Difference in galvanic and inductive methods' results, new examples for DIP and BIEP
About authors
- 1 — Moscow State University
- 2 — Moscow State University
- 3 — Moscow State University
- 4 — Moscow State University
Abstract
Difference in apparent resistivity values determined in galvanic and inductive electrical and electromagnetic methods depends on macroanisotropy of layered cross-section and decreased penetration depth of galvanic methods without changing penetration depth of inductive methods. Joint influence of these two factors in case of high contrast of layers' resistivities results in difference in several tens of apparent resistivity values.
References
- Ваньян Л.Л. Основы электромагнитных зондирований. М., 1965. 108 с.
- Каринский А.Д. Влияние электрической анизотропии горных пород на электромагнитное поле в скважине: Автореф. дис. … д-ра физ.-мат. наук / МГРИ. М., 2008. 32 с.
- Электропрофилирование с незаземленными рабочими линиями / Сост. А.С.Нахабцев, Б.Г.Сапожников, А.И.Яблучанский. Л., 1985. 96 с.
- McNeil J.D. Technical Note TN-6. Electromag- netic terrain conductivity measurement at low induction numbers / Geonics Ltd. 1980. 13 p.
Similar articles
Identification of ore association by variation of geochemical spectrum of ore-forming elements оn the example of Zolotoe deposit (Yenisei ridge)
2013 A. L. Popov
Surface electrical tomography for taliks mapping (Taimyr Peninsulа)
2013 A. V. Politsina, I. S. Kotin, D. V. Stepanov, M. P. Kashkevich, A. V. Galysheva
Means of measuring of specific resistivity of ground with assistance of rods of dinamic or static set for ground testing
2013 A. A. Miller
The effect of integration robust regression analysis with inversion of transients for median gradient method at study of diatremes on Anabar shield
2013 Yu. A. Davydenko, A. Yu. Davydenko, I. S. Kupriyanov, P. A. Popkov, S. V. Sleptsov, I. Yu. Pesterev, S. V. Yakovlev