2016
DOI: 10.1007/s00367-016-0439-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Electrical properties of seafloor massive sulfides

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
41
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
1
41
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In comparison to the surrounding host rock, SMS typically exhibit substantial contrasts in their physical parameters, i.e. magnetic susceptibility (Spagnoli et al 2017a), acoustic velocity (Spagnoli et al 2017b) and electrical conductivity (Morgan 2012;Spagnoli et al 2016). Thus, making them ideal targets for geophysical exploration.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In comparison to the surrounding host rock, SMS typically exhibit substantial contrasts in their physical parameters, i.e. magnetic susceptibility (Spagnoli et al 2017a), acoustic velocity (Spagnoli et al 2017b) and electrical conductivity (Morgan 2012;Spagnoli et al 2016). Thus, making them ideal targets for geophysical exploration.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By comparison, for the case of electrolytic conduction, the conductivity is directly related to the porosity of the sample (e.g., Archie's Law, Archie, ). This relationship does not hold for SMS deposits, which act as semiconductors causing the conductivities to be orders of magnitude higher and display complex behavior due to their frequency‐dependent chargeability (Spagnoli et al, , ). Samples from the Central Indian Ridge show similar behavior with a clear frequency dependence, for example, larger conductivities at higher frequencies (Müller et al, ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both inversion models show conductive features greater than 1 S/m at the two mounds which can be explained by seafloor massive sulphide occurrences (more conductive than seawater-saturated sediments, e.g. Spagnoli et al, 2016;Müller et al, 2018;?). The comparison also highlights the advantages of the proposed work flow, as additional conductivity features that are introduced by over-fitting amplitude fluctuations ( Figure 2) are less prominent in the final inversion model (Figure 8).…”
Section: Integration Of Navigational Uncertainty Into the Data Analysismentioning
confidence: 95%
“…The TAG area is affected by long-term hydrothermal venting leading to alteration of oceanic crust and creation of seafloor massive sulphide (SMS) deposits (Humphris et al, 2015). The electrical properties differ greatly between gabbros, basalt, altered basalt and SMS, and the electrical conductivity is several orders of magnitude larger for SMS than for basalt (Spagnoli et al, 2016).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%