the EQ was ~14 km south of Caltech and 17 km deep
| Quote: |
|
the seismometers obviously saturated during the EQ, but the accelerometers captured some of it. It looks like there's different saturation levels on different sensors.
Also, it seems the mounting of the MC2 accelerometers is not so good. There's some ~10-20 Hz resonance its mount that's showing up. Either its the MC2 chamber legs or the accelerometers are clamped poorly to the MC2 baseplate.
|
I'm amazed at how much higher the noise is on the MC2 accelerometer. Is that really how much amplification of the ground motion we're getting? If so, its as if the MC has no vibration isolation from the ground in that band. We should put one set on the ground and make the more direct comparison of the spectra. Also, perhaps do some seismic FF using this sensor - I'm not sure how successful we've been in this band.
Attaching the coherence plot from ldvw.ligo.caltech.edu (apparently it has access to the 40m data, so we can use that as an alternative to dtt or python for remote analysis):
It would be interesting to see if we can use the ML based FF technology from this summer's SURF project by Nadia to increase the coherence by including some slow IMC alignment channels. |