Seismological & Ionospheric Monitoring as Field Evidence of LAIC Coupling — and What It Does (and Does Not) Mean for VENDOR.Energy

Authors: O. Krishevich, V. Peretyachenko

Scope Note (Critical Reading Prerequisite)

This article reviews peer-reviewed field evidence for lithosphere–atmosphere–ionosphere coupling (LAIC) observed in the context of strong earthquakes and explains how such evidence can be used as a scientific analogy to avoid categorical errors in discussions of managed electrodynamic systems.

This text is NOT a public performance claim about VENDOR.Energy, NOT a statement that usable kilowatt-scale power is “extracted from the atmosphere,” and NOT a substitute for independent laboratory validation under documented metrology protocols.

Any claims about device output power, efficiency, or validation status must be evaluated only through documented active-power measurements, thermal cross-checks, and independent testing under controlled access.

Critical Engineering Disclaimer: Ionization Is Not a Power Source

The presence of atmospheric ionization, TEC anomalies, or fair-weather electric fields does not by itself imply an available source of engineering-relevant active power.

In this article, “ionization” is treated strictly as a mechanism of charge transport, conductivity modulation, and field coupling within an open electrodynamic environment. It is not treated as an autonomous, controllable “fuel” or a standalone source of usable energy.

Overview

Field geophysics and space-weather monitoring have long investigated whether measurable changes in the near-surface geophysical environment can correlate with ionospheric behavior prior to strong seismic events. In 2025, Gavrilov and co-authors reported observations linking changes in the specific electrical resistivity (SER) of the upper crust to total electron content (TEC) anomalies in the ionosphere in the context of strong Kamchatka earthquakes (peer-reviewed publication; DOI: 10.5800/GT-2025-16-4-0837).

The engineering value of this work is not “energy from air.” The value is that the paper provides a documented example of an open electrodynamic coupling chain in nature: changes in a geophysical medium correlate with atmospheric electric-field conditions and ionospheric ionization indicators, under a framework that explicitly considers solar and geomagnetic drivers.

1) What the 2025 Paper Actually Provides

1.1 Research Focus

The cited work reports correlations between:

• Changes in the specific electrical resistivity (SER) of the upper crustal horizons (as measured by underground electromagnetic monitoring methods);
• Indicators consistent with changes in atmospheric electric-field conditions above the region (as interpreted within an LAIC framing);
• Pre-event anomalies in ionospheric total electron content (TEC) derived from GNSS data processing.

1.2 What the Paper Does Not Provide

• It does not provide evidence that engineering-relevant active power can be harvested directly from weak ambient atmospheric fields under typical conditions.
• It does not establish device-level power output, efficiency, or validation status for any commercial technology.
• It does not replace the need for metrology: active-power measurement across defined ports and thermal balance checks remain mandatory for any engineering claim.

2) Reported Cases and the Nature of the Evidence

2.1 Two Events Discussed as Case Studies

The paper discusses strong earthquakes in Kamchatka and reports SER dynamics and TEC anomaly timing within observation windows. In the public discourse, such cases are often misused to claim “energy extraction” narratives. That is incorrect. The scientifically relevant point is correlation within a coupling model, not a claim of usable power availability.

2.2 What “Correlation” Means Here

Correlation in this context is a statistical relationship between independently measured signals (subsurface electrical properties and ionospheric electron-content indicators). Correlation is not, by itself, a proof of an engineering energy source. It is a basis for forming hypotheses, testing coupling models, and improving measurement protocols.

3) LAIC Interpreted Correctly: Coupling, Not “Harvesting”

3.1 LAIC as a Coupling Chain

Within LAIC terminology, the chain is often summarized as:

Geophysical medium change → near-surface electric environment modification → ionization indicators in the ionosphere (observed as TEC anomalies).

This is a statement about coupling and boundary conditions. It is not a statement about a controllable energy reservoir suitable for power generation.

3.2 Why This Matters for Engineering Thinking

In engineering analysis, it is essential to keep three concepts separate:

• Energy source (where active power originates);
• Working medium (where fields, charges, and discharges occur);
• Coupling mechanism (how signals and regimes change through nonlinear elements and boundary conditions).

