Geophysics Forum

RD1500 is cheap and fit certain market requirements, but it's definitely not the best GPR. There have been new models with this new fast stacking tech which is definitely better in penetration depth.

Plane wave...

The anomaly (4-8m marks)was an underground tunnel. If you look at it carefully, there were some small reflections (hyperbolas) just below its top horizontal layer. I believe they could be beams for a supporting structure inside the tunnel. The long hyperbola was actually a reflection from a pipe ove...

I have used both FIR and IIR in GPR data processing, I don't see much difference.

Geophex GEM2 is also an option.
http://www.geophex.com/Product_GEM2_handheld.htm

ADobrovolskiy wrote: ↑

Mon May 25, 2020 6:19 am

yes, now file imported without issues

it seems that antenna was elevated approx 2m above ground? Are you experimenting with drones?

No. The antenna was on the ground surface. Usually you need to adjust "time zero" first for GSSI GPR data. Nice data processing.

OK, it's probably because it's an exported file and it had a slightly different format. I got the original file this time. Try downloading it again, it should work this time.

Here is the GPR data file zipped. GSSI 270MHz antenna.

I know it's hard to guess, but it's just for fun. Can you guess what these targets are in the GPR profile? There are two interesting targets here: one is around 30ns in depth and between 4 to 8 meter marks. The other one is the large hyperbola across the whole profile at 40ns and below. GPR guess.jpg

Hi, I would like to share data gathered from the drone using Cobra Plug-In GPR with SE-150 antenna https://drive.google.com/open?id=16lDd2j8RN4BWj3U-LqeLH3ghyMAVC7D8 Flight altitude 3m over water, speed 2 m/s Bottom is visible till 4+ meters 2019-07-15-15-03-37-gpr - processed.jpg Found a video, it...

Thanks for the warning.

You can use Paraview. It's a free program and it might take you a while to learn how to do it, but it is actually not that difficult once you are familiar with its concepts.

The properties of the concrete and the host soils might be very similar, so you can not see the concrete pipe itself. If this is the case, you are actually looking at voids (the air space inside the concrete sewer). If the sewer pipe is not big in diameter, you probably can't see it clearly in GPR p...

What do you use it for?

Snow is fine for GPR signals, but you are going to get multiples from ground surfaces which you might think as subsurface layers. When possible, try to collect data with similar amount (thickness) of water and compare the results. I suspect the anomalies are simply caused by the water in the stream ...

But it also looks like that the anomalies were caused by the water in the stream. I suggest you collect some data on locations nearby and compare the results. I think that the water depth could be too shallow for you to see deep depths because of multiples from the water bottom.

It looks like it is water filled.

it does look like a void. The reflection is strong and there is a ringing effect. What kind of gain functions have you used?

I don't know what kind of reviews you want to see, but it seems to me that you still hold some hopes for this scam. Just forget about it, don't waste your money or even time on it.

Never thought this could be patented:

https://data.epo.org/publication-server ... cument.pdf

I don't know much about seismic unix, but if the size of your data is not large, you can use MATGPR. It's a free program, but you need Matlab installed on your computer. MATGPR has a very nice window interface so it's much easier to use for starters.

brooker wrote:Yes, but i think free program Is no good

Free program is good for something, depending on what you need...

That's why I recommended free ones first