Mutagenic Potential of Direct Current Magnetic Fields.

1997 ◽  
Author(s):  
John W. Obringer ◽  
Tara E. Nolan ◽  
Brandon Horne ◽  
Brian Kelchner
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luana Albert ◽  
Frédéric Olivier ◽  
Aurélie Jolivet ◽  
Laurent Chauvaud ◽  
Sylvain Chauvaud

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayank V. Jog ◽  
Robert X. Smith ◽  
Kay Jann ◽  
Walter Dunn ◽  
Belen Lafon ◽  
...  

Science ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 220 (4598) ◽  
pp. 715-717 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Raybourn

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 045007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Ma ◽  
Jianzhao Geng ◽  
Wan Kan Chan ◽  
Justin Schwartz ◽  
Tim Coombs

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (9) ◽  
pp. 0905006
Author(s):  
谭曦 Tan Xi ◽  
刘军 Liu Jun ◽  
殷建玲 Yin Jianling ◽  
余伟涛 Yu Weitao

2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (8) ◽  
pp. 696-699 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seogi Kang ◽  
Lindsey J. Heagy ◽  
Rowan Cockett ◽  
Douglas W. Oldenburg

At some point in many geophysical workflows, an inversion is a necessary step for answering the geoscientific question at hand, whether it is recovering a reflectivity series from a seismic trace in a deconvolution problem, finding a susceptibility model from magnetic data, or recovering conductivity from an electromagnetic survey. This is particularly true when working with data sets where it may not even be clear how to plot the data: 3D direct current resistivity and induced polarization surveys (it is not necessarily clear how to organize data into a pseudosection) or multicomponent data, such as electromagnetic data (we can measure three spatial components of electric and/or magnetic fields through time over a range of frequencies). Inversion is a tool for translating these data into a model we can interpret. The goal of the inversion is to find a “model” — some description of the earth's physical properties — that is consistent with both the data and geologic knowledge.


JOM ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 34-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pascale Gillon

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document