfg new?, mfg restored or =0Amodified?)=0A- calibrated or not=0A- method=
of timing=0A- if calibrated, is there a frequency response plot available.=
=0A- some kind of station noise quality. Sensor noise is a subject in it'=
s self, =0Abut maybe a combined noise plot or related value could be determ=
ined which would =0Athe combined site/sensor noise, which is ultimately wha=
t affects the sensors =0Aoutput. Maybe something comparing the station sens=
or to the NLNM or NHNM. It =0Aprobably should be similar to how the profess=
ional stations are evaluated.=0A- availability of digital data? =0A- ?=0AJ=
ust some thoughts to keep the thread live.=0ARegards=0ABarry=0Awww.seismicv=
ault.com=0A =0A =0A=0A________________________________=0A =0AFrom:"sismos@v=
olcanbaru.com" =0ATo: psnlist@.......................
Wed, July 25, 2012 6:03:49 AM=0ASubject: Standards use can follow=0A=0AHI =
Barry,=0A=0AI might have to take this in parts. I think that there are som=
e very easy steps =0Awe can take that cost nothing. We can follow the chan=
nel naming convention.=0A=0AAll of the modern softwares and mainly earthwor=
m and seiscomp refer to channels =0Aas SCNL=0A=0AStation=0AChannel=0ANetwor=
k=0ALocation=0A=0ASTATION name can be up to 5 characters, letters and numb=
ers, no special =0Acharacters and can not start with a number. My main sta=
tion for the last 12 =0Ayears is BRU2. If the station name are to be share=
d the need to be unique. =0AThere is an agency that keeps a big station bo=
ok. We could probably come up =0Awith a scheme that was unique to us, for =
example all or our station names would =0Aend in 99 so maybe a new site fo=
r me would be ALR99.=0A=0ACHANNEL name is a bit harder but but more or less=
defined here.=0A=0Ahttp://www.iris.washington.edu/manuals/SEED_appA.htm=0A=
=0ANETWORK code we would have to apply for one, if we haven't, I could do i=
t, it =0Awould be easy, They are assigned by the FDSN, Federation of Digita=
l Seismic =0ANetwork. We might ask for one, maybe "WE", as far as I can te=
ll numbers are =0Aallow in this field, so maybe we could get a pair of numb=
ers.=0A=0Ahttp://www.fdsn.org/station_book/=0A=0ALOCATION is just a two cha=
racter field, numbers and letter. Normally 00 for the =0Amain station. The=
usefulness is that if we have many instruments co-located we =0Acan tell t=
hem apart. Dave has many vertical at the same place so they would all =0Ah=
ave the same station name, the same channel name and the same network code =
and =0Awe could tell them apart by the location code. So...=0A=0AMy main st=
ation has SCNLs as follow=0A=0ABRU2 HHZ PA 00=0ABRU2 HHN PA 00=0ABRU2 HHE P=
A 00=0A=0ADave's might be=0A=0ADFN99 HHZ WE 00=0ADFN99 HHZ WE 10=0ADFN99 HH=
Z WE 20=0A=0AThis would be the SCNL for three co-located vertical high gain=
broadbands from =0Athe station DFN99 sampled at more than 80 samples per s=
econd in the network WE.=0A=0AOther easy things we can do is to have our st=
ation coordinates=0AThen the time thing, GPS is best but WWV if fine and ch=
eap and there is NTP =0Anetwork time which I also think is ok as long as we=
can regulate the computer =0Atime to less than 100 milliseconds for region=
al locations. Small tight networks =0Aneed better time.=0A=0AMany latin ame=
rican country networks have nothing more, They only pick P and S =0Areport =
coda magnitudes. You do not need to calibrate your instruments to do =0Ath=
at. To calculate other magnitudes we would need to calibrate our instrumen=
ts.=0A=0AMost of use have Larry's digitizer which easily integrates into ea=
rthworm and =0Aonce we had our data in earthworm sharing our data in real t=
ime would be easy. =0AWe would need an earthworm ID but that would be easy=
and we could all share the =0Asame ID.=0A=0AMore latter, questions and com=
ments welcome. Who wants to be our registrar??=0A=0ASaludos,=0A=0AAngel=0A=
=0A=0A=0A=0AOn 07/17/2012 02:19 AM, Barry Lotz wrote:=0A> Angel & Dave=0A> =
I agree. How do we move forward?=0A> My 2 cents: I work for a structural =
testing and inspection lab. Our lab and =0A>inspectors comply with certain =
standards so that our results/inspections are =0A>credible ( eg NIST, ASTM,=
AWS, ICC). Maybe it would be possible to have an =0A>accepted protocol for=
our stations with sensor(s). I would like to comment on =0A>the items you=
mentioned.=0A> >"We have noisy instruments"=0A> It seems possible to de=
termine the instrument noise by maybe "nesting"? Site =0A>noise could be ev=
aluated over "X" time during day,night or both. Could it mirror =0A>the eva=
luation of professional systems? It seems a threshold could be =0A>determi=
ned for credibility station/sensor noise limits. Do we use the NLNM graph =
