Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- groups:homestake:meetings:20140123 [2014/01/23 11:18] – mandic
+++ groups:homestake:meetings:20140123 [2014/01/23 11:20] (current) – mandic
@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ) Homestake update
-Vuk:
-) UMN test setup (Tanner)
+Vuk: no news yet, trying to connect with Bryce. Will try to keep everyone informed via email.
-Tanner: continuing to set up the prototype at UMN, connected the digitizer, the bailer, and a computer to a local network switch. Can control them, see the data from the seismometer etc. At the moment don't have the GPS hooked up, since the lab is in the basement. Will move to a different lab with a window, with the hope that we can get the GPS signal and get the whole system to work.
+) UMN test setup
+Tanner: continuing to set up the prototype at UMN, connected the digitizer, the bailer,
+and a computer to a local network switch. Can control them, see the data from the seismometer
+etc. At the moment don't have the GPS hooked up, since the lab is in the basement. Will move to
+a different lab with a window, with the hope that we can get the GPS signal and get the whole
+system to work.
 ) Analysis of existing data
@@ Line 22: / Line 28: @@
     https://zzz.physics.umn.edu/_media/groups/homestake/meetings/homestake_orfs_eric20140123.pdf
-    Eric: Going back to the beginning and trying to rebuild the radiometer algorithm to understand it better now, and to make things easier in the future. Studying the overlap reduction between seismometers, following the formalism from the gravitational-wave field. Assume isotropic distribution of eg P-waves only or S-waves only, two detectors some distance apart, look at different detector orientations. Normalization of the overlap reduction function such that at low frequency it shows the fraction of the power detected, so it approaches 1/3 (due to 3D nature of the siimulated field).
+    Eric: Going back to the beginning and trying to rebuild the radiometer algorithm to
-    Victor: similar studies have been done in the past, showing that lower frequencies are correlated over longer distances. There is also a difference between surface and body waves.
+    understand it better now, and to make things easier in the future. Studying the overlap
-    Eric: Next, will develop the code to simulate different seismic noise fields, stochastic rather than sinusoidal. Should allow adding different modes in the future, with different directionality and different frequency content.
+    reduction between seismometers, following the formalism from the gravitational-wave field.
+    Assume isotropic distribution of eg P-waves only or S-waves only, two detectors some distance
+    apart, look at different detector orientations. Normalization of the overlap reduction function
+    such that at low frequency it shows the fraction of the power detected, so it approaches 1/3
+    (due to 3D nature of the siimulated field).
+    Victor: similar studies have been done in the past, showing that lower frequencies are
+    correlated over longer distances. There is also a difference between surface and body waves.
+    Eric: Next, will develop the code to simulate different seismic noise fields, stochastic
+    rather than sinusoidal. Should allow adding different modes in the future, with different
+    directionality and different frequency content.
     Victor: should also worry about heterogeneity.
     Vuk: definitely should include it, although it may be more important and high than at low frequencies.
-    Eric: will also redo the map-computation code, including the spherical harmonic decomposition code copied from the GW field.
+    Eric: will also redo the map-computation code, including the spherical harmonic decomposition
+    code copied from the GW field.

User Tools

Differences

Page Tools