(01-28-2015, 10:44 PM)Skywise Wrote: You'll have to forgive any impression of accusing you of improprieties with your data. It's nothing personal. Just the nature of scientific debate. Science works backwards in a way, in that a theory is proven right by failure to prove it wrong. So what happens is everyone jumps on the theory and tries to tear it apart. After enough failures to tear it apart, it then becomes accepted as likely correct.
I think the best solution at the moment, Duffy, is to just post as soon as possible when you have one of these signals you think might be a precursor to a quake. I recommend posting those messages to the prediction forum as the most appropriate place, even though they're not predictions per se. There are forms on that forum for prediction details, but you do not have to use them to post a message there.
I do have a question. In your expanded description of your detection process you make mention of a "hypothetical subterranean EM signal". I'm a little confused by the subterranean part. I thought you were detecting changes to the ionosphere. Did I misunderstand something?
Brian
Hi Brian,
There's really nothing to forgive, my highlighting may have given the wrong impression to you, I'm not used to forums and was mearly trying to show that I was paying attention, I'm a farmer's son born and raised and in general a light hearted humourus kind of guy, I have a few certificates from studies with the OU, and a couple of observation awards, so I know a little science, and understand that with any theory there has to be a process of elimination, If I tell you the sky is green because of a,b and c, as scientists you have to disprove my theory to retain the fact that it really is blue (it is blue isn't it ?). Being sceptical is part of the vetting process, We're debating a serious subject so untill I'm shown to be the real deal I expect more scepticism. So tell Roger no harm done, lay off the big words a little, and I'll hopefully have some thing together for him in a few days. Apologies for any late replies, frustratingly busy at the moment and time is a bit limited, so I'll try to address any questions with you.
THe answer to your question Brian is yes and no, there are two kinds of phenomenon related to vlf propagation and Earthquakes which I can explain better when I send a couple of plot screen images to Roger. One is atmospheric, and one is subterranian, the latter is the one I'm hoping to verify. I found some old published research online from the 80's about rock stress testing, and how rock reacts under extreme pressure, they found that for a given bar reading the rock released "radon gas", a kind of EM aerosol. It was hypothesised that if large amounts of radon could be detected eminating from plate boundaries in Earthquake zones prior to a major event, they could precuring a prediction. The vlf link here is, radon interacts with the lower atmosphere, particulally the D-layer that vlf waves use to propagate around the globe, if some one like myself is monitoring x number of vlf stations they would record a signal drop off at a particular station of a given country, or several at once depending on the amount of radon released. I believe this research is still on going at CERN but I've not followed the radon trail for a while. I've experienced this several times, mostly signals from Iceland and Italy as radon is also asssociated with volcanic activity, it is this phenomena that introduced me to Earthquakes in the first place, but its not the reason I'm here.
A lot of research in the 80's and 90's focused on magnetic phenomena, a hypothesis that a surge of EM radiation in the Earths crust could precede the onset of an Earthquake. Plainly speaking, it was theorised that if for a given amount of energy released, and a frequency could be obtained, it would be possible to detect Earthquakes before they occured. But it was found to be unworkable, alot of projects claimed to have had success when their predictions of an Earthquake became reality, but were unable to repeat the process satisfactorily so their original claims were regarded as either flukes or false sensor readings.
This is the reason I'm here, to establish weather I'm receiving an EM signal hours before an Earthquake strikes, I believe I am but it has to be proven and I need the right kind of people (yourselves) to act as witnesses. Its not prediction, but I need prediction before It can move on to research.
I appologies if this has sounded like the non-scientist giving the scientist a science lesson but your all experts in your own particular field, so I can't assume you know everything, and just so everybody is on the right track here, I'm talking about EM signals from the Earth, the ground under my feet, the only connection with the Sun is I built this system to receive signals from it, but its also receiving signals from the Earth.