=0A>with an envelope of limits?=0A> >"We do not calibrate"=0A> Could a a=
ccepted standardized procedure be described for horizontal and =0A>vertical=
sensors, that all could use? I am familiar with methods that Dave and =0A>=
Brett use for our FBV's.=0A> >"We do not have accurate time"=0A> Would ,=
as an example, larry's SDR program and ADC unit with GPS time be =0A>suffi=
cient? What would be an accepted variational allowance?=0A> >"We do not use=
a standard format for data exchange"=0A> Could a documented conversio=
n program(s) be used to convert from say psn =0A>to an "standard" format? =
Maybe it already exists.=0A> > "We do not use standard naming conventions"=
=0A> Should we have a described procedure for this?=0A> I think Dr Wei=
landt has programs which could address some of the noise and =0A>calibratio=
n issues above. I haven't completely read it but is the NMSOP what =0A>prof=
essionals use? Could we have something similar with more nuts and bolts =0A=
>procedures and info?=0A> General agreement maybe the biggest hurdle, =
but I agree we should make an =0A>effort to have more credible stations and=
sensors if we desire. Maybe we just =0A>needs some agreed upon documented =
standards to try to achieve.=0A> =0A> Regards=0A> Barry=0A> =0A> =0A> =0A> =
=0A> ----------------------------------------------------------------------=
--=0A> *From:* "sismos@.............." =0A> *To:* ps=
nlist@.................> *Sent:* Sat, July 14, 2012 12:48:51 PM=0A> *Subjec=
t:* Re: diamagnetic levitation seismometer possibility=0A> =0A> On 07/14/20=
12 12:38 AM, Thomas Dick wrote:=0A> > On 7/13/2012 5:55 PM, Dave Nelson wro=
te:=0A> >> The number of possible seismic instrument configurations which w=
ill provide =0A>some response to seismic motions is vast. The question is =
the =0A>practicality/utility of a given configuration.=0A> >> The key figur=
e of merit for any instrument configuration is the instrument =0A>self noi=
se and response as a function of frequency. This directly determines the =
=0A>minimum seismic motion the instrument is capable of detecting and then =
providing =0A>useful data for analysis.=0A> >> If one is willing to wait fo=
r that rare magnitude 7 or 8 event the simplest =0A>/ noisiest instrument m=
ay do the job in some contexts, such as classroom =0A>demonstrations .=0A> =
>> The amateur astronomer community has evolved to the point where it provi=
des =0A>useful ( if not essential) information to the astronomy scientific=
community. I =0A>believe the amateur seismology community could do a simil=
ar service but not with =0A>inadequate instrumentation.=0A> >> The goal sh=
ould be to develop amateur instruments with characteristics near =0A>the pe=
rformance of professional instruments and then operating them in =0A>reaso=
nably low noise sites. (An instrument in a residential basement will work =
=0A>reassembly well if carefully done.)=0A> >> Larry Cochrane has already =
provided us with excellent equipment to handle =0A>the sensor data and conn=
ect it to a network. Some work needs to be done in this =0A>area but we hav=
e a good start.=0A> >> _*My challenge is to include instrument self noise a=
nd generator constant, =0A>both as a function of frequency, as a FIRST PRIO=
RITY when evaluating the =0A>utility of an instrument concept. *_=0A> >> J=
ust another gadget that will respond if you shake it is not where we want =
=0A>to spend our efforts and resources.=0A> >> I do NOT mean to imply the=
re are not some truly innovative and possibly =0A>revolutionary ideas out t=
here but we should look at each of them carefully to =0A>determine early =
whether they justify significant effort or belong in the "that =0A>was inte=
resting" stack.=0A> >> Just where determination is made is a personal choic=
e but it should be based =0A>on some form of analysis and/or test.=0A> >> C=
omments Please.=0A> >> Dave Nelson=0A> >> Rolling Hills Estates, California=
=0A> > My impression is that most academia and professional seismologists h=
old the =0A>amateur in very low esteem.=0A> =0A> Yes, they do hold us in lo=
w esteem and this is our own fault.=0A> =0A> We have noisy instruments=0A> =
We do not calibrate=0A> We do not have accurate time=0A> We do not use a st=
andard format for data exchange=0A> We do not use standard naming conventio=
ns=0A> =0A> The academic and professional seismologists can already locate =
and characterize =0A>(within a few minutes) all events over about 4.2 Mb, T=
hey don't need us for =0A>that. Where we could excel and make a meaningful=
contribution is in the =0A>seismicity of our own backyards, the small even=
ts less than one degree from our =0A>instruments. Recording those is a bit =
