"But of course generating synthetic earthquakes is pure science fiction. Or is it? "

YES IT IS

Looks like the patent for this expired 3 years ago, due to non-payment of fees:
 http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2002/week30/patexpi.htm

So they obviously aren't very bothered about the technology anymore.

Here's the patent, sorry the URL is so long:
 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,757,177.WKU.&OS=PN/5,757,177&RS=PN/5,757,177

You can see that the patent itself is incredibly vague, just another one of those bullshit patents that the US Patent Office will award knee-jerk to whoever bothers to fill in the right forms (Microsoft, anyone?)

And it was assigned to a company which is now apparently bust, and the patent itself is now expired.

So what are we supposed to be inferring from this article? That some half-described theory must be true because the USPS stamped it "approved" in '98? So the US now has the ability to shoot earthquakes wherever it likes? Shit, jack, they can't even aim a plain old missile straight. Pull the other one!

> Looks like the patent for this expired 3 years ago,
> due to non-payment of fees:
> So they obviously aren't very bothered about
> the technology anymore.

Of course the original owners are no longer interested in the patent. They have already made their profits selling the technology to the government.

> You can see that the patent itself is incredibly vague...

Do you honestly expect the inventor to say "method and apparatus for creating killer earthquakes"?

> And it was assigned to a company which is now apparently bust,
> and the patent itself is now expired.

Yup, it’s the American way! It’s called "Take the money and run!".

> So the US now has the ability to shoot earthquakes wherever it
> likes? Shit, jack, they can't even aim a plain old missile straight.
> Pull the other one!

You have nothing to worry about. Americans like the British :-)

-Steven-

Thank you for the general (and technically specific) information you provided in your article.

I, too, have wondered about the "coincidence" of earthquakes & so-called "natural phenomena" in places that the Powers That Be have deemed as not following the party line.

It is irresponsible to NOT ponder such events.

Again, thank you.

Mary

If you read it carefully, then all it is trying to do is to make a resonant circuit using a power line as an antenna. Getting a circuit to resonate at low frequencies is child's play - or at least within the competence of a sixth form physics student. All radio transmitters and receivers use a resonant circuit in some form.

If you want to broadcast radio waves of this frequency, it's very difficult, because you need a very long antenna, or aerial. Hence the power line idea. This wd effectively be the antenna.

However, just because you can broadcast these waves doesn't mean you can do anything with them. I might as well point a remote control at you and say: "I'm going to zap you with my infra red death ray!" You might have fun trying, but it won't work.

The most bizarre feature is the way that people with little or no technical education read this stuff, and leap to the oddest of conclusions.

> If you read it carefully, then all it is trying
> to do is to make a resonant circuit using a power
> line as an antenna. Getting a circuit to resonate
> at low frequencies is child's play - or at least
> within the competence of a sixth form physics student.
> All radio transmitters and receivers use a resonant
> circuit in some form.

Obviously you have never tried to build a resonate circuit, operating at fractional hertz wavelengths. They are far from "child’s play".

> However, just because you can broadcast these waves
> doesn't mean you can do anything with them. I might
> as well point a remote control at you and say:
> "I'm going to zap you with my infra red death ray!"
> You might have fun trying, but it won't work.

You compare apples to oranges.

If the synthetic earthquake device was powered with flashlight batteries, your comparison would be accurate.

And if "my infra red death ray" was powered by a million watt electrical generator, I doubt very much you would be willing to stand in front of it, while I "have fun trying".

> The most bizarre feature is the way that people
> with little or no technical education read
> this stuff, and leap to the oddest of conclusions.

No less bizarre is the way in which people with good "technical educations" use their knowledge to mislead others who are less fortunate. The question your comments rise in my mind, is what you stand to gain by such behavior...

-Steven-

What is unbelievable is, that Mulder, with no background whatesoever in physics to prove his assertion that the 'art of telegeodynamics' is fantasy, can dismiss the scientific evidence before his eyes, and is still denying that it has been deployed, many times, as a means for destabilsation on targets of the 'war on terror.'

Wake up and smell the New World Odour!

"Obviously you have never tried to build a resonate circuit, operating at fractional hertz wavelengths. They are far from "child’s play"."

