Tagged: QCN Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • richardmitnick 8:25 am on December 6, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , QCN,   

    From Stanford: “Number of manmade earthquakes in Oklahoma declining, but risk remains high” 

    Stanford University Name
    Stanford University

    November 30, 2016
    Ker Than

    1
    Clusters of earthquakes in Oklahoma have been linked to wastewater injection from oil and gas drilling. (Image credit: Courtesy Cornelius Langenbruch)

    The number of manmade, or “induced,” earthquakes in Oklahoma has risen dramatically since 2009, due largely to wastewater amassed during oil and gas recovery operations being injected deep underground into seismically active areas.

    But new state regulations that call for reductions in wastewater injection should significantly decrease the rate of induced earthquakes in Oklahoma in the coming years, Stanford scientists say in an article in Science Advances.

    “Over the past few years, Oklahoma tried a number of measures aimed at reducing the rising number of induced quakes in the state, but none of those actions were effective,” said Mark Zoback, the Benjamin M. Page Professor at Stanford’s School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences.

    While wastewater produced during oil and gas drilling has been disposed of by underground injection in this area for many decades, induced seismicity was not a problem until the volumes being injected were massively increased, beginning around 2009. In the past six years, billions of barrels of wastewater were injected into the Arbuckle formation, a highly permeable rock unit sitting directly atop billion-year-old rocks containing numerous faults.

    Research by Zoback and his graduate student Rall Walsh published last year established the correlation in space and time between the areas where the massive injection was occurring and the induced earthquakes. The pair showed how pressure buildup resulting from the wastewater injection can spread over large areas and trigger earthquakes tens of miles from the injection wells.

    In light of these findings, the state’s public utilities commission – the Oklahoma Corporation Commission – last spring called for a 40 percent reduction in the volume of wastewater being injected. The bulk of that wastewater comes from oil production in several water-bearing rock formations that had not been extensively drilled until a few years ago.

    A new physics-based statistical model developed by Stanford postdoctoral fellow Cornelius Langenbruch and Zoback, detailed online this week in the journal Science Advances, predicts that the continued reduction of injected wastewater will lead to a significant decline in the rate of widely felt earthquakes – defined as quakes measuring magnitude 3.0 or above – and a return to the historic background level in about five years.

    When the volume of wastewater injection peaked in 2015, Oklahoma was experiencing two or more magnitude 3.0 earthquakes per day. Before 2009, when wastewater injection really started ramping up, the rate was about one per year.

    “Several months after wastewater injection began decreasing in mid-2015, the earthquake rate started to decline,” Langenbruch said. “There is no question that there is a significantly lower seismicity rate than there was a year ago.”

    Unfortunately, even though the rate of induced quakes will continue declining, the probability of potentially damaging earthquakes like the magnitude 5.8 earthquake that struck the town of Pawnee in September — the largest recorded earthquake to strike Oklahoma — will remain elevated for a number of years, the Stanford scientists say.

    “As long as elevated pressure persists throughout this region,” Zoback said, “there will be an increased risk of triggering damaging earthquakes.”

    Mark Zoback is also a senior fellow at Stanford’s Precourt Institute for Energy, an affiliate of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, and the director of the Stanford Natural Gas Initiative. Funding for this study was provided by the Stanford Center for Induced and Triggered Seismicity.

    Media Contacts

    Mark Zoback, School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences:
    (650) 725-9295
    zoback@stanford.edu

    Cornelius Langenbruch, School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences:
    (415)-818-5738,
    langenbr@stanford.edu

    Ker Than, School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences:
    (650) 723-9820,
    kerthan@stanford.edu

    See the full article here .

    You can help many citizen scientists in detecting earthquakes and getting the data to emergency services people in affected area.

    QCN bloc

    Quake-Catcher Network

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a collaborative initiative for developing the world’s largest, low-cost strong-motion seismic network by utilizing sensors in and attached to internet-connected computers. With your help, the Quake-Catcher Network can provide better understanding of earthquakes, give early warning to schools, emergency response systems, and others. The Quake-Catcher Network also provides educational software designed to help teach about earthquakes and earthquake hazards.

    After almost eight years at Stanford, and a year at CalTech, the QCN project is moving to the University of Southern California Dept. of Earth Sciences. QCN will be sponsored by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC).

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a distributed computing network that links volunteer hosted computers into a real-time motion sensing network. QCN is one of many scientific computing projects that runs on the world-renowned distributed computing platform Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC).

    BOINCLarge

    BOINC WallPaper

    The volunteer computers monitor vibrational sensors called MEMS accelerometers, and digitally transmit “triggers” to QCN’s servers whenever strong new motions are observed. QCN’s servers sift through these signals, and determine which ones represent earthquakes, and which ones represent cultural noise (like doors slamming, or trucks driving by).

    There are two categories of sensors used by QCN: 1) internal mobile device sensors, and 2) external USB sensors.

    Mobile Devices: MEMS sensors are often included in laptops, games, cell phones, and other electronic devices for hardware protection, navigation, and game control. When these devices are still and connected to QCN, QCN software monitors the internal accelerometer for strong new shaking. Unfortunately, these devices are rarely secured to the floor, so they may bounce around when a large earthquake occurs. While this is less than ideal for characterizing the regional ground shaking, many such sensors can still provide useful information about earthquake locations and magnitudes.

    USB Sensors: MEMS sensors can be mounted to the floor and connected to a desktop computer via a USB cable. These sensors have several advantages over mobile device sensors. 1) By mounting them to the floor, they measure more reliable shaking than mobile devices. 2) These sensors typically have lower noise and better resolution of 3D motion. 3) Desktops are often left on and do not move. 4) The USB sensor is physically removed from the game, phone, or laptop, so human interaction with the device doesn’t reduce the sensors’ performance. 5) USB sensors can be aligned to North, so we know what direction the horizontal “X” and “Y” axes correspond to.

    If you are a science teacher at a K-12 school, please apply for a free USB sensor and accompanying QCN software. QCN has been able to purchase sensors to donate to schools in need. If you are interested in donating to the program or requesting a sensor, click here.

    BOINC is a leader in the field(s) of Distributed Computing, Grid Computing and Citizen Cyberscience.BOINC is more properly the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, developed at UC Berkeley.

    Earthquake safety is a responsibility shared by billions worldwide. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) provides software so that individuals can join together to improve earthquake monitoring, earthquake awareness, and the science of earthquakes. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) links existing networked laptops and desktops in hopes to form the worlds largest strong-motion seismic network.

    Below, the QCN Quake Catcher Network map
    QCN Quake Catcher Network map

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.
    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    Leland and Jane Stanford founded the University to “promote the public welfare by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization.” Stanford opened its doors in 1891, and more than a century later, it remains dedicated to finding solutions to the great challenges of the day and to preparing our students for leadership in today’s complex world. Stanford, is an American private research university located in Stanford, California on an 8,180-acre (3,310 ha) campus near Palo Alto. Since 1952, more than 54 Stanford faculty, staff, and alumni have won the Nobel Prize, including 19 current faculty members

    Stanford University Seal

     
  • richardmitnick 5:10 am on November 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , QCN,   

    From COSMOS: “Gravity shifts could sound early earthquake alarm” 

    Cosmos Magazine bloc

    COSMOS

    23 November 2016
    No writer credit found

    1
    The 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake generated tsunamis that devastated large swathes of Japan, including the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant. A new earthquake detection technique might help give residents a few minutes’ extra warning. XINHUA / Gamma-Rapho / Getty Images

    As deep rock shuffles around, an area’s gravitational pull changes too. Detecting these blips could provide precious minutes when it comes to tsunami warnings.

    Earthquakes can shuffle around huge chunks of the deep Earth. But picking up these signs by measuring the associated transient gravity change might help provide early warnings, new research shows.

    Jean-Paul Montagner from the Paris Institute of Earth Physics in France and colleagues examined data collected during the devastating 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake off the coast of Japan, and detected a distinct gravity signal that arose before the arrival of the seismic waves. They published their work in Nature Communications.

    And while the technology to employ their system is not yet set up, they say the technique may herald new developments in early warning systems for earthquake hazards such as tsunamis.

    Earthquakes are notoriously hard to predict. When a fault line ruptures, seismic waves travel through and around the Earth and these are usually the first sign that at earthquake has hit.

    And even though these waves travel quickly – the fastest, P-wave or primary waves, can barrel through the Earth at 13 kilometres per second – they still mean precious seconds or minutes before the waves arrive at a seismic station.

    Montagner and his crew thought there could be a way to detect an earthquake before the waves appeared.

    Seismologists have known for more than a decade that there are static gravity changes following a rupture. This happens because as a fault line moves around, mass is redistributed below the surface. This means some areas suddenly become less dense while others pack on mass – and so their gravitational pull changes too.

    Such changes are measured with gravimeters. The problem is there’s background noise when it comes to gravity changes – the dynamic Earth constantly shifts and wriggles. Could the sudden gravity signal associated with an earthquake be teased out from the underlying noise?

