(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)
Not a problem. I've done a lot worse.
Roger
Hi Roger
Sorry for the late reply, been having some broadband problems, thats what I get for upsetting the Germans, and forgive me for making this briefer than usual, as I'm at another location using a friends desktop (No! It's not the Ecuadorian Embassy ).
As per your signal question regarding the mag 8.2 Chile quake, Different quakes leave different signitures in the noise line, The high mags tend to leave a block pattern, especially if no other activity has occured in the same region for 6 to 12 months. If it is a high activity area, the pattern tends to appear with similarities to a thunderstorm. I have not shown this on the site yet because it's hard to recognise the pattern, but I'll post an image here as an example, it's not the best I have but you may find it interesting.
I recorded this on the 12th Feb as the time stamp shows, and believe this to be linked to the mag 5.3 quake at Reykjanes Ridge on the 13th at 18:48 UT, which produced an aftershock of 7.1 thirty minutes later. You can see the disruption pattern is similar to the lightning image in a previous post, however, online checks showed no storms within a 5,000km radius of my location, and ruled out solar influences as NOAA has recently stated the sun's X-ray radiation has basically flat lined. The Ridge in question has experianced 27 quakes in the past year, if I've sourced this correctly, mostly consisting of 4's and 5's. I get this kind of signal on a regular basis, and usually link it to the mid or North Atlantic Ridge, mainland Iceland or the Greenland see area. But because there's no distinct structure, any number of variables could account for the pattern, I see them comming because I've been looking at these things for over 2 years. One other feature of interest is the dark Green trace representing the US navy, call sign "NAA", you can see at 10:40 UT similarities to the German sub signal, is this a routine shut down, or was somebody else having a bad morning (there goes the cable TV). You might like to try Something I tried on a 30cm World globe on my desk, if you hold a piece of string against the globe, with one end on Manchester UK, and the other end on Cutler, Maine USA, you'll see it practically crosses the Reyjanes Ridge, Cutler Maine is were the NAA transmitter is, interesting!!!.
Monitoring 24/7 and digitisation is a possibility in the future, once it's established the effort and expence can be justified, and "yes" a grant or sponsorship support would be needed to take the research to a workable level. I have spent the equivelent of $3,000 on this so far, (much to the annoyance of my Wife) but as I've mentioned before, I'm running this to the end of the year, and re-assess my position at this time.
I hope you've managed to understand the image and description, as I mentioned , I do have better examples, which I'll be posting in the Radon thread, first chance I get. Unfortunatelly, I have to finish now,as my friend is showing me the door... How do you say "Thanks for the coffee" in Ecuadorian .
Good to hear from you again, I was afraid we had scared you off!
The images are interesting, more to Brian than me as I have no experience with them.
If you're willing to be tested, all I need is a date/time in advance.
I'll match them with quakes and see if the hits are of high enough significance to warrant further investigation.
The program is already written so all I need is input data. By the end of the year you'll know whether to shut it down or start writing grant proposals. Chris can help you with that. It's his source of income.
(02-18-2015, 02:51 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote: Hi Duffy;
Good to hear from you again, I was afraid we had scared you off!
The images are interesting, more to Brian than me as I have no experience with them.
If you're willing to be tested, all I need is a date/time in advance.
I'll match them with quakes and see if the hits are of high enough significance to warrant further investigation.
The program is already written so all I need is input data. By the end of the year you'll know whether to shut it down or start writing grant proposals. Chris can help you with that. It's his source of income.
Roger
Don't worry Roger; not going anywere just yet, who else could I talk to about this?.
Besides, by years end I'll probably have scared you guys off!!!.
I've tried to keep up with your posts, but originally skipped your long ones with lots of graphs because I was working on a proposal. Then, yesterday and just now, I tried to read that double post but the graphics are not showing:
I just get "[attachment=47]" etc.
I just tried it with Firefox also, same thing.
The graphics showed up when originally posted. It is likely something with my settings. But, not worth doing anything about unless this is not showing for anyone (e.g., for Brian and Roger).
