'QuakeFinder' Launches Program in Effort to Predict Quakes

Many of us here on ATS have been talking more about the various methods being explored for the sake of predicting earthquakes.

QuakeFinder is a company focusing on the electromagnetic discharge associated with grinding/compression of rocks prior to a quake. Here is an article discussing the program and what it might mean for quake prediction:

QuakeFinder Completes Major Expansion of Earthquake Sensor Network

In late 2010 QuakeFinder decided to accelerate its mission of saving lives by forecasting major earthquakes. To do that, it would build and deploy as many new sensors as possible. The goal is to install 100 instruments per year for the next five years, and to capture and analyze signals related to three more earthquakes.

QuakeFinder's research is focused on electromagnetic signals that have been shown to exist when rocks are placed under extreme pressure. This theory, developed by researcher Dr. Friedemann Freund at NASA Ames, has been confirmed in both laboratory (small rocks) and field (large boulder) experiments. QuakeFinder has recorded data before, during, and after several major earthquakes and has confirmed that signals very similar to those observed in the laboratory and field experiments are present before and during these quakes. These results are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

QuakeFinder is not yet able to make forecasts of impending earthquakes. The network expansion is intended to increase the body of evidence for the identified precursor signal signature and to allow further refinement of methods for interpreting the data. The group intends that this will lead in time to a robust system that will provide warnings days or weeks before major earthquakes.

Please see the full article for all the info.


I find this to be extremely fascinating. There are some other methods being explored now also, including heat signatures, radon gas release and a massive geonet GPS sattelite system to look for minute movement.

I believe that perhaps if all these methods could be networked, we might see some very real potential for prediction as a result.

this sounds Exactly the same method as this one geologist from new mexico has been saying for years is effective at predicting earthquakes,

he has a presentation of this method here

www.youtube.com...



i watched all 22 and basicly this guy is saying there is a specific detector that can be used to detect a certain type of radiation emitted by stress put upon rock, and with it you can see which faults are under the most stress and where, he goes on to detail using the detector himself and following the stress on faults as they move across one fault to a point for a day or two before moving to a different point or releasing a quake,

very long winded, but detailed worth a watch if your interested in earthquake prediction

i wonder, who's first in this idea? patent?

Um,where did I hear this before?

Scratching my head thinking about it.

Thanks for putting that up westcoast!
S&F

WHAT?

How DARE anyone question the absolute, final, binding word of the scientific community that has said, with no particular reserve, that it is NOT possible to predict earthquakes?

I mean surely you don't want to upset the applecart, now do you?

I mean God forbid anyone question the authorities on this matter!

You...Just....Wait.

What about that satellite that saw magnetic anomalies right before the haiti quake and the 9+ in Japan?
Is there a website for their data? Is there a LIVE shot of data?

That is what I would be deploying.. I'd love to check the data on that in real-time!
Anyone knows what it was called? I forget currently.

Ok,westcoast,remember this,

www.mitp.ru...

Although our predictions are intermediate-term and by no means imply a “red alert”, there is a legitimate concern about maintaining necessary confidentiality. We assume that you will take care of it in a standard way distinguishing professional discussion from premature release in the media.

