Whats going on at yellowstone?

page: 240
510
<< 237  238  239    241  242  243 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shirakawa
Last 'geyser' activity started at 11:37, but it looks there have been some data transmission problems, as there is a segment with exactly zero signal in the seismograph. I hope LKWY doesn't black out like in the past days.

I have a question: should I calculate the interval between each 'geyser eruption' as the difference between the start time of two events, or the difference between the start time of the second and the end time of the first? How is it calculated with known geysers?




Last activity
Start time: 11:37:35
Duration time: 00:04:40
Interval since preceding event: 00:39:15

Probable next 'eruption': 12:12 MST



If you are doing the interval between each event then it is you second choice of one finish to start of other. interval of quiet time. Duration of one event is another. If you just do start to start then we risk loosing duration of an event.
Make sense?




posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
It looks like these are showing up on the Lake Butte sensors now:


www.seis.utah.edu...

If you look at the last two "geyser eruptions", they show up as increased activity on this one as well.



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
For those just joining and trying to catch up, Welcome!
We started another thread with some really good info condensed into 2 pages. It's well worth a look. It's died somewhat but is still a great place to get a summary. I hope to have some time to add more myself soon.
Getting barraged with business calls this morning and it's standing in my way of ATS-ing. The nerve...

Great Info On This Conversation



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by UnklFungus
 


Thanks.
Sometimes I think we get going so fast here with info and posts we risk loss of things.



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I guess the good news for me is if it's as big as they predict, I'm close enough I wont even know it happened.



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by sageturkey
 


Good morning !
You still willing to do the hot foot dance for us up at Y?

Or, would that be the fast version of the Turkey Trot?



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
So here is an interesting thought about the geyser. If you look at the seismic station at old-faithful you don't see the same characteristic signature as what we're calling the suspected geyser under the lake, even when it erupts. The sensitivity is 125 microvolts/division so it is set up to be even more sensitive than the lake station. So why do we not see the same signature?

A few theories:

1) The geology is different at the 2 locations, leading to a different level of propagation through the rocks to the station at old-faithful

2) Old faithful doesn't make as much 'noise' b/c it is an old geyser with worn 'smooth' walls in the vent whereas the lake geyser is a new geyser and the walls of the vent haven't had time to smooth, thus leading to more noise.

3) The geyser in the lake is much bigger/has a higher discharge than old-faithful.

4) Could there be some other cause of the rumbling under the lake?



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MadameGuillotine
I guess the good news for me is if it's as big as they predict, I'm close enough I wont even know it happened.


We here hope we can give a better warning than the powers that be say they would.
Keep watching us here.



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
wow check out the live web cam of yellowstone, pretty coolio
www.nps.gov...



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
www.geyserstudy.org...

According to this website, 35 minutes is at the far end of the curve and very rare. Also, it says that if the duration of an eruption is, say, 5 minutes, than your going to have a longer interval than an eruption with a duration of 1 minute.

Right now, according to the graph of today's activity, there is both increasing duration as well as decreasing interval. This should not be happening.

Any thoughts?



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by sageturkey
 


hey guys ive been looking at this thread since the beginning and here's what i think is happenning. i think the tectonic pacific plate is moving to the left
first, look at this map:
hisz.rsoe.hu...
and also open this in another tab
www.learner.org...
now look at the line all the earth quakes are making on rsoe edis all the quakes are along the line of the pacific tectonic plate. now look how if the plate was moving to the left, it would push on the eurasian plate and make it move left and create all the shock in italy and all those swarm of earthquakes because thats where eurasian plate collides with african plate.. just thoughts. any comment?
not only the earthquakes but also consider the erupting volcanoes in that line. it all goes along the tectonic plate line

[edit on 6-1-2009 by Ponyboy_86]



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Mushussu
 


Ok, then I'll modify the way it's calculated on my chart, thanks.

To everybody, I think we may have missed the last event which was supposed to start at around 12:12-12:15. On Lake Butte it shows up as a faint signal at 12:16. When do you think it started and finished on LKWY?



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I would just wait until the next one, then average it in the middle...just a thought.

[edit on 6-1-2009 by rockandahardplace]



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mushussu
reply to post by sageturkey
 


Good morning !
You still willing to do the hot foot dance for us up at Y?

Or, would that be the fast version of the Turkey Trot?


Mornin Back! Hope you got some sleep!

Yeah, I was driving North this morning to go pick up some work (dead computer) and had the biggest urge to just keep goin! I think we could all use a good laugh and I'd love to be the one to provide. It's a couple hours away and we don't really know what a superhighway is here in Wyoming so it's not really do-able. Gad - calls won't stop! Wah wah, I can't play my game, I can't get on ATS, wah!!!



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
There is a logging truck driving by the siesmograph. Not a natural event. Just a new commercial endeavor.



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
so the was a 3.2 earthquake in montana today?? hisz.rsoe.hu...

i wonder why it is not on the earthquake map?? hisz.rsoe.hu...



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


I don't mean any disrespect but something isn't right about you are telling us. Perhaps you didn't understand what your friend was saying or perhaps your friend doesn't really understand how the whole network operates (IT related not how to read a seismograph) and was simply coming up with an answer for the sake of answering your questions. We all have had that happen to us where you ask someone a question and you can see they are basically making up an answer. I suspect that to be the case here.

There is nothing logical about what your friend said. Absolutely nothing. The information the scientists use to interpret the data are not tied to the web servers. Generating the web reports we see is a low power operation. It doesn't require a great deal of cpu resources or bandwidth. The data doesn't have to be redirected for further analysis. That would imply that on a daily basis the data is in jeopardy because it is going out to the web instead of to the scientists. Anyone with a personal weather station at home knows how this works. I don't have to disable my uplink feed to better analyze changing weather conditions. My weather software feeds the data to the net basically in the background. I'd go so far as to say my weather software uploads more data per station than those seismographs and I can run that easily on a home computer and home internet connection. I guarantee you the USGS has the resources to keep feeding data to their web servers.

There is no need to redirect or deflect data. It is simply not a logical solution to the puzzle.



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Ponyboy_86
 


Not to step on Sageturkeys toes, but he is or was off line now.
The thoughts you have brought up have been talked about a lot here.
General consensus is that yes it is all connected.



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Ponyboy_86
 


Could very well be. It's definitely a global event, I think we can all agree on that. The question is, where's it going to unleash first. I'd still be watching the coast in my opinion. We're hearing about Yellowstone finally because there's many less people to panic. Start small, get them aware, break it to them gently...



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Indy
 


Please drop the freaking subject and watch the charts Shirakawa has put together....If this keeps up ,by morning that thing will be blowing nonstop.
Great job Shirakawa and please keep it up.


Ps : here's what USGS has to say bout it them selfs...


Why do some earthquakes disappear?
The earthquake data shown here is automatically generated and despite our best efforts some glitches will create bogus earthquakes. When we find a bogus event, usually by studying the seismograms, we delete it and careful observers may notice that an earthquake has disappeared. This often happens after a large earthquake when our systems don't realize that all of the seismograms were created by a single event. In this case, one earthquake will turn into multiple "events" on the maps. In other cases problems in our telemetry systems that bring the data from our seismometers to our computers create glitches that also can create bogus events. For these reasons it is very important to remember that this data is preliminary and when events disappear they weren't real to begin with.



Seems like the sensors are putting it dirctly to the site and then it is reviewed by scientists

[edit on 6/1/2009 by operation mindcrime]





new topics
top topics
 
510
<< 237  238  239    241  242  243 >>

log in

join