Geology, Geodynamics,

and Atmospheric
Electricity
Geology, Geodynamics,
and Atmospheric
Electricity
By

Vladimir N. Shuleikin
Geology, Geodynamics, and Atmospheric Electricity

By Vladimir N. Shuleikin

Reviewers:
Dmitrievsky A. N., Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
Nikolaev A. V., Full Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences

This book first published 2020

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2020 by Vladimir N. Shuleikin

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-5275-4442-7

ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-4442-0

This research was performed under the auspices of the Oil and Gas
Research Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences (3 Gubkina Street,
119333, Moscow, Russia) and was approved for publication by the
Academic Council of the Institute.
 In memory of my first teachers:
My grandfather, Alexander Kondratievich Kondratiev,
and my father, Nikolai Mikhailovich Shuleikin
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ............................................................................................... ix

Introduction........................................................................................ 1

Chapter 1 ............................................................................................. 5
Atmospheric Electricity and the Physics of the Earth
1.1. The History of Observation and Equipment .......................... 6
1.2. Model of the Relationships between Hydrogen, Methane,
Radon, and Elements of Surface Atmospheric
Electricity ............................................................................... 18
1.3. AEF Sensitivity to Changes in the Density of Hydrogen
and Methane .......................................................................... 31
1.4. References to Chapter 1 ........................................................ 41

Chapter 2 .......................................................................................... 46
Space Charge of Surface Air: The Electrode Effect
2.1. Surface Air Ionizers .............................................................. 47
2.2. Radon Transfer to Surface Soil Layers
and the Atmosphere ............................................................... 56
2.3. The Electrode Effect in the Atmospheric Surface Layer ..... 64
2.4. References to Chapter 2 ....................................................... 70

Chapter 3 .......................................................................................... 74
Atmospheric Electricity above Geological Heterogeneities
3.1. Surface Atmospheric Electricity above Fault
Zones and Areas of Geological Deconsolidation ................... 75
3.2. An Ore Body and an Oil Deposit .......................................... 85
3.3. Atmospheric Electricity above a Gas Deposit ...................... 93
3.4. References to Chapter 3 ..................................................... 102
viii Table of Contents

Chapter 4 ........................................................................................ 106

Geodynamic Processes and Surface Atmospheric Electricity
4.1. Complex Hydrogen-Radon and Atmospheric-
Electrical Observations of a Landslide ................................ 107
4.2. Experimental Verification of Causal Relationships between
the Microseismic, Hydrogeological, and Atmospheric-
Electrical Fields .................................................................... 123
4.3. Geology, Geodynamics, and Thunderstorm Activity ......... 133
4.4. References to Chapter 4 ..................................................... 143

Conclusion ...................................................................................... 148

 PREFACE

Atmospheric electricity is a research problem in geophysics that

consistently attracts the attention of researchers to a variety of
phenomena and processes. These involve, directly or indirectly,
natural and man-made sources and complex systems taking place in
the various shells of the Earth: the lithosphere, the hydrosphere, and
the atmosphere. With high energy saturation (from thunderstorm
activity) and the complexity of the distribution of electrical, magnetic,
and mechanical properties, the Earth’s crust, the surface layer of the
troposphere adjoining it, the stratosphere, and the ionosphere
constantly exhibit unpredictable behavior that has not yet been
explained by modern science. On the one hand, the role of electrical
phenomena in lithospheric processes associated with the generation
of earthquake foci and seismicity is not entirely clear. On the other
hand, there is no absolutely clear explanation as to the influence of
earthquake generation processes in the formation of anomalous
electrical phenomena in the atmosphere. The same can be said about
other catastrophic phenomena, such as typhoons, tornadoes, and
linear cloud formations over fault zones, which are especially
noticeable shortly before seismic events. Similar anomalous
phenomena accompanying robust man-made processes include
underground nuclear explosions, to which lightning discharges in the
atmosphere at the surface level should be added.
At first sight, it is logical to consider the electrical phenomena
observed in the atmosphere to be a continuation of telluric processes
that take irregular forms and expand their role in the surface
atmosphere during the period preceding cataclysmic Earth events.
However, this approach cannot be explained from the position of
physics. It cannot be assumed that, even in the case of small-focus
earthquakes, electric fields generated in the Earth will be discharged
through the atmosphere. Even assuming the formation of local
anomalous charges, with a linear or circular current source in the
area of the hypocenter, their electric fields will be shielded by
kilometer-thick layers of sedimentary rock cover, the conductivity of
which is many orders of magnitude higher than that of atmospheric
air.
x Preface

