## 4 Discussion of the Results  
As noted above, in the first experiment at station 3, the values of the upper crustal layer displacements were obtained at an order of magnitude lower than for the other stations. To explain this effect, we can make several assumptions. The most logical explanation for this may be that for some reason the acoustic energy does not pass into the bottom and remains in the liquid half-space. First of all, this could be due to the instability of the radiator. At each emission station, during the first experiment, we monitored the parameters of the emitted hydroacoustic field using a control hydrophone located 1 m from the acoustic axis of the radiator. The spectra of the recording of the control hydrophone are shown below, when the radiator is operating at each of the stations (Figure 6). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Station**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Displacement, nm**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Seismoacoustic Energy Density, J/m\({}^{2}\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Distance to Source, m**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Seismoacoustic Energy Density with**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Seismoacoustic Energy Density with**} \\  & & & & **Resard to Cylindrical** & **Regard to Spherical Divergence, J/m\({}^{2}\)** & **Divergence, J/m\({}^{2}\)** \\ \hline
1 & 0.71 & \(1.6\times 10^{-8}\) & 10,000 & \(1.6\times 10^{-4}\) & 1.6 \\
2 & 0.87 & \(0.236\times 10^{-9}\) & 10,000 & \(2.36\times 10^{-6}\) & \(2.36\times 10^{-2}\) \\
3 & 1.36 & \(0.31\times 10^{-9}\) & 10,000 & \(3.1\times 10^{-6}\) & \(3.1\times 10^{-2}\) \\
4 & 1.00 & \(0.84\times 10^{-9}\) & 10,000 & \(8.4\times 10^{-6}\) & \(8.4\times 10^{-2}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Calculation results based on the obtained data. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Station No. **} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Coordinates of the Radiation Stations**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Distance from LS, km**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Azimuth, deg**} \\ \hline
1 & N 42\({}^{\circ}\)36\({}^{\prime}\)20.3\({}^{\prime\prime}\), E 131\({}^{\circ}\)2\({}^{\prime}\)25.3\({}^{\prime\prime}\) & 10 & 283.85 \\
2 & N 42\({}^{\circ}\)32\({}^{\prime}\)26.9\({}^{\prime\prime}\), E 131\({}^{\circ}\)2\({}^{\prime}\)59.9\({}^{\prime\prime}\) & 10 & 240.95 \\
3 & N 42\({}^{\circ}\)29’39.4\({}^{\prime\prime}\), E 131\({}^{\circ}\)7’31.7\({}  
As can be seen from Figure 6, the radiator worked stably. There was a noticeable decrease in the amplitude of the signal at each of the subsequent stations. We associate this effect with an increase in the depth of the radiation stations: the greater the depth, the more acoustic energy goes into the aquatic environment, and the less energy remains in the near field of the radiator. Another reason may be a slight discharge of the accumulator batteries from which the radiator is powered, but this is unlikely and does not explain the low level of the seismoacoustic signal at station No. 3. The reason for the concentration of hydroacoustic energy in the water may also be related to the hydrological conditions during the experiment. In paragraph 2, we mentioned that during the experiment, measurements of hydrological parameters were made in each radiation station; their graphs are presented below (Figure 7). We can see from the presented graphs that, for the salinity, density, sound velocity, and temperature, there is a sharp change in behavior at depths in the range of 10-13 m. The radiator was submerged to the depth of 18 m, which was 5-8 m lower than the density jump. Considering that the wavelength of the radiated signal is significantly greater than these depths, we can state that such changes in hydrological parameters did not have a significant effect on the formation of a hydroacoustic wave at the frequency of 22 Hz (the frequency of the radiated signal). Let us try to explain this behavior by the peculiarities of the hydroacoustic energy transformation into seismoacoustic in the conditions of a wedge-shaped shelf.