harder than picking up the squiggles from =0A>a 6.5 Mb 10 degrees away.=0A>=
=0A> These are just a few things we do and do not do and until we do we wi=
ll just be =0A>amateurs.=0A> =0A> Just my two cents=0A> =0A> Angel=0A> =0A>=
=0A> =0A> =0A> __________________________________________________________=
=0A> =0A> Public Seismic Network Mailing List (PSNLIST)=0A> =0A> To leave t=
his list email PSNLIST-REQUEST@.............. =0A> with the body of the message (first line =0A>only): unsubscr=
ibe=0A> See http://www.seismicnet.com/maillist.html for more information.=
=0A=0A=0A__________________________________________________________=0A=0APu=
blic Seismic Network Mailing List (PSNLIST)=0A=0ATo leave this list email P=
SNLIST-REQUEST@.............. with the body of the =0Amessage (first line o=
nly): unsubscribe=0ASee http://www.seismicnet.com/maillist.html for more in=
Couple of quick thoughts:
-"PSN" sounds like a good network=
name.
-I guess we all have our interests ( local,regional,teleseismic) =
that is good.
-I think a sensor frequency response plot is essential in =
evaluating the sensors properties.
-It might be a goal to have a network=
output display like LISS does with the GSN stations. I think a number of u=
s have real time plots on our websites and Larry's site. I seems better if =
they were together some how. I noticed the LISS display all use the same di=
splay amplification. This might to be difficult with different sensor=
types. We might have =0Agroup the sensors by frequency response. Broad ban=
d is my interest but not not necessarily =0Aothers.
- Eventually, maybe=
by clicking on the network heliplot there would be a link to the sensor an=
d station specifics. See:
http://earthquake=
..usgs.gov/monitoring/operations/heliplots_gsn.php=0A
- I =
am not familiar enough with the software packages that Branden mentioned. I=
have to do my research. Sounds like they would work to group our stations.=
Regards
Barry
www.seismicvault.com
From: Stephen Hammond <shammon1@.............>
To: psnlist@..............
Sent: Thu, July 26, 2012 10:44:04 PM
<=
span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Subject: RE: Standards use can
follow
=0A=0A=0A =0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=
=0A=0A
Hi all, my 2c =
worth. I have been following this thread to see where=0Ait went for a few w=
eeks. This topic is also one of my hot button items. I=0Afirst want t=
o say, Branden and Berry, your comments are excellent and show a=0Aconsider=
able amount of insight. There was a comment in the thread about the PSN=0As=
tations not being creditable and I have to disagree. I respect IRIS and the=
=0AUSGS and all you need to do is search =E2=80=9DPSN=E2=80=9D on the IRIS =
site http://www.iris.edu/hq/search?cx=
=3D011835713541211780569%3Aw8gihycyx-y&cof=3DFORID%3A9&ie=3DUTF-8&a=
mp;q=3Dpsn&x=3D32&y=3D6=0A and you will see that the PSN f=
ormat developed with inputs from Ted=0ABlank, Larry, John Lahr, Ed Cranswic=
k and others is recognized, compatible and=0Asupported. Please keep in mind=
that one of the more important factors in the=0APSN stations is that fact =
that we install sensors where the people live. Not up=0Aon top of a hill bu=
t right down in the valley mud. That sets us apart and makes=0Amany of our =
installation unique. As station operators we see site response=0Achanges th=
at do not get noted by any of those uphill sites. If you=0Aoperate on=
e of these unique systems you know that there will be site response=0Achang=
es with the first real rain following the long dry summer heat. When the=0A=
PSN San Jose station was located in the San Jose south valley the light rai=
l=0Aprovided a wonderful consistent source. Many of us see the noise genera=
ted from=0Abuses, trucks and other domestic sources and can gage the operat=
ional status of=0Aour installations. In the deep mud in the south valley in=
San Jose there would=0Abe a dramatic shift in the site response with the f=
irst miserable amount of=0Arain. This is one area the armature seismologist=
can contribute to the body of=0Aknowledge. Another area is the many remote=
stations that have been installed in=0Athe PSN network around the world. D=
ata from these stations is most likely the=0Afirst seismic data ever record=
ed and placed into the public domain. It is=0Aimportant to remember that in=
1995 we were asked to provide codified station names,=0Alocations and sens=
or information so that we could contribute to the world-wide=0Aseismic stat=
ion list which we did. Those lists are still maintained in the Iris=0Aarchi=
ves. If you look at http://www.sydneystormcity.com/map.htm=
=0Ayou will also see a station listing that has been in place for a number =
of=0Ayears.