    To find out, the researchers needed to examine a large earthquake that happened close enough to a sensitive gravimeter, so small changes in the gravity field could be picked up, but far enough away so the P-waves didn’t immediately reach seismic sensors.

    They found an ideal example in the 11 March Tohoku-Oki earthquake that led to the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster.

    Some 500 kilometres from the earthquake’s epicentre was a gravimeter at the Kamioka Observatory. The observatory was surrounded by five seismic stations. P-waves from the earthquake took around 65 seconds to reach the stations.

    Montagner and his colleagues first “calibrated” their statistical technique with 60 days of background gravity measurements – from 1 March 2011 to 5.46am on 11 March (21 seconds before the earthquake rumbled), then from 12 March to 30 April.

    They compared this background with measurements taken during the earthquake and shortly thereafter, and found a distinct blip at the time of the earthquake. It was small, but strong enough to be distinguished from the background with 99% confidence.

    So can this prediction technique be implemented today? Unfortunately not – it would require building a substantial network of exceptionally sensitive gravimeters which don’t yet exist. But, the researchers write, they could have the potential to let seismologists estimate earthquake magnitude quickly – a process that currently takes up to several minutes.

    See the full article here .

    You, too, can help with earthquake knowledge and research.

    QCN bloc

    Quake-Catcher Network

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a collaborative initiative for developing the world’s largest, low-cost strong-motion seismic network by utilizing sensors in and attached to internet-connected computers. With your help, the Quake-Catcher Network can provide better understanding of earthquakes, give early warning to schools, emergency response systems, and others. The Quake-Catcher Network also provides educational software designed to help teach about earthquakes and earthquake hazards.

    After almost eight years at Stanford, and a year at CalTech, the QCN project is moving to the University of Southern California Dept. of Earth Sciences. QCN will be sponsored by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC).

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a distributed computing network that links volunteer hosted computers into a real-time motion sensing network. QCN is one of many scientific computing projects that runs on the world-renowned distributed computing platform Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC).

    BOINCLarge

    BOINC WallPaper

    The volunteer computers monitor vibrational sensors called MEMS accelerometers, and digitally transmit “triggers” to QCN’s servers whenever strong new motions are observed. QCN’s servers sift through these signals, and determine which ones represent earthquakes, and which ones represent cultural noise (like doors slamming, or trucks driving by).

    There are two categories of sensors used by QCN: 1) internal mobile device sensors, and 2) external USB sensors.

    Mobile Devices: MEMS sensors are often included in laptops, games, cell phones, and other electronic devices for hardware protection, navigation, and game control. When these devices are still and connected to QCN, QCN software monitors the internal accelerometer for strong new shaking. Unfortunately, these devices are rarely secured to the floor, so they may bounce around when a large earthquake occurs. While this is less than ideal for characterizing the regional ground shaking, many such sensors can still provide useful information about earthquake locations and magnitudes.

    USB Sensors: MEMS sensors can be mounted to the floor and connected to a desktop computer via a USB cable. These sensors have several advantages over mobile device sensors. 1) By mounting them to the floor, they measure more reliable shaking than mobile devices. 2) These sensors typically have lower noise and better resolution of 3D motion. 3) Desktops are often left on and do not move. 4) The USB sensor is physically removed from the game, phone, or laptop, so human interaction with the device doesn’t reduce the sensors’ performance. 5) USB sensors can be aligned to North, so we know what direction the horizontal “X” and “Y” axes correspond to.

    If you are a science teacher at a K-12 school, please apply for a free USB sensor and accompanying QCN software. QCN has been able to purchase sensors to donate to schools in need. If you are interested in donating to the program or requesting a sensor, click here.

    BOINC is a leader in the field(s) of Distributed Computing, Grid Computing and Citizen Cyberscience.BOINC is more properly the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, developed at UC Berkeley.

    Earthquake safety is a responsibility shared by billions worldwide. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) provides software so that individuals can join together to improve earthquake monitoring, earthquake awareness, and the science of earthquakes. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) links existing networked laptops and desktops in hopes to form the worlds largest strong-motion seismic network.

    Below, the QCN Quake Catcher Network map
    QCN Quake Catcher Network map

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

     
  • richardmitnick 3:11 pm on October 19, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , EEW: Earthquake Early Warning at UC Berkeley, , QCN, Why San Francisco’s next quake could be much bigger than feared   

    From New Scientist: “Why San Francisco’s next quake could be much bigger than feared” 

    NewScientist

    New Scientist

    19 October 2016
    Chelsea Whyte

    1
    Geological faults lie beneath the San Francisco Bay Area. USGS/ESA

    By Chelsea Whyte

    Since reports hit last year that a potentially massive earthquake could destroy vast tracts of the west coast of the United States, my phone has rung regularly with concerned family members from the Pacific coast asking one question: how big could it possibly be?

    In the San Francisco Bay Area, new findings now show a connection between two fault lines that could result in a major earthquake clocking in at magnitude 7.4.

    At that magnitude, it would radiate five times more energy than the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake that killed dozens, injured thousands, and cost billions of dollars in direct damage.

    .“The concerning thing with the Hayward and Rodgers Creek faults is that they’ve accumulated enough stress to be released in a major earthquake. They’re, in a sense, primed,” says Janet Watt, a geophysicist at the US Geological Survey who led the study.

    The Hayward fault’s average time between quakes is 140 years, and the last one was 148 years ago.

    “In the next 30 years, there’s a 33 per cent chance of a magnitude 6.7 or greater,” she says. These two faults combined cover 190 kilometres running parallel to their famous neighbour, the San Andreas fault, from Santa Rosa in the north down through San Pablo Bay and south right under Berkeley stadium.

    Sweeping the bay

    To map the faults, Watt and her team scanned back and forth across the bay for magnetic anomalies that crop up near fault lines. They also swept the bay with a high-frequency acoustic instrument called a chirp to image the faults’ relationship below the sea floor using radar and sonar, in a similar way to how a bat uses echolocation to “see” the shape of a cave.

    “A direct connection makes it easier for a larger earthquake to occur that ruptures both faults,” says Roland Bürgmann at the University of California, Berkeley, who studies faults in the area.

    The Hayward and Rodgers Creek faults [Science Advances] combined could produce an earthquake releasing five times more energy than the Hayward fault alone.

    “It doesn’t mean the two faults couldn’t rupture together without the connection,” says Burgmann. “And it doesn’t mean that smaller earthquakes couldn’t occur on one or the other of the two faults most of the time.”

    But it makes the scenario of the larger, linked quake more likely, he says.

    Be prepared

    Bürgmann and his colleagues have found a similar connection between the southern end of the Hayward fault and the Calaveras fault, suggesting that they ought to be treated as one continuous fault. This new work follows that fault even farther north.

    So what do I tell my mom next time she calls?

    “Most important continues to be improving preparedness at all levels,” says Bürgmann. That includes better construction, personal readiness supplies, and the implementation of earthquake early warning systems, which include sensors triggered by the first signs of a quake and send out alerts ahead of the most violent shaking.

    The state and federal governments support building such a warning system in California, an effort led by Berkeley’s Seismological Laboratory.

    See the full article here.

    QCN bloc

    Quake-Catcher Network

    IF YOU LIVE IN AN EARTHQUAKE PRONE AREA, ESPECIALLY IN CALIFORNIA, YOU CAN EASILY JOIN THE QUAKE-CATCHER NETWORK

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a collaborative initiative for developing the world’s largest, low-cost strong-motion seismic network by utilizing sensors in and attached to internet-connected computers. With your help, the Quake-Catcher Network can provide better understanding of earthquakes, give early warning to schools, emergency response systems, and others. The Quake-Catcher Network also provides educational software designed to help teach about earthquakes and earthquake hazards.

    After almost eight years at Stanford, and a year at CalTech, the QCN project is moving to the University of Southern California Dept. of Earth Sciences. QCN will be sponsored by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC).

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a distributed computing network that links volunteer hosted computers into a real-time motion sensing network. QCN is one of many scientific computing projects that runs on the world-renowned distributed computing platform Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC).

    BOINCLarge

    BOINC WallPaper

    The volunteer computers monitor vibrational sensors called MEMS accelerometers, and digitally transmit “triggers” to QCN’s servers whenever strong new motions are observed. QCN’s servers sift through these signals, and determine which ones represent earthquakes, and which ones represent cultural noise (like doors slamming, or trucks driving by).

    There are two categories of sensors used by QCN: 1) internal mobile device sensors, and 2) external USB sensors.

    Mobile Devices: MEMS sensors are often included in laptops, games, cell phones, and other electronic devices for hardware protection, navigation, and game control. When these devices are still and connected to QCN, QCN software monitors the internal accelerometer for strong new shaking. Unfortunately, these devices are rarely secured to the floor, so they may bounce around when a large earthquake occurs. While this is less than ideal for characterizing the regional ground shaking, many such sensors can still provide useful information about earthquake locations and magnitudes.

