Hi Tiku, I know very well the issue you raised but I solved it bypassing the initial configuration. Once you try to create a new model GMSYS program requires the values of the Earth's field in A/m. In order to obtain the parameter in nT (which is the unit of measure that gives us the IGRF) you have to do as follows: in the display menu, you select as anomaly units cgs after that, in the profile menu click the "set Earth's field parameters" and at this time the related popup menu is finally in nT. If you need to work with susceptibility values in A/m unit don't forget to change the anomaly units another time. So in this way you can put the IGRF value and start with your modeling. I hope that this can help you All the Best Luca
Il giorno 03/dic/2015, alle ore 22:58, Dhananjay Ravat ha scritto: > On an unrelated topic, I noticed the following labeling problem today in one > of the GM-SYS input boxes when I was showing some students in my class the > basic model construction in GM-SYS. I believe I am using OM 8.1 or 8.2. The > box where one inputs the earth’s magnetic field parameter, the unit for the > field intensity is labeled as A/m. It should be nT because when one actually > converts nT or Orsted into A/m the value is not consistent with what the > program expects (it expects nT, e.g. 50000 nT, and not 0.5 Oe / (4pi x > 10^-3) which would be in A/m). When IGRF calculator pulls in these values, > it pulls in nT (but the label for the unit is still A/m I think). Hadn’t > used GM-SYS in a while and so not noticed this before. > > I was wondering why my model was not producing any anomaly at all…. Anyway, > magnetic units are already confusing to most and so if this is not already > corrected in the later versions, it should be corrected. I.e., the label A/m > for earth’s field intensity should be changed to nT. > > Best, > > tiku > _____________________________ > D. Ravat | Professor of Geophysics > Earth & Environmental Sciences | Physics & Astronomy > University of Kentucky > 101 Slone Research Building | Lexington, KY 40506-0053 > fax: +1 859 323 1938 > > Web: > http://ees.as.uky.edu/users/drava2 > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dhananjay_Ravat/ > https://ees.as.uky.edu/gravity-magnetics-heat-flow-tectonics > https://ees.as.uky.edu/near-surface-geophysics > _____________________________ > > > > > > > On Nov 23, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Gerry Connard <[email protected]> wrote: > >> As Ed points out, using RTP where remanence is present can cause problems. >> In general it is better to use TMI data. GM-SYS does not apply a correction >> to the TMI data but uses the external field parameters to calculate the >> model response in the presence of that external field. >> >> The only exception to this recommendation is the case where the external >> field varies significantly over your model (for example a long profile near >> the magnetic pole). In this case you may be better off doing a variable RTP >> before trying to model because GM-SYS only allows you to enter 1 definition >> for the external field. >> >> Most modern aeromag surveys remove the variations in the IGRF/DGRF from the >> final delivered data. They typically subtract the appropriate field based >> on the location & elevation of each measured point. Alternatively, the >> contractors compute a grid of IGRF values across the survey area and >> subtract that from the observed data. >> >> The ‘total field” magnetic anomaly is a scalar value derived by taking the >> dot product of the observed vector magnetic field with the regional field >> (i.e. the IGRF) at that point. See Blakely (1995, p178-179). GM-SYS 2D and >> 3D need the regional field strength value and direction to calculate the >> total field anomaly. >> >> Blakely, R.J., 1995, Potential Theory in Gravity & Magnetic Applications: >> Cambridge University Press, pp.441. >> >> Gerry >> >> From: edcunion <[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 9:19 AM >> To: Geosoft Oasis montaj and Target >> Subject: Re: [geonet] Potential field data modeling in GM-SYS >> >> On your latter general remanence query, the RTP filtered product can show >> affects when remanence is present, the affects can be exacerbated at low >> magnetic latitudes. Comparing the TMI and RTP with the analytic signal or >> its individual derivative components (dX, dY, dZ) for your data can add >> some insight. >> >> The ASVI (analytic signal of the vertical integral, in Macleod et al 1993) >> can also be tried and compared, the reference is quoted below and outlines >> this method- >> >> "Macleod, I.N., Vieira, S., Chaves, A.C., 1993; Analytic signal and >> reduction to the pole in the interpretation of total magnetic field data at >> low magnetic latitudes, Proceedings of the third international congress of >> the Brazilian Society of Geophysicists." >> >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> >> On Monday, November 23, 2015 9:17 AM, author.nameemail >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> I want to clarify some doubts about potential field data modeling in GM-SYS. >> I can use the TMI or the RTP anomaly when I am modeling magnetic data. But >> when I am modeling simultaneously magnetic and gravity data is better to use >> the gravity and reduced to the pole magnetic anomaly? Because the dipolar >> effect is removed and magnetic anomalies are transformed to monopolar like >> the gravity anomaly. Ideally what anomaly should I use in this case? >> Or does the GMSYS apply some correction to the TMI data, because when I >> create a gmsys model I have to define the magnetic field parameters >> (magnitude, inclination and declination) at the measurement location? >> Other question is related to the presence of remanance magnetization. When >> remanent magnetization is present is better to use the TMI data and not the >> RTP anomaly? Or I can use other derivative grid like the analytical signal? >> Best regards, >> Ana >> >> --- >> 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/ >> >> --- >> >> 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/ >> >> --- >> >> 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/ >> > > --- > > 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/ > >> ----- >> >> Luca Cocchi >> >> Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, >> Unità di Progetto "Geofisica e Tecnologie Marine" >> >> Villa Pezzino >> >> Via Pezzino Basso, 2 >> >> 19025 La Spezia >> >> Tel 0187794408 >> fax 0187766400 >> [email protected] > --- 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/
