1-20 of 9916 Search Results for

Decay rate

Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account

Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Close Modal
Sort by
Proceedings Papers

Paper presented at the 1989 SEG Annual Meeting, October 29–November 2, 1989
Paper Number: SEG-1989-1125
... ABSTRACT No preview is available for this paper. noise amplitude synthetic seismic line amplitude trace equalized stack seismic line amplitude decay rate noisy trace editing editing optimum stack deviation straight stack upstream oil & gas seismic data variation...
Images
Measured time <span class="search-highlight">decay</span> of the borehole neutron flux. Early <span class="search-highlight">decay</span> <span class="search-highlight">rate</span> is deter...
Published: 01 March 1988
Figure 8 Measured time decay of the borehole neutron flux. Early decay rate is determined by the thermal-neutron cross section of materials within the borehole; late decay follows the decay of the formation. More
Images
Creep-<span class="search-highlight">decay</span> <span class="search-highlight">rate</span> ( r ) vs. temperature. Note that 30°C is the initial tempe...
Published: 14 April 2021
Fig. 9 Creep-decay rate ( r ) vs. temperature. Note that 30°C is the initial temperature, and therefore creep at this temperature step is mainly caused by stress. More
Images
Instantaneous exponential <span class="search-highlight">decay</span> <span class="search-highlight">rate</span> for Sample E6. Solid line = measuremen...
Published: 01 September 1988
Figure B-3 Instantaneous exponential decay rate for Sample E6. Solid line = measurement; dotted = stretched-exponential model; dashed = two-exponential model. The bump in the measured curve at 1 second arises because the final magnetization value (1,517.1; see parameter values in the box) is somew... More
Images
Sigma is derived from the <span class="search-highlight">decay</span> <span class="search-highlight">rate</span> in the Capture part of the spectrum. V...
Published: 09 September 2003
Figure 9 Sigma is derived from the decay rate in the Capture part of the spectrum. Vapor (gas or steam) has a much lower decay rate than fluid or rock. This difference allows: (1) gas to be distinguished from fluid and (2) gas saturation to be quantified. Carbon/Oxygen (C/O) is derived from the in... More
Images
Images
Stage wise <span class="search-highlight">decay</span> <span class="search-highlight">rate</span> distribution for (a) 6H and (b) 8H.
Published: 01 February 2016
Figure 8 Stage wise decay rate distribution for (a) 6H and (b) 8H. More
Images
Images
Water hammer <span class="search-highlight">decay</span> <span class="search-highlight">rate</span> correlates to fracture network as additional fricti...
Published: 27 March 2017
Figure 2 Water hammer decay rate correlates to fracture network as additional frictions within the wave path dampen the signal (adapted from Ciezobka 2016 ) More
Images
<span class="search-highlight">Decay</span> <span class="search-highlight">rate</span> is correlated with the average proppant concentration (ppa).
Published: 27 March 2017
Figure 13 Decay rate is correlated with the average proppant concentration (ppa). More
Images
(left) Amplitude, (middle) <span class="search-highlight">decay</span> <span class="search-highlight">rate</span>, and (right) duration of the signal c...
Published: 27 March 2017
Figure 15 (left) Amplitude, (middle) decay rate, and (right) duration of the signal colored by fluid type, grouped into 2000 bbl bins to normalize the influence of fluid volume on water hammer characteristics. More
Images
(left) Average <span class="search-highlight">decay</span> <span class="search-highlight">rate</span> per well section (heel-middle-toe) completed in t...
Published: 27 March 2017
Figure 16 (left) Average decay rate per well section (heel-middle-toe) completed in the Niobrara, and (right) average tracer concentration by well section produced and communicating to neighboring wells. More
Images
(left) Average <span class="search-highlight">Decay</span> <span class="search-highlight">Rate</span> per well section (heel-middle-toe) completed in t...
Published: 27 March 2017
Figure 17 (left) Average Decay Rate per well section (heel-middle-toe) completed in the Wolfcamp, and (right) average tracer concentration by well section produced and communicating to neighboring wells. More
Images
(left) <span class="search-highlight">Decay</span> <span class="search-highlight">rate</span> increases with early production indicating the effect of ...
Published: 27 March 2017
Figure 18 (left) Decay rate increases with early production indicating the effect of formation properties on the water hammer signal, and (right) duration increases with production across both basins, indicating possible stimulation effects. More
Images
The effect of HY-2 concentration on foam <span class="search-highlight">decay</span> <span class="search-highlight">rate</span>
Published: 08 April 2012
Fig. 5 The effect of HY-2 concentration on foam decay rate More
Images
The effect of SDS concentration on foam <span class="search-highlight">decay</span> <span class="search-highlight">rate</span>
Published: 08 April 2012
Fig. 6 The effect of SDS concentration on foam decay rate More
Images
The effect of СТАВ concentration on foam <span class="search-highlight">decay</span> <span class="search-highlight">rate</span>
Published: 08 April 2012
Fig. 7 The effect of СТАВ concentration on foam decay rate More
Images
Effect of particle size on foam <span class="search-highlight">decay</span> <span class="search-highlight">rate</span>
Published: 08 April 2012
Fig. 9 Effect of particle size on foam decay rate More
Images
Foam <span class="search-highlight">decay</span> <span class="search-highlight">rate</span> comparison of HY-2 and HY-2&#x2F;THL
Published: 08 April 2012
Fig. 10 Foam decay rate comparison of HY-2 and HY-2/THL More
Images
time based fitted mud motor efficiency shows −0.121% per hour <span class="search-highlight">decay</span> <span class="search-highlight">rate</span> Bo...
Published: 19 October 2020
Figure 5 Top time based fitted mud motor efficiency shows −0.121% per hour decay rate Bottom – depth based fitted mud motor efficiency shows −0.222% per 100ft decay rate More

Product(s) added to cart

Close Modal