Preliminary Results of the Application of Euler Deconvolution to Airborne EM Data

Transformation of coincident loop EM data to an equivalent potential field response

“…The proposed method reduces EM inversion to the problem of a potential field inversion. Empirical attempts at direct Euler transform of moving-loop data have in the past shown some coherence (Cooper et al, 2004), but that paper adopted the incorrect conclusion of Roy (1966) that moving-loop AEM responses were a potential field, and did not discuss the relationship between Euler solutions and the correct model depth.…”

“…These methods can be directly applied to fixed-source, roving receiver EM data since fields in air obey Laplace's equation (Grant and West 1965). Moving source EM data on the other hand cannot be directly treated as a potential field, despite claims to the contrary by Cooper et al (2004) and Roy (1966) as we will discuss. We will show that, for an isolated conductor, a coincident-loop EM response is actually the square of a true potential field, and by inference that the square-root of a coincident loop EM response is a potential field with sign ambiguity.…”

The application of spatial derivatives to non‐potential field data interpretation

“…It is known that in the limit of low frequency and very high contrast targets, the EM wave equation may approximate Laplace's equation (Roy 1966). This condition was discussed by Cooper, Combrinck and Cowan (2004) who went on to consider the application of Euler deconvolution to airborne time‐domain data. The more general inductive case is considered here and the studies are based on conductivity information derived from airborne frequency‐domain electromagnetic data.…”