skip to content

EMpulse Geophysics Ltd.

Conventional vs. Transient AMT

Transient and conventional AMT data were collected on the same line with both survey crews in the area at the same time. Despite the fact our first generation coils were four times noisier at low frequency and ten times noisier at high frequency than our colleague's, the transient impedance estimates are arguably as good as the conventional ones and the transient tipper data are clearly better. In our opinion, this demonstrates the effectiveness of our transient approach to AMT. Namely, the time localized recording of individual large transient events, further signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) enhanced with our proprietary Adaptive Polarization Stacking (APS) algorithm, yielding earth response curves and error bars that are properly connected to the polarization properties of the data, the SNR and sample size.

Click Here to download document (pdf, 1.75 MBytes), please see the "Surveys" section for more example data sets also.

Supplementary to the report above, please click here to download a comparison of inverted results between transient and conventional AMT systems, potential field and seismic data is shown as well. The transient AMT tipper data agrees very well with the potential field (and seismic) data in terms of a shallow wedge like body in the sandstone, both AMT data sets resolve deep, shallow dipping graphitic basement structure, also seen on the seismic data as shallow west dipping reflecting horizons. However, the transient AMT data is able to better resolve shallow sandstone structure, due mainly to enhanced tipper data quality.