For more than 35 years, the author of this monograph has been
engaged in experimental study into the connections between
geological heterogeneities and processes in the Earth’s crust and the
elements of surface atmospheric electricity. This work, as well as the
work of most geophysicists-researchers in the field of atmospheric
electricity, are associated with the forecasting of earthquakes.
Preliminary surveys were undertaken on a vibrational testing ground
to identify the interrelations of elements of surface atmospheric
electricity, which have a powerful effect on the geological environment,
and changes in hydrogeological and geochemical fields in the zone of
artificial microvibrations.
The classical theory of atmospheric electricity and the radon
mechanism for generating the space charge of the surface layer of air
was taken as the theoretical grounds of the interactions being
studied. Based on numerous field observations, a representational
model of the relationships between hydrogen, methane, radon, and
surface atmospheric electricity elements was developed. Bubbles of
two volatile gases carry radon into the surface atmosphere where, as
a result of ionization, light ions are formed that provide polar
conductivity in the air. The combination of light ions with neutral
condensation nuclei creates heavy ions, which are primarily
responsible for the atmospheric electric field. To put it differently,
the local space charge of the surface atmosphere is determined by
content of the parent substance—radium—at depths of the first few
meters below the Earth’s surface and sub-vertical volatile gas flux
density. This means that any geological anomalies and geodynamic
processes that can change hydrogen and methane flux density will
inevitably cause changes in the elements relevant to surface
atmospheric electricity.
In 1988, the Interdepartmental Geophysical Committee of the
Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences established a
commission—the Global Electrical Circuit Project—for the purpose
of developing and adapting research into interactions in the complex
lithosphere-atmosphere-ionosphere system. The field observation
materials provided in this monograph, and their interpretation, will
be of interest in understanding the first stage of these interactions
and the relationships between geology, geodynamics, and surface
atmospheric electricity.
This book is unconventional in its content and methodological
approaches to the study of electrical processes in identifying their
relationships with the processes of different physical origins. The
results of the complex atmospheric-electrical, seismic, hydrogeological,
 Geology, Geodynamics, and Atmospheric Electricity xi

and geochemical observations presented in this monograph

unequivocally indicate the interrelations of the above-listed fields.
Groundwater-level dynamics regulate ionizer injection into the
atmosphere, while seismic effects aggravate this regulation. Any
municipal water intake can increase the atmospheric electric field by
an order of magnitude in the depression funnel zone. The efficiency
of seismic acceleration in the process increases with a period of
microvibrations.
The results of atmospheric-electrical and hydrogen-radon
monitoring are all of applied interest in research into: fault zones; ore
bodies; basement rock areas; oil fields and the dynamics of their
development; the process of combustible gas dispersion in an
underground gas storage reservoir bed; and the stress-state of a
landslide, the movement of which can be provoked by the laying of a
pipeline.
In academic courses on atmospheric electricity, changes in the
electrical characteristics of the surface air layer are associated
exclusively with the dynamics of the meteorological situation. The
data in this book enhances our understanding of the physical origin
of this phenomenon. In stable meteorological conditions, changes in
the electrical characteristics of the surface air layer are determined
exclusively by the geological and geodynamic features of the
environment.
The author of this monograph solves here a number of
unconventional problems and, at the same time, discovers new
effects and antimonies, the explanation of which will be marked by
advances in geophysical science in years to come.

Academician A. N. Dmitrievsky
 INTRODUCTION

In the mid-eighteenth century, Benjamin Franklin suggested an

experiment using a kite flown into a thunderstorm cloud. The
investigation was conducted independently by T. Delibard and B.
Franklin and completed with the creation of the lightning conductor.
At the same time, after experiments on a “thunder machine,”
Mikhail Lomonosov formulated the first hypothesis on the charging
of thunderstorm clouds. Today’s research suggests the existence of
a multistage global electrical circuit connecting the Earth’s shells
and the atmosphere in an integrated system. The establishment of
relationships between parallel processes in different Earth shells
highlights the problem of the global electrical chain. The
phenomena of interest in studying the global electrical chain are at
the planetary-spatial scale and require the use of rockets,
ionospheric balloons, and aircraft; and the taking of measurements
in space, at ground level, and in the lithosphere.
In 1890, the primary experimental results on disturbances of
the electric potential in the atmosphere—the atmospheric electric
field—before, during, and after seismic events were obtained at the
Imperial Meteorological Observatory in Tokyo. Perturbations of the
field recorded with clear weather conditions before the 1926
earthquake in Kyrgyzstan were named the “Electric Storm.” In the
mid-twentieth century, extensive field material on abnormal
variations of the atmospheric electric field before seismic events
was obtained at the Gharm Forecasting Test Site of the Institute of
Earth Physics, RAS. Up to the present day, in the scientific
literature, one can find only a few works that describe such field
anomalies during drastic changes in the seismic mode. As per
accepted classification, these perturbations relate to short-term
precursors, are bipolar, and are several times larger in magnitude
than the general background signal level. Their development can
take from tens of minutes to hours before an earthquake.
P. Tverskoi and J. Chalmers, the founders of the surface
atmospheric electricity theory, have pointed to radon as the origin
of the surface charge of atmospheric surface air. The ionization
process forms a pair of light ions that determine the polar
2 Introduction

conductivities of the air. The combination of light ions with neutral

condensation nuclei creates heavy ions, which are primarily
responsible for the formation of the atmospheric electric field.
The negative charge of the Earth and the presence of positive
and negative ions in the surface atmosphere inevitably led
researchers to discover the electrode effect. At first, the problem
was addressed by approximating the presence of light ions in air at
the Earth’s surface. Such estimates did not correspond to the actual
atmospheric situation, where heavy ion density is almost an order
of magnitude higher than light ion density. However, this does not
contradict the physics of the atmospheric situation, which sees the
presence of positive and negative ions of comparable concentrations
in surface air.
In studying the relationship of the atmospheric electric field to
altitude, it was immediately possible to distinguish two cases: the
classical electrode effect and the reverse electrode effect. In the first
case, with a low ionization rate—a low concentration of emitted soil
radon—the electrical field smoothly decreases with the height of the
relatively negatively charged electrode and reaches a background
level determined solely by the space charge. At a high ionization
rate—a high radon concentration—a negative space charge layer
forms above the ground; after a particular height the field then
decreases below the background level, the yield of which follows a
curve that describes the measurements of field values if they were to
be plotted on a graph.
The calculation of the classical and reverse electrode effects led
to an understanding of the bipolar nature of changes in the
atmospheric electric field before earthquakes. If the measurements
were carried out in the compression zone where ionizer emission
was minimized, the measuring device recorded abnormally high
fields. In the extension zone, the release of soil radon into the
atmosphere reached its maximum. Here, at the Earth’s surface, a
thick layer of negative space charge was formed and measurements
of the atmospheric electric field showed the formation of abnormally
low negative fields.
The mechanism of soil radon transport into the near-surface
atmosphere remained an open question. The high molecular weight
of the ionizer, Rn222, precluded the possibility of its isolated sub-
vertical migration. For a long time, we believed that bubbles of all
the volatile gases in soil air acted as ionizer carriers, bringing radon
to the surface. However, radon detection at altitudes of several
kilometers during the taking of measurements from an aircraft has
 Geology, Geodynamics, and Atmospheric Electricity 3

suggested a limited density of the carrier gases. Radon efflux to

altitudes of several kilometer could only be performed by gases
whose density is less than the density of atmospheric air. These
gases potentially also include four ingredients of soil air: hydrogen,
helium, methane, and water vapor. Helium, like radon, belongs to
the category of inert gases and the capture of one inert gas by a
bubble of another inert gas is impossible. The evaporation process
takes place in a thin surface layer of the ground, where the radon
soil concentration is almost equal to its atmospheric level. Even if
water vapor participated in radon transport, the contribution of the
ionizer transported by water vapor to the total radon content in the
atmosphere would be minimal. Additional experimentation has
confirmed this conclusion.
Following this logic, one can state that the soil-to-atmosphere
air exchange determines the space charge dynamics of the surface
air at the point of observation. The half-life of radon is 3.8 days,
which suggests that the emanated gas must enter the atmosphere
from shallow depths. This is because as over a period of three half-
lives, its concentration decreases by almost an order of magnitude.
All this means that the emitted soil radon is only a mediator, which
opens up the possibility of tracking the density of sub-vertical
hydrogen and methane fluxes through measuring local values of
polar conductivities and the atmospheric electric field.
In fracture zones, intensification of the soil-to-atmosphere air
exchange is observed. Excessive methane concentrations are
present in oil field plumes and electrochemical processes in the caps
of ore bodies increase the hydrogen concentration in soil air.
Recording of the abnormal electrical characteristics of surface
air before seismic events is somewhat random, as the researcher
must be in the right place at the right time. Measurements of the
atmospheric electric field and polar air conductivities above
geological anomalies and in geodynamic process zones can be
performed in a targeted manner. The results of these studies and
their analysis form the basis of this monograph.

The author considers it a pleasant duty to express his deep

gratitude to Alexei Vsevolodovich Nikolaev, the Corresponding
Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, whose support
allowed me to carry out research in Belarus and Central Asia and
the Academician, Anatoly Nikolayevich Dmitrievsky, who is the
moderator of research into hydrocarbon accumulations. I also wish
to thank my colleagues and friends: Reznichenko Alexander
4 Introduction

Pavlovich, Barabanov Vyacheslav Leonidovich, and Gufeld Iosif

Lippovich for their help in carrying out fieldwork; Professor Georgy
Georgievich Shchukin, the co-author of many of my articles. I make
a deep bow to: Ilya Moiseevich Imyanitov, Dr. Sci. in Physics and
Mathematics; Yakov Mikhailovich Schwartz, Ph.D. in Physics and
Mathematics; Georgy Ivanovich Voitov, Dr. Sci. in Geology and
Mineralogy; Professor Dmitry Nikolayevich Chetaev; Alexey
Mikhailovich Polykarpov, Ph.D. in Physics and Mathematics who
has passed on and whose help in performing tests and fieldwork
and interpreting the results has been invaluable.
 CHAPTER 1

