New earthquake magnitude scale

Nature ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 270 (5635) ◽  
pp. 299-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Smith
1962 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Kárník ◽  
N. V. Kondorskaya ◽  
Ju. V. Riznitchenko ◽  
E. F. Savarensky ◽  
S. L. Soloviev ◽  
...  

1935 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles F. Richter

Abstract Summary


1956 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Gutenberg ◽  
C. F. Richter

Abstract This supersedes Paper 1 (Gutenberg and Richter, 1942). Additional data are presented. Revisions involving intensity and acceleration are minor. The equation log a = I/3 − 1/2 is retained. The magnitude-energy relation is revised as follows: (20) log ⁡ E = 9.4 + 2.14 M − 0.054 M 2 A numerical equivalent, for M from 1 to 8.6, is (21) log ⁡ E = 9.1 + 1.75 M + log ⁡ ( 9 − M ) Equation (20) is based on (7) log ⁡ ( A 0 / T 0 ) = − 0.76 + 0.91 M − 0.027 M 2 applying at an assumed point epicenter. Eq. (7) is derived empirically from readings of torsion seismometers and USCGS accelerographs. Amplitudes at the USCGS locations have been divided by an average factor of 2 1/2 to compensate for difference in ground; previously this correction was neglected, and log E was overestimated by 0.8. The terms M2 are due partly to the response of the torsion seismometers as affected by increase of ground period with M, partly to the use of surface waves to determine M. If MS results from surface waves, MB from body waves, approximately (27) M S − M B = 0.4 ( M S − 7 ) It appears that MB corresponds more closely to the magnitude scale determined for local earthquakes. A complete revision of the magnitude scale, with appropriate tables and charts, is in preparation. This will probably be based on A/T rather than amplitudes.


2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 1921-1930 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. E. Abdel Hafiez ◽  
I. El-Hussain ◽  
A. E. Khalil ◽  
A. Deif

2017 ◽  
Vol 107 (2) ◽  
pp. 521-531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Finnigan Illsley‐Kemp ◽  
Derek Keir ◽  
Jonathan M. Bull ◽  
Atalay Ayele ◽  
James O. S. Hammond ◽  
...  

1986 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 519-528 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. A. Greenhalgh ◽  
R. T. Parham

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Pellegrino ◽  
Curtis Luckett

Chemesthesis, along with taste and olfaction, is a primary component of flavor that engages the trigeminal system through specific chemical binding. For instance, many gums or confectionaries incorporate chemical cooling agents, such as Wilkinson Sword (WS) compounds, to create the sensation of coldness. The current study was designed to evaluate crossmodal associations of color and aroma with the chemesthetic perception of cooling. A “minty” and non-odorized set of confectionary stimuli, colored green, blue or white, with moderate cooling properties (with WS-3) were used in this study. In the first session, participants were randomly presented a stimuli and asked to rate several attributes including its cooling intensity on a generalized Labeled Magnitude Scale (gLMS). In the second session, the same participants were asked to relate cooling levels to different colors and which color relates to the “minty” odor. Additionally, open-ended reasons were given for association choices. Appearance and odor influenced the intensity of cooling sensation. In particular, the odorized and blue samples were rated as cooler than the non-odorized and other colored samples, respectively. The follow-up session confirms blue as a color associated with cooling properties, especially cool objects/abstract concepts. Meanwhile, odor’s enhancement on cooling sensation may be more perceptual in nature through affective matching from enhanced flavor.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document