=0A=0A
<=
/span>
=0A=0A
I would suggest that if &nb=
sp;we want to move forward we form working=0Agroups to address some of the =
issue:
=0A=0A
1.&n=
bsp; =0ACalibrati=
on.
=0A=0A
2.&nb=
sp; =0AConsistent=
amplifier filtering and gain settings.
=0A=0A
3. =0AA complete world-wide listing of stations including=
sensor type,=0Alocation, amp gain, operators info, data exchange format, i=
nstall dates,=0Arelated website address, data website storage address and a=
ny special=0Ainformation.
=0A=0A
4. =0ASite self evaluations standards. An example would be the PSN San=
=0AJose site located in Aptos, CA. ATE, ATN and ATZ on a scale of 1-5(high)=
I would=0Arate a 3. They are HS-10 geophones with a gain of 2,100, 50 samp=
le/sec, timing is=0Avia GPS using Larry=E2=80=99s data collection system. T=
he exact location is=0A36.58.41.700N / 121.53.55.824W at an alt of +39.53m.=
What is lacking on these=0Athree sensors is that I cannot tell you when I =
ran the last calibration test on=0Athese geophones. If you were to ask me a=
bout the AT1 and AT2E long period=0Asensors I would rate them at a 1 as the=
y are both considered to be experimental=0Aand I would tell you to treat th=
e data accordingly.
=0A=0A
My tho=
ughts, Regards Steve Hammond PSN San Jose, Aptos CA.
=0A=0A
=0A=0A
=0A=0A
From:=0Apsnlist-request@.............. [mailto:psnlist-re=
quest@............... On=0ABehalf Of Branden Christensen
=0ASe=
nt: Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:04 PM
=0ATo: psnlist@webtronics=
..com
=0ASubject: Re: Standards use can follow
=0A=0A=0A=0A
=0A=0A
Barry:
=0A=0A
A=
ngel's partner here. I generally do not weigh in on these discussions but=
=0Ayou are hitting on an area of seismology I am passionate about: metadata=
..
=0A=0A
Fortunately, much of what you so keenly propose already exis=
ts. Take the two=0Abiggest registries for example: IRIS amd GFZ. In recent =
times a few industry=0Astandards have emerged:
=0A=0A
Data Exchange P=
rotocol: SeedLink
=0AWaveform Protocol: MiniSeed
=0AMetadata protocol=
: Dataless Seed
=0A=0A
Together the miniseed and dataless create a co=
mplete Seed volume. MiniSeed=0Afiles contain waveform data and a header to =
identify the Station Network=0AChannel Location or SCNL, etc. The dataless =
is really amazing. It contains the=0Astation SCNL, lat lon alt depth, descr=
iption, serial numbers, sensor and=0Adigitizer flavor, acquisition start an=
d end dates/ times and the full response=0Ainformation: poles, zeros and ga=
in- or exactly the required information to=0Aconstruct the systems transfer=
function and remove the instrument response.=0AMost real time software pac=
kages such as Earthworm, Earlybird and SeisComP and=0Apost processing syste=
ms such as Seisan automatically use this dataless=0Ainformation to remove t=
he instrument response. This permits the software to=0Aproduce magnitudes a=
nd event locations or stuff sensative to the real=0Aamplitudes and phase of=
the input signal.
=0A=0A
All of this seed information is passed arou=
nd via SeedLink Servers in real=0Atime.
