Altro estratto da SESAME 2004:

Quote:
Energetic low frequency sources are often distant (being located at the closest oceans), and the energy is carried from the source to the site by surface waves guided in the earth's crust. However, locally, these waves may (and actually often do) interact with the local structure (especially deep basins). Their long wavelength induces a significant penetration depth, so that the resulting local wavefield may be more complex: subsurface inhomogeneities, excited by the long period crustal surface waves, may act as diffraction points and generate local surface waves, and even possibly body waves. The energy at frequencies between 0.1 and 1.0 Hz decreases with increasing distance from oceans: extracting information from microseisms is thus easier on islands (such as Japan) than in the heart of continental areas (such as Kazakhstan).


Secondo quanto sopra, l'Italia peninsulare sarebbe favorevole al rilievo dei picchi posti nel range 0.5 - 1 Hz Hz, dato che abbiamo una notevole interazione mare-coste, mancando un vicino apporto alle frequenze molto basse delle onde oceaniche.

Se fosse davvero così, avremmo una base teorica con la quale giustificare la frequente visibilità di picchi alle basse frequenze su rilievi effettuati con sensore da 4.5 Hz


"Data speak for themselves" -Reverend Thomas Bayes 1702-1761
P(Ai|E)=(P(E|Ai)P(Ai))/P(E)