Petra, I tried to post this yesterday and I lost my connection as it was being posted. I'll use "copy" more often. I agree with many of your comments above, although I parapsychics want to post, fine. I disagree that only Parkfield is being funded for prediction. I'm not checking, but I believe that Knopoff was funded by SCEC to evaluate M8 prediction algorithm. Also, there is an abstract for AGU about free earth oscillations triggering aftershocks (something Lowell has looked into)-this is by 2 USGS people, and they are certainly being paid. There is a lot fo research on fine structure of fault zones and how earthquakes get started.

Your comment on breaking teeth of combs gives me the chance to mention my car crash: on Friday I was rear-ended hard enough to drive me back into my seat: there was a lot of force involved. I was sure the rear of the car would be crushed. But, when I got out there was no damage to my bumper or to the SUV that hit me. Our bumpers met flush so that the stress was low, and the deformation (strain) was elastic, not plastic (stress is force divided by area). In contrast, with the same car and parts of the same bumper, I backed into a cable supporting a power pole, going very slowly. the force was lower, but the stress was very high because the contact point was small. So, the bumper was crushed, along with part of the frame of the car-over $1000 damage. That was in August. So, maybe some of the weak earthquake triggers might be effective if they can act on a small volume: that the forces might be very small but the local stresses might be higher. Chris