Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Posts
Deer in Yosemite

The Moon is Waning Crescent (23% of Full)


Advanced

Re: NetQuakes

All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion and not fact until verified independently.

avatar NetQuakes
December 14, 2009 05:13PM
The USGS is trying to achieve a denser and more uniform seismograph spacing in Northern California to provide better measurements of ground motion during earthquakes. To do this, we have developed a new type of digital seismograph that communicates it's data to the USGS via the Internet. These instruments connect to a local network using WiFi and use existing Broadband connections to transmit data after an earthquake.

We are looking for people living in Northern California who are willing to host these "NetQuakes" seismographs. Use the map on the left to zoom to your location by using the controls or by typing your address. The blue symbols represent areas where we are particularly interested in placing instruments. If your home, business, or other building is covered by a colored symbol your site could qualify. The NetQuakes seismographs will access the Internet via a wireless router connected to your existing broadband Internet connection.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/waveforms/netq/nocal.php
avatar Re: NetQuakes
December 14, 2009 05:43PM
Last month National Geographic had a show (called "Naked Science"winking smiley about the Reno earthquake swarm from winter-spring 2008. Besides being completely sensationalized and utterly ridiculous for most of the show (widespread panic in Reno? I don't think so!), there was one statement by a Univ of Nevada researcher saying the sensors they are putting in the ground in Reno are sensitive enough to record waves crashing onto the seashore on the west coast. Use your brain on that one...LOL

But, no matter, comedy routines are quite common in documentaries. As far as the connect-a-sensor project, why not? Thousands of people are connected already to the weather service. And look how well they do.

References:

National Geographic

and

University of Nevada
avatar Re: NetQuakes
December 14, 2009 06:55PM
Quote
Vince
there was one statement by a Univ of Nevada researcher saying the sensors they are putting in the ground in Reno are sensitive enough to record waves crashing onto the seashore on the west coast. Use your brain on that one...LOL

What's your point, Vince?
avatar Re: NetQuakes
December 14, 2009 07:20PM
Response: I say, why not connect up? Might get better science. The more the merrier. From a grade of A to F, everyone knows sciences get an incomplete grade, and if they don't, then we know everything, and that's a foolish attitude.

If EQ sensors are placed and can sense ocean waves in Reno, these things would have to be buried awfully deep. (The ones in Reno were placed about a foot underground...enough to sense those ocean waves plus all the I-80 semis).
avatar Re: NetQuakes
December 14, 2009 07:24PM
Quote
Vince
From a grade of A to F, everyone knows sciences get an incomplete grade, and if they don't, then we know everything, and that's a foolish attitude.

Could somebody please translate that to english?

Quote

If EQ sensors are placed and can sense ocean waves in Reno, these things would have to be buried awfully deep.

Wrong.

Quote

(The ones in Reno were placed about a foot underground...enough to sense those ocean waves plus all the I-80 semis).

Do you understand why the semis and the waves might be sensed differently?
avatar Re: NetQuakes
December 14, 2009 08:47PM
I know a wonderful professor at IU that would be glad to give a lil tutorialsmiling smiley
avatar Re: NetQuakes
December 14, 2009 11:49PM
Quote
LeeVining
I know a wonderful professor at IU that would be glad to give a lil tutorialsmiling smiley

IU?
avatar Re: NetQuakes
December 15, 2009 12:57AM
The scientist on the Nat Geo program said on TV the sensors would sense waves crashing on the coast. Watch the show, he said it. You judge for yourself. I said it's ridiculous. Also download the 3D view from UNR...the scientists claim there is no earthquake fault there yet you can see it in 3D. It's great fun watching scientists know how to say Ummm and they do it well on this subject.
avatar Re: NetQuakes
December 15, 2009 09:59AM
Quote
Vince
I said it's ridiculous.

Thus showing off your considerable education in science. Rolling on floor laugh
avatar Re: NetQuakes
December 15, 2009 11:10AM
Quote
eeek
Quote
Vince
I said it's ridiculous.

Thus showing off your considerable education in science. Rolling on floor laugh



In Vince's defense:
he has never claimed in this forum that he passed any of his physics or journalism courses at SDSU.
avatar Re: NetQuakes
December 15, 2009 01:25PM
Quote
szalkowski
Quote
eeek
Quote
Vince
I said it's ridiculous.

Thus showing off your considerable education in science. Rolling on floor laugh



In Vince's defense:
he has never claimed in this forum that he passed any of his physics or journalism courses at SDSU.

As usual if there's even a tiny smidgen of controversy in any topic I comment on, the topic becomes me and not the topic. Szalkowski follows me around like a lost puppy. Well have a nice day, see you out there some day.
avatar Re: NetQuakes
December 16, 2009 02:38AM
Quote
Vince
As usual if there's even a tiny smidgen of controversy in any topic I comment on, the topic becomes me and not the topic.

The problem is that you make claims about science and completely refuse to back up those claims. You don't even show the slightest bit of competence in the subjects. I gave you an opening in this thread to defend your claim. Instead of defending it you just waved your hands and tried to act like everybody should know it to be true. That kind of pathetic behavior might work with people that barely made it out of high school; it won't work here.
avatar Re: NetQuakes - Seismic Monitoring 101
December 16, 2009 05:28AM
Quote
eeek
Quote
Vince
As usual if there's even a tiny smidgen of controversy in any topic I comment on, the topic becomes me and not the topic.

The problem is that you make claims about science and completely refuse to back up those claims. You don't even show the slightest bit of competence in the subjects. I gave you an opening in this thread to defend your claim. Instead of defending it you just waved your hands and tried to act like everybody should know it to be true. That kind of pathetic behavior might work with people that barely made it out of high school; it won't work here.


A cursory websearch yielded this as the first hit (psu = Penn State Univ.):
<http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu/~cammon/HTML/Classes/IntroQuakes/Notes/seismometers.html#seis_signals>;

Of particular interest might be the last sentence in the section titled WAVES: “We can detect ground motion in Missouri caused by increased surf activity as a hurricane or large storm system approaches the eastern coast of the lower 48 states.”

[Disclaimer: the above link contains log-log graphs which may be extremely confusing to certain persons reading this website.]
avatar Re: NetQuakes
December 17, 2009 06:55PM
These earthquakes near Lovelock never happened. The technology is fallible.

avatar Re: NetQuakes
December 17, 2009 07:14PM
Quote
Vince
These earthquakes near Lovelock never happened. The technology is fallible.

Well, duh! All technology is fallible. But that has nothing to do with anything in this thread. So why are you bringing it up?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login