THE RESPONSE OF MAGNETIC INSTRUMENTS TO EARTHQUAKE WAVES
"It is shown that piezomagnetic oscillations in magnetic rock or induced currents in a region with enhanced conductivity may offer an explanation. These effects are associated with anomalous conditions in the crust. It seems evident that the properties of the "average crust" cannot explain the observed magnetic variations."
Has MADAR ever detected an anomaly that might have been associated with earthquakes? In the known, probable, possible categories it would seem highly probable that the very early MADAR event in 1984 was caused by a tremor. Unlike todays MADAR, which uses a magnetometer, early MADAR used a magnet variometer (compass). A jolt or tremor would cause the needle to "rock" and become "thinner" to the vertical light beam and allowing light to reach the photocell. If this is what happened in 1984 it was a single sudden event, meaning the pulse that activated the Mode Control Panel was not followed by other movements.
MADAR Event #18
Feb 12, 1984. 10:51 PM. A 1-pulse (phantom pulse) disturbance with no duration.
During the next two days there were 10 local earthquakes, 8 on the 13th and two on the 14th ranging from 2.7 to 4.0. One quake was within 3hrs 17 min and nine more up to 34 hours 20 minutes later.
The MADAR-III DataProbe uses a magnetometer which detects and measures changes in the local geomagnetic field, so it has a greater chance of being affected by EQ activity than the older MADAR. However, in this instance a direct cause and effect relationship is much more difficult to prove. Unless there is a tremor or jolt (mimicking an accidental bumping we have all experienced) we are left with GF changes that can precede a quake by days or weeks, even months. The only thing we can do is maintain meticulous records and log local EQ activity. Regional activity should not be used, but simply noted. As in the case of UAP activity data analysis should be classified as known, probable, or possible.
To help in this study I have asked Wayne Dailey, who operates nodes 10 and 110 in New Hampshire and has a keen interest in EQ activity, to help other nodes check with U.S. Geological Survey to monitor and local EQ activity. At the present time with his busy schedule he has been unable to take on this larger chore but hopes to be able to tackle it later on when time permits. In the meantime, Wayne is studying his local area, since the limits on all DataProbes are all set as low as possible to detect UAP.
Realtime view of geomagnetic activity