Roger was concerned about what would happen if a significant corrolation was established (I wouldn't be the only one loosing sleep for starters), and the issue of data selection. My system has been revamped three times since I started , the last time was October last year, when the first signal came in I nearly fell out of my chair. So I've started a new file on my project and bringing you along for the ride so to speak. Past data is pale in comparison and I see it as a test bed for what's hopefully to come. I'll do as you sugested, Brian, When a recognisable signal appears, I'll post in predictions, if I get a hit then were off the starting blocks, but if I win a few races, well, you'll been there with me, in real time, data selection shouldn't be a problem, assuming I've understud it correctly (still a bit of farmers son up there I'm afraid).
As Chris suggested earlier, you have to be realistic, well the reality is this, I'm an astro guy and love all things astronomy, in the past I've covered Planetary science, Cosmology and a little Earth science. I have no elusions of becoming a scientist, I mearly wanted to understand what I was looking at through the scope. When the signals started and I realised their significance, I had the foresight to contact what I thought were the right people, the rest you know, that was me being realistic then. Now I find myself with signals trying to come out of the top of the monitor (due to a bit of tinkering) and again I'm in a similar position, for all I know this could be a common occurance (as I originally asked). This kind of research was dead in the water by the mid 90's so I can understand it not being considered, or its like you've been looking for Amelia Earharts plane for the last 20 years, the garbage man turns up, gives you a map, and says I've worked on this a few weeks and x marks the spot.
I mean no disrespect or offence to anyone, especially Chris, and value any advice given, I was a little angry at the time, I'd forsaken a holiday to get that data together because I thought it might be important. I'm not claiming to have found the plane, but there might be something here to tell us which direction to look.
As for data theft, my data is very simplistic, basic and mostly monitor printouts, which I don't mind sharing at the right pace, however, receiver schematics is another story. I have a couple of trophies for shooting which means I have a gun, two big dogs and a mother-in-law in the house, so if you did try to run off with my work, Chris, I can only imagine which obsticle would be the hardest to deal with.
I'll finish here by saying again, there's no harm done, we're working at different ends of the Earthquake spectrum, and if all goes well maybe we'll meet in the middle. Sorry if I've upset anyone with my comments, being un-scientific, my Yorkshire dialog, and writing another novel again (all these apologies, sounds like a tennis match). I will post again as soon as I'm able, and will finish now with a bit of astro trivia for all cat loving Earth scientists.
Sir Issac Newton not only discovered gravity, he was also credited with inventing the "Cat Flap" (Wickapedia).
Duffy
OK Duffy, no offence given or taken.
Sounds like a plan. Posting here eliminates tampering but will take longer to establish anything.
I hope you're talking about large quakes. The smaller ones happen all the time so we need to focus on mag 6 or better.
(01-31-2015, 04:51 PM)Duffy Wrote: If I tell you the sky is green because of a,b and c, as scientists you have to disprove my theory to retain the fact that it really is blue (it is blue isn't it ?).
Yes and no. If it weren't for other factors, it would actually be violet.
(01-31-2015, 04:51 PM)Duffy Wrote: THe answer to your question Brian is yes and no...
Thank you very much for the time you took to write all that (which I subsequently edited out here). I now understand where you are coming from.
(01-31-2015, 04:51 PM)Duffy Wrote: I appologies if this has sounded like the non-scientist giving the scientist a science lesson but your all experts in your own particular field, so I can't assume you know everything
You're right. No one knows everything. Not even experts.
As for myself, I am just a lifelong science enthusiast. My only formal training is in electronics. But everything else is from a few decades of reading and more reading, and more reading....
(01-31-2015, 04:51 PM)Duffy Wrote: I'll do as you sugested, Brian, When a recognisable signal appears, I'll post in predictions, if I get a hit then were off the starting blocks, but if I win a few races, well, you'll been there with me, in real time, data selection shouldn't be a problem, assuming I've understud it correctly (still a bit of farmers son up there I'm afraid).
Something I must take time to emphasize, because it is vitally important to your work, is to make sure you post BEFORE any related quake occurs. There are no end of people posting after a quake claiming that they had predicted it but for one excuse or another say they didn't saying anything. We call that "postdiction", and it's a deal killer.
