![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I want to know atmosphere effect on gpr radars
This is mentioned in the Richard Kregeg wiki article. There GPR is dismissed by historians ( what that means I am unsure of ) because it didn't find ground disturbance - of course this was at Treblinka ( really messed up a good story ). Is GPR reliable - if it finds that the ground has not been disturbed does it mean that the ground may have been massively disturbed or not. How would a 'historian" know the difference. I believe I recently saw GPR used in Mongolia? on a National Geographic archaeology show - they seemed to find it reliable but maybe it doesn't work well in Poland
159.105.80.219
14:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It is well-bandied-about that at current prices the world has 50 years of uranium deposits. (Note: fuel cost is very small in nuclear power plants, and price increases could easily be absorbed.) Is it possible to locate uranium deposits from space? Are there specific frequencies which Uranium-235 and Uranium-238 would reflect? Simesa 23:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The figure used as an illustration in this article really isn't all that illustrative, as it does not show any distinctive refections. I have access to lots of GPR data, and could contribute something showing interesting subsurface features. Tapatio 17:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
How about this (from my own work)? Tapatio 14:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad someone caught the parabolic vs. hyperbolic error. It was careless acquiescence to the spell check on my part. Tapatio 05:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
How about an illustration of GPR in use? Tapatio 17:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems like the external links section is almost all spam. It has been tagged with a spam warning, but nobody seems to want to fix it. What criteria might we apply in deciding what is spam and what is not?
- sites that provide more detail/examples--
CheMechanical
16:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- sites with proprietary GPR techniques or equipment--
CheMechanical
16:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- all others-- CheMechanical 16:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the ugliest of the spam from the external links. I don't think any of them could be justified under wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:External links, particularly Links normally to be avoided). I think that the links in the "Examples of GPR radargrams" section are a bit dodgy also, but they fullfill a need that is not currently met by the article. It would be nice to see a couple more examples of different applications and presentations within the article, then get rid of these links. Tapatio 15:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
-I work for a leading nondestructive testing firm, and I believe there is benefit in including my company website in the external links. Our project portfolio illustrates many different radar applications in infrastructure. There are also various images that show GPR processing and analysis. Is this appropriate for the external links section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan.guarino ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
In archaeology it has become the norm to view GPR data as time-slice plots of multiple lines of data, as well as vertical sections of individual lines. Is time slicing common enough in other disciplines to be discussed here? Tapatio 17:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Can we get a quick blurb on who invented it and when it was invented? I wanted to find out if it existed back in 1980 to answer someone's question elsewhere, but I couldn't find that information here. I found information on one site that said it was invented "in the 1970's" for the military, but nothing more specific or useful as a citation. -- Hi Ev 09:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
GPR has been used earlier than the 1970s. In September 1976, I was on a Coast Guard C-130 (USCG 1351) flight where we had a NASA crew, mini-computer, and a Side Looking Radar system. We used this to fly Alaska's North Slope and over the (North) Polar Ice Cap. This Radar system provided the thickness of: sea ice, flow ice and permafrost. We flew tracks that went East from Point Barrow to Canada's Yukon Territory, and West to Cape Lisburne. DeanRB 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC) DeanRB
The paragraph enumerating the limitations of GPR (The limitations of GPR are many in this current day and age...) seems a bit out of place in the introductory paragraph. Perhaps this subject can be spun off into its own heading. Tapatio ( talk) 15:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I started a rudimentary section an limitations. I don't have specific references, but I think it is all common knowledge to people in the field and non-controversial (previously it had some POV issues). Feel free to edit, expand, or expurgate. Tapatio ( talk) 18:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Can GPR be used effectively to locate buried facitlites such as buried pipes (4" to say 12"), or buried electrical cable with any kind of confidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.13.65 ( talk) 20:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This page has previously been purged of links to commercial websites of practitioners and manufacturers (see above). Lets keep it that way. See Links normally to be avoided and Advertising and conflicts of interest. Manufacturers and practitoners are welcome to make improvements to the content of the article, however. Tapatio ( talk) 14:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Some Russians were trying to develop GPR to work better in clay soils by increasing the transmitter power. [1] Has anything come from this? In many regions, they do not currently use GPR due to limitations of the soil. Landroo ( talk) 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I propose that the artical Ground penetrating radar survey (archaeology) be merged into the article for Ground penetrating radar as the principle is the same, the archaeological use of the technique is simply that, and does not really justify it's own article. The page Ground penetrating radar survey (archaeology) could then redirect to the main article. Trevor Marron ( talk) 15:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I want to know what frequenvies gpr radar uses, maybe a few more technical details. Also, what are the pulse energy ranges? Radzewicz ( talk) 08:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
In Iraq & Afghanistan, why do we still fall victim to embedded IEDs? Why can't GPR discover them before they detonate?