It might be useful to have some criteria for an earthquake signal, and then graph these against M6+ quake occurrence (date along horizontal axis, both signals and quake by magnitude on vertical axis). I imagine that this would not be easy or not possible, if it is a bit of a complicated art form to choose signals. If you, or Brian, or Roger do such a graph, best to do a new thread, as this one is getting too long.
Another 15 cm of snow last night; we have lass than half of what Boston has, but we are catching up.
(03-02-2015, 12:11 PM)Island Chris Wrote: Hi Duffy
I've tried to keep up with your posts, but originally skipped your long ones with lots of graphs because I was working on a proposal. Then, yesterday and just now, I tried to read that double post but the graphics are not showing:
I just get "" etc.
I just tried it with Firefox also, same thing.
The graphics showed up when originally posted. It is likely something with my settings. But, not worth doing anything about unless this is not showing for anyone (e.g., for Brian and Roger).
It might be useful to have some criteria for an earthquake signal, and then graph these against M6+ quake occurrence (date along horizontal axis, both signals and quake by magnitude on vertical axis). I imagine that this would not be easy or not possible, if it is a bit of a complicated art form to choose signals. If you, or Brian, or Roger do such a graph, best to do a new thread, as this one is getting too long.
Another 15 cm of snow last night; we have lass than half of what Boston has, but we are catching up.
Chris
Hi Chris;
Nice to finally meet you,
Unfortunately, in your absence, I may have rocked the boat a little, so the images have probably fallen overboard. I've relegated myself to the dugout (think you guys call it the sin bin) untill I've had the chance to familiarise myself with Earthwaves as a whole.
A graph would be the way to go if a criteria or standard could be found to establish, what is a 6 or a 7, the problem is the quakes themselves dont appear to stick to a recognizable format. For instance, out of half a dozen images of signals for mag 6+ quakes, you may get 4 with distinctive similarities, the other 2 however, may be off the chart.
I have started a graph of sorts in my office, and a world map with markers etc, but I think the real trick here is visual pattern recognition with the images. Every few months, I place them around the kitchen floor like a roulette table, catagorise them by similarity, and its amazing how close the magnitude differences pan out at.
For this to work though, you have to have sufficiant samples to work with, I recorded a new, unfarmiliar signal at 10:15 UT last Friday morning, (27th) I knew it was definately a sub-terranian EM, and the only thing I could link it to was the mag 7 Flores Sea quake at 13:45 UT. The problem here though is the depth, 552 km, so at the moment this is highly unlikely, but in the future, if I record similar signals, linked to quakes of similar magnitude and depth, well, wouldn't that be something.
I'm rigging up a dual 24/7 monitoring system at the moment, and a couple of experiments that are costing the Earth (pardon the punn), so hopefully I'll have more images to play around with soon.
I've been a bit busy on Earthwaves the past few weeks, and hadn't realised how little attention my family and my astronomy was receiving, so I'm sticking to time/date/ mag predictions at the moment, If I don't take mother-in-law to a fancy restaurant at least once a month, there's no living under this roof .
Did you say snow!, We Brits were wondering when you guys across the pond are going to send some our way, strange temperatures are really confusing the wild life here. By coincidence, my cousin in New York city sent me some pictures of how Central park looked this morning (not as good as your's).
Think I'll go and do some more farmiliarising now, noticed there was a store round here somewhere, might wait untill Black Friday to buy anything though .
03-02-2015, 11:10 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2015, 11:12 PM by Roger Hunter.)
(03-02-2015, 10:55 PM)Duffy Wrote: Hi Chris;
Nice to finally meet you,
Unfortunately, in your absence, I may have rocked the boat a little, so the images have probably fallen overboard. I've relegated myself to the dugout (think you guys call it the sin bin) untill I've had the chance to familiarise myself with Earthwaves as a whole.
A graph would be the way to go if a criteria or standard could be found to establish, what is a 6 or a 7, the problem is the quakes themselves dont appear to stick to a recognizable format. For instance, out of half a dozen images of signals for mag 6+ quakes, you may get 4 with distinctive similarities, the other 2 however, may be off the chart.
I have started a graph of sorts in my office, and a world map with markers etc, but I think the real trick here is visual pattern recognition with the images. Every few months, I place them around the kitchen floor like a roulette table, catagorise them by similarity, and its amazing how close the magnitude differences pan out at.