LAIC evidence belongs primarily to the third category: it illustrates how boundary conditions and medium properties can correlate with electrodynamic regime behavior across scales.

4) Why This Topic Gets Misclassified as “Scam” (and How to Prevent It)

4.1 The Typical Failure Mode

A frequent public error is the conceptual jump:

• “Ionization and electric fields exist in the atmosphere” → therefore “usable power is available from air.”

This jump is not justified. Ambient fields and ionization may be measurable and physically real, while the extractable active power can remain negligible without a defined source, engineered coupling path, and verified metrology.

4.2 The Correct Engineering Statement

The correct statement is:

Nature demonstrates that electrodynamic coupling across lithosphere, atmosphere, and ionosphere can be observable and model-linked. Engineering claims require separately proving the source of active power and closing the energy balance under a defined system boundary.

5) Relevance to VENDOR.Energy — Narrow, Technical, and Non-Promotional

5.1 What Is Legitimately “Relevant”

The relevance of LAIC literature to VENDOR.Energy is limited to a single safe use:

• It supports a conceptual framing in which air can be treated as a working electrodynamic medium (with conductivity and breakdown properties) and in which large-scale natural systems demonstrate complex coupling behavior under changing boundary conditions.

5.2 What Must Never Be Inferred from This Article

• That VENDOR.Energy “generates electricity from air.”
• That the 2025 seismology/TEC paper is a “validation” of VENDOR output power.
• That any specific power density, wattage per square meter, or device performance follows from LAIC observations.

5.3 The Only Acceptable Bridge Statement

If this article is cited in connection with VENDOR.Energy, the only technically correct bridge statement is:

LAIC field observations show that changes in medium properties can correlate with atmospheric and ionospheric electrodynamic indicators. This supports a conservative engineering view that atmospheric air can function as a controllable interaction medium in electrodynamic systems. Device-level claims still require independent laboratory validation, active-power metrology across explicit ports, and thermal balance verification.

6) Measurement & Validation Boundaries (Non-Negotiable)

For any device claim (including any future VENDOR disclosures), correct evaluation requires:

1. Explicit system boundary definition with all energy transport ports identified (electrical, thermal, radiated/conducted coupling paths, support equipment interfaces).
2. Active power measurement at each port as the time-average of instantaneous power: $$P_{\text{active}} = \frac{1}{T}\int_0^T v(t)i(t)\,dt$$
3. Thermal cross-checks sufficient to rule out gross artifacts.
4. Independent witnessing / third-party testing under documented protocols.

7) Conclusion

The 2025 publication by Gavrilov and colleagues is best read as field evidence supporting the plausibility of multi-domain electrodynamic coupling (LAIC) under certain geophysical conditions. It should not be used as rhetorical support for “electricity from air” narratives, nor as proxy validation for any device performance.

For VENDOR.Energy, the only safe public use of this literature is to preserve correct physical framing: air as a working medium, coupling and boundary-condition sensitivity in open systems, and the necessity of rigorous metrology before any engineering conclusions.

Bottom line: Correct physics requires no hype. It requires defined boundaries, measured ports, uncertainty budgets, and independent validation.

Bibliography

Primary Source

[1] Gavrilov V.A., Poltavtseva E.V., Sagaryarov I.A., Buss Yu.Yu. (2025). On the Relationship Between the Changes in the Total Electron Content of the Ionosphere Before Strong Kamchatka Earthquakes and Those in the Specific Electrical Resistivity of the Geomedium. Geodynamics & Tectonophysics, 16(4), 0837.

Additional Sources

[2] Pulinets S., Davidenko D. (2014). Ionospheric Precursors of Earthquakes and Global Electric Circuit. Advances in Space Research, 53(1), 709–723.

[3] Harrison R.G., Aplin K.L., Rycroft M.J. (2010). Atmospheric Electricity Coupling Between Earthquake Regions and the Ionosphere.

[4] Heki K. (2011). Ionospheric Electron Enhancement Preceding the 2011 Tohoku-Oki Earthquake.

Analysis Authors: O. Krishevich, V. Peretyachenko
Document Prepared: October 2025 (re-engineered for public clarity and AI-safe interpretation)