Thanks.  Looks like a good workaround.  But one more thing to remember :-)  
Best, -tiku

On Dec 4, 2015, at 3:21 AM, lucaingv <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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/
> 


---

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/

Reply via email to