From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: predictions
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:37:39 GMT

In article <9wmqoB2w163w@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, nateh@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Nate Hawthorn) writes:
> My data on my system logs to a computer, so I can even look back (actually I 
> *have* to look back because I let it run for days at a time anyway) and then 
> match it up with USGS data I get to see what I "predicted".
>  
> What's interesting is that so far I am getting about 11 hours "warning"
> on aftershocks and I am no where near the shocks (well, within 100 miles or 
> so). But atleast my data is recorded. I never expected this thing to
> do what it's doing so this is getting really interesting...
>  
> Now, here's the problem...
>  
> I am just starting this, so I don't have data for the last year, and
> because I don't have much data my "theory" can be proven to work
> very easily. THe more data I have the more likely my theory will get
> thrown in the trash!
>  
> Also, I really do not want to release my "method" to the public yet
> because I don't want some university using it and then inviting the
> news media over to see what they are doing and acting like they
> "thought" of it. I really hate that!!

Ok, but then the burden is on you to show capability through a good
prediction record.  You seem to be very negative and paranoid about
universities and scientists.  Yes, they seek funding, but I haven't
witnessed EVER a university stealing an outside researcher's ideas
in any way.  I have seen them try to steal those of their employees,
but you shouldn't need to worry about that (the legal issues there
get pretty hairy anyway, the universities do have some good points).

> That's why I think Mr. Coles is holding back, there's too many people
> out there that seem to know how to make $$ on this stuff but have little
> knowledge on how to make it all work.

I've seen a lot of con operations operate under the same principle - I'm
not saying he's a con artist, but frankly, without more information, how
am I supposed to tell the difference?
 
...
> I have enough parts to place  3 of my units around here, (and keep the
> one at home too) so two are going on the san andreas and one *may*
> go up to parker if I am allowed. BUt I do not have a "budget" or "grant"
> so my efforts are limited by my pocket book.
>
> SO before you go laughing at this guy just because he's keeping all
> his efforts "secret", just remember how much effort he put into his
> work. It's not easy, and you must sacrfice something in order to do it,
> sometimes I don't eat for a long time trying to get this stuff to work!

A budget or grant would normally require you to turn over some of your
rights.  Standard practice.  Anything I develop under the employ of my
company is their property (I have no rights).  This is not unusual in
science.  If you choose to keep the invention to yourself, you won't
find monetary assistance.  (Many scientists find that money is hard to
come by no matter what you're willing to give up).  A lot of scientists
really are motivated by pure discovery - professors at the smaller
schools often make less than grade school teachers, laborers, etc.,
and never profit from their work.  Economic analysis has proven that
pursuing a PhD is a net economic disadvantage relative to taking the BS
and getting into the work force immediately.  And getting a PhD is a very
difficult, time consuming and stressful proposition.  It requires more
from your time and posketbook than I imagine you have spent (and I can
imagine a lot).  It requires a lot more emotionally as well (I can't
count the number of broken relationships, divorces, attempted suicides,
etc. that the PhD process results in).  Believe me, the scientists DO
know what it takes to pursue science.

> Also the USGS data "event times" never seem to be quite right, I wish

First, what do you mean by "not quite right".  Also, why should you need
great precision - you claim 11 hours warning?

> of "binary" data file format would be nice so that it's all

Many computers have different views of what constitutes "binary".
 
> There's a book out called "and they laughed", it shows lots of inventions 
> out there that are really popular now, but when the guy's created them 
> people laughed at them! (like Petroleum Jelly)

No one's laughing.  People are interested, but you apparently leave them
with nothing to do.
 
> I will be releasing my data as soon as I get enough, I don't think I will be 
> releasing my "method" for a while. THe data can stand on it's own, if it 
> shows the correlations correctly then it doesn't matter what I am using to 
> get the data or what "theory" people may have as to why the thing works
> (like why does a magnet stick to my fridge? who cares, it just does!)

Well, there is a little matter here.  I could set up a seismometer, and
record several days worth of quakes.  I could then simply mark the start
time as a few hours early.  I then have a tremendous amount of very detailed
predictive data.  So the method matters if released after the fact.  The
method is unimportant if a detailed, complete and accurate series of
predictions are issued before the events.  I understand your method does
not allow for this, but that's the way it goes.  The scientific method
cannot recognize an honest face to learn to trust someone.  It is cold and
unemotional.  I assume you are honest until proven otherwise - but that's
not scientific.  What are you using to determine time anyway?  Have you
verified it's reliability?  That will be important to document if you
ever do release your method.

--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes