Try source parameter imaging Solomon Nehemiah Yusuf PhD student On 1 May 2015 17:27, "Doug Perkin <[email protected]>" < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi > > I have been trying various source depth estimation methods for grids of > potential field data and wanted to start a discussion on which methods tend > to provide better solutions for gravity vs aeromag. I am usually > interested in sub vertical or dipping contacts, so for magnetics I have > tried a structural index of 0 or 1 and for Gravity I have tried 0 and -1 > using the USGS special function depth analysis GX. I have also tried Euler > with various window sizes. > > The local wavenumber method using the USGS GX was interesting because it > actually provides estimates of the structural index for various anomalies; > however that method tended to give a lot more noise and was in places > giving me a structural index of 3 when the RTP grid clearly did not look > like a magnetic dipole source. > > Does anyone have experience with these depth estimation methods? Which > methods tend to give more reliable solutions for a vertical or dipping > contact using aeromag? And which methods tend to provide better solutions > for a vertical or dipping contact using gravity? Any advice or discussion > on these methods would be much appreciated > > Regards, > Doug > > > > --- > > Forum archives can be accessed here: > http://lyris.geosoft.com/read/?forum=geonet > <http://lyris.geosoft.com/read/?fourm=geonet> > > You are currently subscribed to geonet as: [email protected]. > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from any of our forums, select the User Forum > selection on the Geosoft Community page: > http://www.geosoft.com/support/community/forums/register/ > --- Forum archives can be accessed here: http://lyris.geosoft.com/read/?forum=geonet You are currently subscribed to geonet as: [email protected]. To subscribe or unsubscribe from any of our forums, select the User Forum selection on the Geosoft Community page: http://www.geosoft.com/support/community/forums/register/