In the spirit of being allowed only to talk about how to improve the article, would anyone be so kind as to add the explanation onto it? Thanks. -- 70.179.174.101 ( talk) 01:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that a big section of this article is ripped straight from one website: http://www.jetsilverventures.com/ground-penetrating-radar-2/ , particularly the sections of applications, three-dimensional imaging, limitations and similar technologies. If this is the case, then this article needs a rewrite. Nwhit ( talk) 16:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The recent merger of this page with Ground penetrating radar (archaeology) is fine, except that it leaves the article with an overemphasis on archaeology. I would issue a challenge to specialists in other applications to help rectify this imbalance by writing sections related to their fields. Tapatio ( talk) 21:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
As an archaeologist working with GPR in other fields, I agree that the way the article is structured there's too much emphasis on archaeology. However, if you look at the section on archaeological uses of GPR, most of it is actually about GPR in general. I sugest moving the sections around so that the parts about general techniques are incuded with the main information and the odd sentence about archaeology not currently in the archaeology section be moved there.
Markaeologist ( talk) 10:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The table of "approximate penetration" and "smallest visible object[s]" has no sources and is uncited. It also seems fantastically optimistic. In my experience, the useful penetration of 225MHz and higher frequencies in clay is effectively zero. There can be some response in the near surface, but any deeper response is too faint to pick out from amidst the noise and "ringing" effects. There do seem to be exceptional clays in which GPR can work well, but I have not encountered this. The other figures seem unrealistic in real-world contexts as well. This table may have some theoretical basis, but not a practical one. Could the table be from some manufacturer's website, and intended to sell radar systems rather than accurately reflect practical limitations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapatio ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Why are the standard units for this table in Imperial measurements, with metric given in brackets? First, they're not SI (accepted as standard for scientific measurement worldwide), and secondly, only 5% of the planet officially uses them.
I suggest removing the Imperial units from the table and only leaving the SI units.
But, as the table itself has no provenance, and to my eyes at least looks quite optimistic (1.8m penetration in wet clay for a 500MHz rig? Seeing a 10cm pipe at 4m?) perhaps it should just be deleted.
EDIT: I see that User:Tapatio has already posted about the optimism of this table (not the SI units though!)
Markaeologist ( talk) 09:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
As discussed by both myself and Tapatío the table of depth penetration in 'Limitations' is not fit for purpose. It almost certainly comes from an advertisement not a serious technical discussion of the possibilities of getting real results.
I propose to delete it and welcome any feedback on that proposal (especially any good reasons why it should stay up).
Markaeologist ( talk) 11:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
In light of the fact that GPR is dependant on local conditions, the US Department of Agriculture produces some excellent 'GPR Soil Suitability Maps' covering the majority of the co-terminous states and Hawaii (all states except Alaska have a map, but not all areas of every state are mapped). These maps are coloured to represent different areas as being suitable or not for using GPR, due to local soil characteristics. Is it worth mentioning these in the section on 'Liitations' as this specifically mentions soil conditions, and linking to them? The address is https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053622 It seems the USA is leading the field here but if other maps for different jurisdictions exist or are created, we can expand the info to list other countries too. Markaeologist ( talk) 10:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
At present the GPR page is tagged as 'geology'. However, most of the information on the page is about Archaeology. I don't know about other countries but in the UK the majority of GPR is probably done to find utilities like water pipes and gas mains as part of building projects (eg new roads, housing developments etc) and for safety inspections. It's also used in fields as widespread as forensics and civil engineering. So is only having a 'Geology' tag on here appropriate, given that there's actually very little information about (eg) oil exploration? In terms of information 'Archaeology' would be a better tag, and some other tags might be appropriate too. Markaeologist ( talk) 11:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I mostly write about military radars, where "ground scanning radar" refers to a very specific concept first introduced by H2S (radar). These are radars that scan the ground, typically from the air. I have not heard of "ground scanning" being used to describe ground penetrating radars, but this may be simply because I don't read the right things... So is this really a widely used term for this concept, and is it more widely used than the existing H2S-like usage? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 13:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I want to know atmosphere effect on gpr radars
This is mentioned in the Richard Kregeg wiki article. There GPR is dismissed by historians ( what that means I am unsure of ) because it didn't find ground disturbance - of course this was at Treblinka ( really messed up a good story ). Is GPR reliable - if it finds that the ground has not been disturbed does it mean that the ground may have been massively disturbed or not. How would a 'historian" know the difference. I believe I recently saw GPR used in Mongolia? on a National Geographic archaeology show - they seemed to find it reliable but maybe it doesn't work well in Poland
