PSN-L Email List Message
Subject: Re: Standards use can follow
From: "Tiago A." tiagoagre@.........
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 23:18:07 +0000
Hi Angel.
In WPSMap, i=B4m working in a section for users to upload their seismic dat=
a.
http://wpsmap.com/menu/seisdata/seisdata.html
Its still work on progress (i uploaded 4 events, just for example), didint
finish yet the authentication for users manage their uploaded files,
searchable events, interaction with Google Maps, also i will have a section
for users share links/docs/etc. The "Open Seismogram" option, allows to see
the SAC file without the need of installing software (great for public
computers or for people who doesnt know what software to open a SAC file).
Also i tried a "Near Real Time" helicorder option in WPSMap using
SeisGram2K to access data from personal stations, but between shared
hosting (tight budget) and the problem in converting Mini Seed..isn't easy
to accomplish.
My intention with the new WPSMap is to make a simple portal for personal
stations. If you think any idea discussed here, can fit in WPSMap, let me
know.
Best regards,
Tiago.
2012/8/1 sismos@..............
> Hi Barry and the rest of the group,
>
> I have applied for both a network code and and EW ID.
>
> I am also going to ask Dave Nelson to host a central EW server. I will
> arrange for Helis to be posted of all submitted data to a web page.
>
> I am willing to help anyone set up a simple earthworm system to export
> data to the central server.
>
> Saludos,
>
> Angel
>
>
>
>
>
> On 07/27/2012 01:09 AM, Barry Lotz wrote:
>
>> for when you need?
>>
>> jajajajajaja, soon
>>
>> angelHi 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 restore=
d
>> 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 determin=
ed
>> 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@.............."
>> *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 nam=
ing
>> 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 las=
t
>> 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 Digit=
al
>> 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 instrument=
s
>> co-located we can tell them apart. Dave has many vertical at the same pl=
ace
>> 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 broadband=
s
>> 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. Smal=
l
>> 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 earthwor=
m
>> and once we had our data in earthworm sharing our data in real time woul=
d
>> be easy. We would need an earthworm ID but that would be easy and we co=
uld
>> 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 wo=
uld
>> 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 limi=
ts.
>> 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 tha=
t
>> 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 NM=
SOP
>> what professionals use? Could we have something similar with more nuts a=
nd
>> 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 achi=
eve.
>> >
>> > 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 d=
o 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 the=
n
>> 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 b=
e
>> 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 th=
em
>> 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 hard=
er
>> 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 wil=
l
>> just be amateurs.
>> >
>> > Just my two cents
>> >
>> > Angel
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ______________________________**____________________________
>> >
>> > Public Seismic Network Mailing List (PSNLIST)
>> >
>> > To leave this list email PSNLIST-REQUEST@.............. > PSNLIST-REQUEST@................ >
>> > PSNLIST-REQUEST@................ >> with
>> the body of the message (first line only): unsubscribe
>>
>> > See http://www.seismicnet.com/**maillist.htmlfor more information.
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**____________________________
>>
>> Public Seismic Network Mailing List (PSNLIST)
>>
>> To leave this list email PSNLIST-REQUEST@.............. > PSNLIST-REQUEST@................ > with
>> the body of the message (first line only): unsubscribe
>> See http://www.seismicnet.com/**maillist.htmlfor 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.htmlfor more information.
>
Hi Angel.
In WPSMap, i=B4m working in a section for users to upload =
their seismic data.
http://wpsmap.com/menu/seisdata/seisdata.html
Its still w=
ork on progress (i uploaded 4 events, just for example), didint finish yet =
the authentication for users manage their uploaded files, searchable events=
, interaction with Google Maps, also i will have a section for users share =
links/docs/etc. The "Open Seismogram" option, allows to see the S=
AC file without the need of installing software (great for public computers=
or for people who doesnt know what software to open a SAC file). Also i tr=
ied a "Near Real Time" helicorder option in WPSMap using SeisGram=
2K to access data from personal stations, but between shared hosting (tight=
budget) and the problem in converting Mini Seed..isn't easy to accompl=
ish.
My intention with the new WPSMap is to make a simple portal for persona=
l stations. If you think any idea discussed here, can fit in WPSMap, let me=
know.
Best regards,
Tiago.
2012/8/1
sismos@..............=
<sismos@..............>
Hi Barry and the rest of the group,
I have applied for both a network code and and EW ID.
I am also going to ask Dave Nelson to host a central EW server. =A0I will a=
rrange for Helis to be posted =A0of all submitted data to a web page.
I am willing to help anyone set up a simple earthworm system to export data=
to the central server.
Saludos,
Angel
On 07/27/2012 01:09 AM, Barry Lotz wrote:
for when you need?
jajajajajaja, =A0soon
angelHi 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? Doe=
s "WE" refer to something? Maybe the network registry could event=
ually contain the station's sensor specifics. Maybe a some of these sta=
tion properties could be listed which would show organization , professiona=
lism, & =A0completeness. Maybe some items might be:
- type of sensor ( feedback or not? , homemade? , =A0mfg new?, mfg restored=
=A0or modified?)
- calibrated or not
- method of timing
- if calibrated, is there a frequency response plot available.
