Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
| groups:homestake:meetings:20160728 [2016/07/28 10:03] – mandic | groups:homestake:meetings:20160728 [2016/07/28 10:50] (current) – mandic | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| * Gary/ | * Gary/ | ||
| * In the early phases of a data report paper on the practical issues we uncovered in the active source experiments. | * In the early phases of a data report paper on the practical issues we uncovered in the active source experiments. | ||
| + | * Daniel: Should check with the Boise group, so that there is no overlap. | ||
| + | * Victor: Boise group is working on the surface active excitation, they have many measurements done, Victor' | ||
| + | * Vuk: Gary should connect with them to determine what goes in which paper. | ||
| * We could consider a similar paper on the 3D array. | * We could consider a similar paper on the 3D array. | ||
| * Other things are more in planning phases. | * Other things are more in planning phases. | ||
| * Vuk (and the UMN group): | * Vuk (and the UMN group): | ||
| - | * A paper describing the array, as Gary suggested. It may be useful to show some data in this paper, such as the seismic noise levels, variation over time, variation with depth, maybe coherence plots. | + | * A paper describing the array, as Gary suggested. It may be useful to show some data in this paper, such as the seismic noise levels, variation over time, variation with depth, maybe coherence plots. No significant data analysis, just basic things. |
| + | * Victor: SRL is good for papers without very deep science, more speculative things. | ||
| * Parameter estimation for the Rayleigh and Love eigenfunctions (amplitude vs depth dependence). This could be a separate paper, or a part of the above paper. | * Parameter estimation for the Rayleigh and Love eigenfunctions (amplitude vs depth dependence). This could be a separate paper, or a part of the above paper. | ||
| + | * Victor: inversion (using velocity structure) instead of parameter estimation? Tanner: Yes, planning to do both approaches and to compare them. Will try to improve on parameter estimation that Tanner did, and compare it to Victor' | ||
| + | * Daniel interested in collaborating. | ||
| * Estimating directional and modal composition of the seismic noise. This would include the radiometer method description, | * Estimating directional and modal composition of the seismic noise. This would include the radiometer method description, | ||
| * For an estimate of the modal and directional composition of the seismic noise, compute the estimate of Newtonian gravity fluctuations. Could be done using (semi)analytical approach, or maybe purely numerical simulations. | * For an estimate of the modal and directional composition of the seismic noise, compute the estimate of Newtonian gravity fluctuations. Could be done using (semi)analytical approach, or maybe purely numerical simulations. | ||
| * Jan/ | * Jan/ | ||
| + | * Ran the old wiener filtering code on the new data, started compiling plots and summarizing results. There are ideas about related analyses, eg estimating the body waves by filtering 4850 with surface stations. Time scale, not sure, depends on what new things we want to add. | ||
| + | * Michael: Jan has code to show data in the k-f space. Ran the code on some of the data, have velocity histograms. Not sure what Jan wants to do with it. | ||
| + | * Vuk: Will invite Jan to attend the next call and explain. There are overlaps with other efforts on estimating wave speed etc. | ||
| + | * Daniel and Victor will discuss and add to this list too. | ||
| + | * Victor: looking at teleseismic EQs and near-surface scattering. Another direction is to look at time-variable velocity changes, but did not start it yet. Either or both could be directions for papers. | ||
| * Other comments: | * Other comments: | ||
| * From Gary (email): | * From Gary (email): | ||
| * We have this interesting data set that relates to the fundamentals of surface wave propagation. | * We have this interesting data set that relates to the fundamentals of surface wave propagation. | ||
| + | * Victor: slightly more optimistic, Tanner' | ||
| + | * Vuk: agreed. | ||
| + | * Tanner: with Rayleigh measurements, | ||
| + | * Victor: for mine blasts, the waves are likely already affected by the surface by the time they reach Homestake. Might not be any cleaner than the surface data, at least at high frequency. But at lower frequencies we may benefit, i.e. on the scales that are large relative to the scale of drift sizes etc. | ||
| * If I could give one thing I've learned from this experiment so far it is this. Going into this my working hypothesis was that getting away from the very heterogeneous surface weathered layer would simplify the data. This hasn't proven true at all. A lot of the reason is that we aren't that far away from the surface even at 4850 and most of our observations are still colored by (possible) near surface scattering. | * If I could give one thing I've learned from this experiment so far it is this. Going into this my working hypothesis was that getting away from the very heterogeneous surface weathered layer would simplify the data. This hasn't proven true at all. A lot of the reason is that we aren't that far away from the surface even at 4850 and most of our observations are still colored by (possible) near surface scattering. | ||