# Once is never

Image by ZEEVVEEZ on Flickr, licensed CC-BY. Ten points if you can tell what it is...

My eldest daughter is in grade 5, so she's getting into some fun things at school. This week the class paired off to meet a challenge: build a container to keep hot water hot. Cool!

The teams built their contraptions over the weekend, doubtless with varying degrees of rule interpretation (my daughter's involved HotHands hand warmers, which I would not have thought of), and the results were established with a side-by-side comparison. Someone (not my daughter) won. Kudos was achieved.

But this should not be the end of the exercise. So far, no-one has really learned anything. Stopping here is like grinding wheat but not making bread. Or making dough, but not baking it. Or baking it, but not making it into toast, buttering it, and covering it in Marmite...

Great, now I'm hungry.

### The rest of the exercise

How could this experiment be improved?

For starters, there was a critical component missing: control. Adding a vacuum flask at one end, and an uninsulated beaker at the other would have set some useful benchmarks.

There was a piece missing from the end too: analysis. A teardown of the winning and losing efforts would have been quite instructive. Followed by a conversation about the relative merits of different insulators, say. I can even imagine building on the experience. How about a light introduction to thermodynamic theory, or a stab at simple numerical modeling? Or a design contest? Or a marketing plan?

### What does this have to do with geoscience?

Apart from being played by 100 million people, the game has attracted a lot of attention from geospatial nerds over the last 12–18 months. Or rather, the Minecraft environment has. The game chiefly consists of fabricating, placing and breaking 1-m-cubed blocks of various materials. Even in normal use, people create remarkable structures, and I don't just mean 'big' or 'cool', I mean truly remarkable. So the attention from the British Geological Survey and the Danish Geodata Agency. If you've spent any time building geocellular models, then the process of constructing elaborate digital models is familiar to you. And perhaps it's not too big a leap to see how the virtual world of Minecraft could be an interesting way to model the subsurface.

Still I was surprised when, chatting to Thomas Rapstine at the Geophysics Hackathon in Denver, he mentioned Joe Capriotti and Yaoguo Li, fellow researchers at Colorado School of Mines. Faced with the problem of building 3D earth models for simulating geophysical experiments — a problem we've faced with modelr.io — they hit on the idea of adapting Minecraft models. This is not just a gimmick, because Minecraft is specifically designed for simulating and manipulating landscapes.

The Minecraft model (left) and synthetic gravity data (right). Image ©2014 SEG and Capriotti & Li. Used in acordance with SEG's permissions

If you'd like to dabble in geospatial Minecraft yourself, the FME software from Safe now has a standardized way to get Minecraft data into and out of the environment. Essentially they treat the blocks as point clouds (e.g. as you might get from Lidar or a laser scan), so they can do conventional operations, such as differences or filtering, with the software. They recorded a webinar on the subject yesterday.

### Minecraft is here to stay

There are two other important angles to Minecraft, both good reasons why it will probably be around for a while, and probably both something to do with

1. It is a programming gateway drug. Like web coding, and image processing, Minecraft might be another way to get people, especially young people, interested in computing. The tiny Linux machine Raspberry Pi comes with a version of the game with a full Python API, so you can control the game programmatically.
2. Its potential beyond programming as a STEM teaching aid and engagement tool. Here's another example. Indeed, the United Nations is involved in Block By Block, an effort around collaborative public space design echoing the Blockholm project, an early attempt to explore social city planning in the tool.

All of which is enough to make me more curious about the crazy-sounding world my kids have built, with its Houston-like city planning: house, school, house, Home Sense, house, rocket launch pad...

References

Capriotti, J and Yaoguo Li (2014) Gravity and gravity gradient data: Understanding their information content through joint inversions. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2014: pp. 1329-1333. DOI 10.1190/segam2014-1581.1

The thumbnail image is from an image by Terry Madeley.

UPDATE: Thank you to Andy for pointing out that Yaoguo Li is a prof, not a student.

### Matt Hall

I am a geoscientist in Nova Scotia, Canada. Founder of Agile Geoscience, co-founder of The HUB South Shore. Into geology, geophysics, programming in Python, and knowledge sharing (especially wikis).

# What is anisotropy?

Geophysicists often assume that the earth is isotropic. This word comes from 'iso', meaning same, and 'tropikos', meaning something to do with turning. The idea is that isotropic materials look the same in all directions — they have no orientation, and we can make measurements in any direction and get the same result. Note that this is different from homogeneous, which is the quality of uniformity of composition. You can think of anisotropy as a directional (not just spatial) variation in homogeneity.

In the illustration, I may have cheated a bit. The lower-left image shows a material that is homogeneous but anisotropic. The thin lines are supposed to indicate microfractures, say, or the alignment of clay flakes, or even just stress. So although the material has uniform composition, at least at this scale, it has an orientation.

