[Duffy]

(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