    USB Sensors: MEMS sensors can be mounted to the floor and connected to a desktop computer via a USB cable. These sensors have several advantages over mobile device sensors. 1) By mounting them to the floor, they measure more reliable shaking than mobile devices. 2) These sensors typically have lower noise and better resolution of 3D motion. 3) Desktops are often left on and do not move. 4) The USB sensor is physically removed from the game, phone, or laptop, so human interaction with the device doesn’t reduce the sensors’ performance. 5) USB sensors can be aligned to North, so we know what direction the horizontal “X” and “Y” axes correspond to.

    If you are a science teacher at a K-12 school, please apply for a free USB sensor and accompanying QCN software. QCN has been able to purchase sensors to donate to schools in need. If you are interested in donating to the program or requesting a sensor, click here.

    BOINC is a leader in the field(s) of Distributed Computing, Grid Computing and Citizen Cyberscience.BOINC is more properly the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, developed at UC Berkeley.

    Earthquake safety is a responsibility shared by billions worldwide. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) provides software so that individuals can join together to improve earthquake monitoring, earthquake awareness, and the science of earthquakes. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) links existing networked laptops and desktops in hopes to form the worlds largest strong-motion seismic network.

    Below, the QCN Quake Catcher Network map
    QCN Quake Catcher Network map

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

     
  • richardmitnick 5:10 pm on October 7, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , QCN   

    From Caltech via phys.org: “California earthquakes discovered much deeper than originally believed” 

    Caltech Logo
    Caltech

    phys.org

    phys.org

    October 7, 2016
    Rong-Gong Lin Ii, Los Angeles Times

    1
    Seismogram being recorded by a seismograph at the Weston Observatory in Massachusetts, USA. Credit: Wikipedia

    Scientists in California have found that earthquakes can occur much deeper below the Earth’s surface than originally believed, a discovery that alters their understanding of seismic behavior and potential risks.

    Seismologists have long believed that earthquakes occur less than 12 to 15 miles underground. But the new research found evidence of quakes deeper than 15 miles, below the Earth’s crust and in the mantle.

    Three scientists at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena studied data from state-of-the-art sensors installed in Long Beach atop the Newport-Inglewood fault, one of the most dangerous in the Los Angeles Basin and which caused the magnitude 6.4 Long Beach earthquake of 1933.

    After analyzing the data collected over six months by 5,000 sensors, scientists found quakes were occurring deep into the upper mantle, an area where the rock is so hot that it is no longer brittle like it is at the surface, but creeps, moving around like an extremely hard honey.

    It appeared that the Newport-Inglewood fault extended even into the mantle – past the uppermost layer of the Earth, the crust, where earthquakes long have been observed. Until now, researchers didn’t think earthquakes were possible there, said Caltech seismology professor Jean Paul Ampuero, one of three authors of the study, published Thursday in the journal Science.

    Ampuero said the research raised the possibility that the Newport-Inglewood and others, like the San Andreas, could see even more powerful earthquakes than expected. The earthquakes he and his colleagues studied were so deep that they were not felt at the surface by conventional seismic sensors.

    The new study [Science] indicates that a quake much closer to the surface could travel much deeper into the Earth, producing a stronger, more damaging, rupture than previously believed was possible.

    “That got us thinking – that if earthquakes want to get big, one way of achieving that is by penetrating deep,” Ampuero said. “The big question is: If the next, larger earthquake happens, if it manages to penetrate deeper than we think, it may be bigger than we expect.”

    It’s an idea that was first raised in 2012, also by Ampuero and several colleagues in the journal Science, when a magnitude 8.6 earthquake struck the Indian Ocean.

    That was the largest quake of its kind “that has ever happened,” Ampuero said. It happened on a fault known as a “strike-slip,” the same kind of fault as Newport-Inglewood and California’s mighty San Andreas, the state’s longest fault.

    But that Indian Ocean earthquake was so large, it was impossible to explain how it happened with existing science.

    So answering the question of how an 8.6 earthquake occurred required a new explanation – that perhaps the quake centered on a fault that not only ruptured the crust, but went deeper into the mantle.

    If deep earthquakes can occur on the Newport-Inglewood fault, then it’s possible Southern Californians could see earthquakes along this fault at an even greater magnitude than what is projected. According to Caltech, the probable magnitude of a large quake on the Newport-Inglewood fault ranges from 6.0 to 7.4.

    But there’s a lot more study that needs to be done.

    The deep quakes Caltech scientists detected were only microquakes – topping out at about a magnitude 2.

    Therefore, one alternate – and more comforting – possibility is that these deep earthquakes remain small and don’t help a large earthquake become stronger. With this theory, earthquakes in this deep zone occur in small pockets far away from each other and don’t link in a way that forces a big earthquake to get stronger.

    “This could be good news, in a way, because if they never break together, that means they can break in tiny earthquakes, but they cannot break in large ones,” Ampuero said. “So several questions are still open. I wouldn’t say that this is cause for alarm at this point. These are very interesting questions that we need to pursue.”

    Another thing to consider: The deep earthquakes were found in a 9-square-mile area underneath Long Beach, recorded over six months. When researchers looked farther northwest – over a shorter time period, only four weeks – they did not find deep earthquakes there.

    So it’s possible that deep earthquakes don’t exist everywhere on the Newport-Inglewood fault. But it’s also possible that scientists didn’t record any, and could catch some if they continue monitoring the area for a longer period.

    There’s a possibility that Long Beach is simply peculiar, and what’s found there isn’t found elsewhere. In Long Beach, scientists found evidence that there are some liquids flowing from the mantle up to the surface – an observation that was not found in another location on the Newport-Inglewood fault.

    The scientists obtained the data from a group who installed sensors to better understand the oil fields of the area. Once they collected it, the scientists had to design a program to process the massive amounts of data collected to understand what was going on miles underground, and invisible to conventional seismic sensing equipment.

    In addition to Ampuero, the other authors of the study are Asaf Inbal and Robert Clayton.

    See the full article here .

    QCN bloc

    Quake-Catcher Network

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a collaborative initiative for developing the world’s largest, low-cost strong-motion seismic network by utilizing sensors in and attached to internet-connected computers. With your help, the Quake-Catcher Network can provide better understanding of earthquakes, give early warning to schools, emergency response systems, and others. The Quake-Catcher Network also provides educational software designed to help teach about earthquakes and earthquake hazards.

    After almost eight years at Stanford, and a year at CalTech, the QCN project is moving to the University of Southern California Dept. of Earth Sciences. QCN will be sponsored by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC).

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a distributed computing network that links volunteer hosted computers into a real-time motion sensing network. QCN is one of many scientific computing projects that runs on the world-renowned distributed computing platform Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC).

    BOINCLarge

    BOINC WallPaper

    The volunteer computers monitor vibrational sensors called MEMS accelerometers, and digitally transmit “triggers” to QCN’s servers whenever strong new motions are observed. QCN’s servers sift through these signals, and determine which ones represent earthquakes, and which ones represent cultural noise (like doors slamming, or trucks driving by).

    There are two categories of sensors used by QCN: 1) internal mobile device sensors, and 2) external USB sensors.

    Mobile Devices: MEMS sensors are often included in laptops, games, cell phones, and other electronic devices for hardware protection, navigation, and game control. When these devices are still and connected to QCN, QCN software monitors the internal accelerometer for strong new shaking. Unfortunately, these devices are rarely secured to the floor, so they may bounce around when a large earthquake occurs. While this is less than ideal for characterizing the regional ground shaking, many such sensors can still provide useful information about earthquake locations and magnitudes.

    USB Sensors: MEMS sensors can be mounted to the floor and connected to a desktop computer via a USB cable. These sensors have several advantages over mobile device sensors. 1) By mounting them to the floor, they measure more reliable shaking than mobile devices. 2) These sensors typically have lower noise and better resolution of 3D motion. 3) Desktops are often left on and do not move. 4) The USB sensor is physically removed from the game, phone, or laptop, so human interaction with the device doesn’t reduce the sensors’ performance. 5) USB sensors can be aligned to North, so we know what direction the horizontal “X” and “Y” axes correspond to.

    If you are a science teacher at a K-12 school, please apply for a free USB sensor and accompanying QCN software. QCN has been able to purchase sensors to donate to schools in need. If you are interested in donating to the program or requesting a sensor, click here.

    BOINC is a leader in the field(s) of Distributed Computing, Grid Computing and Citizen Cyberscience.BOINC is more properly the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, developed at UC Berkeley.

    Earthquake safety is a responsibility shared by billions worldwide. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) provides software so that individuals can join together to improve earthquake monitoring, earthquake awareness, and the science of earthquakes. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) links existing networked laptops and desktops in hopes to form the worlds largest strong-motion seismic network.

    Below, the QCN Quake Catcher Network map
    QCN Quake Catcher Network map

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    About Phys.org in 100 Words

    Phys.org™ (formerly Physorg.com) is a leading web-based science, research and technology news service which covers a full range of topics. These include physics, earth science, medicine, nanotechnology, electronics, space, biology, chemistry, computer sciences, engineering, mathematics and other sciences and technologies. Launched in 2004, Phys.org’s readership has grown steadily to include 1.75 million scientists, researchers, and engineers every month. Phys.org publishes approximately 100 quality articles every day, offering some of the most comprehensive coverage of sci-tech developments world-wide. Quancast 2009 includes Phys.org in its list of the Global Top 2,000 Websites. Phys.org community members enjoy access to many personalized features such as social networking, a personal home page.

