A comparison is made using a 3D model between the response of the magnetic prospection (M.) response and the electromagnetic (E.M.) prospection one for the same feature. From this comparison the investigation depth of both methods is discussed. Three other main points are then studied: the influence of the shape of the feature and of the primary field, the significance of the measurements and the influence of parasites. Contrary to some preceding studies, the conclusion points out that the E.M. method is very valuable and more interesting to develop than the M. method.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alain Tabbagh (1984) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: