Talk:Ground-penetrating radar

message: I want to know atmosphere effect on gpr radars
:What do you mean by the atmospheric effect? The radar pulses are sent into the ground. However, if the transmitter antenna is not shielded it emits radiation everywhere. Thus, nearby buildings and trees also cause reflections that may be seen in the measured data. Is this what you mean or am I missing something?
::Most GPRs have an antenna in contact with the ground. No atmospherics. Dominick (TALK) 12:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes you unintentionally get nice images of overhead power-lines where you think you are looking at the ground. The antennae try to have contact with the ground, however, it is difficult to focus this range of frequency (even with shielding), and power-lines provide lots of noise.+mwtoews 09:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything about the conditions at the site in Poland, but GPR is not effective in some soils, particularly those containing clay. This is well known, and experienced practitioners will use other geophysical methods where conditions are not appropriate for GPR. It is all too common, however, to see it applied inappropriately. Tapatio 22:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: 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)
replies: text: A radar of all types give the instrument an measure of the reflection coefficient. It would depends on specific ores and specific substrata. Usually buried objects can be found only a short distance underground. Specifically a particular element may resonate in a native ore at a particular frequency. Frankly when people say we are running out of element X, that usually precedes the discovery of a rich source or it starts the sales pitch for an investment scheme. Uranium in sea water and in undersea deposits have never ben exploited, so I would say we have many centuries of supply. Dominick (TALK) 12:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Locate uranium deposits from space?

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, and I've briefly looked for something through the USGS websites (because it is public domain), but haven't done a serious search .. you could try to help out by looking on their websites for something more interesting. +mwtoews 17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, that is certainly improved, since there is something to see. I'll replace the first example photo.+mwtoews 16:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better illustration? 

message: 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?
=== Keep ===
- sites that provide more detail/examples--CheMechanical 16:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be inclined to discard commercial sites with proprietary GPR techniques or equipment. They are basically advertising their products or services. If such sites represent the mainstream of GPR practice or instrumentation, this should be treated in the body of the article. If they represent important advances, these could be mentioned in an appropriate section as well. Tapatio 20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be more appropriate to edit this article. It needs work, and expert contributions would be welcome, as would graphic examples (radargrams or photos) of different applications. Tapatio (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: - sites that provide more detail/examples--CheMechanical 16:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be inclined to discard commercial sites with proprietary GPR techniques or equipment. They are basically advertising their products or services. If such sites represent the mainstream of GPR practice or instrumentation, this should be treated in the body of the article. If they represent important advances, these could be mentioned in an appropriate section as well. Tapatio 20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep 

message: - all others--CheMechanical 16:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discard/Remove 

message: 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)
replies: text: It would be more appropriate to edit this article. It needs work, and expert contributions would be welcome, as would graphic examples (radargrams or photos) of different applications. Tapatio (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I did it 

message: 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)
thread_title: Time slicing

message: 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. -- HiEv 09:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inventor and date? 

message: 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)
replies: text: It should certainly be in its own section (below "Applications"), and I was going to move and reword it when it was added, but I haven't ... so dive in! (It also needs some references). +mt 16:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limitations 

message: 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)
replies: text: It often used for that purpose. It can be very successful when used appropriately and under favorable conditions. Tapatio (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spam revisited 

message: Some Russians were trying to develop GPR to work better in clay soils by increasing the transmitter power.
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)
thread_title:  Future Developments? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Support. I'm not sure what exactly needs to be merged. Maybe the Applications section should be elaborated, and the references from the other article can be pulled over? +mt 20:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Ambivalent. As it stands I would agree, but a fuller treatment of the subject would merit its own article. I had originally intended to elaborate upon the archaeological applications for GPR, along with separate articles on resistance and magnetic surveys in archaeology. Unfortunately, My work schedule has kept me from devoting any time to it. Nobody else has stepped up to the plate either, in spite of some initial enthusiasm from certain parties. Tapatio (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Support one of two moves: either that suggested, or to Geophysical survey (archaeology). Awickert (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title: Question

message: 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)
replies: text: If you look at old versions of this article, you can see that it has been developing gradually over several years. So it's pretty clear that the other site is copying ground-penetrating radar. This is not unusual - WP articles often have several clones on the Web. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The other site is indeed using material lifted from Wikipedia. I wrote some of the text (for Wikipedia) and took one of the photos myself! They may certainly do that, but it really places their credibility in doubt. Tapatio (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's copying who? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Table in 'Limitations' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal for 'Limitations' section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Presuming that you are referring to the WikiProject template at the top of this page, you don't need to ask here whether you can add others, . Just go ahead and do it if you think it is appropriate. Only if someone subsequently objects do you really need to discuss a simple and (hopefully) uncontroversial matter like this. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done, for Archaeology at least. Markaeologist (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a tag for Archaeology? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is this really synonymous with ground "scanning"