    Caltech campus

    The California Institute of Technology (commonly referred to as Caltech) is a private research university located in Pasadena, California, United States. Caltech has six academic divisions with strong emphases on science and engineering. Its 124-acre (50 ha) primary campus is located approximately 11 mi (18 km) northeast of downtown Los Angeles. “The mission of the California Institute of Technology is to expand human knowledge and benefit society through research integrated with education. We investigate the most challenging, fundamental problems in science and technology in a singularly collegial, interdisciplinary atmosphere, while educating outstanding students to become creative members of society.”

     
  • richardmitnick 7:20 am on September 20, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , QCN, Tulsa World   

    From Tulsa World via QCN: “Tulsa Geoscience Center participating in earthquake data collection” 

    QCN bloc

    Quake-Catcher Network

    1

    Tulsa World

    September 19, 2016
    Paighten Harkins

    1
    https://outrageousminds.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/515/

    With no signs earthquakes will stop rumbling in the state anytime soon, Oklahoma museums and schools are being targeted to participate in a nationwide citizen science project that tracks — or catches — seismic activity to learn more about quakes and also promote earthquake safety.

    About a month ago, the Tulsa Geoscience Center, located at 600 S. Main St., received a sensor from The Quake-Catcher Network. It is the first one in the Tulsa area, the center’s administrative director Broc Randall said.

    Including that sensor, the Tulsa area now has three: two in Tulsa and one in Broken Arrow, according to the network’s sensor map. A handful of sensors are scattered through the Oklahoma City area. There’s one each in Stillwater and Seminole.

    The detector is a small box that connects to a computer through a USB drive and measures the motion of the ground from every dimension.

    “So up and down, side to side and forward and back,” the network’s program manager Robert de Groot said.

    The sensors detect that motion and can gauge whether or not an earthquake occurred and its magnitude, and all that data is sent to the network, which is based at the University of Southern California, de Groot said.

    Though de Groot did contend earthquakes can occur pretty much everywhere, because of limited resources, the Quake-Catcher Network primarily targets states known for seismic activity, such as California (where the network is based), Oregon, Washington, North Dakota and Oklahoma.

    Those with the network hope schools will use the data to teach students about earthquakes — a phenomenon many have felt in real life.

    “It’s not something that’s contrived. It’s actually something that’s happened. It happened in your own front yard in Oklahoma,” de Groot said.

    On Sept. 3, the largest earthquake ever recorded in Oklahoma — a 5.8 temblor recorded near Pawnee — shook the state. Since then, more than 70 quakes above a 2.5 magnitude have hit Oklahoma, according to United States Geological Society data.

    The geoscience center in Tulsa also has a separate seismograph specifically to track the movements of its visitors. They encourage children to jump around to see what effect they have on the detector, Randall said.

    The network’s seismograph, which is taped to the floor, also detects those vibrations, but has been calibrated to recognize that those aren’t earthquakes, Randall said.

    De Groot said one of the motivations for teaching people about earthquakes and getting them involved in that education is to promote earthquake safety so people know how to protect themselves and their belongings from temblors.

    It also gives them a sense of what’s going on around them.

    “Oklahoma is earthquake country. So understanding what earthquake country is doing is a key thing for everybody,” de Groot said.

    See the full article here .

    Earthquake safety is a responsibility shared by billions worldwide. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) provides software so that individuals can join together to improve earthquake monitoring, earthquake awareness, and the science of earthquakes. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) links existing networked laptops and desktops in hopes to form the worlds largest strong-motion seismic network.

    Below, the QCN Quake Catcher Network map
    QCN Quake Catcher Network map

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

     
  • richardmitnick 8:31 am on September 2, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , QCN,   

    From UCLA: “UCLA civil engineer to lead Italy earthquake research team” 

    UCLA bloc

    UCLA

    September 01, 2016
    Matthew Chin

    1
    Earthquake destruction in central Italy. AP

    The chair of the UCLA civil and environmental engineering department is leading a U.S. team traveling to Italy this weekend to work with Italian scientists on research into the destructive earthquakes that hit in August.

    Jonathan P. Stewart, professor in the UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science, leaves Saturday for central Italy to lead the research team from the Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance Association. The team will investigate geotechnical and geological aspects of the earthquake sequence that occurred between August 24 and August 29.

    1
    Jonathan P. Stewart

    The team will work in close collaboration with Italian engineers and scientists, some of whom have already deployed to the affected region and are collecting perishable data. After the field investigation is complete, observations and findings will be posted on the GEER website.

    Stewart answered some questions before traveling to Italy with the team.

    What will the team be looking for, and why is it important to go now, as opposed to a month from now?

    Earthquake engineering as a profession is driven by post-event observations of how the earth and structures respond to earthquakes. We seek perishable data, which means the information would disappear over time due to recovery, clean up, and weathering.

    One example of what we will look for is the rupture of the ground surface from the faulting. Data of this sort help to guide engineering models for how much displacement to expect from future earthquakes, and the distribution around faults.

    Obviously, the massive structural damage [in Italy] is another notable feature of this event. We will attempt to learn about the levels of ground shaking that do and do not cause these tragic collapses, so as to better understand the vulnerability of masonry structures in future earthquakes. These structures are abundant in Italy, but occur in some portions of California as well.

    What will that field data be used for? For example, what have past GEER teams found from previous destructive earthquakes? And, what kinds of instruments will be used?

    We will look for evidence of ground failure, which is permanent displacement of the ground caused by the earthquake. Examples that we expect to find in this event include landslides, surface fault rupture, and settlement of artificial fill soils. We have seen effects of this type in past earthquakes too, although many of those events have also produced soil liquefaction, which we do not expect to see in this area of Italy.

    We will map patterns of damage to building structures, and also record the performance of other structures such as dams and bridges.

    Several instruments are used, including:

    Ground motion accelerographs – these were actually deployed prior to the earthquake. We will retrieve the data through Italian collaborators, and study the patterns of ground shaking and what they reveal about earthquake hazards in a normal fault environment.
    Lidar (surveying technology that uses lasers) to map ground deformations. Further information on Lidar.
    Unmanned aerial vehicles to image sites from above, and as a platform for Lidar.

    Most of the worst hit areas seemed to be in towns with many buildings that are hundreds of years old. How would any data collected be applied to the U.S.?

    Most of the affected structures in these towns are unreinforced masonry. While these structures are older than those we find in California, in some cases similar structural typologies are found here as well. It is important to understand levels of ground shaking that do and do not cause collapse, and to study the effectiveness of different retrofit strategies. My team is not focused specifically on these structural engineering aspects, although we will be working in collaboration with others who will look at these issues.

    Is there an area of the U.S. with similar faults to the one that caused this quake?

    The central Italy earthquake involved normal faulting, which is a slip type that accommodates crustal extension. Much of the western US has similar faults, especially from the eastern Sierra to Colorado. The ground motion information from this and other earthquakes in Italy help us to better understand what we can expect from future earthquakes in these parts of the U.S.

    See the full article here .

    EARTHQUAKES CAN BE A PROBLEM IN MANY PLACES IN THE WORLD. HERE IS HOW YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN EARTHQUAKE SENSING.

    QCN bloc

    Quake-Catcher Network

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a collaborative initiative for developing the world’s largest, low-cost strong-motion seismic network by utilizing sensors in and attached to internet-connected computers. With your help, the Quake-Catcher Network can provide better understanding of earthquakes, give early warning to schools, emergency response systems, and others. The Quake-Catcher Network also provides educational software designed to help teach about earthquakes and earthquake hazards.

    After almost eight years at Stanford, and a year at CalTech, the QCN project is moving to the University of Southern California Dept. of Earth Sciences. QCN will be sponsored by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC).

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a distributed computing network that links volunteer hosted computers into a real-time motion sensing network. QCN is one of many scientific computing projects that runs on the world-renowned distributed computing platform Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC).

    BOINCLarge

    BOINC WallPaper

    The volunteer computers monitor vibrational sensors called MEMS accelerometers, and digitally transmit “triggers” to QCN’s servers whenever strong new motions are observed. QCN’s servers sift through these signals, and determine which ones represent earthquakes, and which ones represent cultural noise (like doors slamming, or trucks driving by).

    There are two categories of sensors used by QCN: 1) internal mobile device sensors, and 2) external USB sensors.

    Mobile Devices: MEMS sensors are often included in laptops, games, cell phones, and other electronic devices for hardware protection, navigation, and game control. When these devices are still and connected to QCN, QCN software monitors the internal accelerometer for strong new shaking. Unfortunately, these devices are rarely secured to the floor, so they may bounce around when a large earthquake occurs. While this is less than ideal for characterizing the regional ground shaking, many such sensors can still provide useful information about earthquake locations and magnitudes.

