Quake Watch 2013

reply to post by PuterMan


Tried to write you and you are right I am not allowed to use private messaging, maybe that comes with time?

Have downloaded your s/w and seen your site, I do believe in the 11 years at my current job that I have seen your site and used your s/w before. Very complete and I look forward to installing it on the PC at work, as I have none and no interest in virtual PCs as I do have that one there.

Alternate ways to get data into 3DV sounds interesting, I have so many ways I want to improve it.
IRIS and the FDSN are coming together on a standard web services parameters, those same ones you see in IEB and 3DV but more properly defined at service.iris.edu...
When more data centers, particularly in Europe, begin to offer their data via that pseudo-standard, then 3DV could easily be pointed at them. I imagine a menu pick: Data center / IRIS | Orfeus --whatever.

I could make it possible to read KML, I think, w/o too much work, and probably GeoJSON.
Not in the next few months sadly.

I wish I had known I only have 4 hours to edit messages. There are a couple things I would like to change. Rereading it by light of day, it may sound negative toward my boss at points, but that is certainly not true, just me having to be realistic and move on to another (fascinating) project whilst not finished obsessing about the current fascinating project.

Here is a picture of a heat map (only avail currently in my dev version):

Aleutian Island swarm 2012 Sept

and here is a movie showing the swarms being animated (not in realtime just simple stepwise)
Quicktime of Aleutians swarms (watch carefully turns out there are TWO)

2 Swarms in Aleutians

reply to post by BO XIAN


Thanks for your considered reply and some real gems which I will happily add to my collection of feedback and recommendations and such.
I'm not very good at this forum to navigate and see messages in their proper context and chronological order, so if I don't respond to a message, or do but quite a while later, it's just me learning the ropes.
At some point I should be getting private messaging and thus move some of this stuff offline.

But I do have something to share about quakes. During stress testing I loaded 20,000 quakes into the viewer and it worked just fine. Here is a high-res pic of it. I have a movie somewhere but can't locate just now.

link: 20,000 quakes near NZ in fine detail

FOUND the movie:

reply to post by rosswellian



Yeah. I think you can use the PM U2U system after 20 posts.

Great links. Thx.

Was going to ask you . . . are you aware of Stan Deyo's theory and use of Navy sea bed? temperature anomalies to predict quakes? I think with significantly above chance results.

Your temperature thing reminded me.

IT may not be close enough to your priorities to bother with . . . but just in case

Here's his link

standeyo.com...

reply to post by rosswellian


Thx for your kind words.

My only desire with the brainstorming suggestions is to serve you and thank you for your excellent gifts to us all. No sweat on time or bothering with at all unless it suits you and your priorities.

Great links. Loved the movie. What an incredible number of quakes.

IIR, one part of the movie was quite excellent in depicting the wealth of quake evidence. I forget what minute point. . . .

Around 0:40-0:44ish . . . I guess it's more subjective than I thought when I first viewed it.

THX THX THX.

reply to post by BobAthome


Good suggestion, but unfortunately it did not make any difference. I will try with some real figures from hand drawing a box.

Hand draw box gives &maxlat=-13.3680&minlat=-20.1490&maxlon=176.6380&minlon=174.4300

What I end up with is &maxlat=-12.75&minlat=-20.74&maxlon=-178.68&minlon=169.74




Looking at another one

&maxlat=-12.49&minlat=-20.49&maxlon=179.79&minlon=168.21

this was -13/-20 x 179/169 so when the page has come up it appears to have added 0.51 to the Max Lat and subtracted 0.49 from the Min Lat. Same with the longitudes but this time added 0.79 to the Max Lon and subtracted 0.79 from the Min Lon.

This looks suspiciously like it is intended. Some sort of padding? ETA: No it is different with each set.

Here is a text file of links. Maybe others can see what they get?

That text file now has the results that i got in 4 different browsers. Not all the same results.

reply to post by rosswellian


Like the avatar

20,000 quakes - development model perhaps?

reply to post by PuterMan


Hi Muzzy

that param, "sz=", at present only controls whether and what sort of warning regarding region size the user will see in the upper right region of screen.

enormous (generally "whole world") is notable b/c 3DV, though it functions with a global dataset, was never meant to show huge regions or the entire globe. various reasons and background if you want it offline.

so here it is: IEB, the google map which so far is the main caller to 3DV has some half-baked logic that assigns a region size of something like 'tiny', small, large, huge and enormous.

If you call, lacking any setting for the sz= paramater it should not be an issue. But there is value in advising 3DV up front that you have doubts about the region. Example: a 100km tall region by 80 degrees wide is just ridulous and won't render well in 3DV.

To summarize, it currently doesn't matter what or if you pass the sz= parameter, but it is good to have some mechanism in your URL builder that prevents ridiculous regions such as above, as the person will be disappointed and turned off. More info if you want, such as my current, half-baked logic for the aforementioned region size designations....

rosswellian

reply to post by rosswellian


Thanks. If you are still on please edit your post and remove your email address. That is not advisable and may even be against the T&C to do so on the thread.

reply to post by PuterMan


Yes U R very correct. I can't yet let those 20,000 max quakes be for all users, because my own parents and many friends still use say IE with Win XP (no crime), but 2000 quakes chokes Internet Exploder (if shaded and rotating), though MSFT are making great strides.

