论文部分内容阅读
发表在《石油物探》八三年第四期上的“地震检波器‘相位差’不应作为出厂技术指标”一文(以下简称“不作指标”),我们认真进行了阅读,并对文章中的观点提出不同意见。 “不作指标”一文自始至终强调,“相差位”并不是一项独立指标,它主要由固有频率控制着,因此,不应把“相位差”也列入检波器出厂指标。而且文中明确断言,“相位差”与阻尼系数不相关,“相位差”不必提,只要提固有频率就可以了。我们认为检波器的“相位差”长期以来作为一项重要的出厂指标,这是符合地震勘探技术规范的,把“相位差”列为出厂指标至少不是技术错误,而“不作指标”一文结论性判断的提法是欠妥的。
We published the article “Phase Difference of Seismometer” not on the factory technical index published in the fourth phase of “Petroleum Geophysical Survey” in 1983, and we read it carefully. Opinion put forward different opinions. The “no indicators” emphasizes throughout, “phase difference” is not an independent indicator, it is mainly controlled by the natural frequency, therefore, should not be included in the “phase difference” detector factory indicators. And the article clearly asserted that the “phase difference” is not related to the damping coefficient, “phase difference” do not have to mention, as long as the mention of fixed frequency on it. We consider the “phase difference” of the detector as a long-term important indicator of the factory, which is in line with the technical specifications of seismic exploration. It is at least not a technical error to list the “phase difference” as the factory index, and the conclusion of “no index” Judgment of the reference is defective.