For this to work though, you have to have sufficiant samples to work with, I recorded a new, unfarmiliar signal at 10:15 UT last Friday morning, (27th) I knew it was definately a sub-terranian EM, and the only thing I could link it to was the mag 7 Flores Sea quake at 13:45 UT. The problem here though is the depth, 552 km, so at the moment this is highly unlikely, but in the future, if I record similar signals, linked to quakes of similar magnitude and depth, well, wouldn't that be something.
I'm rigging up a dual 24/7 monitoring system at the moment, and a couple of experiments that are costing the Earth (pardon the punn), so hopefully I'll have more images to play around with soon.
I've been a bit busy on Earthwaves the past few weeks, and hadn't realised how little attention my family and my astronomy was receiving, so I'm sticking to time/date/ mag predictions at the moment, If I don't take mother-in-law to a fancy restaurant at least once a month, there's no living under this roof .
Did you say snow!, We Brits were wondering when you guys across the pond are going to send some our way, strange temperatures are really confusing the wild life here. By coincidence, my cousin in New York city sent me some pictures of how Central park looked this morning (not as good as your's).
Think I'll go and do some more farmiliarising now, noticed there was a store round here somewhere, might wait untill Black Friday to buy anything though .
Nice talking to you.
Duffy;
Duffy;
Make it easier on yourself. Concentrate on just date for now. If we can show a high correlation between your dates and a following quake then it's worth pursuing. No one else has done it. If not then you need a different hobby.
I just get "" etc.
I just tried it with Firefox also, same thing.
They seem to be gone. Wasn't me. And I don't immediately see anything wrong with the system.
Only thing I can think of (besides a bad system glitch) is if maybe Duffy removed them? It may have been accidental. When you upload an attachment, it is stored in the forum database. Each user can view their attachments in their Control Panel settings, and even remove them. This will remove them from posts they are used in.
But since Duffy has them all on his own computer, they are not totally lost.
Not sure why Roger says "if not, then you need a different hobby". Anyhow, I like the humor on your posts. But, yes, try and have a life also. I'm not so good at that myself, but I took yesterday afternoon off and went cross-country skiing on a SW Rhode Island park, including across the edges of a 1 1/2 km-wide glacial lake (pothole pond).
Brian had some good posts a while ago questioning radon as the cause. I am also skeptical that you are recording quakes, but am not ruling it out. If I ruled it out, you could safely ignore me because I don't have much expertise in this area, and none on the measurements you are doing.
You clearly do have a good scientific mind, like Brian does. But, you have to always be a little skeptical yourself.
Unfortunately, in your absence, I may have rocked the boat a little, so the images have probably fallen overboard. I've relegated myself to the dugout (think you guys call it the sin bin) untill I've had the chance to familiarise myself with Earthwaves as a whole.
A graph would be the way to go if a criteria or standard could be found to establish, what is a 6 or a 7, the problem is the quakes themselves dont appear to stick to a recognizable format. For instance, out of half a dozen images of signals for mag 6+ quakes, you may get 4 with distinctive similarities, the other 2 however, may be off the chart.
I have started a graph of sorts in my office, and a world map with markers etc, but I think the real trick here is visual pattern recognition with the images. Every few months, I place them around the kitchen floor like a roulette table, catagorise them by similarity, and its amazing how close the magnitude differences pan out at.
For this to work though, you have to have sufficiant samples to work with, I recorded a new, unfarmiliar signal at 10:15 UT last Friday morning, (27th) I knew it was definately a sub-terranian EM, and the only thing I could link it to was the mag 7 Flores Sea quake at 13:45 UT. The problem here though is the depth, 552 km, so at the moment this is highly unlikely, but in the future, if I record similar signals, linked to quakes of similar magnitude and depth, well, wouldn't that be something.
I'm rigging up a dual 24/7 monitoring system at the moment, and a couple of experiments that are costing the Earth (pardon the punn), so hopefully I'll have more images to play around with soon.