    USB Sensors: MEMS sensors can be mounted to the floor and connected to a desktop computer via a USB cable. These sensors have several advantages over mobile device sensors. 1) By mounting them to the floor, they measure more reliable shaking than mobile devices. 2) These sensors typically have lower noise and better resolution of 3D motion. 3) Desktops are often left on and do not move. 4) The USB sensor is physically removed from the game, phone, or laptop, so human interaction with the device doesn’t reduce the sensors’ performance. 5) USB sensors can be aligned to North, so we know what direction the horizontal “X” and “Y” axes correspond to.

    If you are a science teacher at a K-12 school, please apply for a free USB sensor and accompanying QCN software. QCN has been able to purchase sensors to donate to schools in need. If you are interested in donating to the program or requesting a sensor, click here.

    BOINC is a leader in the field(s) of Distributed Computing, Grid Computing and Citizen Cyberscience.BOINC is more properly the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, developed at UC Berkeley.

    Earthquake safety is a responsibility shared by billions worldwide. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) provides software so that individuals can join together to improve earthquake monitoring, earthquake awareness, and the science of earthquakes. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) links existing networked laptops and desktops in hopes to form the worlds largest strong-motion seismic network.

    Below, the QCN Quake Catcher Network map
    QCN Quake Catcher Network map

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    UC LA Campus

    For nearly 100 years, UCLA has been a pioneer, persevering through impossibility, turning the futile into the attainable.

    We doubt the critics, reject the status quo and see opportunity in dissatisfaction. Our campus, faculty and students are driven by optimism. It is not naïve; it is essential. And it has fueled every accomplishment, allowing us to redefine what’s possible, time after time.

    This can-do perspective has brought us 12 Nobel Prizes, 12 Rhodes Scholarships, more NCAA titles than any university and more Olympic medals than most nations. Our faculty and alumni helped create the Internet and pioneered reverse osmosis. And more than 100 companies have been created based on technology developed at UCLA.

     
  • richardmitnick 5:52 pm on July 18, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , QCN,   

    From UCR: “Better Understanding Post-Earthquake Fault Movement” 

    UC Riverside bloc

    UC Riverside

    July 18, 2016
    Sean Nealon
    Tel: (951) 827-1287
    sean.nealon@ucr.edu

    1
    Schematic summary of research findings showing the sequence of slip behavior.

    Preparation and good timing enabled Gareth Funning and a team of researchers to collect a unique data set following the 2014 South Napa earthquake that showed different parts of the fault, sometimes only a few kilometers apart, moved at different speeds and at different times.

    Aided by GPS measurements made just weeks before the earthquake and data from a new radar satellite, the team found post-earthquake fault movement, known as afterslip, was concentrated in areas of loosely packed sediment. Areas where the fault passed through bedrock tended to slip more during the actual earthquake.

    Sections of Highway 12, which runs through the earthquake zone, were broken during the initial 6.0 magnitude earthquake and were further damaged in the coming days due to afterslip. In some areas the afterslip damage exceeded the initial damage from the earthquake.

    “No one has seen variability in afterslip like we saw,” said Funning, an associate professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Riverside. “This helps us address a big question: Can we use geology as a proxy for fault behavior? Our findings suggest there is a relationship between those two things.”

    The findings could have significant implications for earthquake hazard models, and also for planning earthquake response. If geological information can give a guide to the likely extent of future earthquakes, better forecasts of earthquake damage will be possible. And if areas likely to experience afterslip can be identified in advance, it can be taken into account when building or repairing infrastructure that crosses those faults.

    California, in particular the Hayward and Calaveras Faults, which run along the east side of the San Francisco Bay, seems more susceptible to afterslip than other earthquake-prone regions throughout the world, Funning said.

    The findings on the South Napa earthquake were recently published in paper, Spatial variations in fault friction related to lithology from rupture and afterslip of the 2014 South Napa, California, earthquake, in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

    Funning’s work in the region just north of San Francisco dates back to 2006, when he was a post-doctoral researcher at UC Berkeley and noticed the area wasn’t that well studied, at least compared to the central Bay Area.

    He continued the research after he was hired at UC Riverside and received funding from the United States Geological Survey to conduct surveys using GPS sensors in earthquake prone areas throughout Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Mendocino and Lake counties.

    He began the most recent survey in July 2014. When the South Napa earthquake struck on Aug. 24, 2014, he and three other researchers were in Upper Lake, CA in Lake County, about 70 miles north of the earthquake’s epicenter, making additional measurements.

    The earthquake occurred at 3:20 a.m. By noon, Funning and the other researchers, Michael Floyd (a former post-doctoral researcher with Funning who is now a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Jerlyn Swiatlowski (a graduate student working with Funning) and Kathryn Materna (a graduate student at UC Berkeley), had deployed additional GPS sensors in the earthquake zone in locations that they had, fortuitously, measured just seven weeks earlier.

    In total, there were more than 20 GPS sensors set up by Funning’s team and scientists from the United States Geological Survey. They left the equipment out for four weeks following the earthquake.

    They then combined the GPS sensor data with remote sensing data. The South Napa earthquake was the first major earthquake to be imaged by Sentinel-1A, a European radar imaging satellite launched in 2014 that provides higher resolution information than was previously available.

    In addition to Funning, authors of the paper are: Floyd, Richard J. Walters, John R. Elliott, Jerry L. Svarc, Jessica R. Murray, Andy J. Hooper, Yngvar Larsen, Petar Marinkovic, Roland Bürgmann, Ingrid A. Johanson and Tim J. Wright.

    See the full article here .

    Meet The Quake-Catcher Network

    QCN bloc

    Quake-Catcher Network

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a collaborative initiative for developing the world’s largest, low-cost strong-motion seismic network by utilizing sensors in and attached to internet-connected computers. With your help, the Quake-Catcher Network can provide better understanding of earthquakes, give early warning to schools, emergency response systems, and others. The Quake-Catcher Network also provides educational software designed to help teach about earthquakes and earthquake hazards.

    After almost eight years at Stanford, and a year at CalTech, the QCN project is moving to the University of Southern California Dept. of Earth Sciences. QCN will be sponsored by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC).

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a distributed computing network that links volunteer hosted computers into a real-time motion sensing network. QCN is one of many scientific computing projects that runs on the world-renowned distributed computing platform Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC).

    BOINCLarge

    BOINC WallPaper

    The volunteer computers monitor vibrational sensors called MEMS accelerometers, and digitally transmit “triggers” to QCN’s servers whenever strong new motions are observed. QCN’s servers sift through these signals, and determine which ones represent earthquakes, and which ones represent cultural noise (like doors slamming, or trucks driving by).

    There are two categories of sensors used by QCN: 1) internal mobile device sensors, and 2) external USB sensors.

    Mobile Devices: MEMS sensors are often included in laptops, games, cell phones, and other electronic devices for hardware protection, navigation, and game control. When these devices are still and connected to QCN, QCN software monitors the internal accelerometer for strong new shaking. Unfortunately, these devices are rarely secured to the floor, so they may bounce around when a large earthquake occurs. While this is less than ideal for characterizing the regional ground shaking, many such sensors can still provide useful information about earthquake locations and magnitudes.

    USB Sensors: MEMS sensors can be mounted to the floor and connected to a desktop computer via a USB cable. These sensors have several advantages over mobile device sensors. 1) By mounting them to the floor, they measure more reliable shaking than mobile devices. 2) These sensors typically have lower noise and better resolution of 3D motion. 3) Desktops are often left on and do not move. 4) The USB sensor is physically removed from the game, phone, or laptop, so human interaction with the device doesn’t reduce the sensors’ performance. 5) USB sensors can be aligned to North, so we know what direction the horizontal “X” and “Y” axes correspond to.

    If you are a science teacher at a K-12 school, please apply for a free USB sensor and accompanying QCN software. QCN has been able to purchase sensors to donate to schools in need. If you are interested in donating to the program or requesting a sensor, click here.

    BOINC is a leader in the field(s) of Distributed Computing, Grid Computing and Citizen Cyberscience.BOINC is more properly the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, developed at UC Berkeley.

    Earthquake safety is a responsibility shared by billions worldwide. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) provides software so that individuals can join together to improve earthquake monitoring, earthquake awareness, and the science of earthquakes. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) links existing networked laptops and desktops in hopes to form the worlds largest strong-motion seismic network.

    Below, the QCN Quake Catcher Network map
    QCN Quake Catcher Network map

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    UC Riverside Campus

    The University of California, Riverside is one of 10 universities within the prestigious University of California system, and the only UC located in Inland Southern California.

    Widely recognized as one of the most ethnically diverse research universities in the nation, UCR’s current enrollment is more than 21,000 students, with a goal of 25,000 students by 2020. The campus is in the midst of a tremendous growth spurt with new and remodeled facilities coming on-line on a regular basis.

    We are located approximately 50 miles east of downtown Los Angeles. UCR is also within easy driving distance of dozens of major cultural and recreational sites, as well as desert, mountain and coastal destinations.