ATMOSPHERIC ELECTRICITY
AND THE PHYSICS OF THE EARTH

In the mid-eighteenth century, the practical study of lightning

electricity started in both Russia and the USA almost simultaneously.
In 1745, Mikhail Lomonosov and Georg Richmann designed the
first electrical-type instrumentthe ‘electric indicator.’ This electric
indicator differed from the famous electroscope in its use of a
wooden quadrant with a scale, which allowed the quantitative
assessment of the deflection of a linen thread from the vertical
plane. This innovation allowed the measurement of a “higher or
lower electricity level.”
A wire connected the electric indicator to a metal rod on the
laboratory roof. The “thunder machine” showed that electricity
existed in the atmosphere, even in fair weather.
In 1750, B. Franklin suggested an experiment that used a kite
flown into a thunderstorm cloud. On May 10, 1752, the French
physicist Thomas-François Dalibard carried out the same
investigation. The work by Benjamin Franklin logically resulted in
the design of a lightning conductor. According to B. Franklin, the
lightning conductor “...either prevents lightning discharge from a
cloud or, already at the discharge, deflects the lightning to the
ground without any detrimental effect to a building....” In 1760, B.
Franklin installed the first lightning conductor on the house of the
tradesman Benjamin West in Philadelphia.
Since the early nineteenth century, the interest of researchers
in studying thunderstorm electricity has subsided a bit and the
focus has been on the study of “fair weather” electricity. At the end
of the 1800s, Japanese researchers showed the presence of
abnormal changes in the potential of the atmosphere before,
during, and after earthquakes. Up to the present day, one can find
several (20–30) publications on changes in the atmospheric electric
field before seismic events in the scientific literature.
6 Chapter 1

The discovery of the radon mechanism of surface space charge

generation provided the foundation for the modelling of the
relationships between gas and electric fields in the ground and the
atmosphere. Bubbles of hydrogen and methane transport soil radon
to the surface atmosphere where, in the ionization cycle, light ions
form. These are responsible for the polar conductivity of the air. The
aggregation of light ions with neutral condensation nuclei causes
the formation of heavy ions, which are primarily responsible for the
atmospheric electric field (AEF).

1.1. The History of Observation and Equipment

Published results of instrumental observations indicating the
appearance of unusual perturbations of the atmospheric electric
field (AEF) before an earthquake are very few. In the late
nineteenth century, the Imperial Meteorological Observatory in
Tokyo implemented annual monitoring of the atmospheric potential.
Nine times out of ten, strong earthquakes with foci as far as 100 km
from Tokyo were seen to induce anomalous perturbations in the field
[1].
Before an earthquake of magnitude M = 4.5 occurred on
August 1, 1924, in Kyrgyzstan, disturbances of the AEF of a very
complex shape were recorded at a distance of about 150 km from
the epicenter in clear weather:

- 5 hours before the seismic event, a decrease in the signal level

began;
- 4 hours before, intense discharges and charges of the
electrometer at a frequency of 1.0–1.5 Hz began;
- at the same time, the maximum field values reached 1,000
V/m [2].

In 1946, before the Chatkal Earthquake, and in 1949, before

earthquakes in Dushanbe and Obi-Gharm, similar effects were
observed [3]. In the cases considered, the sign of the recorded
parameter also changed.
Five hours before the Tashkent Earthquake, with a magnitude
M = 5.3, took place on April 26, 1960, a change in the vector of the
atmospheric electric field was recorded in the epicentral zone [4].
The meteorological situation in the observation area on the eve of
the earthquake was turbulent; it stabilized only a few hours before
the seismic event. Anomalous AEF perturbations were also recorded
 Atmospheric Electricity and the Physics of the Earth 7