You can't have a hertz wavelength. Wavelengthis meaningless in terms of a resonant circuit, and hertz refers to frequency.

Not get a 1 microF capacitor and a coil >1000 turns, wrapped round a soft iron core. Put a CRO across them with a nice slow time base [try 1s/div]. Put a six volt battery across the combination for a few seconds then remove it. You will see a nice slow oscillation.

Energy. Suppose you have a million watts to play with. Now the earthquake target might be 10 000km away, or 10^7m. This means the energy now spreads itself over 10^15m2 - i.e., 10^-9 W/m2. Rather less, I wd suggest than the remote control. And the're both em waves.

Suppose you were to try and focus them. The probl;em is then that the wavelength is around the size of the diameter of the Earth. Making such a mirror wd be interesting ...

"The question your comments rise in my mind, is what you stand to gain by such behavior... " Well, now, if I were to tell you that, I'd have to kill you afterwards ....


Sceintific evidence for synthetic earthquakes? None. Show me some. Earthquakes have been around since the Earth had a solid crust, and will be around so long as the core is molten.

> You can't have a hertz wavelength.
> Wavelengthis meaningless in terms of a
> resonant circuit, and hertz refers to frequency.

You quibble over semantics. An antenna has a resonate frequency. And it also has a wavelength.

> Not get a 1 microF capacitor and a coil >1000 turns,
> wrapped round a soft iron core. Put a CRO across
> them with a nice slow time base [try 1s/div]. Put
> a six volt battery across the combination for a
> few seconds then remove it. You will see a nice
> slow oscillation.

You are off by several orders of magnitude.

The equation describing the resonate frequency of
an LC circuit is:

f = 1/(LC)^1/2 (1 over the square root of inductance multiplied by capacitance)

Assume your 1000 turns wrapped around a soft iron core yields an inductance of one hennery (unlikely but I'll give you some leeway). Then a 1 micro-farad capacitor would result in a resonate frequency of 1000 hertz, NOT a fractional hertz (wavelength)

But of course your rebuttal wasn't intended to illuminate a flaw in my statements, it was specifically intended to confuse those individuals who are not technically oriented.
(see "argument by prestigious jargon" at URL below)

> Energy. Suppose you have a million watts to play with.
> Now the earthquake target might be 10 000km away, or 10^7m.
> This means the energy now spreads itself over 10^15m2 - i.e.,
> 10^-9 W/m2. Rather less, I wd suggest than the remote control.
> And the're both em waves.
>
> Suppose you were to try and focus them. The problem is then
> that the wavelength is around the size of the diameter
> of the Earth. Making such a mirror wd be interesting ...

It's called a synthetic aperture (SA) antenna. They are used by the military in many applications because the antenna is much smaller than the radiated wavelength. Using a SA antenna, the energy is very easily focused at distant locations. By using different parts of the electrical power grid in a multi-phased configuration, an infra-sonic electromagnetic wave can be focused with remarkable precision.

> "The question your comments rise in my mind,
> is what you stand to gain by such behavior..."
> Well, now, if I were to tell you that, I'd have
> to kill you afterwards ....

Your attempt at humor does not deflect my question. Rather it only serves to sharpen it's point.

> Sceintific evidence for synthetic earthquakes?
> None. Show me some. Earthquakes have been around
> since the Earth had a solid crust, and will be
> around so long as the core is molten.

Oh come now. This response is beneath your skill level.
(see "burden of proof" tactic at URL below)

If synthetic earthquakes could be distinguished from a natural earthquakes then why not just use conventional aircraft to bomb the target. It’s all about stealth.

Finally, I would like to offer the following (off topic) URL to the readers of this comment thread. It is a list of fallacious arguments, and how they are used by the so called skeptics.

 http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

-Steven-

...you guys are still arguing about this.

I guess it just goes to show the state of science education.

Steven, rearranging a few GCSE physics equations does not constitute a convincing argument for synthetic earthquakes. You talk about causing a phase change (or chemical reaction or something) in a cubic kilometre of rock. Do you even have any idea how big a cubic kilometre is, let alone how much energy it would take to cause that phase change?

