From: lockhart@mothra.nts.uci.edu (Jack C. Lockhart)
Subject: CALL FOR AMATEUR EARTHQUAKE FORECASTERS
Summary: Do ELF signals and magnetic fluctuations preceed earthquakes?
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Keywords: ELF Monitoring, Earthquake Forecasting, magnetic
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:54:13 GMT
Followup-To: ca.earthquakes,sci.geo.geology


REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROM: GEO-MONITOR
                                Vince T. Migliore (408) 749-6770
                                65 Washington Street, #400
                                Santa Clara, CA 95050

I've edited the text very lightly, but the information is unaffected.  For 
further information, please contact the author directly.  The author's
e-mail address is: (Vince T. Migliore) glyph@well.sf.ca.us


 %=-%=-%=-%=-%=-%=-%=-%=-%=-%=-%=-%=-%=-%=-%=-%=-%=-%=-%=-%=-%=-%=-%=-%=-%=-%

From Vol. 2, No. 6 Geo-Monitor June 1992 Page 1.  

PROFESSIONAL PREDICTION PROCEDURES

Three surprises for you: 

1.   There are professional scientists investigating earthquake
     prediction based on low frequency magnetic and electromagnetic
     transients.

2.   The success rate of these predictions are quite high, though
     you're not likely to hear about them.

3.   The equipment and methodology used in these investigations is
     relatively simple, and within the reach of amateur experiment-
     ers.

A real scientist is hard to find.  An open-minded investigator
welcomes peer review but is not on an ego trip looking for publici-
ty for half baked theories.  All too often the topic of earthquake
prediction is sidetracked by sensational claims from questionable
sources.  It's refreshing then to find conscientious researchers
who are open to discussion and willing to share their findings.

William Van Bise and Elizabeth Rauscher of Electromagnetic Signal
Labs in Reno, Nevada have been active in magnetic and electromag-
netic research for over two decades, and have an abiding fascina-
tion with the possibility of earthquake precursors.  Ms. Rauscher 
will be guest speakers at a conference this month (June 14-17, 
1992) in Lake Elsinore, California, co-sponsored by the USGS and
the University of California, Riverside.  The title of the confer-
ence is ELECTROMAGNETIC PRECURSORS TO EARTHQUAKES: FACT OR FIC-
TION?, and their paper is entitled "The Ambient Electromagnetic
Environment: what we have and have not learned over 14 years of
listening to ELF signals." 

Van Bise and Rauscher will occasionally make predictions, but these
are generally to other investigators and not to the press.  They
seem more interested in sharing their technology and exchanging
ideas than in seeking publicity from the media.  Moreover, they are
more than willing to provide detailed specifications for other
experimenters who want to look into this subject.  (Applause!) 
This spirit of cooperation is much appreciated by the students and
investigators following their work.  The following is paraphrased
from their remarks.


THE SPECS

Earthquake precursors have been recorded in both the magnetic and
electromagnetic realms, but magnetic signals seem to be the most
promising for prediction.  The frequencies for investigation range
from .01 Hz up to 100 Hz, but the most important area is the 1 to
20 Hz. area.  Look for signals from 3 to 4 Hz.  The most common
sequence to look for is a steady buildup of magnetic transients in
the 3.1 to 3.9 region.  If this band steadily increases, then 
suddenly drops, there is a good chance of seismic activity within
36 hours in the area monitored.  This phenomenon is evident for 
quakes measuring over magnitude 3.0.  The sequence is applicable to 
California, but it's unknown if the same procedure is useful or
exactly the same for fault systems outside the state.  

It is  critical that baseline readings be taken for your location,
in order to recognize and categorize man-made noise.  This cannot
be emphasized enough.  Something as simple as a refrigerator
cycling on and off will be detected by the required equipment.  For
best results, build a portable system and take it out to the field. 
A curious thing happens when you become familiar with the ELF spec-
trum in this range.  Over the course of time, the experimenter
gradually learns what is man made noise and what are the sounds and 
signals of seismic events.  Learning this distinction is part of
the entry requirements for these tests.  