     
  • richardmitnick 7:48 am on July 18, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , QCN, Scientists warn of Bangladesh earthquake time bomb   

    From COSMOS: “Scientists warn of Bangladesh earthquake time bomb” 

    Cosmos Magazine bloc

    COSMOS

    12 July 2016
    Bill Condie

    1
    Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, is a hive of multistory buildings housing around 17 million people in the greater Dhaka area. But can it survive a ‘megathrust’ earthquake beneath the Indo-Burman Ranges? Inkiad Hasin / Getty Images

    Bangladesh is sitting on a time bomb, with scientists warning that increasing strain at the meeting of two tectonic plates beneath the country could lead to a catastrophic earthquake.

    The area is a subduction zone where the Indian plate is slowly thrusting under the Sunda plate.

    It is an extension of the tectonic boundary that ruptured under the Indian Ocean in 2004, setting off the tsunami that killed more than 230,000 people.

    2
    Bangladesh, Myanmar and eastern India (all near top) are bisected by an extension of the tectonic boundary that ruptured under the Indian Ocean in 2004, killing some 230,000 people. Known quakes along the boundary’s southern end are shown in different colours; the black sections nearer the top have not ruptured in historic times, but new research suggests they could. Michael Steckler / Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

    While the plate boundary in Bangladesh is well-known, it has previously been thought of as relatively harmless with movement close to the surface.

    But new research published this week in Nature Geoscience suggests subduction is taking place deep below the surface, with huge stresses building up where the plates meet.

    Since 2003, American and Bangladeshi researchers have been tracking tiny ground movements using GPS devices linked to satellites. That has shown eastern Bangladesh and part of eastern India pushing diagonally into western Myanmar at around 46 millimetres a year.

    The authors say it is an “underappreciated hazard.”

    “Now we have the data and a model, and we can estimate the size.”“Some of us have long suspected this hazard, but we didn’t have the data and a model,” lead author Michael Steckler, a geophysicist from Columbia University is quoted as saying.

    And that could be huge. It has been at least 400 years with no quake, suggesting the strain has been building all that time.

    Steckler says the quake, when and if it comes, could be larger than 8.2, and reach a magnitude of 9.

    “We don’t know how long it will take to build up steam because we don’t know how long it was since the last one,” he said.

    Bangladesh lies on the far eastern edge of the giant Indian plate, that comprises the subcontinent and much of the Indian Ocean. It has been thrusting northeasterly into Asia for tens of millions of years. It is responsible for the creation of the Himalayas as well as the devastating earthquake that hit Nepal in April 2015.

    The region around Bangladesh has been subject to many earthquakes over the years but geologists assumed there was no subduction under Bangladesh itself.

    But the current researchers say the signs have been there all along in the form of parallel north-south ranges of mountains “draping the landscape, like a carpet being shoved against a wall”.

    Bangladesh is unprepared for such a disaster with poorly enforced building codes and a huge densely packed population.

    Scientists say they will continue to monitor the situation, with New Mexico State University planning to deploy 70 seismometers across Myanmar in 2017, to get a better image of the subducting slab.

    See the full article here .

    Meet The Quake-Catcher Network

    QCN bloc

    Quake-Catcher Network

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a collaborative initiative for developing the world’s largest, low-cost strong-motion seismic network by utilizing sensors in and attached to internet-connected computers. With your help, the Quake-Catcher Network can provide better understanding of earthquakes, give early warning to schools, emergency response systems, and others. The Quake-Catcher Network also provides educational software designed to help teach about earthquakes and earthquake hazards.

    After almost eight years at Stanford, and a year at CalTech, the QCN project is moving to the University of Southern California Dept. of Earth Sciences. QCN will be sponsored by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC).

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a distributed computing network that links volunteer hosted computers into a real-time motion sensing network. QCN is one of many scientific computing projects that runs on the world-renowned distributed computing platform Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC).

    BOINCLarge

    BOINC WallPaper

    The volunteer computers monitor vibrational sensors called MEMS accelerometers, and digitally transmit “triggers” to QCN’s servers whenever strong new motions are observed. QCN’s servers sift through these signals, and determine which ones represent earthquakes, and which ones represent cultural noise (like doors slamming, or trucks driving by).

    There are two categories of sensors used by QCN: 1) internal mobile device sensors, and 2) external USB sensors.

    Mobile Devices: MEMS sensors are often included in laptops, games, cell phones, and other electronic devices for hardware protection, navigation, and game control. When these devices are still and connected to QCN, QCN software monitors the internal accelerometer for strong new shaking. Unfortunately, these devices are rarely secured to the floor, so they may bounce around when a large earthquake occurs. While this is less than ideal for characterizing the regional ground shaking, many such sensors can still provide useful information about earthquake locations and magnitudes.

    USB Sensors: MEMS sensors can be mounted to the floor and connected to a desktop computer via a USB cable. These sensors have several advantages over mobile device sensors. 1) By mounting them to the floor, they measure more reliable shaking than mobile devices. 2) These sensors typically have lower noise and better resolution of 3D motion. 3) Desktops are often left on and do not move. 4) The USB sensor is physically removed from the game, phone, or laptop, so human interaction with the device doesn’t reduce the sensors’ performance. 5) USB sensors can be aligned to North, so we know what direction the horizontal “X” and “Y” axes correspond to.

    If you are a science teacher at a K-12 school, please apply for a free USB sensor and accompanying QCN software. QCN has been able to purchase sensors to donate to schools in need. If you are interested in donating to the program or requesting a sensor, click here.

    BOINC is a leader in the field(s) of Distributed Computing, Grid Computing and Citizen Cyberscience.BOINC is more properly the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, developed at UC Berkeley.

    Earthquake safety is a responsibility shared by billions worldwide. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) provides software so that individuals can join together to improve earthquake monitoring, earthquake awareness, and the science of earthquakes. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) links existing networked laptops and desktops in hopes to form the worlds largest strong-motion seismic network.

    Below, the QCN Quake Catcher Network map
    QCN Quake Catcher Network map

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

     
  • richardmitnick 9:26 am on July 14, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , QCN, Quakefinder   

    From Nautilus: “The Last of the Earthquake Predictors” 

    Nautilus

    Nautilus

    July 14, 2016
    Mark Harris
    Illustration Daniel Savage

    In late winter of 1975, a seismologist named Cao Xianqing tracked a series of small earthquakes near Haicheng, China, which he took to presage a much larger one to come. On the morning of February 3, officials ordered evacuations of the surrounding communities. Despite the subfreezing weather, many residents abandoned their homes, although others refused, dismissing the warning as another cry of “wolf” in a string of false alarms.

    Yet this time, around dinnertime the very next day, Cao’s prognosis materialized in the form of a massive, magnitude 7.3 quake. Bridges collapsed, pipes ruptured, and buildings crumbled. But the accurate early alert—the first ever documented—spared thousands of lives: Of the 150,000 casualties predicted for a disaster of comparable size, only about 25,000 were tallied, including just over 2,000 deaths.

    1
    Two major earthquakes occurred 17 months apart in the mid-1970s near the cities of Haicheng and Tangshan in northern China. (Illustration by Jack Cook, WHOI Graphic Services)

    2
    SHAKE DOWN: Northern China experienced a high frequency of earthquakes in the 1960s and ’70s, including the famous Haicheng quake and Tangschan quake. U.S. Geological Survey

    The successful forecast of the Haicheng quake seemed to justify the optimism felt by earthquake researchers around the world, who believed they were on the brink of unlocking the secrets of Earth’s tectonic motion. Just a few years earlier, in 1971, geophysicist Don Anderson, who headed the California Institute of Technology’s renowned Seismology Laboratory, had boasted that prediction science would soon pay big dividends. With enough funds, he told a local reporter, “it would in my opinion be possible to forecast a quake in a given area within a week.”

    Those funds duly arrived. In 1978, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) allocated over half its research budget ($15.76 million) to earthquake prediction, a level of spending that continued for much of the next decade. Scientists deployed hundreds of seismometers and other sensors, hoping to observe telltale signals heralding the arrival of the next big one. They looked for these signs in subterranean fluids, crustal deformations, radon gas emissions, electric currents, even animal behavior. But every avenue they explored led to a dead end.

    “In our long search for signals, we never saw anything that could be used in a reliable way,” says Ruth Harris, a geophysicist at the USGS. “Either the method wasn’t repeatable or it looked like the original thing was just a case of noise.” Even the famous Haicheng prediction turned out to be little more than fabulously good luck. Cao later admitted he had based his warning partly on foreshocks, which precede some large quakes by minutes to days, and mostly on superstition. According to a book he’d read called Serendipitous Historical Records of Yingchuan, the heavy autumn rains of 1974 would “surely be followed” by a winter earthquake.

    Since the early 20th century, scientists have known that large quakes often cluster in time and space: 99 percent of them occur along well-mapped boundaries between plates in Earth’s crust and, in geological time, repeat almost like clockwork. But after decades of failed experiments, most seismologists came to believe that forecasting earthquakes in human time—on the scale of dropping the kids off at school or planning a vacation—was about as scientific as astrology. By the early 1990s, prediction research had disappeared as a line item in the USGS’s budget. “We got burned enough back in the 70s and 80s that nobody wants to be too optimistic about the possibility now,” says Terry Tullis, a career seismologist and chair of the National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (NEPEC), which advises the USGS.

