\input vanilla.sty
\input seteps
\input psfig.sty

\font \bigbf=cmb10 scaled\magstep2

\line{}
\vskip -2 cm
\seteps{-1.5 cm}{4.0 cm}{4.0 cm}{c:/stood/481/class/logo481.eps}
\vskip -3 cm


\line{\hskip 3 em\hfill \bigbf LAB 9 \hfill}
\vskip 1 em
\line{\hskip 3 em\hfill\bigbf DEPTH ESTIMATES \hfill}
\line{\hskip 3 em\hfill\bigbf \hfill}

\vskip 5 em


\vskip 1 em \item{1)} Extract a few profiles from the detailed grid using
\it profilex. \rm These profiles
should be across strike, and over the shallow, middle, and deep ends of the source,
as defined by dipole or GM-SYS modeling.  

\vskip 1 em\item{2)} Use the E-line method, Werners method, and 
Logachev's method to find the position of the source along the profile.
These are all methods for finding the top of a dike, so they should work
well with the field school target in block 1. What is the recovered strike of the target,
and how well does it compare with the strike found from dipole modeling? Werners method also gives the position of the
'zero-line'. This should be readily apparent by eye, but does the result from
Werners method agree with the 'eyeball' estimate?

\vskip 1 em\item{3)} Use Peters method, the Linear Slope Distance, and
one other depth-to-source method. These depths should be compared
with each other, and with depths found from the modeling exercises. Does
the indicated plunge of the source agree with the inclination of
polarization found from modeling?



\vfill
\eject
\bye
\vskip 1 cm
\centerline{\psfig{figure=c:/stood/481/labs/colonsaylsd.ps,height=3.0 in,width=3.9 in,angle=-90}}
\vskip 1 cm
