Whats going on at yellowstone?

reply to post by RFBurns


Well, we're getting far afield here, but...

On page two of that document, where they discuss the methods used, they report using a PM2.5 monitor (specifically a Beta Attenuation Monitor).

Here's good old Thermo's Beta Attenuation Monitor, suitable for PM2.5 work:

www.thermo.com...

Note the phrase:

"The RPM regulated rotary vane pump is provided for accurate air flow rate control."

In their description of how this unit operates.

When you think "rotary vane pump", think "noise and vibration". I've done quite a bit of calibration and maintenance on rotary vane air sampling pumps. When we "run them in" after changing the vanes, we put them in a separate room, and try to run them overnight so we don't need to be near them. The noise is quite annoying.

Lower tech, but commonly used devices for doing PM2.5 work are shown by this well-known supplier on their site here:

www.tisch-env.com...

Note the large motor driven pump.

And that building shown in the photo is huge by normal standards.

We routinely use tiny free-standing monitoring shacks that are tiny by comparison yet contain a standard hi-vol pump/filter type station.

The point is that to do particulate air monitoring, you normally pull the air through a filter of some kind. This requires a motor and pump. And depending on the monitoring regime, that motor will cycle on and off. So that possibility, as suggested to Geogeek by the person he contacted, sounds entirely plausible.

Sure, it could be something else. We're just speculating.

But the current state of the art for this kind of monitoring uses motor driven air-sucking devices.

One of the critical things that you're trying to establish with any environmental air monitoring, is concentration of the analyte.

The only way to establish concentrations for particulate matter is to sample a known volume of air. Thus, we frequently use air pumps with mass flow controllers to draw a known volume through the filter or, in the case of automated systems such as the Beta Attenuation type device, a "tape" of filter material.

Anyhow, we're probably boring the rest of the readers with this.

If you believe that the signals seen on the Yellowstone Lake seismo are not man-made, that's fine. But I'm pretty convinced that they are man made, and the air-monitoring pump explanation provided by one of the researchers in the area sounds plausible to me.

The webicorders are picking up noise from wind.

Station BTU at Barney Top, Utah is sensitive to wind. This is several night-time hours of wind generated noise. Station ICU in Indian Springs Canyon, Utah and some of the Yellowstone National Park stations are also sensitive to wind.

About Webicorders

reply to post by Bbrhuft


I'm with the wind theory, but the signals we're getting lately on Yellowstone webicorders (LKWY especially) don't really look much like the constant random background noise of the example you posted.

[edit on 2009/1/8 by Shirakawa]

reply to post by Shirakawa


This is also described at high wind conditions, I presume the peaks are caused by wind gusts. I would like the peaks not to be wind, but that seems to be more likely, just wind.



www.pnsn.org...

Originally posted by geogeek
reply to post by RFBurns

 

if U actually look at LKWY, the compressor noise is really not hurting much .. the swarm quakes are completely overpowering the signal from the compressor ... that said, it would have been better to have it at a more distant location, just in case U think U want to go after those mag -5 micro-quakes, ... when the wind isn't blowing ....

[edit on 8-1-2009 by geogeek]

Thanks! Ive been looking at LKWY for the last 7 days since all this started. I agree that any compressor or soda pop machine noise wont cause any significant measurement, since those sensors are not looking for frequencies above a certian point. Im wondering now about this interlinking tunnels or tubes someone mentioned about.

Anyway those chambers down there are going to cause resonance of themselves with all that magma moving about, echoes of sorts, since that magma chamber isnt completely filled with the molten rock. But Im sure the sensors also filter that out or we would be seeing huge cluster mucks of spikes on these graphs.

Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by Rumbottlerenovator
reply to post by geogeek

 

Is "wind" a new phenomina that just started recently been introduced to Yellowstone?
If you look back through the historical data "wind" interference should be constant anomoly within the graphs...
Go back 6 months to YML, or any other site, and look at the graph and corrispond it to a weather reading.
When you find a windy day and you do NOT see anything like what we see now.

check out:
files.abovetopsecret.com... (from earthquakes canada link)
quake.usgs.gov...
earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca...

Originally posted by Bbrhuft
The webicorders are picking up noise from wind.

Station BTU at Barney Top, Utah is sensitive to wind. This is several night-time hours of wind generated noise. Station ICU in Indian Springs Canyon, Utah and some of the Yellowstone National Park stations are also sensitive to wind.