before several of the most powerful aftershocks. However, in most

cases, no noticeable changes in the field before most of the
aftershocks were observed.
Immediately after the catastrophic Khait Earthquake occurred
on June 10, 1949, monitoring and AEF measurements 50 km from
the epicenter were initiated by the Gharm Expedition of the
Schmidt Institute of Earth Physics. In 22 out of 23 cases, 1.5–2.0
hours before the strongest aftershocks, with M = 5–6 at the
observation point, an increase in the signal of ~100 V/m was
observed. Over the summer season of 1950–51, in the same area,
the atmospheric electric field was continuously recorded at five
points. Perturbations of the AEF, similar in form to those before
local seismic events of M = 5–6 were successfully recorded [5].
Up to today, the field observations obtained at the Gharm Test
Range of the Schmidt Institute of Earth Physics represent the most
significant source of information on abnormal AEF precursors
before seismic events [6]. Modern retrograde analysis of the results
has allowed the rejection of some of the recorded anomalous field
changes, as they were associated exclusively with current changes in
the meteorological situation [7]. However, even taking into account
the current level of scientific knowledge and instrument capability,
it is necessary to pay tribute to the high professionalism of those
experts who developed unique experimental material in the middle
of the past century.
In 1977, AEF disturbances were recorded at the Gharm Test
Range at three observation points 1 to 2.5 days before a K = 13
earthquake and at epicentral distances of 20–35 km. The
perturbations took the form of distinct oscillations with a period of
6–10 minutes [8].
At an observation station in China [9], before earthquakes of M
= 4.6–6.1, anomalous decays of AEF were observed at epicentral
distances of 100–250 km. Perturbations occurred at time intervals
ranging from several days to one month before a seismic event and
reached 500–950 V/m. During periods of seismic calm, such
disturbances were not observed.
Further observations over the past 12 years have confirmed the
reliability and stability of such manifestations of AEF anomalies
[10, 11]. Following analysis of the results of observation, certain
regularities of earthquake precursors were established based on
AEF monitoring data. Their geographical features were highlighted
and theoretical ideas were developed that satisfactorily explained
8 Chapter 1

the nature of the anomalies observed [12, 13]. Similar decreases in

AEF before an earthquake are discussed in [14].
The field changed its sign at an epicentral distance of 18 km, six
hours before an earthquake of magnitude M = 3.5 in California.
About a day before another seismic event of the same energy, with
calm weather conditions, oscillations with a total duration of about
four hours were recorded at two points with epicentral distances of
8 km and 20 km. At a position 50 km from the epicenter, no
anomalous perturbations of the AEF were detected [15].
Fluctuations in AEF intensity before an earthquake, class K = 11, are
described in [16].
Convincing results on variation in AEF before earthquakes are
presented in [17, 18]. Unfortunately, these studies only provide a
concise (less than a day) series of observations, which do not allow
us to assess the origin of background field variations before and
after seismic events. Description of the meteorological situation is
limited to mentioning the calmness of the weather at the
observation point and we cannot speak confidently about the
tectonic origin of the recorded anomalies.
The space charge of air at the Earth’s surface owes its origin to
ionization from emitted soil radon [19–22]. In the summer of 1914,
this effect was used when prospecting for radioactive ores by the
Moscow Radium Expedition in Fergana, Uzbekistan [23]. In 1919,
S. Kurbatov performed laboratory studies on the ionizing radiation
of rocks sampled from the Yulin Mine near Minusinsk, Krasnoyarsk
Krai, Russia. In 1920, using these lab results, he succeeded in
detecting a deposit of radioactive ores located 12–13 km southeast
of the Yulin Mine.
In performing field observations, classical measuring devices
are used to record polar conductivities (PCs) and AEF—an
aspiration capacitor unit combined with a field mill have been used
around the world to take atmospheric-electrical measurements for
decades. Let us turn to the refinement of the technique of using
these devices in the field.
To reduce the sensitivity of the PC sensor to an external wind
load, in some cases, a block of aspiration condensers was mounted
vertically above a ~20-liter pit and the “soil air” was purged directly
through the condensers [24]. When specialized observations are
performed from a vehicle, a set of aspiration condensers is placed
on the back seat; the air is purged through an open window; and the
machine is oriented perpendicular to the wind direction.
 Atmospheric Electricity and the Physics of the Earth 9

Until the mid-1990s, the signal was recorded using a two-

channel analog data recorder, and later on by a personal computer.
In the latter case, in the presence of noticeable variations of signals
relative to the average level, the correlation coefficient between
them was calculated at once. When the correlation coefficient was
below 0.8, the measurement was repeated.
In the initial experiments measuring the AEF profile, the field
mill was placed on the ground at each observation picket [25].
Sometimes, towing it on a sled-trailer behind a motor vehicle led to
noise contamination of the signal due to the accumulation of dust.
The best way to install the measuring device is in the roof hatch of a
car. Measurements were always carried out in fair weather
conditions [26–28]. Each controlled profile was passed at least
twice, Figure 1.1.1.

Figure 1.1.1: An example of recording AEF for a double-pass, E1 & E2,

profile length of 17.5 km.