- some kind of =A0station noise quality. Sensor noise is a subject in it=
9;s self, but maybe a combined noise plot or related value could be determi=
ned which would the combined site/sensor noise, which is ultimately what af=
fects the sensors output. Maybe something comparing the station sensor to t=
he NLNM or NHNM. It probably should be similar to how the professional =A0s=
tations are evaluated.
- availability of digital data?
- ?
Just some thoughts to keep the thread live.
Regards
Barry
www.seismic=
vault.com <http://www.seismicvault.com>
*Sent:* Wed, July 25, 2012 6:03:49 AM
*Subject:* Standards use can follow
HI Barry,
I might have to take this in parts. =A0I think that there are some very eas=
y steps we can take that cost nothing. =A0We can follow the channel naming =
convention.
All of the modern softwares and mainly earthworm and seiscomp refer to chan=
nels as SCNL
Station
Channel
Network
Location
STATION =A0name can be up to 5 characters, letters and numbers, no special =
characters and can not start with a number. =A0My main station for the last=
12 years is BRU2. =A0If the station name are to be shared the need to be u=
nique. There is an agency that keeps a big station book. =A0We could probab=
ly come up with a scheme that was unique to us, for example all or our stat=
ion names would end in 99 =A0so 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. =A0We 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. =A0The usefulness is that if we have many instruments co=
-located we can tell them apart. Dave has many vertical at the same place s=
o 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...<=
br>
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 f=
rom the station DFN99 sampled at more than 80 samples per second in the net=
work 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 compu=
ter 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 an=
d S report coda magnitudes. =A0You do not need to calibrate your instrument=
s to do that. =A0To calculate other magnitudes we would need to calibrate o=
ur instruments.
Most of use have Larry's digitizer which easily integrates into earthwo=
rm and once we had our data in earthworm sharing our data in real time woul=
d be easy. =A0We would need an earthworm ID but that would be easy and we c=
ould all share the same ID.
More latter, questions and comments welcome. =A0Who wants to be our registr=
ar??
Saludos,
Angel
On 07/17/2012 02:19 AM, Barry Lotz wrote:
> Angel & Dave
> =A0I agree. How do we move forward?
> My 2 cents: =A0I work for a structural testing and inspection lab. Our=
lab and inspectors comply with certain standards so that our results/inspe=
ctions 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 =A0the items you mentioned.
> >"We have noisy instruments"
> =A0 =A0It seems possible to determine the instrument noise by maybe &q=
uot;nesting"? Site noise could be evaluated over "X" time du=
ring day,night or both. Could it mirror the evaluation of professional syst=
ems? It seems a =A0threshold could be determined for credibility station/se=
nsor noise limits. Do we use the NLNM graph with an envelope of limits?
> >"We do not calibrate"
> =A0 =A0Could a accepted standardized procedure be described for horizo=
ntal and vertical sensors, that all could use? I am familiar with methods t=
hat Dave and Brett use for our FBV's.
> >"We do not have accurate time"
> =A0 =A0Would , as an example, larry's SDR program and ADC unit wit=
h GPS time be sufficient? What would be an accepted variational allowance?<=
br>
> >"We do not use a standard format for data exchange"
> =A0 =A0 =A0Could a documented conversion program(s) be used to convert=
from say psn to an "standard" =A0format? Maybe it already exists=
..
> > "We do not use standard naming conventions"
> =A0 =A0 =A0Should 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 nut=
s and bolts procedures and info?
> =A0 =A0 =A0General agreement maybe the biggest hurdle, but I agree we =
should make an effort to have more credible stations and sensors if we desi=
re. Maybe we just needs some agreed upon documented standards to try to ach=
ieve.
>
> Regards
> Barry
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
------------------------------
=
------------
> *To:* psnl=
ist@.............. <mailto: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 whic=
h will provide some response =A0to seismic motions is vast. The question is=
the practicality/utility of a given configuration.
> >> The key figure of merit for any instrument configuration =A0i=
s the instrument self noise and response as a function of frequency. This d=
irectly 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 even=
t the simplest / noisiest instrument may do the job in some contexts, such =
as classroom demonstrations .
> >> The amateur astronomer community has evolved to the point whe=
re it provides useful =A0( if not essential) information to the astronomy s=
cientific community. I believe the amateur seismology community could do a =
similar service but not with inadequate instrumentation.
> >> =A0The goal should be to develop amateur instruments with cha=
racteristics near the performance of professional instruments and then oper=
ating =A0them in reasonably low noise sites. (An instrument in a residentia=
l basement =A0will work reassembly well if carefully done.)
> >> Larry Cochrane has =A0already provided us with excellent equi=
pment to handle the sensor data and connect it to a network. Some work need=
s to be done in this area but we have a good start.
> >> _*My challenge is to include instrument self noise and genera=
tor constant, both as a function of frequency, as a FIRST PRIORITY when eva=
luating =A0the 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 =A0NOT =A0mean to imply there are not some truly innovat=
ive and possibly revolutionary ideas out there but we should =A0look at eac=
h of them =A0carefully 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 seismologist=
s 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 cha=
racterize (within a few minutes) all events over about 4.2 Mb, They don'=
;t need us for that. =A0Where we could excel and make a meaningful contribu=
tion 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 picki=
ng 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 wil=
l just be amateurs.
>
> Just my two cents
>
> Angel
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
>
> Public Seismic Network Mailing List (PSNLIST)
>
[ Top ]
[ Back ]
[ Home Page ]