## 3 Description of the Obtained Results: Processing and Interpretation
In particular, we are interested in the laws of energy attenuation, by which we can judge the processes of transformation of the acoustic into the seismoacoustic field. In this case, we consider the spherical and cylindrical divergence. For this experiment, the conditions of cylindrical divergence should correspond to stations 1, 2, and 3, since the depth of radiation is less or commensurate with the wavelength of the radiated signal (68 m). This means that the formation of the acoustic field will be influenced by the bottom, most of the energy will be concentrated in the liquid half-space, and its attenuation will be proportional to the square root of the distance to the receiving point. At radiation station 4, the depth is many times greater than the wavelength, respectively, and a free acoustic field will be formed, which is less affected by the seabed. In this case, we can talk about spherical divergence, and the attenuation will be proportional to the distance from the radiation source to the receiving system. Knowing the seismoacoustic energy density at the receiving point and the distance to the radiator, we can recalculate the energy density at the point of radiation according  
Figure 4: Spectra of the laser strainmeter record, obtained during operation of the low-frequency hydroacoustic radiator at station No. 1 (**a**), station No. 1 (**b**), station No. 3 (**c**), and station No. 4 (**d**). to the cylindrical and spherical divergence and compare them. The calculation results are summarized in Table 2.  
Analyzing the results of the calculations given in Table 2, it becomes clear that we did not obtain the exact results we expected. It would be logical to assume that if the acoustic energy at each point of radiation is the same, then, when recalculated taking into account the cylindrical divergence, we should have obtained the same values of energy density at stations 1-3, and at station 4, the energy should have been different from all the others. However, considering the results, given in the last column of the table, we see that the energy (energy density) spreads from the emission site at each station to the laser strainmeter according to spherical laws, i.e., it is not localized in the liquid half-space. It can also be seen that the values of the energy density at station 3 are much smaller; we consider in detail the reasons for this in the discussion. In order to be convinced of the correctness of the conclusions, let us consider one more experiment. Unlike the experiment presented above, the radiation was conducted at different points, at the same distance of 10 km from the laser strainmeter. The scheme of the experiment is presented in Figure 5. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Station**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Displacement, nm**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Seismoacoustic Energy Density, J/m2**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Distance to Source, m**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Seismoacoustic Energy Density with**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Seismoacoustic Energy Density with**} \\  & & & & **Regard to Cylindrical** & **Regard to Spherical** \\  & & & & **Divergence, J/m2** & **Divergence, J/m2** \\ \hline
1 & 2.5 & 1.44 \(\times 10^{-9}\) & 4834 & 6.96 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) & 3.4 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) \\
2 & 0.91 & 0.194 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-9}\) & 13,0/71 & 2.5 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) & 3.3 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) \\
3 & 0.15 & 0.0047 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-9}\) & 21,774 & 0.1 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) & 0.2 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) \\
4 & 0.29 & 0.028 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-9}\) & 34,204 & 0.96 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) & 3.3 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Densities of seismoacoustic energy at the receiving point and at the emission points considering cylindrical and spherical divergence. Figure 5: Schematic map of the experiment. LS—laser strainmeter, 1–4—radiation stations.