THE EQUIPMENT

The equipment required consists of copper shielded pickup coils, a
sensitive broadband low frequency amplifier and a display mecha-
nism.  Three coils are best, for orientation in the three planes. 
The coils and cables should be well shielded, with common ground 
connected to the amplifier housing as well as the pickup assembly. 
It's important too to design a coil that displays a linear response 
across its working range, at least from 1 to 20 Hz.  (Hopefully, 
some of our technically sophisticated readers will write and tell 
us how to do this.) 

The amplifier should be capable of detecting signals in the 10-12
gauss range.  The magnitude of the earthquake precursors are strong
enough that a sensitivity of 10-9 gauss would probably be adequate,
but the higher sensitivity is desirable.  Be warned though, that in
metropolitan areas man made noise will most likely "swamp" any
signals below 10-7 gauss.  All the more reason for portable equip-
ment and a remote location. 

Van Bise and Rauscher did not give recommendations on a readout
display, but obviously a low frequency spectrum analyzer would be
best.  The range from .1 Hz to 100 Hz would be ideal, but a fixed
readout of the 3-4 Hz region might also work. 


THE PROCEDURE

As mentioned, before you call the New York Times science editor,
you must do your homework.  Long term monitoring is required to be
able to recognize and categorize noise from local machinery,
airplanes, cars and electrical equipment.  For some reason there 
appears to be a lot of "garbage" around 1/3 Hz, 1-1/2 Hz and 17 Hz
(refrigerators) from man made sources.  

Take readings at regular intervals, and document your procedures,
so that others can duplicate your work.  One sensor in each of the 
X,Y, Z planes is advisable.  For added accuracy and possible
triangulation of source signals, partners or a network is recom-
mended.  With even just two investigators taking readings at the
same time, using the same equipment, the value of the information 
is multiplied.

Anyone with a modicum of electrical knowledge can take the techni-
cal information provided here to design amateur monitoring appara-
tus.  The required equipment is available to anyone with enough 
money to throw away, but the trick is to piece together low cost 
assemblies that will do the job for us part-time practitioners. 
Another terribly important need is for standardized equipment. 
These are the goals of Geo-Monitor, and we hope in the future to be 
able to provide detailed circuits and designs to reach that end.  
In the meantime, as Charlie Brown would say "I need all the help I 
can get." Contributions from engineers and designers is welcomed 
and encouraged.


UNRELATED BUT INTERESTING

In speaking with William Van Bise a number of other subjects came
up that were not directly related to earthquake precursors, but may
have bearing on our attempts to make sense out of ELF monitoring.  
Part of his work in the past involved attempts to capture perturba-
tions of the ionosphere caused by rocket entry and exit from the
atmosphere.  He found in fact there are distinctive signatures for
such disturbances that exactly matched rocket launches and re-entr-
ies.  These transients can be measured both acoustically and
electromagnetically.  The characteristic response is an oscillation
at 5.6 Hz, followed by ringing at harmonics of the fundamental
frequency, especially the first harmonic at about 11 Hz.  

Actually, the 5.6 Hz signal was recorded consistently for rocket
launches in the seventies.  In the last few years however, this
pattern has shifted slowly but steadily higher, so that the signals
are now found at around 6.5 Hz, 13 Hz, etc.  Van Bise is not 100%
sure, but worries that this shift in response may be somehow
related to the loss of ozone.  If such is the case, with a little 
mathematics one would be able to calculate the ozone loss over that
time period (16%) for the latitude of the launch.  Even if it is
not a measure of ozone loss, there is something strange happening 
in the ionosphere that is getting worse with time. 

Another concern is the rumor that ELF (under 30 Hz) monitoring may
soon be classified by the military, if it hasn't been already.  His
magnetic equipment began picking up man made signals at the start
of the Persian Gulf war.  This interference increased in intensity
as the conflict raged, then stopped when the war ended.  The
signals were strong enough that his seismic precursor experiments
were overwhelmed, requiring interruption of his studies.  Again,
it's only speculation, but the suspicion is that aircraft, satel-
lites or other electronic warfare devices were using ELF in the war
effort.  Colleagues with government connections hinted that low
frequency experiments, below 50 Hz would soon be classified.  - VM