he Algorithm M8 was designed by retroactive analysis of the seismicity preceding the greatest (M8+) earthquakes worldwide, hence its name. It is based on a simple physical scheme of prediction, which can be briefly described as follows: Prediction is aimed at earthquakes of magnitude M0 and above. We consider different values of M0 with a step 0.5. Overlapping circles with the diameter D(M0) scan the seismic territory. Within each circle the sequence of earthquakes is considered with aftershocks removed [ti, mi, hi, bi(e)], i = 1, 2 ... Here ti is the origin time, ti =Mi >=Mmin(С). They depict different measures of intensity in earthquake flow, its deviation from the long-term trend, and clustering of earthquakes. These averages include: N(t), the number of main shocks; L(t), the deviation of N(t) from the long-term trend, L(t) = N(t) - Ncum(t-s)x(t-t0)/(t-s-t0), Ncum(t) being the cumulative number of main shocks with M >= Mmin(С) from the beginning of the sequence t0 to t; Z(t), linear concentration of the main shocks estimated as the ratio of the average diameter of the source, l, to the average distance, r, between them; and B(t) = max[bi], the maximal number of aftershocks (a measure of earthquake clustering). The earthquake sequence [i] is considered in the time window (t - s', t) and in the magnitude range (M0 - p, M0 - q). Each of the functions N, L, Z is calculated for С = 20 and С = 10. As a result, the earthquake sequence is given a robust averaged description by seven functions: N, L, Z (twice each), and B. "Very large" values are identified for each function using the condition that they exceed Q percentiles (i.e., they are higher than Q% of the encountered values).[b]An alarm or a TIP, “time of increased probability”, is declared for five years, when at least six out of seven functions, including B, become "very large" within a narrow time window(t - u, t). To stabilize prediction, this condition is required for two consecutive moments, t and t+0.5 years. The following standard values of parameters indicated above are prefixed in the algorithm M8: D(M0)=[exp(M0- 5.6)+1]0 in degrees of meridian (this is 384 km, 560 km, 854 km and 1333 km for M0 = 6.5, 7.0, 7.5 and 8 respectively), s = 6 years, s' = 1 year, g = .5, p = 2, q = .2, u = 3 years, and Q = 75% for B and 90% for the other six functions. The running averages are defined in a robust way, so that a reasonable variation of parameters does not affect the predictions.

Sorry,it is alot to ingest.

reply to post by kdog1982


Oh yes...so many exceptional studies were dug up on the 'other' thread.

I am happy to see a recent paper with yet more confirmation that it may be gaining more recognition and is one step closer to a reality.

reply to post by Pharyax


You mean this:



Atmosphere-Ionosphere Response to the M9 Tohoku Earthquake Revealed by Joined Satellite and Ground Observations. Preliminary results

Our first results show that on March 8th a rapid increase of emitted infrared radiation was observed from the satellite data and an anomaly developed near the epicenter. The GPS/TEC data indicate an increase and variation in electron density reaching a maximum value on March 8. Starting on this day in the lower ionospheric there was also confirmed an abnormal TEC variation over the epicenter. From March 3-11 a large increase in electron concentration was recorded at all four Japanese ground based ionosondes, which return to normal after the main earthquake. We found a positive correlation between the atmospheric and ionospheric anomalies and the Tohoku earthquake. This study may lead to a better understanding of the response of the atmosphere /ionosphere to the Great Tohoku earthquake.

This is one of those thing that makes me ask, "what do they know and when do they know it?"

The other thing that goes along with that is, most actual cutting edge science is many years in advance of what is publicly acknowledged. This leads to the notion of what sorts of abilities do they have, but aren't admitting to...


Oh, by the way...

reply to post by kdog1982

the predictions page still has a few restricted access sections...

Any of you Guy Fawkes fans out there wanna see if you can take a peek?

reply to post by jadedANDcynical


Yes! Thanks for that JC.

And on that same site we have this.

The current goals of the Institute are the following.
Scenarious of development of instability in hierarchical nonlinear (chaotic) system: theory and numerical simulation.
New generation of earthquake prediction algorithms, with tenfold increase of accuracy. This is based on integration of modeling, phenomenology, and neotectonics. Instability/seismicity of platforms.
Reconsideration of instability for the sites of high-risk construction. Monitoring of stress-strain field in seismic regions.
Kinematic and geometric incompatibility in the fault system. Interaction with civic protection authorities in estimation of seismic risk and in earthquake prediction.
Geophysical fluid dynamics: interplay between mantle flows and surface processes.
New state-of-the-art broadband seismograph (now being tested in Belgium and UK).

So they say that they can't predict earthquakes but they can,within a certain extent.

www.mitp.ru...

reply to post by kdog1982



GREAT to see they are throwing "phenomenology" into the equation.

Have long felt that the strictly linear pseudo-'scientific' notion of reality and proof was grossly incomplete by itself.

That's why I had both routes to 'knowing' in my Dissertation.