About Webicorders

I had thought this could occur, however I have found current weather conditions for Yellowstone and I do not believe that current wind conditions could cause this as they do not appear to be strong enough. Wind speed for Yellowstone area appears to be around 19 - 20 mph from SSW.
Wind Speed for Yellowstone vacinity

Originally posted by Bbrhuft
reply to post by Shirakawa

 

This is also described at high wind conditions, I presume the peaks are caused by wind gusts. I would like the peaks not to be wind, but that seems to be more likely, just wind.



www.pnsn.org...

wind noise can have varying structure depending on how gusty it is, and what is going on in between the gusts (wind wise, that is ), how strong the gusts are to the background wind ( U get the idea )...

reply to post by VX-7R


I would agree that those particular types of sensors would be used somewhere out of range of these siesmic sensors, but even if they did use those types of pumps near the siesmic sensors, I would bet anything that they have these things mounted on an isolated platform, to absorb the vibrations and not just sitting flat on the ground where any potential vibration from the pumps would be picked up by the siesmic sensors.

My point is that I am quite sure there are preventative measures in place so that when these air samplers turn on they wont be causing any significant interference. I doubt these pumps would be anywhere near those sensors, which are buried quite deep into the ground, plus the designed filtering in the sensors themselves, and the programs in the computers analyzing this data would also have incorporated algorithyms representing these stray vibrations to effectively null out any stray vibrations from the pumps.

Might not null it out completley, but enough to know the difference between some pump vibration vs an actual geologic activity vibration.




Cheers!!!!!

reply to post by geogeek


Here is weather underground, its only started to get really windy since 29th Dec. The recent "activity" coincides with windy days.

www.wunderground.com... - December

www.wunderground.com... - January

I had thought this could occur, however I have found current weather conditions for Yellowstone and I do not believe that current wind conditions could cause this as they do not appear to be strong enough. Wind speed for Yellowstone area appears to be around 19 - 20 mph from SSW.
Wind Speed for Yellowstone vacinity

20 MPH, in presence of trees close by is more than enough ...
if in doubt, follow my correlation procedure (blink comparator) outline for Firefox browser for that station & a nearby station ... if it don't correlate, its local noise (usually wind noise ), not magma coming to surface

anyways i'm outa here gotta do some real work before the boss notices ... been fun ... Hope i helped a few people understand these tricky things (seismograms)

[edit on 8-1-2009 by geogeek]

[edit on 8-1-2009 by geogeek]



if a serious question (NOT A REHASH of something already discussed) , why not try using that u2u messaging app (if it works), i will make a point of checking it a few times a day ...

[edit on 8-1-2009 by geogeek]

[edit on 8-1-2009 by geogeek]

[edit on 8-1-2009 by geogeek]

Originally posted by Spell2Speak

Originally posted by Mushussu

If red stars are handed out
Who is going to be in charge of the red stars?

If it's a new feature introduced, there could be limits set, like a certain number of posts to the thread before one could "red star." Putting up that many posts assumes a person is somewhat familiar with the content. Even without that, I can't see most people being bothered to "red star" unless they're involved with the content of the thread. And even if there are repeats, it would still call attention to info and help one to skim over the necessary, but not data-charged social interactions.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by Spell2Speak]

I understand your thought , that I have no concern about.
And I will show you no disrespect.
My Q is : Without a constant How are you going to know what is new.

Example : Someone posts something they think is new, may have already been posted many pages back, and already heavily discussed. You politely tell them that and the majority of people online are in agreement with you at that time.
Stream ahead, You are still in the thread and now only a few of the majority are still there with you. You are now the VanGuard and there are more newbies than there are of you. The subject again comes up and you again tell them the subject had been reviewed and such and such was the outcome. 'Please review these pages da da da da da.'
But they aren't listening and it gets whipped up again.
It is Cyclical in nature. We have seen it many times.
So where are you going to start.
Ask RFBurns, JustMike, Shirakawa- tho Shira tends to stay out of the fray.
Look to the member registered date.
Ask those people what is new or not if they remember what ever it is that you are looking for.
With the exception of some absolutely fantastic graphs made and found , site finds in the last 50 to 100 pages or so, you are going to find allot of repetition and rehash.
So, where are you going to start with the red stars and how soon before the newbies start using them and then you are looking to find a new color of star.



[edit on 8-1-2009 by Mushussu]

Originally posted by Bbrhuft
reply to post by geogeek

 

Here is weather underground, its only started to get really windy since 29th Dec. The recent "activity" coincides with windy days.

www.wunderground.com... - December

www.wunderground.com... - January

Thanks much for the backup, i appreciate it

reply to post by geogeek


Thanks for your time and input!

It's great to have some analysis from someone with experience in this field. Drop in again when you've got time to kill.

reply to post by Mushussu


I'll agree with you on the red star deal. Besides, this site is alot bigger than this one thread. This would not work very well.

The other thread with just links in it, would work just fine for catching up, but it could get overwhelmed as well.

Originally posted by Bbrhuft
reply to post by geogeek

 

Here is weather underground, its only started to get really windy since 29th Dec. The recent "activity" coincides with windy days.

www.wunderground.com... - December

www.wunderground.com... - January

Not trying to argue a possible mute point but only trying to understand better.

Though yes you can coincide that as a general staement however according to tht website www.wunderground if you compare Jan 7, 2009 with Jan 8, 2009 the wind speed is only 1 - 2 mph more today than yesterday. The when you look at the webicorder for yesterday compared to today for all 3 stations I mentioned, then we should see more "harmonic like" activity on yesterdays webicorders as well (since the wind speed was very close to the same).

Jan 7, 2009:
Wind Speed: 14 mph
Max Wind Speed: 15 mph

Jan 8, 2009:
Wind Speed: 15 mph
Max Wind Speed: 16 mph

Lake Yellowstone webicorder:
Jan 7, 2009 -
Jan 8, 2009 -

Little West Thumb webicorder:
Jan 7, 2009 -
Jan 8, 2009 -

Mary Lake webicorder:
Jan 7, 2009 -
Jan 8, 2009 -

I would just expect to see more webicorder activity for Jan 7 at all 3 stations. But Mary Lake's station today shows more activity than the other 2 mentioned and shows fairly steady, while the other 2 drop off. Granted Mary Lake is not as active as Lake Yellowstone was on Jan 2, 2009.

Jan 2, 2009:
Wind: Speed: 13 mph
Max wind Speed: 17 mph
Lake Yellowstone webicorder on Jan 2, 2009 -


I do not have the skill yet to compute correlation procedure and vectors and station distances as RFBurns suggested. I wish I did and I know I will learn how eventually through my geology major career!

Just trying to understand better as I am at a remote location and I cannot just walk outside the stations a take wind readings at each station.

Guys, I would have hoped myself for these signals to be something different, but by checking out from these archives (extremely useful link by the way) past LKWY seismograph traces from last year(s) one can only conclude that they must be due to wind as they appear not only often but also during long geologically calm periods.

[edit on 2009/1/8 by Shirakawa]

Originally posted by geogeek
reply to post by Amaxium

 

i agree, there is an event (for example) at about 7:11 that is closer to LKWY than YLT , perhaps YML is even closer ... next step would be to go to the station map, draw vector from YLT to YML, the pick another station (say XXX) further along that vector than YML, and see if the time is even earlier than YML , ... there is math and paper & compass methods for this ... but why

.... there is no guarantee that the earthquake is actually on that vector .. but using that result, we can probably guess another vector to search from YML to XXX results; for example if the same arrival time for YML & XXX, we know these stations are equal distance away from this quake, if XXX is earlier in time, lets keep searching in the general direction of the vector, but spread out the search a bit in a "V" shape ...

[edit on 8-1-2009 by geogeek]

[edit on 8-1-2009 by geogeek]

[edit on 8-1-2009 by geogeek]

there is a DOC file out there at jclahr.com/science/earth_science/cr06/festival/hyperbolas.doc
( I haven't tried it yet, HAVE FUN ... )
which contains a graphical method to compute source locations (approximately)
I wouldn't worry too much about first 2 paragraphs ... if U need a velocity use "P" velocity of say 6500 meters/sec, and remember that distance = velocity * time

Originally posted by j2000
reply to post by Mushussu

 

I'll agree with you on the red star deal. Besides, this site is alot bigger than this one thread. This would not work very well.

The other thread with just links in it, would work just fine for catching up, but it could get overwhelmed as well.

Agreed and thanks.
Besides, if we all post our site findings to the info site Sageturkey set up we can see what gets repeatedly posted. Someone else tried to start a refrence thread too but their member status said Banned. On that I do not want to know. But it is out there too.

reply to post by Amaxium


Until I was in college, I always thought the expression was "doggy dog world" instead of "dog eat dog." I also thought it was "intensive purposes" instead of "intents and purposes." Took me awhile to fully grasp what et cetera was. So I don't fault you for thinking it's "mute point." But I suppose this entire post is moot.