<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Seismic Talk &#187; Technical</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.seismictalk.com/category/technical/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.seismictalk.com</link>
	<description>News and views, rants and raves from the seismic industry</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:16:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Pet Peeves</title>
		<link>http://www.seismictalk.com/pet-peeves</link>
		<comments>http://www.seismictalk.com/pet-peeves#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:16:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Rants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software updates]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seismictalk.com/pet-peeves</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.seismictalk.com/pet-peeves"><img align="left" hspace="5" width="150" height="150" src="http://www.seismictalk.com/wp-content/plugins/thumbnail-for-excerpts/tfe_no_thumb.png" class="alignleft wp-post-image tfe" alt="" title="" /></a>I just bought myself a new computer and reinstalling all of the software is one of those activities that I don’t particularly enjoy but I can live with that. What I find incredibly annoying is that a new computer and freshly downloaded antivirus software (direct from the manufacturers site) required almost 3 GB of updates. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.seismictalk.com/pet-peeves/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New sensor supports oil exploration</title>
		<link>http://www.seismictalk.com/new-sensor-supports-oil-exploration</link>
		<comments>http://www.seismictalk.com/new-sensor-supports-oil-exploration#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:00:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seismic sensors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sensor Systems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[signal to noise]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seismictalk.com/new-sensor-supports-oil-exploration</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.seismictalk.com/new-sensor-supports-oil-exploration"><img align="left" hspace="5" width="150" height="150" src="http://www.seismictalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/image_thumb-150x150.png" class="alignleft wp-post-image tfe" alt="image" title="image" /></a>Sensor Systems claim to have made a the first advancement in almost 50 years in seismic sensors. The new device, an all-optical, fiber-optic omnidirectional geophone, requires no in-situ electronics, copper conductors, or electrical power. It incorporates a self-contained optical interrogation unit (using an optical time division multiplexing methodology) with integrated laser sources; all of the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.seismictalk.com/new-sensor-supports-oil-exploration/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Vibroseis versus Dynamite</title>
		<link>http://www.seismictalk.com/vibroseis-versus-dynamite</link>
		<comments>http://www.seismictalk.com/vibroseis-versus-dynamite#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:54:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[angles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bulldozer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[correlation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dynamite]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[flat terrain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[holes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[laws of physics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mountainous country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[penetration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rock areas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seismic crews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[steep areas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vibe records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vibes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vibroseis]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seismictalk.com/2007/02/11/forums-now-operational/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.seismictalk.com/vibroseis-versus-dynamite"><img align="left" hspace="5" width="150" height="150" src="http://www.seismictalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/picture-169-thumb-150x150.jpg" class="alignleft wp-post-image tfe" alt="How steep can vibroseis go?" title="" /></a>I&#8217;m currently on a 2D job which is mainly flat but it does have one portion in the middle which has some hills requiring bulldozer cutting. The client emailed me the other day asking about using vibes in the hills as somebody at the office had asked if it wouldn&#8217;t be better to use dynamite. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.seismictalk.com/vibroseis-versus-dynamite/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Passive Seismic Mapping PSTT</title>
		<link>http://www.seismictalk.com/passive-seismic-mapping-pstt</link>
		<comments>http://www.seismictalk.com/passive-seismic-mapping-pstt#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:22:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[3D seismic technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy source]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microseismic Inc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[passive seismic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seismic technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tomography]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seismictalk.com/2007/07/26/passive-seismic-mapping-pstt/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.seismictalk.com/passive-seismic-mapping-pstt"><img align="left" hspace="5" width="150" height="150" src="http://www.seismictalk.com/wp-content/plugins/thumbnail-for-excerpts/tfe_no_thumb.png" class="alignleft wp-post-image tfe" alt="" title="" /></a>I recently came across an interesting article about a 3D seismic technology which does not use traditional type sources making it possible to use the technique in places otherwise locked out due to environmental concerns. Passive seismic mapping using passive seismic transmission tomography (PSTT) is a seismic technique which uses a sparse array of 3C [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.seismictalk.com/passive-seismic-mapping-pstt/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