Due to the limited demand for AEF sensors, this device has
never been serially manufactured. The most extensive series of the
Pole-2 device was designed and manufactured at the Experimental
and Production Workshops of A. I. Voeykov Main Geophysical
Observatory. For many years, AEF sensors have been in operation
at the Voeykovo settlement and at several meteorological stations,
10 Chapter 1

including: Verkhnee Dubrovo; Dusheti; Irkutsk, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk;

Karadag, Kyiv; Murmansk; and Odesa [29]. For mobile AEF
observations, a gradient measuring device from the same
manufacturer, designed to be powered by an autonomous 12 V
power supply, was used.
Before developing a measuring device for a regime of forecast
observations at five pickets at a landfill site in Tajikistan, based on
observations in the Tiksi Bay [30], AEF and the air-earth current
were studied. The measurements were carried out using a sensor
grid [31] at a height of 1 m above the ground on four insulated
pillars. A grid of 100 m2 area and a cell size of 0.1 m × 0.1 m was
installed. Figure 1.1.2 shows the air-earth current variations
recorded in fair weather conditions, including still air and zero
cloud cover. The AEF was simultaneously recorded.

Figure 1.1.2: Non-linear origin of Ohm’s law in the atmosphere with

measurements at Tiksi Bay.

Formal mathematical evaluation allows us to say that in fields

of up to 100 V/m, the accuracy of the linear field and current
approximation is D ~0.95–0.98 and the scatter of the reduction
coefficient, k, is below 2 %; up to 200 V/m—D ~ 0.85–0.95, k ~(2–
9) %; up to 300 V/m—D ~0.85, k ~(35–66) %; and up to 400
V/m—D ~0.85, k ~(54–104) %. In fields of over 200 V/m, however,
the linearity of Ohm’s law in the atmosphere is violated.
 Atmospheric Electricity and the Physics of the Earth 11

Taking into account the abnormal changes in the AEF recorded

before seismic events (see above) and deviations from Ohm’s law in
fields above 200 V/m, the air-earth current was chosen as a control
parameter at observation pickets in Tajikistan. Disadvantages of the
grid sensor included: low noise immunity where convection
currents were concerned; vortex movements of dust charge
formations; low technological capability at the test installation; and
long-term operation of the collecting element. Continuous
operation of the current sensor in Central Asia required us to solve
the problem of ensuring noise immunity of the measuring device to
interference from the surface layers of dust that formed up to a
thickness of several decimeters.
A single-wire antenna was used as the basis of the measuring
device [19, 32, 33]. To minimize near-surface interference, the
antenna height was increased to 5–6 m. At the same time, this
increase improved the technical capability of the sensor, as it
eliminated the possibility of the collecting element being
disconnected, for example, by vehicles passing over it. Furthermore,
a second, additional collecting element was added to the measuring
circuit. This element was located on the same plane as the main
element, in parallel with it and the Earth’s surface. The main and
additional antennas were separated by a distance of an order of
magnitude smaller than their installation heights: H = H(A1) -
H(A2). At the same time, the signal difference at the output of the
main and additional antennas minimized common mode
interferences from convection currents and near-surface dust
formations.
Differential antenna operation was repeatedly verified by
comparison with field results and conductivity measurements at the
Voeykovo and Borok Observatories [34]. Figure 1.1.3 shows
synchronous records of the air-earth current and AEF. The
extremely high reliability of the field mill and differential antenna
operation is illustrated by a 31-hour recording period that was
obtained under extremely unfavorable weather conditions. The
collecting elements of the differential antenna of 80 meters in
length were installed on nylon extensions and with fluoroplastic
insulators between the roof of the laboratory building and the mast,
which was installed 100 m away from the building. The height of
suspension of the upper collecting element of the passive
differential antenna was H(A1) = 8 meters with a spacing of 0.6 m.
The Pole-2 field mill was installed on the roof. For the
convenience of data comparison, all the records in Figure 1.1.3 are
12 Chapter 1

given in relative units. The AEF sensor was calibrated in absolute

units: a 300 V/m field corresponds to 10 rel. units of the scale used.
The correlation coefficients between parameters for 31 hours of
continuous observation equal: k[AEF; j(dif.ant.)] = 0.8; k[АEF;
j(grid)] = 0.6; k[j(dif.ant.); j(grid)] = 0.62. On a purely formal basis,
records obtained by a differential passive antenna are closely
related to changes in the atmospheric electric field.
The extremely flat pattern of recordings from the “grid” in the
period of 5 to 26 hours and the signal minimum at the 27th hour of
observation is doubtful. At the AEF and j(dif.ant.) channels, this
minimum occurred one hour earlier, when snowfall began to
decline. The recorded delay can, most likely, be attributed to leaks
from the “grid” installation masts. Joint tests of measuring devices
have shown that a field mill and a differential antenna comprise the
meteorological sensors with the lowest noise.

Figure 1.1.3: Synchronous recordings from the differential antenna

j(dif.ant.), the field mill—AEF, and the gauge of “grid” type j(grid), obtained
between 08h 00m 02/01/87 and 15h 00m 02/02/87. 31 hours of
continuous recording under extremely adverse meteorological conditions:
hours 2–4 fog; hours 10–15 strong wind; hour 26 snow showers; hours 29–
31 strong wind, clear.

