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
Genesis of the distribution of concentration and the mass shares o gold in its ores in different commercial types of gold deposits
2013 S. V. Sendek, Ya. Yu. Bushuev, K. E. Chernyshev
Similarity and difference in structure of the Ural and Paikhoy-Novaya-Zemlia fold belts
2013 A. S. Egorov, O. E. Smirnov, I. Yu. Vinokurov, A. P. Kalenich
Constantly working hydrodinamical model of Yakovlevsky rich iron-ores deposit (Kursk Magnetic Anomaly)
2013 D. L. Ustyugov
Comparative analysis of Uralian, Anabar and Brazilian diamonds by infrared spectrometry method
2013 E. A. Vasilev, A. V. Kozlov, Yu. V. Nefedov, V. A. Petrovskii