159.105.80.219
14:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It is well-bandied-about that at current prices the world has 50 years of uranium deposits. (Note: fuel cost is very small in nuclear power plants, and price increases could easily be absorbed.) Is it possible to locate uranium deposits from space? Are there specific frequencies which Uranium-235 and Uranium-238 would reflect? Simesa 23:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The figure used as an illustration in this article really isn't all that illustrative, as it does not show any distinctive refections. I have access to lots of GPR data, and could contribute something showing interesting subsurface features. Tapatio 17:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
How about this (from my own work)? Tapatio 14:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad someone caught the parabolic vs. hyperbolic error. It was careless acquiescence to the spell check on my part. Tapatio 05:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
How about an illustration of GPR in use? Tapatio 17:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems like the external links section is almost all spam. It has been tagged with a spam warning, but nobody seems to want to fix it. What criteria might we apply in deciding what is spam and what is not?
- sites that provide more detail/examples--
CheMechanical
16:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- sites with proprietary GPR techniques or equipment--
CheMechanical
16:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- all others-- CheMechanical 16:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the ugliest of the spam from the external links. I don't think any of them could be justified under wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:External links, particularly Links normally to be avoided). I think that the links in the "Examples of GPR radargrams" section are a bit dodgy also, but they fullfill a need that is not currently met by the article. It would be nice to see a couple more examples of different applications and presentations within the article, then get rid of these links. Tapatio 15:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
-I work for a leading nondestructive testing firm, and I believe there is benefit in including my company website in the external links. Our project portfolio illustrates many different radar applications in infrastructure. There are also various images that show GPR processing and analysis. Is this appropriate for the external links section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan.guarino ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
In archaeology it has become the norm to view GPR data as time-slice plots of multiple lines of data, as well as vertical sections of individual lines. Is time slicing common enough in other disciplines to be discussed here? Tapatio 17:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Can we get a quick blurb on who invented it and when it was invented? I wanted to find out if it existed back in 1980 to answer someone's question elsewhere, but I couldn't find that information here. I found information on one site that said it was invented "in the 1970's" for the military, but nothing more specific or useful as a citation. -- Hi Ev 09:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
GPR has been used earlier than the 1970s. In September 1976, I was on a Coast Guard C-130 (USCG 1351) flight where we had a NASA crew, mini-computer, and a Side Looking Radar system. We used this to fly Alaska's North Slope and over the (North) Polar Ice Cap. This Radar system provided the thickness of: sea ice, flow ice and permafrost. We flew tracks that went East from Point Barrow to Canada's Yukon Territory, and West to Cape Lisburne. DeanRB 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC) DeanRB
The paragraph enumerating the limitations of GPR (The limitations of GPR are many in this current day and age...) seems a bit out of place in the introductory paragraph. Perhaps this subject can be spun off into its own heading. Tapatio ( talk) 15:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I started a rudimentary section an limitations. I don't have specific references, but I think it is all common knowledge to people in the field and non-controversial (previously it had some POV issues). Feel free to edit, expand, or expurgate. Tapatio ( talk) 18:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Can GPR be used effectively to locate buried facitlites such as buried pipes (4" to say 12"), or buried electrical cable with any kind of confidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.13.65 ( talk) 20:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This page has previously been purged of links to commercial websites of practitioners and manufacturers (see above). Lets keep it that way. See Links normally to be avoided and Advertising and conflicts of interest. Manufacturers and practitoners are welcome to make improvements to the content of the article, however. Tapatio ( talk) 14:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Some Russians were trying to develop GPR to work better in clay soils by increasing the transmitter power. [1] Has anything come from this? In many regions, they do not currently use GPR due to limitations of the soil. Landroo ( talk) 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I propose that the artical Ground penetrating radar survey (archaeology) be merged into the article for Ground penetrating radar as the principle is the same, the archaeological use of the technique is simply that, and does not really justify it's own article. The page Ground penetrating radar survey (archaeology) could then redirect to the main article. Trevor Marron ( talk) 15:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I want to know what frequenvies gpr radar uses, maybe a few more technical details. Also, what are the pulse energy ranges? Radzewicz ( talk) 08:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
In Iraq & Afghanistan, why do we still fall victim to embedded IEDs? Why can't GPR discover them before they detonate?
