Difference in galvanic and inductive methods' results, new examples for DIP and BIEP
About authors
- 1 — Ph.D., Dr.Sci. professor Moscow State University
- 2 — Ph.D. associate professor Moscow State University
- 3 — Ph.D., Dr.Sci. professor Moscow State University
- 4 — master, post-graduate student 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.
Область исследования:
(Archived) Application of the modern electric exploratory technologies in prospecting of mineral deposits
Keywords:
dipole inductive profiling
non-contact measurements of electrical field
galvanic and inductive methods
transversal resistance
longitudinal conductance
Funding:
None
References
- Vanyan L.L. Fundamentals of electromagnetic soundings. Moscow, 1965. 108 p.
- Karinsky A.D. Influence of rocks' electrical anisotropy on electromagnetic field in boreholes: Research Paper...Dr. phys. & math. / MGRI. Moscow, 2008. 32 p.
- Resistivity profiling with non-grounded working lines / Authors: A.S.Nakhabtcev, B.G.Sapognikov, A.I.Yabluchansky. Leningrad, 1985. 96 p.
- McNeil J.D. Technical Note TN-6. Electromagnetic terrain conductivity measurement at low induction numbers / Geonics Ltd. 1980. 13 p.
Similar articles
Conditions of the natural electric field formation at the silicate nickel deposits of weathering crust
2013 O. F. Putikov, V. G. Lazarenkov, I. V. Talovina, N. P. Senchina
Preliminary results of deep magnetotelluric sounding on geophysical base of moscow university in Kaluga region
2013 E. V. Moilanen, P. Yu. Pushkarev, N. L. Shustov