The bit that made me laugh the most, though, was the energy per square metre of the earthquake - 2690J. Yep folks, that's 500 times less energy than you would get from burning a muffin. Or a bit less than a gram of strawberry yoghurt. Scary.

If you want to know about earthquakes, then the latest issue of New Scientist has a nice article. Otherwise, worry about something more important like climate change. Coming to the climate change march on Saturday?

1. You forgot the 2 pi in the formula: f = 1/(2 x pi x(LC)^0.5)

I think you can very easily get coils of several henries. You can certainly get capacitors of 1 farad. 1H, 1F - resonant frequency approx 0.1Hz.

2.  http://web.uct.ac.za/courses/sattech/NOTES/SAR_lecture.pdf

Beam width of SAR is wavelength/2 x D

D is area covered, beam width in radians. (page 20)

Snag is that if D is shall we say 100km and beam width 0.1 radians, this gives the wavelength as 10km. This corresponds to a frequency of 30,000Hz - well within the normal long wave radio frequencies.

3. Now hang on. I rather think the burden of proof is on you. You claim that earthquakes can somehow be created artificially. Yet your page offers not a shred of proof nor a shred of evidence.
Your first section discusses earthquakes, which are well known natural phenomena.
Then it leaps to a discussion of a patent. Not of any research, or any evidence, or a demonstration - just a few words on paper.
It then postulates a hypothetical question. Could it be? ANd doesn't answer the question.
That's not proof - it's assertion.

> You talk about causing a phase change (or chemical
> reaction or something) in a cubic kilometre of rock.
> Do you even have any idea how big a cubic kilometre
> is, let alone how much energy it would take to cause
> that phase change?

Ever hear of nuclear power plants? Remember, this is America, we have energy to burn!

Next, I quote from my article:

"if some deeply buried volume of mineral was at or near the critical pressure/temperature required for chemical phase change, a relatively small mechanical shock (deformation of surrounding material) is all that would be required to trigger a massive earthquake."

Think of it as the mineral equivalent of nitro-glycerin.

> The bit that made me laugh the most, though,
> was the energy per square metre of the earthquake - 2690J.
> Yep folks, that's 500 times less energy than you would get
> from burning a muffin. Or a bit less than a gram of
> strawberry yoghurt. Scary.

Assume the house is 10 meters on a side (100 square meters).
Now 2690 Joules per meter squared * 100 square meters = 269,000 Joules.

Next, the explosive energy of TNT is 4.184 × 10^6 Joules per kilogram
Or 41,840,000 Joules per kilogram.

See URL:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28energy%29

Therefore the TNT energy equivalent in my hypothetical example (1.2.1) is:

269,000 / 41,840,000 = 0.00642 kilograms of TNT. Or 6.42 grams of TNT.
If this energy was released over an period of say 5 seconds, I think it will do the job very nicely...

Let's take a look at your muffin example:

(Corn, Commercially Prepared)
See URL:  http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/18279.html

1 muffin = 150 Calories or 150 Kcal.

And 1 kilocalorie = 4184 Joules

See URL:  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=conversion+Calorie+to+Joules

So the TNT energy equivalent of a muffin is:

(150 * 4184) / 41,840,000 = 0.015 kilograms of TNT. Or 15 grams of TNT.

I guess it's very fortunate that human beings take longer than 5 seconds to metabolize a muffin. But of course, being scientifically literate, you already knew all of these facts.

Is that egg on your face? (at 148 kcal per egg)
Let us hope you don't metabolize it too quickly...

Perhaps a better title for your comment would be: I won't believe.

-Steven-

> 1. You forgot the 2 pi in the formula: f = 1/(2 x pi x(LC)^0.5)

Yup, you're right. I was a bit tired.

> I think you can very easily get coils of several henries.
> You can certainly get capacitors of 1 farad. 1H, 1F
> - resonant frequency approx 0.1Hz.

Neither multi-hennery coils or farad capacitors are "very easy" to come by.

However, this misses the point.

