I had initially thought this was a road line, but it doesn’t line up with the roads seen in the wider magnetometer surveys of the park. The bank is less pronounced as it curves around through the garden and the orchard in the NW corner of the area.
The highest ground is the bank along the SW edge of the paddock with a steep slope along one edge. 3, we can see that the two surveys show pretty much the same thing. Ignoring the areas outside the paddock / gardens in Fig. 3: Topographic map derived from the UAV survey.
Big pipe timeslice series#
Secondly, Peter Alley used his DJI Phantom UAV to take a series of aerial photographs which can be used to create a topographic model using a technique called “structure from motion”.įig. Firstly, I walked back and forth taking readings with the dGPS at six-pace intervals, or closer if there was a change of slope such as a bank. We did two types of topographic surveying. I am going to start by discussing the topography because this has an impact on the results and the interpretation. Lastly, we did two resistivity pseudo-sections and two topographic surveys, one using the dGPS and one using a UAV and “structure from motion”. We managed quite a bit of GPR, but not much resistance survey, partly due to manpower and time, and partly due to the stunningly uninteresting results. We also aimed to try and cover as much as possible using GPR and Earth Resistance. Our principal aim was to complete the area using magnetometry.
Big pipe timeslice cracked#
Life has been a bit busy, and the data processing got a bit complicated, but I think I have cracked it now. The results from Darrowfieldįirst of all, apologies for the delay to this post. This entry was posted in Chisbury and tagged ahrc, Burghal hidage, CAGG, chapel, Chisbury, geophysical survey, GPR, hillfort, magnetometer, magnetometry survey, ucl, Wiltshire on Apby hertsgeosurvey. Lastly, but certainly not least, thanks to the stud and the farm for allowing us to play on their land. Many thanks too to the members of the local group who came to help: Shaun Wilson, James Kay and Lynn Amadio. Many thanks to those CAGG members who came all this way to do the survey: Ellen Shlasko, Ruth Halliwell, Peter Alley, Jim West, Nigel Harper-Scott and Mike Smith. There are, however, features which would be worth investigating further, and hopefully we will get to “ground truth” some of these features as part of Andrew Reynolds and Stuart Brookes’ wider project. Giving the billing this site has, the results are not all that stunning. 17) which one could try to make into buildings, but I find myself suspicious that these features are close to the water tank and they may be something to do with the tank’s construction. The southern area has more high reflections, especially in slice 5 (Fig. The last time slice shows the suggested pipe from the tank to the pond. 20: GPR time slice 8 from 25.5 to 28.5ns. We managed just a couple of days of GPR survey thanks to some local help.įig. What is curious, however, is how much of this area seems devoid of any features at all.Īlthough the mag results are not exciting in the sense of being able to clearly see a building, as we often do at Verulamium, there is quite a bit of detailed information buried in the data. There are, however, quite a few pits once more, and I have marked just a small selection. There are some areas with such high ferrous noise it is impossible to see anything, for example the north end of the eastern field. I am guessing this is some sort of drainage / outflow from the water tank to the pond. This can also be seen in the GPR data (below). The dark blue line is a negative-magnetism feature which runs from the edge of the water tank to the pond. The cyan lines mark the possible field drains. I have marked just one piece of ferrous rubbish with a red arrow, there are lots more. 13 the red line is the pipe which joins the main water tank in the middle of the field. 13: the mag survey of the southern part of the site.
0 kommentar(er)
