距离震中vs距离焦点-地球科学堆栈交换江南电子竞技平台江南体育网页版 最近30从www.hoelymoley.com 2023 - 07 - 08 - t18:32:34z //www.hoelymoley.com/feeds/question/4380 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/rdf //www.hoelymoley.com/q/4380 8 距离震中与距离的焦点 达尔文史密斯 //www.hoelymoley.com/users/2550 2015 - 02 - 06 - t15:57:07z 2015 - 02 - 16 - t17:24:40z < p >我不是一个“初露头角的地震。”I am a chemistry/physics teacher teaching an Earth science class (low academic level) in a small-town high school. (My college coursework in earth sciences = 0) I understand the concept of triangulation to determine an earthquake's origin, and I realize there are some subtleties in wave analysis such as pP and sP waves. What I don't understand is how the triangulation determines the epicenter instead of the focus. Wouldn't the S-P lag times for 3 stations give an intersection point at the focus since that is the actual point of origin for the waves?

//www.hoelymoley.com/questions/4380/-/4381 # 4381 1 答案通过Neo距离震中vs距离焦点 Neo //www.hoelymoley.com/users/32 2015 - 02 - 06 - t22:31:02z 2015 - 02 - 06 - t22:51:47z < p >这是一个好问题,但它确实有一个简单的答案。你怎么能确定一个物体的深度即使你没有计算吗?三角测量使用圆,二维形状,所以当发现圆的方程的解决方案,解决所有3圈,你只找到X和y Z甚至还没有被解决。< / p > < p >三角测量不精确。在实践中,我们最终使用远远超过3站和统计方法找到精确的中心(和其他方法来发现焦点)。< / p > //www.hoelymoley.com/questions/4380/-/4413 # 4413 1 答案由马克Rovetta距离震中vs距离焦点 马克Rovetta //www.hoelymoley.com/users/178 2015 - 02 - 14 - t15:59:23z 2015 - 02 - 16 - t17:24:40z < p >地图上画圆的方法找到他们的交集只解决了一个未知数。当站远离震源地震或虽浅,焦点和中心之间的距离之间的差别将被忽略。因为许多地震是浅,三圈经常做相交于一点。当他们不这样做,一个可能的解释是,因为地震相对深度(与震中的距离。相比)< / p > < p >如果你想试图确定震中和地震的深度,那么您需要收集更多的观察(站)和用数学来解决系统至少有两个未知数。您可以使用线性代数。注意站到达时间接近地震将受到关注的深度的影响比站远,所以你会想要包括车站靠近地震。中学物理学生可能有足够的数学使用< a href = " http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NewtonsMethod.html " rel =“nofollow”> < / >的方法来估计牛顿迭代方法深度。他们可能会使用的初始估计的“震中”第一个方法,试图解决的约束方程来估计一个深度。< / p > < p >在实践中,地震学家收集大量的数据,必须考虑许多未知数,如距离焦点,而且地震速度的变化通过不同类型的岩石。< / p >

If you try the three-station and map approach in your Earth Science classroom, the students may notice that all three circles do not go though a single point typically, but come more or less close to doing so. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to discuss the differences between a model and actual earthquakes and Earth. It might even be possible to discuss how a better model can improve the agreement with observations.

It looks like this USGS page : Determining the Depth of an Earthquake has a somewhat different answer, which may describe how deep earthquakes were 'discovered' historically :)

This presentation at the Berkeley Seismographic Station shows a geometric construction and formula for determining earthquake depth.

Baidu
map