(01-31-2015, 04:51 PM)Duffy Wrote: or its like you've been looking for Amelia Earharts plane for the last 20 years, the garbage man turns up, gives you a map, and says I've worked on this a few weeks and x marks the spot.
You being an amateur astronomer already know that many discoveries, even significant ones, are often made by amateurs. Many comets, for example. Or another instance, McNeil's Nebula. That was missed by decades of amateur and professional imagers until McNeil noticed it. Well, he noticed it, and now it's named for him.
(01-31-2015, 04:51 PM)Duffy Wrote: I mean no disrespect or offence to anyone
None taken by me. Again, I appreciate you taking the time in all that you've written. It is very helpful for us in understanding you. Electronic words on a screen is a very difficult medium for communication because it can be so easily misunderstood or misread. I've had that problem myself numerous times. In exchange, if you have any questions about us, feel free to ask. Of course, it's up to each of us to decide how much of a response to give, but I think it would be good to help you understand us.
As you said, maybe we can all meet in the middle. I think that would be a good thing, regardless of the success of your ideas.
(01-31-2015, 04:51 PM)Duffy Wrote: Sir Issac Newton not only discovered gravity, he was also credited with inventing the "Cat Flap" (Wickapedia).
Never heard that one before. But a quick check online puts this in the disputed and probably false category. Makes a good story, though!
Following up on Roger, there is a M6+ quake on average every 2 or 3 days. Since many of these would be aftershocks of much larger quakes, then the actual dates of M6-7 quake occurrence would be less often.
I know Duffy was joking, but earthquakes/Earthwaves is a hobby for me also. I probably know less about Radon/ionosphere than Duffy, Brian, or Roger. My professional work is on faults and folds, including active ones, so I do know a fair amount about "seismotectonics".
It is really clear from his posts that Duffy has a scientific approach. It clearly contrasts with others who used to post here. On the other hand, time will tell over the next few years whether Duffy is willing to accept or at least consider well-supported critical comments that are made here. For example, that there are >100 M 6 quakes/year, and I think it is something like 18 M7+ quakes/year.
(02-01-2015, 02:23 PM)Island Chris Wrote: Following up on Roger, there is a M6+ quake on average every 2 or 3 days. Since many of these would be aftershocks of much larger quakes, then the actual dates of M6-7 quake occurrence would be less often.
I know Duffy was joking, but earthquakes/Earthwaves is a hobby for me also. I probably know less about Radon/ionosphere than Duffy, Brian, or Roger. My professional work is on faults and folds, including active ones, so I do know a fair amount about "seismotectonics".
It is really clear from his posts that Duffy has a scientific approach. It clearly contrasts with others who used to post here. On the other hand, time will tell over the next few years whether Duffy is willing to accept or at least consider well-supported critical comments that are made here. For example, that there are >100 M 6 quakes/year, and I think it is something like 18 M7+ quakes/year.
Chris
Hi all,
I've put something together here to hopefully help to understand what an EM signiture looks like in the Radio spectrum, and its possible use as a short span prediction tool for Earthquake detection. Included in this post are several examples of VLF transmission images to convey to others exactly what I'm looking for. We're still rubbing two stick together to make fire where I live, so please forgive any errors I may have made in the following presentation (you may want to grab a coffee first, it's a bit long!).
[attachment=47]
This image is a typical example of a plot screen, taken from a 5 day spectrogram recording, generated in Spectrum Lab. The times shown are in UT (universal time) and each hour is divided into 15 minute grid sections, with a recording rate of 10 seconds. on the left of the screen, you will see where the last day finished and the new day started, the time stamp shows this was recorded several days ago.
