Re: THIS ONE OUTTA BE CLOSE - tonight's M; 4.6 off the Coast of No. California/Forecasts
Posted by Lowell on March 27, 2002 at 08:45:47:

You might want to try making your areal limitation dependent on magnitude. For example
a formula like :
Limitation = 3*((maximum likely magnitude -2)+1)
would allow a distance culling of anything more than 3 times the stated distance
for events of Ml 2, 4 times for Ml 3, 5 times for Ml4 and 6 times for Ml5 and 7 times
for Ml 6 etc.
A Ml 6 will likely be felt over an area of several hundred km so using a 7 times
35 km - if that is the forecast limit - seems not unreasonable.
This would also require smaller earthquakes to be more precisely located
which seems intuitively correct to me.


Follow Ups:
     ● limitation factor - Roger Hunter  09:57:44 - 3/27/2002  (14220)  (2)
        ● limits needed for hits - Roger Hunter  10:24:01 - 3/27/2002  (14227)  (1)
           ● Re: limits needed for hits - Lowell  10:39:44 - 3/27/2002  (14231)  (2)
              ● here ya go! - Roger Hunter  11:10:36 - 3/27/2002  (14243)  (1)
                 ● Re: here ya go! - Lowell  11:12:56 - 3/27/2002  (14245)  (0)
              ● Re: limits needed for hits - Lowell  10:47:11 - 3/27/2002  (14237)  (2)
                 ● Re: limits needed for hits - Roger Hunter  10:56:48 - 3/27/2002  (14241)  (1)
                    ● Flinn-Engdahl Regions - Lowell  11:45:38 - 3/27/2002  (14254)  (0)
                 ● Re: limits needed for hits - Canie  10:53:07 - 3/27/2002  (14240)  (0)
        ● Re: limitation factor - Lowell  10:20:23 - 3/27/2002  (14224)  (0)
     ● Re: THIS ONE OUTTA BE CLOSE - tonight's M; 4.6 off the Coast of No. California/Forecasts - Roger Hunter  08:49:03 - 3/27/2002  (14215)  (0)