The recognition of the earth's anisotropy is a dominant theme among papers in our forthcoming 52 Things book on rock physics. It's not exactly a new thing — it was an emerging trend 10 years ago when Larry Lines at U of C reviewed Milo Backus's famous 'challenges' (Lines 2005). And even then, the spread of anisotropic processing and analysis had been underway for almost 20 years since Leon Thomsen's classic 1986 paper, Weak elastic anisotropy. This paper introduced three parameters that we need—alongside the usual $$V_\text{P}$$, $$V_\text{S}$$, and $$\rho$$—to describe anisotropy. They are $$\delta$$ (delta), $$\epsilon$$ (epsilon), and $$\gamma$$ (gamma), collectively referred to as Thomsen's parameters

• $$\delta$$ or delta — the short offset effect — captures the relationship between the velocity required to flatten gathers (the NMO velocity) and the zero-offset average velocity as recorded by checkshots. It's easy to measure, but perhaps hard to understand in physical terms.
• $$\epsilon$$ or epsilon — the long offset effect — is, according to Thomsen himself:  "the fractional difference between vertical and horizontal P velocities; i.e., it is the parameter usually referred to as 'the' anisotropy of a rock". Unfortunately, the horizontal velocity is rather hard to measure.
• $$\gamma$$ or gamma — the shear wave effect — relates, as rock physics meister Colin Sayers put it on Twitter, a horizontal shear wave with horizontal polarization to a vertical shear wave. He added, "$$\gamma$$ can be determined in a single well using sonic. So the correlation with $$\epsilon$$ and $$\delta$$ is of great interest."

Sidenote to aspiring authors: Thomsen's seminal paper, which has been cited over 2800 times, is barely 13 pages long. Three and a half of those pages are taken up by... data! A huge table containing the elastic parameters of almost 60 samples. And this is from a corporate scientist at Amoco. So no more excuses: publish you data! </rant>

### Vertical transverse what now?

The other bit of jargon you will come across is the concept of transverse isotropy, which is a slightly perverse (to me) way of expressing the orientation of the anisotropy effect. In vertical transverse isotropy, the horizontal velocity is different from the vertical velocity. Think of flat-lying shales with gravity dominating the stress field. Usually, the velocity is faster along the beds than it is across the beds. This manifests as nonhyperbolic moveout in the far offsets, in particular a pull-up or 'hockey stick' effect in the gathers — the arrivals are unexpectedly early at long offsets. Clearly, this will also affect AVO analysis

There's more jargon. If the rocks are dipping, we call it tilted transverse isotropy, or TTI. But if the anisotropies, so to speak, are oriented vertically — as with fractures, for example, or simply horizontal stress — then it's horizontal transverse isotropy, or HTI. This causes azimuthal (compass directional) travel-time variations. We can even venture into situations where we encounter orthorhombic anisotropy, as in the combined VTI/HTI model shown above. It's easy to imagine how these effects, if not accounted for in processing, can (and do!) result in suboptimal seismic images. Accounting for them is not easy though, and trying can do more harm than good.

If you have handy rules of thumb of ways of conceptualizing anisotropy, I'd love to hear about them. Some time soon I want to write about thin-layer anisotropy, which is where this post was going until I got sidetracked...

References

Lines, L (2005). Addressing Milo's challenges with 25 years of seismic advances. The Leading Edge 24 (1), 32–35. DOI 10.1190/1.2112389.

Thomsen, L (1986). Weak elastic anisotropy. Geophysics 51 (10), 1954–1966. DOI 10.1190/1.1442051.

### Matt Hall

I am a geoscientist in Nova Scotia, Canada. Founder of Agile Geoscience, co-founder of The HUB South Shore. Into geology, geophysics, programming in Python, and knowledge sharing (especially wikis).

# The (bad) stuff of legend

What is a legend? Merriam–Webster says:

1. A story from the past that is believed by many people but cannot be proved to be true.
2. An explanatory list of the symbols on a map or chart.

I think we can combine these:

An explanatory list from the past that is believed by many to be useful but which cannot be proved to be.

Maybe that goes too far, sometimes you need a legend. But often, very often, you don't. At the very least, you should always try hard to make the legend irrelevant. Why, and how, can you do this?

### A case study

On the right is a non-scientific caricature of a figure from a paper I just finished reviewing for Geophysics. I won't give any more details because I don't want to pick on it unduly — lots of authors make the same mistakes.

Here are some of the things I think are confusing about this figure, detracting from the science in the paper.

• Making the reader cross-reference the line decoration with the legend makes it harder to make the comparison you're asking them to make. Just label the lines directly.
• Using unhelpful, generic names like 1, 2, and 3 for the models leads the reader into cross-reference Inception. The models were shown and explained on the previous page.
• Inception again: the models 1, 2, and 3 were shown in the previous figure parts (a), (b), and (c) respectively. So I had to cross-reference deeper still to really find out about them.
• The paper used colour elsewhere, so the use of black and white line decoration here seems unnecessary. There are other ways to ensure clarity if the paper is photocopied.
• Everything on the same visual plane, so to speak, so the chart cannot take any more detail, such as gridlines.

### Getting better

I have tried to fix some of this in the version of the figure shown here. It's the same size as the original. The legend, such as it is, is now a visual key to the models. Careful juxtaposition of figures could obviate the need even for this extra key. The idea would be to use the colours and names of the models in every figure, to link them more intuitively.

The principles at work:

• Reduce the fatigue of reading by labeling things directly.
• Avoid using 'a' and 'b' or other generic names. Call the parts before and after, or 8 ms gate and 16 ms gate
• Put things you want people to compare next to each other: models with data, output with input, etc.
• Use less ink for decoration, more ink for data. Gently direct the reader's attention.

I'm sure there are other improvements we could make. Do you have any tips to share for making better figures? Leave them in the comments.

### Update, 30 Jan 2015

Some great comments came in today, and the point about black and white is well taken. Indeed, our 52 Things books are all black and white, and I end up transforming most images and figures to (I hope) make them clearer without colour. Here's how I'd do this figure in black and white.