Tests of the differential antenna were carried out at one of the

stations of a forecast test range in Tajikistan. Figure 1.1.4 shows
nine eight-minute signal recordings using a single-wire and
 Atmospheric Electricity and the Physics of the Earth 13

differential antennas with different installation heights and

separations. The upper graph presents the optimal variant of
installation height and separation of the differential antenna. If
consecutive recordings from single-wire antennas—only the upper
one H(A1) with the lower one removed or, vice versa, H(A2)—are
characterized by a 40–80 % signal scatter, then recordings from the
differential antenna (dif.ant.) have a separation of H = 0.57 m, as
expected this is much more stable and characterized by scattering
with a level of 16 % in total.
The situation is somewhat worse for the case where the
suspension height of the additional antenna was reduced to H(A2)
= 4.15 m, and the separation was increased to  = 0.82 m. The
signal scatter of the single-wire antennas H(A1) and H(A2)
increased by 30–77 %. At the same time, the effect of differential
reception and signal amplification also deteriorated and the signal
scatter during the eight-minute recording increased to 19 %.
The effect on differential reception and amplification of the
signal of the drop in elevation can be seen in the lower graph in
Figure 1.1.4, where the installation height of the additional antenna
was H(A2) = 3.44 m and the separation was H = 1.53 m. The signal
scatter from the upper, H(A1), and lower, H(A2), single-wire
antennas was 31–86%; while from the differential antenna it was 24
%.
The control measurements performed show that the measuring
device developed significantly reduces the noise component of the
signal, which is associated with convection currents, dust surface
charges, and dust charge transfer. With the help of a differential
antenna, several anomalous air-earth current variations were
recorded; these are described below.
Since the mid-1990s, atmospheric-electrical measurements
have always been performed in conjunction with observations of
soil-air hydrogen and radon. In all the complex measurements
described below, a radon volumetric activity sensor, RGA-01, was
used, which was able to operate in an ambient temperature range of
+5 °C to + 50 °С. The relative error of a single count was 30 % when
operating in the range of 10-2–103 Bq/l. In the course of observation,
each soil air sample from the sampling well at the picket was
analyzed four times.
The 15-year experience of operating the measuring device,
especially in temperatures of 30 °C or higher, led to the development of
an optimal technique for taking four rapid and consecutive radon
readings from samples of the soil air and the atmospheric air. A
14 Chapter 1

Figure 1.1.4: Examples of 8-minute recordings of the air-earth current

signal recorded by single-wire and differential passive antennas with
different installation heights.

minimal loss of time and accuracy at the observation picket can be

achieved when the first count is read at a 200 s time interval, and
the next three counts are read at 20 s intervals. The reason for this
is that there is a significant difference in the temperature of the soil
air and the atmospheric air, as a result of which the fluorescent
coating of the operational chamber is heated during four 200 s
 Atmospheric Electricity and the Physics of the Earth 15

intervals of alpha particle count accumulations. As a result, the

efficiency of the coating increases, which leads to a noticeable rise
in measurement errors. During measurements, the operational
chamber of the radon activity sensor was insulated on the outside
by polyurethane foam and periodically damped with water and the
measuring device was shielded from direct sunlight.
Similarly, samples of atmospheric air were analyzed that
partially equalized the measurement errors of radon in the soil and
the atmosphere. The volumetric activity of radon in the atmosphere
is substantially less than in the soil, usually falling to levels around
tenths to units of becquerels per liter.
Taking into account the half-life of thoron, Tn = 57 s, it was
assumed that the number of -decays at the first reading was
additive and consisted of the bulk of the -activity of radon, while
the thoron decayed almost completely. For the next three 20 s
counts, only the -decay of radon in the working chamber of the
device was discoverable. Such an assumption is fully justified since
almost four half-lives of thoron fit the time interval of the first
count, that is, the volume concentration of Tn in the working
chamber of the measuring device naturally decreased by more than
an order of magnitude.
The radon activity in a sample is calculated by averaging 2 to 4
counts. Accordingly, after averaging, the error in determining the
volumetric activity of radon at each observational station decreases
to about 17 %.
Following analysis of the measurements obtained over many
years, one can say that the data sets on the volumetric activity of
soil radon and atmospheric radon correlate to one another [35, 36].
There is no correlation of these parameters with the volumetric
activity of atmospheric thoron. This is due to the minimal values of
the volumetric activity of atmospheric thoron. Over the entire
observation period, the volumetric activities of these radiogenic
gases were comparable to one another only at a profile passing over
a rock crushing zone (Pelagiada Farm, Stavropol Territory) (Figure
1.1.5). According to the drilling data, the surveyed area was located
in the rock crushing zone.
16 Chapter 1

14.0

Volumetric activity of radioactive

10.5

gases, Bq/l
7.0

3.5 Rn Tn Rn(a) Tn(a)

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Picket numbers, 50m pitch

Figure 1.1.5: An example of comparable radon and thoron volumetric activities.

Before 2004, during fieldwork, one or two identical volumetric

soil hydrogen concentration sensors, GVK G-01, designed and
manufactured by the Moscow Engineering Physical Institute
(MEPHI), were used as appropriate [37]. The principle of the sensor
was based on variations in condenser capacitance, in which the
permittivity of the gasket varied depending on hydrogen
concentration in the working chamber of the measuring device.
The next modification of the measuring device, the hydrogen
geophysical signaling device VSG-01, was designed for long-term
continuous measurements of hydrogen concentrations in soil or
atmospheric air [38]. Transfer of the measuring device to online
recording caused some changes in the observation technique and
the construction of the working chamber. In the original version,
the sensor was designed for the natural flow of the soil or
atmospheric air. To this end, the remote module with the sensitive
element of the sensor was buried in the ground or placed in the
investigated volume of the atmosphere. In the online mode, the
working chamber of the remote module was sealed from direct air
intake. The measurement cycle at the observation picket consisted
of a series of procedures. First of all, the working chamber was
pumped with atmospheric air, and the readings taken were
assumed to be zeroed. Then, a sample of a tabulated volume of soil
air—30 ml for the VSG-01 sensor—was introduced into the working
chamber. The difference between the signal and the zero samples
 Atmospheric Electricity and the Physics of the Earth 17

was assumed to be due to the volumetric hydrogen concentration in

the soil.
The measured volumetric hydrogen concentrations were in the
range 0.1 to 50.0 ppm, with a relative error of about 10 % of the
current background values. The transition to the volumetric
concentration of hydrogen in the sample in ppm is implemented
according to the calibration graph. In the range of 0.0 V to 1.5 V, the
sensor division value (roughly) is 1 ppm—30 mV.
Since 2005, the complex has used next-generation measuring
devices: VG-2B #18 & #19 gas detectors [39]. With the same
operating parameters, the sensor has a 6–8 ml working chamber,
rather than a 30 ml one, consumes less power, and is structurally
better suited to field operation.

Figure 1.1.6: Verification results for the identity of hydrogen sensors VG-2B
#18 & #19 before leaving for fieldwork in 2008.

In autumn 2006, in cooperation with the developer, a

simultaneous sampling technique using two VG-2B sensors was
improved. Sensitive elements of the instruments were introduced in
the same working chamber of about 0.5 l. According to the
laboratory calibration, a nonlinear transient function was introduced
for each sensor with a confidence value of 0.99, which associates
signals in [mV] with [ppm]: H18ppm = 0.0013(H18mV)1.589; H19ppm =
3.2178 × exp[0.0027(H19mV)]. The results of the joint testing of the
measuring devices are shown in Figure 1.1.6. In the latter version of
18 Chapter 1

air sampling at the observation picket, only one sampling well was
used. The selection was performed sequentially, through a 0.5 l
volume of the hydrogen sensors in the working volume of the radon
sensor.
The sensors of the atmospheric electric field Pole-2 and
gradient allowed for absolute calibration at the installation site.
This calibration was carried out daily before and after the start of
operation.
A measuring device, RGA-01, for recording the volumetric
activity of radon was calibrated at the All-Russian Research Institute
of Physical and Technical Measurements and Radio Metering
(VNIIFTRI) before and after fieldwork. The scatter of readings fit
the error limits of the measuring device. A similar procedure was
carried out for the hydrogen sensors at the Moscow Engineering
and Physics Institute.
Checking of the operational stability of the aspiration capacitor
unit was carried out at the site in the Moscow Region. Before and
after the fieldwork and in fair weather conditions, the sensor was
checked at eight fixed pickets of similar profile. Over the entire
observation period, the correlation coefficient of the profile
variations of polar conductivities did not descend below 0.7.

1.2. Model of the Relationships between

Hydrogen, Methane, Radon, and Elements
of Surface Atmospheric Electricity
The first experimental results illustrating the relationships
between methane, hydrogen, radon, and the atmospheric electric
field were obtained at the Alexandrovsky Structure of the Gomel
Region in Belarus [40, 41]. Elevated concentrations of methane,
hydrogen, and radon were recorded above an oil reservoir and the
fault structure was, in turn, indicated by a decline in the
atmospheric electric field, AEF.
In 1998, the same regularities were observed at the Kaluga
Ring Structure [42]. On two profiles intersecting at the center of the
structure, with a length of 20 km and 18 km, radon and hydrogen in
the soil air and the atmospheric electric field were measured using a
unified system of observation pickets (21 pickets and 19 pickets,
respectively). At the same time, the soil air was sampled at eight
pickets for subsequent quantitative analysis of hydrogen, nitrogen,
carbon dioxide, methane, and their homologs in the laboratory.