On Helmert?s methods of condensation

Abstract

Helmert’s first and second method of condensation are reviewed and generalized in two respects: First, the point at which the effects of topographical and condensation masses are calculated may be situated on or outside the topographical surface; second, the depth of the condensation layer below the geoid is arbitrary. While the first extension permits the application of the generalized model to the evaluation of airborne and satellite data, the second one gives an additional degree of freedom which can be used to provide a smooth gravity field after reducing the observation data. The respective formulae are derived for the generalized condensation model in both planar and spherical approximation. A comparison of the planar and the spherical model shows some structural differences, which are primarily visible in the out-of-integral terms. Considering the respective formulae for the combined topographic–condensation reduction on the background of the density structure of the Earth’s lithosphere, the consequences for the residual gravity field are investigated; it is shown that the residual field after applying Helmert’s second model of reduction is very rough, making this procedure unfavourable for downward continuation. Further considerations refer to the question of which sets of formulae should be used in geoid and quasigeoid determination. It is concluded that for high-precision applications the generalized spherical model, involving a depth of the condensation layer of between 20 and 30 km, should be superior to Helmert’s second model of condensation, although it requires the direct calculation of the indirect effect, which is larger than in the case of Helmert’s second method of condensation.