Comments on: Palmer, D., 2010. Is visual interactive ray trace an efficacious strategy for refraction inversion? Exploration Geophysics, 41, 260–267

Abstract

Palmer’s paper addresses visual interactive ray tracing (VIRT), specifically referring to Whiteley (2004) and Whiteley and Leung (undated). In these papers, field examples of seismic refraction data from Welcome Reef and Mt Bulga were re-interpreted using VIRTandwavepatheikonaltraveltime(WET)Tomography.These different approaches to near surface refraction interpretation assume very different earth models, from the discrete or ‘blocky’ modelsforVIRTtothecontinuousvelocitymodelsforWET.This enhanced flexibility permits more realistic seismic modelling in near-surface materials, spanning soils, weathered rock and fresh rocks. My comments and discussions address many of the technical deficiencies, inconsistencies, unsubstantiated statements and claims in Palmer’s paper. They are directed at improving the rigour with which near-surface refraction interpretations are undertaken and the quality of these interpretations. In the title, Palmer poses an incompletely defined question. It is not clear actually what ‘visual interactive ray trace’ is,