Each of the coloured traces represents transmission frequencies of shortwave broadcasts, Atomic clock syncronisation signals, and the majority are naval transmissions from across the globe. The most distinguishable feature in this image is the V shape in the white trace representing Iceland. VLF waves (very low frequency) propogate through what is termed the radio corridor by two methods, the ground wave and sky wave (D-layer). Propogation is stronger from the ground wave during daylight hours, because the D-layer in the lower atmosphere is less conductive. The D-layer however, relies on UV radiation to sustain itself, so when the sun sets, it deminishes and allows the sky wave to become the dominant propogator. As Dawn approaches, the D-layer begins to re-materialise, creating a battle for dominance between the ground and sky waves, resulting in each cancelling the other out, hence the trace drops to the bottom of the screen. As the Sun rises, the ground wave becomes the dominant force again, and signal strength starts to increase. So in effect, your witnessing a VLF sunrise in Iceland.
The most significant trace for our purposs is the thin red line at the bottom of the screen. This is the noise to ratio trace that records EMI (Electromagnetic interfearance) from natural or man made sources. In the 2 hour period shown, there are several lightning strikes, and some low energy Solar wind interactions. The cream trace representing North Dakota USA shows man made disruption at 10:28 UT, which continues into the Iceland trace above, this may indicate a high frequency transmission from the US, in the direction of Iceland (a radio telescope sending instruction to a satellite or probe etc).
Unless anyone has had previouse experience with spectrograms, its not expected for the smaller details to be understood, just as I could not extrapolate date from a seismograph, having never seen one before. However, an EM signal with possible tectonic origins is very distinguishable from other sources.
This plot screen is an example of how I see the data as it comes in, I then change some of the trace colours, and add a white background for printing purposess
[attachment=48]
This second image was recorded later the same day as image 1, and shows an increase of terrestrial and Solar activity in the noise line. The significance of this image is the similarity of signal ratio reduction in the white (Iceland) and cream (N Dakota) traces, they are loosing strength and dropping towards the bottom right of the image. I noted this effect several days ago in the Scotish borders and Norwegian traces, they could all be coincidental reductions in transmitter power, but I believe the D-layer above these regions has been contaminated by Radon gas (a phenomena mentioned in an earlier post). Radon is produced from radioactive decay of minerals in the Earths crust, it has a half-life of approximately 3.9 days, and is mostly associated with volcanic and tectonic activity. When Radon interacts with the D-layer it basically doubles the ionisation process, causing the radio ceiling to drop further (squeezing the coridoor, so to speak) As Iceland is volcanicaly active, and taking into account the 19th January when a mag 4.6 Earthquake struck in the Greenland sea, it's feasable that Radon seepage could be occuring
[attachment=49]
Show here is a portion of a recording taken on 5th February 2013, it's this recording that introduced me to the realms of Earthquakes in the first place, and the reason I wished to understand them. At the time this was taken, I had only been a SID monitorist for 4 months, and still at the early learning stage, hence the poor quality of the traces. Two weeks prior to this recording, I constructed an antenna of my own design, as the store bought antenna was not producing the results I'd expected. When this image appeared on my monitor, I believed it to be equipment malfunction, no problem was detected and Solar influences were ruled out as the cause. I knew there was some kind of electromagnetic element to this, but settled on a antenna glitch as this was the newest part of the system. The following morning (6th Feb) whilst having my coffee and watching the TV news bullitins, the news reporter announced that a Magnitude 8 Earthquake had taken place, near the Solomon Islands. It wasn't long before I realised the connection, and in my quest for answers, I found the Radon gas phenomenon. It's quite obvious from the image that something brought the radio ceiling crashing down at 11:05 UT, and remained this way untill 16:45 UT when normal recording resumed. So is this a mass release of Radon prior to Solomon?, I believe it is, there is nothing on the internet for comparison (that I could find), the whole recording is now framed, hanging on my wall, and titled "Day One". I recorded several of these in 2013, but this one is all that remains.
Now I would just like to add a side note, I don't want to spoil a good run here, and I've done my best to keep her out of it, but this may or may not have any relevance. I remember on this day, Mother-in-law was insistant on returning to the store with some wild bird food (anybody know where this is going?), she's a keen bird watcher with a couple of feed stations in the garden, and believed the store had sold her old stock as the birds hadn't appeared all day. Animal behaviourist may have theories on this, I'm a stick to the facts kind of guy, but you never know!.
[attachment=50]
I thought I would show a couple of images of other EMI phenomena, to give an example of some of the variables that have to be taken into consideration when trying to establish a link between EM signals and PQ signals (Possible Quake). This image is typical of how lightening leaves EM signatures in the noise line, each of these large peaks is a bolt of lightening making contact with the Earth, the storm past by my location 30km North. If you look at the gap in the strikes,just before 17:00 UT, you will notice above it a couple of trace lines with distinct curves, these were caused by an M1 class solar flare ionising the upper atmosphere, and counteracting the electrostatic energy released by the lightening, hence the gap.
[attachment=51]
I originally constructed the SID detector (Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance) to capture images of Solar activity, like the example shown here. The first indication of a CME from the Sun (coronal Mass Ejection) is the arrival of X-ray radiation impacting the Earths magnetic field. This has the effect of raising and lowering the radio ceiling as shown in the image, you'll notice however, the noise line has suffered little or no disruption. The pale Green trace represents France, and the time shows it was basically High Noon in Europe. The Solar classification for these flare impacts, from the left are M1.4, C8.3 and M1.3, as a rough guide in Eathquake terminology, Mag 7.3, Mag 6 and Mag 7.1 (just examples, incase the calculators start coming out). Coronal material arrives at Earth a couple of days later, producing the aurora's over the pole's, and shows as a proton/electron storm (Solar wind) in the noise line.
This is a continuation from my last post, and hopefully the images have appeared in the right order.
[attachment=52]
This plot screen image shows the kind of EM signature I am looking for, you can see in the noise line, there is a period of 1 hour 10 minutes of disruption, before normal tracking resumes. A good percentage of EMI recordings in 2014 were similar in nature to this one, however, the monitoring system was adjusted and modified occasionally to enhance Solar reception. As a consiquence, any EM signals from PQ's varied in signal strength, and were dependant on distance to source.
This particular image was recorded on 1st April 2014, as indicated on the time stamp. Later in the day at 23:46 UT, a magnitude 8.2 Earthquake struck near the coast of Tarapace, Chile, 14 hours 45 minutes after the noise line disruption ended.
Another feature here of possible significance, is the deep Blue trace representing the German navy, call sign DHO38. All naval bases around the world use VLF radio frequencies to contact submerged submarines, as normal vocal frequencies are unable to penertrate sea water, VLF can penetrate to a depth of 40 metre's. They receive mesages in bit format (eg, 20 characters a minute), at deeper levels they use ULF (Ultra Low Frequency), and deeper still some country's use ELF (Extremely Low Frequency).
If anyone is a movie buff like myself, I recommend one called "Crimson Tide" starring Denzell Washington, it shows the comm's system in action, and it's a really good movie.
As a Vlf monitorist, I occasionally receive warning emails from the NOAA space weather prediction centre, of possible VLF and shortwave radio blackout's, due to heavy Solar flare activity (you can see some of the effects in my last post). These warnings relate to X class flares (eg, 8-9 mag quake) with extremly powerful EM surges, capable of damaging satellites, and scrambling electronics and radio communication, unless precautions are taken before hand. Most naval stations receive similar warnings, and take appropriate action to protect their transmitters, if a high capacity impact is determind, the station switches off just prior to the event, I've observed this many times in the recordings.
By now, you may be wondering why I am giving lessons in ship to shore communications, and how does this relate to Earthquakes?. ULF and ELF are lower frequency constituants of the VLF portion of the radio spectrum, they are also in the domain of EM signals with possible links to tectonic activity. Now, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, (crazy English guy maybe) but if you look at the disruption in the German trace line, I would hazzard a guess that a submerged German submarine in the South Pacific, or off the coast of South America, suffered loss of communication due to an unknown source, of unknown origin. Or a more realistic and plausable explination is the transmitter at HQ was coincidentaly shut down in the period the EM signal was recorded. I did try to contact the German Embassy,but they refused to return my calls (a joke, incase anybody takes me literally ).
[attachment=53]
I have chosen this image as an example of the dificulties that could arise from not posting an EM signature within a given time window. You can see how smooth and inactive the trace lines are, in VLF monitoring, you can get days and days like this, untill one day you get the unexpected. My usual procedure is to start the monitors at 9am, and finish at 7pm, mains power is restored, and astronomy begins. During this period the monitors are left unattended (have to go to work, sometimes), only when I return early evening are EM anomalies discovered.
This image was recorded on 7th July 2014, the noise line disruption ends at approximately 11:05 UT, at 11:24 UT a magnitude 6.9 Earthquake occured off the coast of Chiapas, Mexico. As I stated earlier, I was only aware of this PQ signal, several hours after the quake struck, because of the close time proximity and late discovery, this could not be concidered for varification. For several days after, the monitors recorded the same smooth, boring traces again.
[attachment=54]
Not all EM signals end with a satisfactory conclusion, as is the case with this image. This recording was taken on 22nd January 2014, and to this day I have not been able to link this to any natural or man made influences, it has the classic EM signature of a PQ because it has raised the noise line substancially. I had done my usual data checks online, and run a complete systems diagnostic on the equipment (one reason I now run two systems), no data or diagnostic problems were matched or found. This is a rare occurance, recording this only once before in 2013, in data I no longer have. This image also serves as an example that not all posted prediction images necessarally mean an Earthquake will occur. I did concider it being one of Mother-in-law's birds having an extremely long rest on the antenna, but I have two cats roaming the garden, so it's not likely . I've kept this image because the answer may be found some day, Astronomer's are always finding new discoveries in old data!.
[attachment=55]
In early August, during a heavy storm, my antenna suffered significant damage, ,and due to my busy work schedule it wasn't easy to find the time to repair it, so I continued with the secondary antenna collecting Solar data. It wasn't untill mid September that it was reassembled, however, signal reception was poor in comparison to it's performance before the storm. I persevered with it untill late October, and realised the EM Earth signals had gone, because a couple of big quakes during this period had left no signitures in the recordings.
Then a close friend who had spent decades modeling and working with intricate detail, (Railway layouts !!!) suggested a couple of additions to the antenna, it went back on line 29th october, the result is the image you see here. After 8 weeks of waiting, if I told you I'd fallen off my chair when I saw this, it would be an understatement. This image was taken on 14th November 2014, on the 15th at 02:31 UT a magnitude 7.1 Earthquake occured in the Malucca Sea off Indonesia. I knew it worked but had to go on the assumption of a glitch, untill another signal was picked up, but I didn't have to wait long. I recorded a similar signal on 7th December, and on the 8th, a mag 6.6 quake occured South of Panama at 08:54 UT. So not only does it now have better signal reception, I've discovered it is receiving lower magnitude signals, within a given distance of my location (Greenland sea, Winchester UK etc). The antenna is now being left in situ for the foreseeable future, and steps have been taken to protect it from the elements (tree guard, rain cover, moat and stockade, machine gun post etc ).
I hope this has been helpful in explaining what I actually do, and gives some indication of what to expect, if and when I post a plot screen image in predictions. I'm not an expert in this, just a hobbiest, so if there's any questions anybody wishes to ask, I'll do my best to answer them.
I thought I'd take the opportunity here to respond to a couple of quieries, and fill in a few blanks.
I live 25km North of Manchester UK, on the Yorkshire/Lancashire border so my dialog is a little mixed. I'm in my 50's and have been working in the gardening industry most of my adult life, so you could say I'm well suited on this site as I've put my time in looking after the Earth. Past interests include Auto engineering, Off road 4x4 competitions and Clay pigeon shooting (farmer's son stuff). My first real taste of science came in 2007, when a chance encounter with a Comet whilst repairing my car, drew me into astronomy (long story). I don't really write scientifically, as mathematics is one of my weaker points, but the last 8 years I've studied and read various sciences, friends and family are not really interested, so it occasionally comes out in type. Sometimes I unintentionally use American terminology, it helps with corespondants to a friend I have in Millford, Delaware USA (trash can/dust bin etc). I have a 4m x 4m observatory that I've built underground, next to an old mill pond, (didn't want to spoil the view from the house) with a few nice toys in it, including the monitors. My friends call it "son of CERN" or "Tracy Island" because the lawn covered roof opens electronically.
A more intensive interest in Earthquakes began early 2014, I've studied their behavioral patterns, and I'm aware of their frequent and infrequent magnitudes and after shocks. I know a little Geology and Volcanology, and I'm familiar with the basics of seismic and tectonic interactions from past readings and studies (Venus,Mars in comparison to Earth etc). I'm currently reading "Charge Generation and Propogation in Rocks" by Freederman T Freund, as this research appears to be the closest yet to EM anomalies, So I know a little more than something shown on the Discovery channel.
I have some data here that Roger may find useful, of the 18 PQ's from 2014 I recorded, and taking as many variables as I could think of into account, they have been reduced to 7 very credible signals. The others were to close to weather patterns, human error and Solar activity etc, so I shall list the positives (all are mag 6+) as Date, Time and Duration of signal as follows.........Sun 12th Jan,,11:20 UT,,115 mins.........Tues 1st april,,07:50 UT,,70 mins.........Tues 22nd April,,09:10 UT,,65 mins.........Fri 13th June,,13:47 UT,,50 mins.........Sun 6th July,,09:01 UT,,123 mins.........Fri 14th Nov,,12:30 UT,,62 mins.........Sun 7th Dec,,10:48 UT,,145 mins.
If Roger wants to let me know location and magnitude, I can confirm my list has possible verification data in the future.
Now, I'm sorry if I seem to be a bit of a joker, and leg puller but thats my nature, I realise it's early days here, so as long as I've shown this project is worth following, I'll try to behave myself, for now. So appologies to Roger for being sartirical about his big words (I've now bought a Dictionary), and promise not to use my Mother-in-law, in a threatening manner against Chris in the future.
I love doing astronomy, and VLF was supposed to be one of several projects I'd wished to attempt, but it appears to be taking me into uncharted waters, so I'll stick with it for now and see where it goes (just hope I don't run into that German sub again ).
(02-12-2015, 05:33 PM)Duffy Wrote: I have some data here that Roger may find useful, of the 18 PQ's from 2014 I recorded, and taking as many variables as I could think of into account, they have been reduced to 7 very credible signals. The others were to close to weather patterns, human error and Solar activity etc, so I shall list the positives (all are mag 6+) as Date, Time and Duration of signal as follows.........Sun 12th Jan,,11:20 UT,,115 mins.........Tues 1st april,,07:50 UT,,70 mins.........Tues 22nd April,,09:10 UT,,65 mins.........Fri 13th June,,13:47 UT,,50 mins.........Sun 6th July,,09:01 UT,,123 mins.........Fri 14th Nov,,12:30 UT,,62 mins.........Sun 7th Dec,,10:48 UT,,145 mins.
If Roger wants to let me know location and magnitude, I can confirm my list has possible verification data in the future.
Yes indeed. I checked the quake catalog for mag 6+ quakes in 2014 against your list and found that in every case there was a quake within a day or less following the signals.
The problem is that there were 156 such quakes in the list so just about any date you pick will have one in the next day or so.
It's nat something that will fly without better results. #2 was a mag 8.2. Was there anything special about that signal?
Quote:Now, I'm sorry if I seem to be a bit of a joker, and leg puller but thats my nature, I realise it's early days here, so as long as I've shown this project is worth following, I'll try to behave myself, for now. So appologies to Roger for being sartirical about his big words (I've now bought a Dictionary)
Wait a minute Roger. The way you worded that comes across reads as completely unfair. I have a proposal due Tuesday so have not gone through Duffy's recent posts, but if there really is a M6+ quake within a day or less of EVERY signal, then that would be pretty spectacular. That is because M6 quakes are not evenly distributed in time, and it is pretty common to go quite a few days with no M6+ quakes
The way to proceed is to plot a list of signals again a list of M6+ quakes on a graph. It would be pretty clear visually if there is something going on. If it looks like there is a relation qualitatively, it is probably pretty simple to get the statistical significance: no need to make it complicated, just 2 rows of numbers, I don't know how to do this, but Brian or you probably do.
I will read Duffy's posts eventually.
Chris
"The problem is that there were 156 such quakes in the list so just about any date you pick will have one in the next day or so."
02-13-2015, 01:51 PM (This post was last modified: 02-13-2015, 02:05 PM by Roger Hunter.)
(02-13-2015, 11:20 AM)Island Chris Wrote: Wait a minute Roger. The way you worded that comes across reads as completely unfair. I have a proposal due Tuesday so have not gone through Duffy's recent posts, but if there really is a M6+ quake within a day or less of EVERY signal, then that would be pretty spectacular. That is because M6 quakes are not evenly distributed in time, and it is pretty common to go quite a few days with no M6+ quakes
The way to proceed is to plot a list of signals again a list of M6+ quakes on a graph. It would be pretty clear visually if there is something going on. If it looks like there is a relation qualitatively, it is probably pretty simple to get the statistical significance: no need to make it complicated, just 2 rows of numbers, I don't know how to do this, but Brian or you probably do.
I will read Duffy's posts eventually.
Chris
You're right and I apologize. I'm recuperating from cataract surgery so didn't look deeply enough.
The actual odds on finding a quake in a 2 day window chosen at random from that year are slightly less than 50% so 7/7 is better than expected. I'll get the significance next.
Later....
The odds on getting 7 hits in 7 tries with odds of 0.497 are 0.007 which passes my 99% test. This would make Duffy a winner under proper test conditions. Since those conditions were not met, I suggest a formal test is in order.
What's needed is a larger sample, posted in advance to rule out cherry picking. If that test passes, Duffy needs to be seeking grant money!
(02-13-2015, 11:20 AM)Island Chris Wrote: Wait a minute Roger. The way you worded that comes across reads as completely unfair. I have a proposal due Tuesday so have not gone through Duffy's recent posts, but if there really is a M6+ quake within a day or less of EVERY signal, then that would be pretty spectacular. That is because M6 quakes are not evenly distributed in time, and it is pretty common to go quite a few days with no M6+ quakes
The way to proceed is to plot a list of signals again a list of M6+ quakes on a graph. It would be pretty clear visually if there is something going on. If it looks like there is a relation qualitatively, it is probably pretty simple to get the statistical significance: no need to make it complicated, just 2 rows of numbers, I don't know how to do this, but Brian or you probably do.
I will read Duffy's posts eventually.
Chris
You're right and I apologize. I'm recuperating from cataract surgery so didn't look deeply enough.
The actual odds on finding a quake in a 2 day window chosen at random from that year are slightly less than 50% so 7/7 is better than expected. I'll get the significance next.
Later....
The odds on getting 7 hits in 7 tries with odds of 0.497 are 0.007 which passes my 99% test. This would make Duffy a winner under proper test conditions. Since those conditions were not met, I suggest a formal test is in order.
What's needed is a larger sample, posted in advance to rule out cherry picking. If that test passes, Duffy needs to be seeking grant money!
Roger
Duffy;
Is there any way to digitize those signals and continuously record them? It would make them easier to work with and provide a more complete record.
Logout 
Portal 
Forum
Search
Members
Help 
If it weren't for other factors, it would actually be violet.
. I've kept this image because the answer may be found some day, Astronomer's are always finding new discoveries in old data!.
).
).