interesting, but
Posted by John Vidale on April 21, 2006 at 18:01:51:

from a casual reading, several giant leaps were made, and the results are impossible to evaluate for statistical significance. For example, most don't think rocks cracking within a km are the source of 80 Hz noise, nor that the entire volume of rock strain-hardens then strain-softens in a synchronized way. Also, with just a couple of example mainshocks, for which the geometric parameters defining areas included and excluded are defined fairly arbitrarily, the conclusions are not compelling. It is also disconcerting that the identified peaks have disappeared by the time of the mainshocks.

I can see why reviewers would have some issues with this work.


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: interesting, but - Don in Hollister  20:34:46 - 4/21/2006  (36519)  (1)
        ● some have seen it - John Vidale  22:32:25 - 4/21/2006  (36521)  (0)