    Defying the skeptics, however, a small cadre of researchers have held onto the faith that, with the right detectors and computational tools, it will be possible to predict earthquakes with the same precision and confidence we do just about any other extreme natural event, including floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes. The USGS may have simply given up too soon. After all, the believers point out, advances in sensor design and data analysis could allow for the detection of subtle precursors that seismologists working a few decades ago might have missed.

    And the stakes couldn’t be higher. The three biggest natural disasters in human history, measured in dollars and cents, have all been earthquakes, and there’s a good chance the next one will be too. According to the USGS, a magnitude 7.8 quake along Southern California’s volatile San Andreas fault would result in 1,800 deaths and a clean-up bill of more than $210 billion—tens of billions of dollars more than the cost of Hurricane Katrina and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill combined.

    At a time when American companies and institutions are bankrolling “moonshot” projects like self-driving cars, space tourism, and genomics, few problems may be as important—and as neglected—as earthquake prediction.

    3
    Earth and fire: Piton de la Fournaise, on the French island of La Reunion, erupts in October 2010. Weeks before, volcanologists detected decreases in the speed of ambient noise waves traveling through the ground below, suggesting a new tool for predicting geological events. IMAZ PRESS/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images

    David Schaff was a senior at Northwestern University when a magnitude 6.7 earthquake struck the upscale Los Angeles suburb of Northridge in January 1994. A devout Christian, Schaff saw a connection between the time the quake began (4:31 pm) and verse 4:31 in Acts of the Apostles, a book of the New Testament: “After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken.”

    “I was amazed that God would have complete control of the timing and location of something as chaotic, energetic, and unpredictable as an earthquake,” says Schaff, now a professor at Columbia University. He believed the Northridge quake was a divine message. “I thought, as a scientist who was a believer, He might use me to help warn people of impending earthquakes.”

    After graduation, Schaff enrolled at Stanford University to pursue a Ph.D. in geophysics. “I was learning about earthquakes from my academic advisors and from my pastor in my church,” he says. His faith told him that “earthquakes serve many purposes, and one is to create awe and wonder and amazement in God—and also fear.” But he didn’t doubt they also had a physical origin.

    As Schaff’s textbooks laid out, the dozen or so tectonic plates that make up Earth’s crust are always on the move, continuously slipping past or sliding over each other. They creep as fast as a few inches a year, deforming the rock at the seams until it can no longer withstand the strain. Then, in one sudden and violent motion, all that tension is released. The rock snaps apart, shifting the earth as much as several feet in a matter of seconds.

    This “elastic rebound” generates two types of seismic waves. The fastest waves, and thus the first to hit nearby communities or infrastructure, are high-frequency body waves, which travel through Earth’s interior. Body waves come in two flavors: Primary “P” waves push and pull the ground as they race outward like sound through air, while secondary “S” waves rattle the rock up and down. The effects of these waves are typically so subtle that, although some animals can sense them, humans notice only a quick jolt or vibrations—or nothing at all. Virtually all of the damage caused by earthquakes is due to slower, low-frequency surface waves: Love waves, which wobble things side to side, and Rayleigh waves, which roll like breakers in the deep ocean, toppling power lines and lifting buildings off their foundations.

    The vast majority of shaking that seismometers detect on a daily basis, however, has nothing to do with earthquakes. In fact, the earth is constantly awash in ambient noise—extremely low-amplitude Love and Rayleigh waves produced by road and rail traffic, industrial activity, and natural movements like wind. Ocean waves are a major source of this background rumbling: Striking the continental margin, they generate gentle reverberations that can propagate thousands of miles. Schaff’s advisors taught him to discard ambient noise, which they sometimes cursed for masking geological signals.

    But in 2001, as Schaff was beginning a post-doctoral fellowship at Columbia, physicists at the University of Illinois published a paper showing that ambient noise had a secret utility: By correlating measurements from distant receivers, one could estimate how fast ambient waves propagated, and thus determine the composition of the material the waves had traveled through.[1] Indeed, in a 2005 study in the journal Science, a team led by seismologist Nikolai Shapiro, then at the University of Colorado at Boulder, used ambient-noise recordings to map the ground beneath Southern California.[2] Unusually slow waves, the team discovered, corresponded to sedimentary basins, while unusually fast waves indicated the igneous cores of mountains.

    Scientists quickly realized that ambient noise could similarly provide a means to observe geologic turmoil brewing deep underground. In 2010, in the weeks before two consecutive eruptions of Piton de la Fournaise, a volcano on the French island of La Reunion, in the Indian Ocean, volcanologist Anne Obermann and her colleagues at the Swiss Seismological Service detected decreases in the velocity of ambient waves passing through the earth below.[3] Their discovery bolstered a controversial theory called dilatancy, which posits that cracks opening up in stressed subterranean rock will cause it to expand. This gradual dilation slows any seismic waves traveling through, possibly warning that the rock is nearing its breaking point.

    4
    Sensing Shaking: The USGS earthquake monitoring network at Parksfield includes a wide array of instruments, including geodimeters (top), GPS sensors (bottom left), and portable electronic distance measuring devices (bottom right). USGS

    First proposed in the 1970s, dilatancy seemed to explain Soviet scientists’ apparent progress in predicting major earthquakes by tracking speed changes in S and P waves from minor quakes and other seismic activity. But when this approach was later discredited, dilatancy fell into disrepute.

    In light of Obermann’s findings, Schaff, who had since become an associate professor, wondered whether the theory might have a kernel of truth. If one could measure shifts in the velocity of ambient waves preceding volcanic eruptions, maybe it was possible to detect similar shifts before large earthquakes. There was already a hint that it was. In a 2008 Nature paper, seismologists led by Fenglin Niu, at Rice University, in Texas, reported the slowing of seismic waves hours before two small quakes in the tiny farming community of Parkfield, California.[4]

    Niu, however, had created his own noise. Using a buried piezoelectric transmitter, which converts electrical energy to motion, he had sent surface waves to a recorder a few meters away. Replicating this set-up on a practical scale, along the lengths of entire faults, would be ruinously expensive.

    “The beauty of ambient noise is that it’s free,” Schaff says. In 2010, he began mining archival noise data from a network of USGS seismometers near Parkfield—a site long seen, ironically, as a monument to the folly of earthquake prediction.

    ituated slap bang on top of the San Andreas fault separating the North American and Pacific Plates, Parkfield experienced an earthquake of magnitude 6.0 or greater about once every 22 years between 1857 and 1966. In 1985, the USGS confidently announced that the next one would occur before 1993. In anticipation, researchers blanketed the area with instruments, including seismometers, strain gauges, dilatometers, magnetometers, and GPS sensors.

    But it wasn’t until 2004 that another biggish one, a magnitude 6.0 quake, finally hit. And if the decades-long wait weren’t bad enough, the sensor results were worse. “Prior to the 2004 earthquake, the scores of instruments at Parkfield … recorded nothing out of the ordinary,” reports seismologist Susan Elizabeth Hough in her book Predicting the Unpredictable. “The fault did not start to creep in advance of the earthquake. The crust did not start to warp; no unusual magnetic signals were recorded. The earthquake wasn’t even preceded by the large foreshock scientists were expecting.”

    Schaff, however, wondered if faint precursors of the 2004 quake might be hiding in ambient noise, where the USGS hadn’t thought to look. “One man’s signal is another man’s noise,” he says.

    5
    AT FAULT: A crack snakes through a family homestead during the long-awaited magnitude 6.0 earthquake in Parksfield, California in 2004. The USGS had predicted the quake would arrive by 1993. Spencer Weiner/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    To get a clear speed reading of ambient waves, scientists typically must average data over periods as long as a month, making it hard to pinpoint precisely when a change occurred. But because Parkfield had such a high density of seismometers—13 within 20 kilometers of the quake’s epicenter—Schaff was able to get the resolution down to a single day. His calculations showed that ambient waves had slowed during the quake itself, then gradually sped up as the earth settled into a new shape. But try as he could, Schaff couldn’t tease out any significant speed changes in the days leading up to the main event.[5]

    “The conclusion for this particular earthquake was that, if there was a change, it was too small, too short, or might not have occurred in the area we were sampling,” he says. “It would be worth designing experiments with more stations to monitor areas where we suspect there might be an earthquake.” Schaff isn’t the only researcher who thinks this. At least a few dozen independent scientists in the U.S. and abroad have devoted their careers—and sometimes their own bank accounts—to the hunt for predictive signals, scrutinizing not just ambient noise but also thermal radiation and electromagnetic fields.

    Tom Bleier, a former satellite engineer living about a thousand feet from the San Andreas fault, near Silicon Valley, operates a network of magnetometers called QuakeFinder.

    6

    He got interested in earthquake precursors more than two decades ago, intrigued by scientists’ reporting of strange electromagnetic fluctuations days before a magnitude 6.9 quake struck Loma Prieta, south of San Francisco, in 1989. With $2 million from NASA, QuakeFinder has since expanded from a handful of DIY sensors to a global network of 165 stations, most of them installed along faults in California, including San Andreas, Hayward, and San Jacinto.