I've been a bit busy on Earthwaves the past few weeks, and hadn't realised how little attention my family and my astronomy was receiving, so I'm sticking to time/date/ mag predictions at the moment, If I don't take mother-in-law to a fancy restaurant at least once a month, there's no living under this roof .
Did you say snow!, We Brits were wondering when you guys across the pond are going to send some our way, strange temperatures are really confusing the wild life here. By coincidence, my cousin in New York city sent me some pictures of how Central park looked this morning (not as good as your's).
Think I'll go and do some more farmiliarising now, noticed there was a store round here somewhere, might wait untill Black Friday to buy anything though .
Nice talking to you.
Duffy;
Duffy;
Make it easier on yourself. Concentrate on just date for now. If we can show a high correlation between your dates and a following quake then it's worth pursuing. No one else has done it. If not then you need a different hobby.
Roger
Hi Roger;
may I first suggest that we may have got off on the wrong foot here (mine was probably in my mouth) and that we wipe the slate clean and start over. After all, I'm the amature who provides the data, and your the professional who knows how to use it, we could get some good science done here, be a shame to waste it on misunderstandings.
You may have noted, I mentioned the Flores Sea quake in my last post, well, I recorded another long duration signal from 9:00 UT on sunday (1st March) which displayed another unfamilliar pattern, which I've now linked with the m 6.4 quake near Indonesia this morning (3rd). In both cases I didn't post because the unfamilliarity didn't give me much scope to determine a magnitude, I was trying to maintain my own standard of predictable signals, to emphasize I was using skill and not chance. It would appear further adjustments to the system are still taking it in the right direction, unfortunatlly, with ever change, I have to start over to recognise the patterns again.
If I read you correctly,and I do in fact have something unique, and of genuine interest, then the time for clowning around as far as this is concerned is over. I'll post the date and time of the EM signal as requested, but if I could make a suggestion here, I've developed a keen eye for detail through astronomy, and I'm 90% sure I can detect any Earth related signals in these recordings (taking the usual variables into account). It might be an idea to post any unidentified signal info, regardless of any magnitude estimate, and if any do result in a positive prediction, may I further suggest, related images be posted in prediction evaluation or informal predictions, so others may have the chance to scrutinise them. Hope you find this agreeable, unless you have something else in mind.
If you are in agreement, I'd like to request a consideration be taken into account during evaluation, I know what this system is capable of, and it has indeed recorded Mag 4's and 5's, but only within a range of 1500km's (Greenland sea, North Atlantic Ridge etc). It has also recorded localised quakes (2.9 Winchester UK, 3.8 Rutland UK etc), and from experiance, I've noted the lower magnitude quakes take longer to arrive, sometimes 4 to 5 days longer. I've speculated that it could have something to do with lower tectonic stress or preasure levels. If a signal isn't corrolated to a 6+ quake after 48 hours, and a lower mag does occur within a 5 day window, in the range specified, would it be feasable to include it in a sub-file, and be re-evaluated at a future time should the need arise ?.
To chang the subject slightly, I honestly have no idea of what's happened to the missing images, I've only just mastered how to put them on, and didn't know I was able to remove them had I wished to do so. As Brian suggested, I may have somehow done it accidently, I do have a knack of pushing the wrong buttons lately. There was a post the other morning that I replied "I sincerely get the point" but it had gone in the evening, I don't recall its content but maybe the two are linked. Unfortunately, its the same with blogging or facebook, never done them, my wife deals with any of that, I'm a bit old school I'm afraid. Having a new broadband setup this week, so at the first oppotunity, I'll ask my wife to replace them if its possible.
The M6.4 Indonesian quake I mentioned earlier, its to late for prediction purposses, but I have very good comparable recordings from both monitors if anybody wishes to see sample images, there's also a couple of features that could be related to the Radon debate, I'll post in a new thread if requested.
Sorry about the novel again Roger, hope its helped to put us on a better footing, as for hobbies, I'm quite happy with the one's I have, but if I did fancy a change, I'd probably try my hand at sailing, I appear to be quite apt at rocking boats and making waves .
03-03-2015, 10:30 PM (This post was last modified: 03-03-2015, 10:32 PM by Roger Hunter.)
(03-03-2015, 10:03 PM)Duffy Wrote: Hi Roger;
may I first suggest that we may have got off on the wrong foot here (mine was probably in my mouth) and that we wipe the slate clean and start over. After all, I'm the amature who provides the data, and your the professional who knows how to use it, we could get some good science done here, be a shame to waste it on misunderstandings.
The problems of written communication. No gestures, expressions, tones, all important elements of communication.
Take it for granted that you can't offend me and I hope you're equally stable.
Quote:You may have noted, I mentioned the Flores Sea quake in my last post, well, I recorded another long duration signal from 9:00 UT on sunday (1st March) which displayed another unfamilliar pattern, which I've now linked with the m 6.4 quake near Indonesia this morning (3rd). In both cases I didn't post because the unfamilliarity didn't give me much scope to determine a magnitude, I was trying to maintain my own standard of predictable signals, to emphasize I was using skill and not chance. It would appear further adjustments to the system are still taking it in the right direction, unfortunatlly, with ever change, I have to start over to recognise the patterns again.
That has to be your problem since we can't see them. It's not of concern to me how and why you make your predictions, I'm only concerned with how well you're doing based on predicted dates.
Quote:If I read you correctly,and I do in fact have something unique, and of genuine interest, then the time for clowning around as far as this is concerned is over. I'll post the date and time of the EM signal as requested, but if I could make a suggestion here, I've developed a keen eye for detail through astronomy, and I'm 90% sure I can detect any Earth related signals in these recordings (taking the usual variables into account). It might be an idea to post any unidentified signal info, regardless of any magnitude estimate, and if any do result in a positive prediction, may I further suggest, related images be posted in prediction evaluation or informal predictions, so others may have the chance to scrutinise them.
How would this help anyone who can't see your daily graphs?
Quote: Hope you find this agreeable, unless you have something else in mind.
I have no objections and no power to do anything anyway. I'm just another poster here.
Quote:If you are in agreement, I'd like to request a consideration be taken into account during evaluation, I know what this system is capable of, and it has indeed recorded Mag 4's and 5's, but only within a range of 1500km's (Greenland sea, North Atlantic Ridge etc). It has also recorded localised quakes (2.9 Winchester UK, 3.8 Rutland UK etc), and from experiance, I've noted the lower magnitude quakes take longer to arrive, sometimes 4 to 5 days longer. I've speculated that it could have something to do with lower tectonic stress or preasure levels. If a signal isn't corrolated to a 6+ quake after 48 hours, and a lower mag does occur within a 5 day window, in the range specified, would it be feasable to include it in a sub-file, and be re-evaluated at a future time should the need arise ?.
Sure, I'm flexible. I can handle any sort of format you can imagine, it's just that some are more valuable than others. For example, probability is important here. There's several mag 4 quakes a day somewhere, so that's worthless for establishing credibility. Stating a location cuts the odds considerably
Quote:To chang the subject slightly, I honestly have no idea of what's happened to the missing images, I've only just mastered how to put them on, and didn't know I was able to remove them had I wished to do so. As Brian suggested, I may have somehow done it accidently, I do have a knack of pushing the wrong buttons lately. There was a post the other morning that I replied "I sincerely get the point" but it had gone in the evening, I don't recall its content but maybe the two are linked. Unfortunately, its the same with blogging or facebook, never done them, my wife deals with any of that, I'm a bit old school I'm afraid. Having a new broadband setup this week, so at the first oppotunity, I'll ask my wife to replace them if its possible.
Ok.
Quote:The M6.4 Indonesian quake I mentioned earlier, its to late for prediction purposses, but I have very good comparable recordings from both monitors if anybody wishes to see sample images, there's also a couple of features that could be related to the Radon debate, I'll post in a new thread if requested.
Quote:Sorry about the novel again Roger, hope its helped to put us on a better footing, as for hobbies, I'm quite happy with the one's I have, but if I did fancy a change, I'd probably try my hand at sailing, I appear to be quite apt at rocking boats and making waves
To cut down on bandwidth here you might want to email me. Brian can give you the address which I don't post online, obviously.
Logout 
Portal 
Forum
Search
Members
Help 
).
.
. 
.
.