=0A=0A
If you are thinking o=
f how the amateur community might contribute, then=0AAngel made a good poin=
t about the need for detecting local seismicity below 4.=0ABut also conside=
r the civil defense applications of seismology. Magnitude and=0Alocations a=
re really an academic pursuit- pretty much meaningless to the=0Ageneral pub=
lic who want to know 1) did it shake and, if so, 2) how much. So=0Alots and=
lots of amateur neural networks of accelerometers could make a=0Adifferenc=
e. Imagine piping all of that data into a real time system that=0Acreated s=
hake maps with color intensities displaying how hard the ground shook=0Aand=
where. These maps benefit from lots and lots of nodes, be they amateur or=
=0Aprofessional.
=0A=0A
Great thread, keep it coming.
=0A=0A
Be=
st,
=0A=0A
Branden Christensen
=0A=0A
=0A=0A
On Jul 26, 2012 8:11 PM, "Barry Lotz" <barry_lotz@.............> wrote:
=0A=0A
=0A=0A=0A=0A
Hi Angel
=0AThank you. The link=
s you listed shed light on the USGS station name I have been=0Amonitoring. =
Should the network have some significance in the name? Does=0A"WE" refer to=
something? Maybe the network registry could eventually=0Acontain the stati=
on's sensor specifics. Maybe a some of these station=0Aproperties could be =
listed which would show organization , professionalism,=0A& compl=
eteness. Maybe some items might be:
=0A- type of sensor ( feedback or no=
t? , homemade? , mfg new?, mfg=0Arestored or modified?)
=0A=
=0A
=0A=0A
- cali=
brated or not
=0A- method of timing
=0A- if calibrated, is there a fr=
equency response plot available.
=0A- some kind of station noise =
quality. Sensor noise is a subject in it's=0Aself, but maybe a combined noi=
se plot or related value could be determined=0Awhich would the combined sit=
e/sensor noise, which is ultimately what affects=0Athe sensors output. Mayb=
e something comparing the station sensor to the NLNM or=0ANHNM. It probably=
should be similar to how the professional stations are=0Aevaluated.<=
br>=0A- availability of digital data?
=0A- ?
=0AJust some thoughts t=
o keep the thread live.
=0A=0A
=0A=0A
Regards
=0ABarry
=0Awww.seismicvault.com
=0A=0A
=0A=0A
=0A=0A
=0A=0A
=0A=0A
=0A=0A
=0A=0A
=0A=0A
From: "sismos@.............."=0A<sismos@..............>
=0ATo: <=
a rel=3D"nofollow" ymailto=3D"mailto:psnlist@.............." target=3D"_bla=
nk" href=3D"mailto:psnlist@..............">psnlist@..............
=
=0ASent: Wed, July 25, 2012 6:03:49 AM
=0ASubject: Standar=
ds use can follow
=0A
=0AHI Barry,
=0A
=0AI might have to take=
this in parts. I think that there are some very easy=0Asteps we can =
take that cost nothing. We can follow the channel naming=0Aconvention=
..
=0A
=0AAll of the modern softwares and mainly earthworm and seiscom=
p refer to channels=0Aas SCNL
=0A
=0AStation
=0AChannel
=0ANetw=
ork
=0ALocation
=0A
=0ASTATION name can be up to 5 character=
s, letters and numbers, no special=0Acharacters and can not start with a nu=
mber. My main station for the last=0A12 years is BRU2. If the s=
tation name are to be shared the need to be=0Aunique. There is an age=
ncy that keeps a big station book. We could=0Aprobably come up with a=
scheme that was unique to us, for example all or our=0Astation names would=
end in 99 so maybe a new site for me would be ALR99.
=0A
=0ACH=
ANNEL name is a bit harder but but more or less defined here.
=0A
=0A=
http://www.iris.washington.edu/manuals/SEED_appA.h=
tm
=0A
=0ANETWORK code we would have to apply for one, if we have=
n't, I could do it, it=0Awould be easy, They are assigned by the FDSN, Fede=
ration of Digital Seismic=0ANetwork. We might ask for one, maybe "WE"=
, as far as I can tell=0Anumbers are allow in this field, so maybe we could=
get a pair of numbers.
