Abstract
In conventional interpretation of electrical resistivity data, either one uses an empirical method (Moore, 1945) or an analytical method (Tagg, 1934; Roman, 1934; or Mooney and Wetzel, 1956). While the Tagg, Roman, and Mooney and Wetzel systems are based on theoretical considerations, they are tedious and time‐consuming. The Moore method, while it is very rapid, has the disadvantage of not yielding absolute values of resistivity. Sarma (1963) suggested a modification of the Moore method using Hummel’s (1931) principle, whereby one could obtain absolute values of resistivity. However it is seen that, under certain conditions, Sarma’s method yields resistivity values with a negative sign which cannot be interpreted as having any real physical significance in geological situations.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
