I keep an eye on this site. nice calif activity=A0display=0Ahttp://earthqua=
ke.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/US10/32.42.-125.-115.php=0A=A0Rega=
rds=0ABarry=0Ahttp://www.seismicvault.com =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A__________________=
______________=0AFrom: GPayton =0ATo: psn-l@webtroni=
cs.com=0ASent: Sun, July 18, 2010 2:58:02 PM=0ASubject: Re: What are the im=
plications of a M2.8 quake near the San Andreas =0Afault?=0A=0A=0AHi George=
,=0A=0AI will do a flimsy attempt in answering you question.=A0 Yesterday, =
I received the =0AAugust issue of=A0 EARTH magazine with contained a sort a=
rticle about the Nazca =0APlate adjacent to Peru.=A0 The article was titled=
 Peruvian Plates Move With and =0AWithout Earthquakes.=0A=A0=0AIf I underst=
ood the article correctly, it was asking the question as to why a =0Ablock =
of the plate might move seismic and another part generate an earthquake.=A0=
 =0AIt pointed out that the majority of the earthquakes occur inland and no=
t =0Aactually off shore at the subducting ridge itself.=0A=0AIn humble opin=
ion, that may be because of lubrication from the seawater, which =0Awould b=
e less and less at the wedge-shaped plated subducted underneath the South =
=0AAmerican Plate.=A0 THAT is strictly a guess on my part, as I have NO tec=
hnical =0Atraining in geology or seismology!=0A=0AIn regard to your questio=
n, I would think the same process "may" be in play =0Athere and there may o=
r may not be a direct interaction, who knows.=A0 One might =0Athink that jo=
stling a already stressed block might cause it to release; and =0Aagain it =
might just lessen the stress.=0A=0AI'd be interested in others opinions.=A0=
 Who knows, I might learn =0Asomething........Naaaaaa.=0A=0ARegards,=0AJerr=
y=0A=0A________________________________=0A=0A----- Original Message ----- =
=0A>From: George Bush =0A>To: psn-l@.............. =0A>Sent: Sunday, July 1=
8, 2010 4:32 PM=0A>Subject: What are the implications of a M2.8 quake near =
the San Andreas fault?=0A>=0A>Hello-=0A>=0A>This morning we had a M2.8 quak=
e about 4 miles west of us out in the =0A>ocean and about 5 miles from the =
San Andreas fault that runs to the =0A>East of us. It was on a minor fault =
that runs parallel to the San =0A>Andreas. The shock knocked my data acquis=
ition computer off-line, but =0A>was strong enough to jiggle the pen on my =
drum recorder that also was off line!=0A>=0A>I am wondering if the movement=
 of the minor fault will add strain or =0A>relieve strain on the San Andrea=
s fault (add or decrease the chances =0A>of the San Andreas fault letting-g=
o).=0A>=0A>I would appreciate any thoughts or opinions on this from you PSN=
 folks.=0A>=0A>=0A>George Bush=0A>Sea Ranch, CA, USA=0A>38.73775N, 123.4888=
2W =0A>=0A>__________________________________________________________=0A>=
=0A>Public Seismic Network Mailing List (PSN-L)=0A>=0A>To leave this list e=
mail PSN-L-REQUEST@.............. with =0A>the body of the message (first l=
ine only): unsubscribe=0A>See http://www.seismicnet.com/maillist.html for m=
=0A
I keep an eye on this site. nice calif a=
ctivity display
=0A
http://earthquake.usgs.=
gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/US10/32.42.-125.-115.php
 Regards
Barry
http://www.seismicvault.com =0A

=0A

=0A
=0A
=0AFrom: GPayton <gpayton@uspayto=
ns.com>
To: psn-l@web=
tronics.com
Sent: Sun, J=
uly 18, 2010 2:58:02 PM
Subject: Re: What are the implications of a M2.8 quake near the San Andreas=
 fault?

=0A=0A=0A
Hi George,
=0A
=
 
=0A
I will do a flimsy attempt in answering you question.&n=
bsp; Yesterday, I received the August issue of  EARTH magazine with co=
ntained a sort article about the Nazca Plate adjacent to Peru.  The ar=
ticle was titled Peruvian Plates Move With and Without Earthquakes.
=0A
 
=0A
If I understood the article cor=
rectly, it was asking the question as to why a block of the plate might mov=
e seismic and another part generate an earthquake.  It pointed out tha=
t the majority of the earthquakes occur inland and not actually off shore a=
t the subducting ridge itself.
=0A
 
=0A
In humble o=
pinion, that may be because of lubrication from the seawater, which would b=
e less and less at the wedge-shaped plated subducted underneath the South A=
merican Plate.  THAT is strictly a guess on my part, as I have NO tech=
nical training in geology or seismology!
=0A
 
=0A
I=
n regard to your question, I would think the same process "may" be in play =
there and there may or may not be a direct interaction, who knows.  On=
e might think that jostling a already stressed block might cause it to rele=
ase; and again it might just lessen the stress.
=0A
 
=
=0A
I'd be interested in others opinions.  Who knows, I might lear=
n something........Naaaaaa.
=0A
 
=0A
Regards,
=
=0A
Jerry
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
----- Original =
Message ----- 
=0A
From: George Bush 
=0A
To: psn-l@.............. 
=
=0A
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 4:32 =
PM
=0A
Subject: What are the imp=
lications of a M2.8 quake near the San Andreas fault?
=0A

Hello-

This morning we had a M2.8 quake about 4 miles west of us o=
ut in the 
ocean and about 5 miles from the San Andreas fault that runs =
to the 
East of us. It was on a minor fault that runs parallel to the Sa=
n 
Andreas. The shock knocked my data acquisition computer off-line, but=
 
was strong enough to jiggle the pen on my drum recorder that also was =
off line!

I am wondering if the movement of the minor fault will add=
 strain or 
relieve strain on the San Andreas fault (add or decrease the=
 chances 
of the San Andreas fault letting-go).

I would appreciat=
e any thoughts or opinions on this from you PSN folks.


George Bu=
sh
Sea Ranch, CA, USA
38.73775N, 123.48882W 

_________________=
_________________________________________

Public Seismic Network Mai=
ling List (PSN-L)

To leave this list email PSN-L-REQUEST@.............
OM with 
the body of the message (first line only): unsubscribe
S=
ee http://www.seismicnet.com/maillist.html for more information.

[ Top ] 
[ Back ] 
[ Home Page ]