In the spirit of being allowed only to talk about how to improve the article, would anyone be so kind as to add the explanation onto it? Thanks. -- 70.179.174.101 ( talk) 01:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that a big section of this article is ripped straight from one website: http://www.jetsilverventures.com/ground-penetrating-radar-2/ , particularly the sections of applications, three-dimensional imaging, limitations and similar technologies. If this is the case, then this article needs a rewrite. Nwhit ( talk) 16:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The recent merger of this page with Ground penetrating radar (archaeology) is fine, except that it leaves the article with an overemphasis on archaeology. I would issue a challenge to specialists in other applications to help rectify this imbalance by writing sections related to their fields. Tapatio ( talk) 21:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
As an archaeologist working with GPR in other fields, I agree that the way the article is structured there's too much emphasis on archaeology. However, if you look at the section on archaeological uses of GPR, most of it is actually about GPR in general. I sugest moving the sections around so that the parts about general techniques are incuded with the main information and the odd sentence about archaeology not currently in the archaeology section be moved there.
Markaeologist ( talk) 10:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The table of "approximate penetration" and "smallest visible object[s]" has no sources and is uncited. It also seems fantastically optimistic. In my experience, the useful penetration of 225MHz and higher frequencies in clay is effectively zero. There can be some response in the near surface, but any deeper response is too faint to pick out from amidst the noise and "ringing" effects. There do seem to be exceptional clays in which GPR can work well, but I have not encountered this. The other figures seem unrealistic in real-world contexts as well. This table may have some theoretical basis, but not a practical one. Could the table be from some manufacturer's website, and intended to sell radar systems rather than accurately reflect practical limitations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapatio ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Why are the standard units for this table in Imperial measurements, with metric given in brackets? First, they're not SI (accepted as standard for scientific measurement worldwide), and secondly, only 5% of the planet officially uses them.
I suggest removing the Imperial units from the table and only leaving the SI units.
But, as the table itself has no provenance, and to my eyes at least looks quite optimistic (1.8m penetration in wet clay for a 500MHz rig? Seeing a 10cm pipe at 4m?) perhaps it should just be deleted.
EDIT: I see that User:Tapatio has already posted about the optimism of this table (not the SI units though!)
Markaeologist ( talk) 09:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
As discussed by both myself and Tapatío the table of depth penetration in 'Limitations' is not fit for purpose. It almost certainly comes from an advertisement not a serious technical discussion of the possibilities of getting real results.
I propose to delete it and welcome any feedback on that proposal (especially any good reasons why it should stay up).
Markaeologist ( talk) 11:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
In light of the fact that GPR is dependant on local conditions, the US Department of Agriculture produces some excellent 'GPR Soil Suitability Maps' covering the majority of the co-terminous states and Hawaii (all states except Alaska have a map, but not all areas of every state are mapped). These maps are coloured to represent different areas as being suitable or not for using GPR, due to local soil characteristics. Is it worth mentioning these in the section on 'Liitations' as this specifically mentions soil conditions, and linking to them? The address is https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053622 It seems the USA is leading the field here but if other maps for different jurisdictions exist or are created, we can expand the info to list other countries too. Markaeologist ( talk) 10:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
At present the GPR page is tagged as 'geology'. However, most of the information on the page is about Archaeology. I don't know about other countries but in the UK the majority of GPR is probably done to find utilities like water pipes and gas mains as part of building projects (eg new roads, housing developments etc) and for safety inspections. It's also used in fields as widespread as forensics and civil engineering. So is only having a 'Geology' tag on here appropriate, given that there's actually very little information about (eg) oil exploration? In terms of information 'Archaeology' would be a better tag, and some other tags might be appropriate too. Markaeologist ( talk) 11:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I mostly write about military radars, where "ground scanning radar" refers to a very specific concept first introduced by H2S (radar). These are radars that scan the ground, typically from the air. I have not heard of "ground scanning" being used to describe ground penetrating radars, but this may be simply because I don't read the right things... So is this really a widely used term for this concept, and is it more widely used than the existing H2S-like usage? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 13:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)