On the Equivalence of the "Niblett" and "Bostick" Transformations in the Magnetotelluric Method
暂无分享,去创建一个
In the I D interpretation of magnetotelluric data, it is often useful to discover a reasonable first-approximation to the true conductivity-depth distribution beneath the recording location. This may be undertaken in the field, in order to ascertain if the station spacing is satisfactory or whether a greater station density of coverage is required, or at the base laboratory, as a prelude to a more sophistocated I D inversion of the data. There are three approximations presently in use by workers whose interest lies in the conductivity structure of the earth: (I) the Schmucker p*-z* scheme (Schmukker, 1970); (2) the Bostick transformation (Bostick, 1977); and (3) the Niblett approximation (Niblett and Sayn-Wittgenstein, 1960). The first two are in widespread use in western Europe and north America, whilst the Niblett approximation appears to be strongly favoured in eastern Europe and the USS R. Weidelt et al. (1980) have previously detailed the relationship between Schmucker's P* z* and. Bostick's transformation; it is the purpose of this letter to demonstrate that Bostick's transformation and Niblett's approximation are very equivalent they give exactly the same resistivity-depth profiles!
[1] E. R. Niblett,et al. Variation of electrical conductivity with depth by the magneto-telluric method , 1960 .
[2] S. Goldberg,et al. A SIMPLE FORM OF PRESENTATION OF MAGNETOTELLURIC DATA USING THE BOSTICK TRANSFORM , 1982 .
[3] P. Weidelt. The inverse problem of geomagnetic induction , 1973 .
[4] Ulrich Schmucker,et al. Anomalies of geomagnetic variations in the Southwestern United States , 1970 .