    So far, QuakeFinder has captured data for seven medium to large earthquakes (greater than magnitude 5.0). In the weeks prior to several of them, Bleier says, the data show distinctive electromagnetic pulses between 0.1 and 10 nanotesla in size, as much as 100,000 times weaker than Earth’s natural field. It’s possible, he points out, that these faint blips occurred before all seven quakes, but in some cases were drowned out by other magnetic disturbances, such as from lightning, solar storms, or even passing cars.

    6
    7
    A major breakthrough came in 2007, when an M5.4 earthquake occurred very close to a QuakeFinder instrument located at East Milpitas, California (2 Km). Reviewing the data recorded before the date of the quake, October 30, 2007, researchers discovered a distinct pattern of ultra-low frequency magnetic pulses starting two weeks before the quake, and disappearing after the event. Quakefinder.

    Friedemann Freund, a physicist associated with the SETI Institute who has also attracted NASA funding, has a theory about what might be causing all this pulsing. Days before an earthquake, he believes, stressed underground rock generates large electric currents, which migrate to the surface, perturbing Earth’s magnetic field while simultaneously ionizing the air and emitting a burst of infrared energy. (At Freund’s advice, each of QuakeFinder’s $50,000 magnetometer stations also includes ion sensors.)

    Most seismologists are highly sceptical of Freund’s theory. “NASA really likes to fund things that are a leap into the unknown,” says John Vidale, a professor of earth and space science at the University of Washington and the state’s official seismologist. “But there are leaps into the unknown and leaps into things that we know are not likely to work out. There’s no reason why what Freund is saying couldn’t be right. It’s just extremely unlikely that it is.”

    Even Bleier concedes that QuakeFinder isn’t ready to publish its predictions just yet. “We wouldn’t go off and issue public forecasts without being under the guidance of USGS,” he says. Even in the throes of optimism, it’s important to be cautious. “You can imagine a scenario where you feel there’s going to be an earthquake in San Francisco, and you issue a public forecast, and the city empties out—and no earthquake happens.”

    There’s no need to imagine. In the late 1970s, Brian Brady, a geophysicist with the U.S. Bureau of Mines believed he had found a mathematical model that could predict earthquakes by analyzing stresses along a fault. He warned that a series of rumblings culminating in a gargantuan, magnitude 9.9 quake would strike Lima, Peru in 1981. But when the alleged start date rolled around, Lima was nothing more than a perfectly intact ghost town.

    Eight years later, in 1989, a self-taught climatologist named Iben Browning made a similar blunder when he proclaimed, based on tidal observations, that several earthquakes would rattle New Madrid, Missouri on Dec. 3, 1990. Schools closed, emergency services geared up for disaster, and locals fled. But no quake ever came.

    It’s no wonder, Schaff says, that funders such as the USGS and the National Science Foundation (NSF) are now gun shy about anything that smacks of prediction. “They view this research as high-reward but also high-risk. Budgets are tight. The NSF did fund one of my projects, but the second one they didn’t.” Bleier, too, is scrambling to keep QuakeFinder going and expand its reach. “We’d love to do a network up in the Pacific Northwest, where they’re really concerned about a major earthquake and tsunami, but we just don’t have the money,” he says.

    Most mainstream seismologists, however, aren’t interested in a moonshot. “Personally, I don’t think we’ll ever be able to say ‘There will be a magnitude 7.0 earthquake at this minute in this place’,” says the USGS’s Harris. “The earth is just so complicated. Putting a lot of money into understanding subduction zones and the mechanics of faults—and retrofitting buildings—would be great. But just putting money into earthquake prediction wouldn’t be worth it.”

    The NEPEC’s Tullis agrees. “We don’t know enough,” he says. Even so, he admits, he’s willing to hold out hope that, like any deliberate venture into the unknown, the slow grind of seismology might eventually yield a breakthrough no one was expecting. “Over time, with enough measurements and careful analysis, maybe at some point, someone will stumble across something that has definitive predictive value, ” he says, and then, perhaps wary of sounding too sanguine, quickly adds a caveat: “It will certainly have to be proven, assuming it’s even possible. It will need an awful lot of testing.”

    Schaff, meanwhile, is putting his confidence in a power higher than the USGS. “After 22 years of study,” he says, “I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible for mankind to predict earthquakes without God giving insight into the secrets and mysteries of their occurrence.”

    References

    1. Lobkis, O.I. & Weaver, R.L. On the emergence of the Green’s function in the correlations of a diffuse field. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 110, 3011-3017 (2001).

    2. Shapiro, N.M., Campillo, M., Stehly, L., & Ritzwoller, M.H. High-resolution surface-wave tomography from ambient seismic noise. Science 307, 1615-1618 (2005).

    3. Obermann, A., Planès, T., Larose, E., & Campillo, M. Imaging preeruptive and coeruptive structural and mechanical changes of a volcano with ambient seismic noise. Journal of Geophysical Research 118, 6285-6294 (2013).

    4. Niu, F., Silver, P.G., Daley, T.M., Cheng, X., & Majer, E.L. Preseismic velocity changes observed from active source monitoring at the Parkfield SAFOD drill site. Nature 454, 204-208 (2008).

    5. Schaff, D.P. Placing an upper bound on preseismic velocity changes measured by ambient noise monitoring for the 2004 Mw 6.0 Parkfield earthquake (California). Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 102, 1400-1416 (2012).

    See the full article here .

    Meet The Quake-Catcher Network

    QCN bloc

    Quake-Catcher Network

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a collaborative initiative for developing the world’s largest, low-cost strong-motion seismic network by utilizing sensors in and attached to internet-connected computers. With your help, the Quake-Catcher Network can provide better understanding of earthquakes, give early warning to schools, emergency response systems, and others. The Quake-Catcher Network also provides educational software designed to help teach about earthquakes and earthquake hazards.

    After almost eight years at Stanford, and a year at CalTech, the QCN project is moving to the University of Southern California Dept. of Earth Sciences. QCN will be sponsored by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC).

    The Quake-Catcher Network is a distributed computing network that links volunteer hosted computers into a real-time motion sensing network. QCN is one of many scientific computing projects that runs on the world-renowned distributed computing platform Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC).

    BOINCLarge

    BOINC WallPaper

    The volunteer computers monitor vibrational sensors called MEMS accelerometers, and digitally transmit “triggers” to QCN’s servers whenever strong new motions are observed. QCN’s servers sift through these signals, and determine which ones represent earthquakes, and which ones represent cultural noise (like doors slamming, or trucks driving by).

    There are two categories of sensors used by QCN: 1) internal mobile device sensors, and 2) external USB sensors.

    Mobile Devices: MEMS sensors are often included in laptops, games, cell phones, and other electronic devices for hardware protection, navigation, and game control. When these devices are still and connected to QCN, QCN software monitors the internal accelerometer for strong new shaking. Unfortunately, these devices are rarely secured to the floor, so they may bounce around when a large earthquake occurs. While this is less than ideal for characterizing the regional ground shaking, many such sensors can still provide useful information about earthquake locations and magnitudes.

    USB Sensors: MEMS sensors can be mounted to the floor and connected to a desktop computer via a USB cable. These sensors have several advantages over mobile device sensors. 1) By mounting them to the floor, they measure more reliable shaking than mobile devices. 2) These sensors typically have lower noise and better resolution of 3D motion. 3) Desktops are often left on and do not move. 4) The USB sensor is physically removed from the game, phone, or laptop, so human interaction with the device doesn’t reduce the sensors’ performance. 5) USB sensors can be aligned to North, so we know what direction the horizontal “X” and “Y” axes correspond to.

    If you are a science teacher at a K-12 school, please apply for a free USB sensor and accompanying QCN software. QCN has been able to purchase sensors to donate to schools in need. If you are interested in donating to the program or requesting a sensor, click here.

    BOINC is a leader in the field(s) of Distributed Computing, Grid Computing and Citizen Cyberscience.BOINC is more properly the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing, developed at UC Berkeley.

    Earthquake safety is a responsibility shared by billions worldwide. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) provides software so that individuals can join together to improve earthquake monitoring, earthquake awareness, and the science of earthquakes. The Quake-Catcher Network (QCN) links existing networked laptops and desktops in hopes to form the worlds largest strong-motion seismic network.

    Below, the QCN Quake Catcher Network map
    QCN Quake Catcher Network map

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    Welcome to Nautilus. We are delighted you joined us. We are here to tell you about science and its endless connections to our lives. Each month we choose a single topic. And each Thursday we publish a new chapter on that topic online. Each issue combines the sciences, culture and philosophy into a single story told by the world’s leading thinkers and writers. We follow the story wherever it leads us. Read our essays, investigative reports, and blogs. Fiction, too. Take in our games, videos, and graphic stories. Stop in for a minute, or an hour. Nautilus lets science spill over its usual borders. We are science, connected.

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
%d bloggers like this: