[Duffy]

(01-26-2015, 11:29 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote:

(01-26-2015, 10:49 PM)Skywise Wrote:

(01-26-2015, 08:48 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote: Ideally I'd want them before the quakes happened so you couldn't be accused of selecting only good ones for testing.

Agreed, but I think we can still evaluate past data if made available. Although cherry picking is always a concern, I vote for innocent until proven guilty. That is, let's not assume the data is tampered with unless there's good reason to think it was. Just because some other quake predictors have played with the data doesn't mean Duffy has.

(01-26-2015, 08:48 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote: There are some problems with this, in that you aren't specifying date, mag. or location which makes it difficult to say that a given signal matches a particular quake.

I'd like to expand on this to make sure Duffy understands where you're coming from. To evaluate a possible prediction or precursory phenomena, it makes the math much easier and the analysis more robust if it can be said that a given precursor results in a quake of a given location, date/time, and place. All three of these variables can be quantized, and all three are part of the evaluation process.

The difference is in saying, "there's going to be a mag 8 quake in Japan" vs "there's going to be a mag 8 quake on the Ring of Fire". If the quake happens in Chile, the first statement is clearly false, but the second is true. However, the area of the Ring of Fire is much much larger than just Japan, therefore the second statement, although true, carries much less significance than if the quake had occurred in Japan.

Ideally we want to eliminate any fuzziness to the variables. If the dart lands in the outer ring of the dartboard, it's NOT a bulls eye. But if someone says "near the bulls eye", it then becomes an argument of "how near is NEAR"?

However, even saying that a quake of mag 7+ will occur somewhere on the planet within 5 days of the onset of a SID can still be evaluated. It just carries less significance per event, and therefore we'd need to study a much longer time period to tease out the true significance.

Anyway, an evaluation can still be done in most circumstances, and I agree with Chris that this VLF data sounds very interesting. It's hard data, replicable, testable, and definable. It's not fuzzy.

Brian

I agree. It's not impossible, just more difficult.

If Duffy has a list of past signals I can get started. It will take some time as each case requires it's own program and upcoming eye surgury will put me out of commission for awhile.

Roger

Hi Roger, thanks for the welcome (same goes for Chris)
Sorry for any late replies, I have a small business to run,family duties to attend to, on going astro projects and now corresponding with you guys, I'm sure you can appreciate you get days when free time is a bit limited. First off, I've noticed that after only 2 posts I'm stiring up a bit of a Hornets nest and I'm not entirely comfortable with were this is going, so I'm going to take Chris's advice and approach things realisticaly. I'll speak (type) plainly so there'll be no missinterpritation and I won't pretend to understand all scientific dialog, any miss quoted references interpreted as disrespectful or unprofessional are purely unintensional and if a little humour pops up now and again its just my way of taking the edge off. I'd like to step back a bit here and re-asses what I've stated and remove any asumptions I or anyone else may have and stay with the facts. The 2 antenna's mentioned are of the loop design but have been upgraded from a basic model, the primary Ant has been kitted with aditional non-ferous componants and the secondery with ferous componants, these relay signals to 2 old tec Toshiba laptops (no sub-surface EM signals with new tec, not figured that one out yet) which display real time 10 second time laps data onto a plot screen. Recordings of selected vlf stations are displayed as coloured lines (a bit like a seismometer I would imagine) however one line records the Noise ratio level which Brian might be familiar with by now and this shows if any man made or natural signal disruption has occured. Any inactive stations will reside at the bottom of the screen with the noise line, EM signals from lightning for example would produce short/sharp peaks in the noise line, interactions of Earth's magnetic field with the solarwind under certain conditions would show as a saw tooth effect and so on. In all cases only the noise line asends or desends accordingly whilst the inactive lines remain undisturbed. When a hypothetical subteranian EM signal (as only I can verify this at the moment) does occur the noise line and inactive signals are raised to a higher level and continue to record a disruptive pattern untill the initial EM burst shuts down (usually in a matter of seconds), the noise and inactive station lines return to the bottom of the screen and continue recording as normal. The second monitor is there for diagnosis of battery problems or feed line contamination from water etc, it also monitors the same signals for comparison which are identical to the last peak except when a hypo EM strikes, it continues as normal, no EM signal. I then remove the whole day's data to memory, print it off and splice together to produce one whole day in scroll format. I also print off the area of interest separately along with Satellite enviroment data and laminate them together. For the next 24-48 hours its a waiting game untill a mag 6+ appears on the USGS website, if one occurs and you stick to the facts it has to be verified by other parties, even then it could only be categorised as a coincidence untill further occurances could also be witnessed by said parties.

This is the best I could describe my equipment and data logging prosess on a "public forum" so I hope you could follow it ok, my next post I'll upload a couple of plot screen images for a better understanding of the text.

I respect and understand your need for data to incorporate it in your model for analysis but I've been modeling this for 2 years 3 months 1 week and 2 days including today which is a long time for a non-scientist to be sitting around waiting for Earthquakes. I'm not known here so I could be a fraud, would be easy enough to leave a chainsaw running next to the antenna for an hour creating a passable EM signature and altering the time/date stamp and passing it of as a PQ signal. This is why I made the suggestion to Brian about posting anomolous readings that I'm familiar with on the day they occur, If for example after 4 posts are verified within a 48 hour window and a link is established with a 6+ Earthquake then my model will be complete and I'll give you all I have by special delivery.

I agree with Chris that this is not prediction based, its more like a warning with a 48 hour sell by date, so I'll put my vlf crystal ball back in the drawer and wait to be proven "innocent" of any misgivings.

I have my own theories from observing what I've recorded so far but would'nt be prudent to mention just now, however I can tell you there's a notable difference in the dB range between PQ's of 8,7 and 6th magnitude, there's possible corolation between EM output v distance v signal duration, I can elaborate more once you've seen the plot images, though more years of data as Chris sugested may be required. What I can't tell you is were the quake would occur which would'nt fit with your perameters.

finaly thanks for you patience and I have'nt done this much typing since I did my thankyou speech for my wedding 30 years ago, I'll go back in the house now and look at the (now) 18 laminated coincidental plot screen images adorning my wall, Quite a colourfull collage really, a bit retro though!.

Duffy