Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| groups:homestake:meetings:20170413 [2017/04/13 10:22] – meyers | groups:homestake:meetings:20170413 [2017/04/13 12:20] (current) – mandic | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Homestake Meeting Minutes, 04/13/17 | Homestake Meeting Minutes, 04/13/17 | ||
| - | Attending: | + | Attending: |
| Agenda: | Agenda: | ||
| - | * Next Meeting: | + | * Next Meeting: |
| * Data analysis topics | * Data analysis topics | ||
| * Data corrections, | * Data corrections, | ||
| - | | + | * Daniel got data from Gary, now Pat is copying the data at UMN. Pat plans to start making frames in the coming week. Daniel has the complete dataset, checked a few teleseisms and the data look correct. |
| + | | ||
| + | * no news, but will try to make a nice figure for the paper. | ||
| * Radiometer updates (Pat) [[http:// | * Radiometer updates (Pat) [[http:// | ||
| - | | + | * Investigated SVD approach to inverting the gamma-matrix in the radiometer algorithm. It offers a way of trading off the uncertainty in the recovery amplitude with the uncertainty in the direction. |
| + | * Gary: could use the matrix norm as a measure of its size/ | ||
| + | * Will try to repeat the study using different wave types, so far used only P-waves. | ||
| + | * Daniel/ | ||
| + | | ||
| + | * Trying to estimate the local Rayleigh wave velocity by cross correlating different stations. Get a large difference when compared to the velocity estimate from the location of the source (mining explosion). Have to be careful distinguishing between the group and phase velocities. | ||
| + | * Vuk: have different ways of estimating the velocity: Pat/ | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | * Repeated the studies of noise variations over the entire data set, now that it is available. Find similar trends to Tanner' | ||
| + | * Also looked at a teleseismic event in more detail: using N-1 stations to predict the incident waveform, and then compute the expected waveform at the N-th station and compare with the observed waveform at the N-th station. Assume simple reflection off of a plane, no coupling P-S waves, assumes known isotropic velocity etc. Still gets a very good agreement, but can improve it in multiple ways. | ||
| + | * Interested in trying something like a Wiener filter on a transient event (as opposed to background data), will work with Michael. | ||
| * Papers | * Papers | ||
| Line 16: | Line 28: | ||
| * Leads: Vuk, Gary, Victor | * Leads: Vuk, Gary, Victor | ||
| * target: Seism. Research Lett., 6000 words, 10 figures. | * target: Seism. Research Lett., 6000 words, 10 figures. | ||
| + | * No time to discuss, aim to update the paper draft over the next 3 weeks and have a more polished draft by next meeting. | ||
| * Active excitation overview paper | * Active excitation overview paper | ||