For now, until I know the makeup of the browser share, I think 5000 is enough "rope" to hang about 30% of the viewers. haha

I can say that Chrome is about 3x the usage for my sites as the nearest three combined.
Also, as mentioned in my help, check out "Opera Next" a complete redo of Opera and very lean, very fast.

reply to post by PuterMan


done. thx. keyboard macro expansion issue.

reply to post by PuterMan


sorry yes, with your comment earlier "development only", yes that is in my private dev version only, but i may expose it via some GET param like, I dunno, modernbrowser=1, haha or plentymem=1, whatever, it remains to be seen.

when/if I am allowed to send private messages I could send you the actual existing magic param that allows both 10,000 and 20,000 be the new max quakes limits. only as I said already, decided against alienating folks, who we all know will jump to the max of any setting immediately, from having a bad experience.....
when only some 1/4 of the users have browsers and memory to make that a satisfying experience.
rosswellian

reply to post by PuterMan


Hello folks,
When you get real close (tiny regions) you are pushing the extremes, perhaps, of IEB and 3DV.
Tradeoffs, e.g. regarding max nos. of digits of precision in lats and lons, are always a reality, and then Google Maps them selves also have the ultimate sway -- and, long story short, it is about "middle ground" compromise, a scheme that works for 85% or more of the usage cases. (and failed for the recent US budget crisis! haha)

If you care for detail: there are two aspects to digits of precision: how many to store in the database and how many to support via a web app or web page asking for them. Not simple but intriguing tradeoffs, as already said.

The balanced tradeoff is what is what I have strived for, but of course I am imperfect, and having a group that will exercise the code and expose the issues I know are lurking there, is a great feeling.

It is much more complex than one might imagine, certainly it was more than I bargained for!
The myriad combinations of possible inputs make it hard for a single person, myself, working part time on this, to intelligently deal with it all.

In short I admit up front that bugs and oversights exist.

Still how happy I am that people such as your selves are trying and evaluating.
If you work in s/w as I do, you'll know that warm feeling of knowing someone is using your "thing" and they have both complaints and, hopefully mostly?, complements.

cheers all
rosswellian

reply to post by BO XIAN


HI
Reason of rotation issues is one I can correct but in next version.
The region is rather small and if you can see there is a single, quite deep quake.
Therefor the Z axis has to encompass that lone, deep quake, which throws things a bit off kilter.
I know what to do to correct for this sort of issue, but it generally only arises with small region selections like 100km in one of the X/Y dimensions, and thus has not been the highest of priorities.
Thanks for using it and your feedback is welcomed.
rosswellian

reply to post by PuterMan


sorry, just noticed maxlon or one of the lons is within a very minute distance of the extreme case.
yes logic was needed to subtract a tiny bit from lons or lats that were essentially within some tiny amount for their extreme value. it was added only due to problems resulting from calculations so very close to the extrema.

reply to post by PuterMan


I see one or two posts of mine that still regrettably have the email address; hoping mods will remove it, as I can't edit them.

About the earlier mention of lats and lons being modified, this is not always my code, not at all.
Google maps, if you ask for a region they 'don't like' or 'doesn't well fit' will give you back a roughly-same bounding box but modified to fit, for example, the size of your window.

Imagine if your window on computer is 400 high by 1100 wide. You will get different results from the same URL than if your window were a more standard-ish 600 tall by 800 wide, or whatever. I broke teeth on that a lot and it is likely related to your experience. Google maps returns what your "world boundaries" shall be, you don't get absolute control.

cheers
rosswellian

reply to post by rosswellian



No sweat. I'm still very giddy gleeful with the 3D software visualizer thing.

No rush for me on the refinements.

Just know you are greatly appreciated.

If I can do any dinking with it for you, from an ignorant layman user perspective, let me know.

Blessings,

reply to post by rosswellian


Hey ros, totally in awe of your work! Just tagging along with the conversation, I noticed that your last bunch of posts were all replies to others comments and that your post count has remained at 19 the entire time. If you are needing to get to the magic 20 posts so that you can private message, just click 'reply' at the bottom of the screen instead of from within another users comments.
Just trying to be helpful...

ETA: Holy Cow! Karma score of 15 with only 18 posts? The ATS gods have smiled on you.

Regards

reply to post by rosswellian

Imagine if your window on computer is 400 high by 1100 wide

But it will still be 400 x 1100 and not 403.25 x 1098.37

Whilst I understand what you are saying the discrepancy of several degrees in some cases leaves much to be desired. I know Google Maps suck, but does it need to suck quite so much????? That is one reason I prefer Google Earth. If you draw a region that is what you get and no software making decisions for you as to what fits and what looks best.

If I want a brick wall 33ft long by 9ft high does the builder give me that? Yes within an inch. What we are looking at is differences of hundreds of miles when it is translated to the surface.

I shall have a further play with it and see if I can out guess them.

Forgot to say: Leave off the signature - not needed and solves the email problem.

reply to post by sageturkey


BINGO just the sort of assistance/advice I need.
thx ever so much.
rosswellian

reply to post by PuterMan


I have a lot to learn about interfacing with google Earth but I do understand some about interfacing with the online Google Maps API V3 interface. The complexities such as if you asked for "what would amount to one inch high by 7 inches wide, onscreen?" -- they seem to adjust to something they think is more manageable. Don't ask me, what they actually do is a mystery to most everyone...

I only know my problems, when they arise, are when my computer browser window is, for example, tall and narrow. Note that most usage scenarios are going to be wider than tall. Google make many dynamic decisions that I've given up anticipating, long story short: best to assume a vaguely popular window set up of roughly either square, or more wide than tall. These "adjustments" done to lats and lons seem to unavoidable, in my humble experience, part of the cost of "doing business" with them.

Gosh, I am not sure that helps, but the gist is: google maps will not always obey the exact lat/lon boundaries you create them with.

best
rosswellian