First it was:
"Getting a circuit to resonate at low frequencies is child's play"
(the patent 07.02.2005 00:42)

Next it was:
"get a 1 microF capacitor and a coil >1000 turns, wrapped round a soft iron core."
(evidence 07.02.2005 14:04)

Now its:
"you can very easily get coils of several henries. You can certainly get capacitors of 1 farad." (proof 07.02.2005 18:18)

See "Argument By Fast Talking" and "Changing The Subject" at Fallacious Arguments URL below.

> 2.  http://web.uct.ac.za/courses/sattech/NOTES/SAR_lecture.pdf
> Beam width of SAR is wavelength/2 x D
> D is area covered, beam width in radians. (page 20)
> Snag is that if D is shall we say 100km and beam width
> 0.1 radians, this gives the wavelength as 10km. This
> corresponds to a frequency of 30,000Hz - well within the
> normal long wave radio frequencies.

America has an electrical grid spanning an entire continent (the Canadian grid is interconnected). This makes "D" approximately 7242.75 km (Nome Alaska to Miami Florida).

Next, you conveniently ignore the second part of my statement:

"By using different parts of the electrical power grid in a multi-phased configuration, an infra-sonic electromagnetic wave can be focused with remarkable precision."

See "Argument By Selective Observation" and "Argument By Selective Reading" at Fallacious Arguments URL below.

> 3. Now hang on. I rather think the burden of proof
> is on you.

See "Burden of Proof" at Fallacious Arguments URL below.

> You claim that earthquakes can somehow be created artificially.

I make no such claim. I only suggest the possibility and offer some evidence in support of that possibility.

> Yet your page offers not a shred of proof nor a shred of
> evidence. Your first section discusses earthquakes, which
> are well known natural phenomena. Then it leaps to a discussion of a patent.

Blatantly false. There are 5 separate sections, comprising 10 paragraphs between section 1.1.1 (The standard model) and section 1.2.2 (Synthetic earthquakes). See "Needling" and "Ad Hominem" At Fallacious Arguments URL below.

> Not of any research, or any evidence, or a demonstration
> - just a few words on paper. It then postulates a
> hypothetical question. Could it be? ANd doesn't answer
> the question. That's not proof - it's assertion.

Sir, I am not obliged to offer "proof", simply
because you demand it. See "burden of proof" at "Fallacious Arguments" URL below.

I offer the following (off topic) URL to the readers of this comment thread. It is a list of Fallacious Arguments, and how they are used by the so called skeptics.

 http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

I offer one further observation to readers of this comment thread. Please note how the "skeptic" launched his critique from a comfortable position of anonymity. i.e. no real name or email address. This allows him to launch further critique under a different fictitious name.

In summary, since you have now used an Ad Hominem attack, this debate is concluded. Please feel free to make further accusations without concern of rebuttal, since I will not respond...

-Steven-

...that I'm replying again (-:

It is indeed fortunate that it takes more than 5 seconds to metabolise a muffin, since 15g of TNT would make a mess of your stomach. But it's also fortunate (or perhaps unfortunate) that you are not in charge of demolishing buildings. 15g of TNT has less explosive power than a single Apache bullet, and would in no way be able to demolish a building.

You are right though, this argument is pointless. If you insist on carrying on with your theory of rapid phase changes causing earthquakes, look for evidence of these phase changes actually occurring. I did once see a paper where someone had produced a composite structure made up of several alternating nanolayers of two different metals. When hit with a hammer, they spontaneously rearranged into a homogeneous alloy, with a reaction velocity along the strip in the order of 10s to 100s of metres/second. That's the only similar thing I've seen.

You could devote your energy to pollution reduction, climate change, cures for diseases, techniques for recycling etc. Science is way too interesting and important to need to resort to bizarre conspiracy theories.

I do, however, rather like the gentlman's idea of 'atmospheric lensing' - which is to heat up a section of the atmosphere so that its refractive index changes, and so acts as a gigantic lens to burn up objects on the ground.

Might be a neat idea [other than how you'd actually heat a selected pocket of air] if the atmosphere was stationary, and there weren't strong high level winds. Oh, and the fact that a pocket of heated air would promptly start to rise very vigorously thru the artmosphere was a result of convection and begin mixing with the cold air.