=0A
=0Ahttp://www.fdsn.org/station_book=
/
=0A
=0ALOCATION is just a two character field, numbers and lett=
er. Normally 00 for the=0Amain station. The usefulness is that if we =
have many instruments=0Aco-located we can tell them apart. Dave has m=
any vertical at the same=0Aplace so they would all have the same station na=
me, the same channel name and=0Athe same network code and we could tell the=
m apart by the location code. So...
=0A
=0AMy main station has SCNLs =
as follow
=0A
=0ABRU2 HHZ PA 00
=0ABRU2 HHN PA 00
=0ABRU2 HHE P=
A 00
=0A
=0ADave's might be
=0A
=0ADFN99 HHZ WE 00
=0ADFN99 =
HHZ WE 10
=0ADFN99 HHZ WE 20
=0A
=0AThis would be the SCNL for thr=
ee co-located vertical high gain broadbands from=0Athe station DFN99 sample=
d at more than 80 samples per second in the network WE.
=0A
=0AOther =
easy things we can do is to have our station coordinates
=0AThen the tim=
e thing, GPS is best but WWV if fine and cheap and there is NTP=0Anetwork t=
ime which I also think is ok as long as we can regulate the computer=0Atime=
to less than 100 milliseconds for regional locations. Small tight networks=
=0Aneed better time.
=0A
=0AMany latin american country networks have=
nothing more, They only pick P and S=0Areport coda magnitudes. You d=
o not need to calibrate your instruments to=0Ado that. To calculate o=
ther magnitudes we would need to calibrate our=0Ainstruments.
=0A
=0A=
Most of use have Larry's digitizer which easily integrates into earthworm a=
nd=0Aonce we had our data in earthworm sharing our data in real time would =
be=0Aeasy. We would need an earthworm ID but that would be easy and w=
e could=0Aall share the same ID.
=0A
=0AMore latter, questions and co=
mments welcome. Who wants to be our=0Aregistrar??
=0A
=0ASaludo=
s,
=0A
=0AAngel
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0AOn 07/17/2012 02:19=
AM, Barry Lotz wrote:
=0A> Angel & Dave
=0A> I agree=
.. How do we move forward?
=0A> My 2 cents: I work for a structu=
ral testing and inspection lab. Our=0Alab and inspectors comply with certai=
n standards so that our=0Aresults/inspections are credible ( eg NIST, ASTM,=
AWS, ICC). Maybe it would be=0Apossible to have an accepted protocol for o=
ur stations with sensor(s). I would=0Alike to comment on the items yo=
u mentioned.
=0A> >"We have noisy instruments"
=0A> &n=
bsp; It seems possible to determine the instrument noise by maybe=0A"nestin=
g"? Site noise could be evaluated over "X" time=0Aduring day,night or both.=
Could it mirror the evaluation of professional=0Asystems? It seems a =
threshold could be determined for credibility=0Astation/sensor noise limit=
s. Do we use the NLNM graph with an envelope of=0Alimits?
=0A> >"W=
e do not calibrate"
=0A> Could a accepted standardized p=
rocedure be described for=0Ahorizontal and vertical sensors, that all could=
use? I am familiar with methods=0Athat Dave and Brett use for our FBV's.=0A> >"We do not have accurate time"
=0A> Would =
, as an example, larry's SDR program and ADC unit with=0AGPS time be suffic=
ient? What would be an accepted variational allowance?
=0A> >"We d=
o not use a standard format for data exchange"
=0A> &nbs=
p; Could a documented conversion program(s) be used to=0Aconvert from say p=
sn to an "standard" format? Maybe it already=0Aexists.
=0A> >=
; "We do not use standard naming conventions"
=0A> =
; Should we have a described procedure for this?
=0A> I think Dr Weil=
andt has programs which could address some of the noise and=0Acalibration i=
ssues above. I haven't completely read it but is the NMSOP what=0Aprofessio=
nals use? Could we have something similar with more nuts and bolts=0Aproced=
ures and info?
=0A> General agreement maybe the b=
iggest hurdle, but I=0Aagree we should make an effort to have more credible=
stations and sensors if we=0Adesire. Maybe we just needs some agreed upon =
documented standards to try to=0Aachieve.
=0A>
=0A> Regards=0A> Barry
=0A>
=0A>
=0A>
=0A>
=0A> -=
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
=
=0A> *From:* "sismos@volcanbar=
u.com"=0A<sismos@volcanbar=
u.com>
=0A> *To:* =
psnlist@..............
=0A> *Sent:* Sat, July 14, 2012 12:48:51 P=
M
=0A> *Subject:* Re: diamagnetic levitation seismometer possibility<=
br>=0A>
=0A> On 07/14/2012 12:38 AM, Thomas Dick wrote:
=0A>=
; > On 7/13/2012 5:55 PM, Dave Nelson wrote:
=0A> >> The num=
ber of possible seismic instrument configurations which=0Awill provide some=
response to seismic motions is vast. The question is=0Athe practical=
ity/utility of a given configuration.
=0A> >> The key figure of=
merit for any instrument configuration is=0Athe instrument self nois=
e and response as a function of frequency. This=0Adirectly determines the m=
inimum seismic motion the instrument is capable of=0Adetecting and then pro=
viding useful data for analysis.
=0A> >> If one is willing to w=
ait for that rare magnitude 7 or 8 event=0Athe simplest / noisiest instrume=
nt may do the job in some contexts, such as=0Aclassroom demonstrations .=0A> >> The amateur astronomer community has evolved to the point=
where=0Ait provides useful ( if not essential) information to the as=
tronomy=0Ascientific community. I believe the amateur seismology community =
could do a=0Asimilar service but not with inadequate instrumentation.
=
=0A> >> The goal should be to develop amateur instruments wi=
th=0Acharacteristics near the performance of professional instruments and t=
hen=0Aoperating them in reasonably low noise sites. (An instrument in=
a=0Aresidential basement will work reassembly well if carefully done=
..)
=0A> >> Larry Cochrane has already provided us with ex=
cellent=0Aequipment to handle the sensor data and connect it to a network. =
Some work=0Aneeds to be done in this area but we have a good start.
=0A&=
gt; >> _*My challenge is to include instrument self noise and generat=
or=0Aconstant, both as a function of frequency, as a FIRST PRIORITY when ev=
aluating =0Athe utility of an instrument concept. *_
=0A> >&g=
t; Just another gadget that will respond if you shake it is not=0Awhere we =
want to spend our efforts and resources.
=0A> >> I do NOT=
mean to imply there are not some truly=0Ainnovative and possibly rev=
olutionary ideas out there but we should look=0Aat each of them =
carefully to determine early whether they justify=0Asignificant effort or =
belong in the "that was interesting" stack.
=0A> >> Just where =
determination is made is a personal choice but it=0Ashould be based on some=
form of analysis and/or test.
=0A> >> Comments Please.
=0A&=
gt; >> Dave Nelson
=0A> >> Rolling Hills Estates, Califor=
nia
=0A> > My impression is that most academia and professional se=
ismologists=0Ahold the amateur in very low esteem.
=0A>
=0A> Y=
es, they do hold us in low esteem and this is our own fault.
=0A> =0A> We have noisy instruments
=0A> We do not calibrate
=0A>=
; We do not have accurate time
=0A> We do not use a standard format f=
or data exchange
=0A> We do not use standard naming conventions
=
=0A>
=0A> The academic and professional seismologists can already=
locate and=0Acharacterize (within a few minutes) all events over about 4.2=
Mb, They don't=0Aneed us for that. Where we could excel and make a m=
eaningful contribution=0Ais in the seismicity of our own backyards, the sma=
ll events less than one degree=0Afrom our instruments. Recording those is a=
bit harder than picking up the=0Asquiggles from a 6.5 Mb 10 degrees away.<=
br>=0A>
=0A> These are just a few things we do and do not do and =
until we do we will=0Ajust be amateurs.
=0A>
=0A> Just my two =
cents
=0A>
=0A> Angel
=0A>
=0A>
=0A>
=
=0A>
=0A> _______________________________________________________=
___
=0A>
=0A> Public Seismic Network Mailing List (PSNLIST)=0A>
=0A> To leave this list email PSNLIST-REQUEST@.............. <mai=
lto:PSNLIST-REQ=
UEST@..............>=0Awith the body of the message (first line only=
): unsubscribe
=0A> See http://www.seismicnet.com/maillis=
t.html=0Afor more information.
=0A
=0A
=0A____________________=
______________________________________
=0A
=0APublic Seismic Network =
Mailing List (PSNLIST)
=0A
=0ATo leave this list email PSNLIST-REQUEST@..............
M with the body of the message=0A(first line only): unsubscribe
=0AS=
ee http://www.seismicnet.com/maillist.html=0Afor more infor=
mation.
=0A=0A
=0A=0A
=0A=0A
=0A=0A
[ Top ]
[ Back ]
[ Home Page ]