From: hauk@s24.es.llnl.gov (Terri Hauk  423-7332)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: fax
Date: 24 Jul 92 23:25:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.214500.1394@oracle.us.oracle.com>, rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
|> greg@perry.berkeley.edu (Greg Anderson) writes:
|> 
|>..............

|> >In order to decide if a theory is good, one needs to under-
|> >stand the data and methods upon which the theory is based,
|> >in order to test its validity.
|> 
|> This theory is still being evolved. Right now, if you haven't noticed,
|> there is no theory ... only an effort to gather data.
|> 

 This is a sort of backwards approach, if true. What exactly *is* the data that
he is gathering? What is its source? Is he using the optimum equipment and
techniques to gather it? How does he *know* it's some sort of earthquake pre-
cursory signal? How does he get directions from a single receiver (no
triangulation)? It seems that one would want to attempt to explain what all
possible sources of these signals might be at the particular frequencies seen
and to attempt to find a mechanism related to earthquake rupture, fault
mechanics, rock type, groundwater flow, whatever, before spending lots of
time and money on collecting a bunch of data that may or may not be completely 
meaningless. Right now I know that many researchers are out there trying to
record em signals but there is disagreement about the frequency range that 
should be monitored (ELF or ULF), the type of instrument (magnetometer) and 
whether 3 or
5 axes is best, how far away from cultural sources (noise) you need to be,
how far away from the fault being monitored (and/or the segment expected to
break) you need to be, etc., etc. (This doesn't include Jack Cole's signals and
equipment--he's looking at RF, much higher frequencies.)
   If there *was* a theory as to what these
signals are and how they are generated, data collection could be optimized and
studies conducted in a more organized manner to determine the significance to
earthquake prediction.

|>............. 
|> >However, Mr. Coles steadfastly refuses to share his data and his
|> >methods (beyond vague generalities).  So no other scientist can
|> >attempt his experiments to test their validity.  Therefore, no other
|> >scientist can say his predictions are valid.
|> 
|> Nor can they say, with scientific certainty, that they are invalid.
|> 

 That's true......

|> Seems to me I've seen some pretty specific articles describing what
|> his equipment is, who else is helping, and where the data can be
|> seen - on which bulletin board systems, that is.
|> 

Please give references on these 'specific articles'!!!!! I would love to see
them myself. A list of the BBS's where his data is shown would also be 
appreciated. Funny that he wouldn't post it here under ca.earthquakes, though.
At a meeting with USGS and others, I understand that Jack Cole was *extremely*
vague about what he's doing, how and what his data looks like.

|> 
|>.............. 
|> -- 
|> -- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
|>          oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
|> 
|>                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.

Terri Hauk
Seismology and Applied Geophysics
LLNL, L-205                         Opinions are mine and mine alone.
hauk@s24.es.llnl.gov