The RF-Seismograph measures massive radio blackout during California earthquakes

This agrees with science grade observation networks:

At this point in solar minimum, f0F2 (the plasma frequency at the F region peak; hard reflection occurs at this value) is low. For instance, it was 4.54 MHz near sunset on July 3 here in eastern Massachusetts based on large aperture ionosphere radar measurements. Standard maximum usable frequency formulas then give you a value of about 5.1 MHz for top usable frequency (80% rule) assuming a maximum angle of 45 degrees (NVIS). So, sure enough, 7 MHz would not work very well at that time locally, but would be OK for longer distance low angle skip (works out to approx 30 degrees and lower, where 0 degrees = towards horizon).

So "Signals below 10 MHz are very well reflected even when the solar flux is low." is an incorrect statement. unless one modifies this to "Signals below 10 MHz are SOMETIMES well reflected ON LONG PATHS even when the solar flux is low."

 

I use NVIS on 80 M and in the past 10 years I can count the instances of not been able to get to talk to my local HAM operators maybe less than 5 times. It is very reliable! Is it fool proof? Nothing is and there are always other bands to use.
The most important thing with NVIS to have a proper setup and decent antenna.
A

 

In the example I gave, 80 meters would have worked fine (3.5 MHz < 5.1 MHz). But AG6QR referred to 40 meters (7.X MHz), which would have NVIS problems and is the case I calculated. The trouble with the original statement is that it needs a huge amount of condition-dependent qualifiers depending on band, time of day, location, etc., so the meaning of "everything < 10 MHz works" remains problematic.

 

Veeeeeeery interesting phenom !

G3SEA/KH6

 

Woow, same story again. Same arguments from people knowing enough about statistiscal analysis and same way the OP keeps ignoring it. I read the previous thread, not gonna go through this one. I'll skip straight to my question to the OP: why don't you folllow advice of people that have actually studied statistics and know what they are talking about? If you put so much effort to make the measurements why don't you spend a fraction of that to learn the math and make your findings legit? No matter what you believe and how much you keep shouting it won't turn your findings into facts. We didn't go to the moon by believing we could but by combination of it AND math. Just freaking learn your math and prove us all that you're right. If you are right math will show it elegantly beyond any doubt. Otherwise it's all wasted time.

 

I don't think VE7DXW was trying to predict earthquakes or mislead anyone... I for one don't feel mislead and will only be more aware of such phenomenon - as I live in the ring of fire - if it exists; he was merely pointing out possible cause and effect which does not necessarily require a peer-reviewed thesis. Perhaps you need to keep calm and ham on.

 

It is noteworthy that quakes are caused by the activity of hydrocarbon extraction. The injection of water to maximize yield (known as "fracking") shows a direct correlative associated with seismic activity. So too, the removal of hydrocarbons has consequences seismically as evidenced by the subsidence of the surface level in areas around Los Angeles and some it's associated seismic events.

 

Ha! Made me laugh! Thanks...