Geophysicists Debate in Their Own Peculiar Language

ARGUMENTS and discussions were not lacking either Wednesday or Thursday mornings, when the geophysicists got together. The first session, under the chairmanship of Paul Weaver, was devoted largely to theoretical papers, except for the first one by F. W. Lee, which was a progress report. This speaker mentioned some of the high lights of geophysical exploration during the last year, such as the recently announced extension of the Rand gold fields through magnetic exploration, and the continued activity in the oil fields of this country. Even this brought forth some disagreements, Paul Weaver feeling that credit was being given geophysics where it was not due for the discovery of certain oil fields. In this criticism Everette DeGolyer concurred, and both agreed that geophysicists must lean over backward when it comes to taking credit for discoveries. The troublesome question of interpreting resistivity curves is always being aired, and Lynn G. Howell's paper, presented briefly by the chairman, served to clear up a moot point raised last year by M. King Hubbert's work. By use of Maxwell's theory of images the author calculated that the effect of a thin, conductive sheet placed perpendicularly across the middle of a four electrode system should bring the resistivity curve up to a figure equivalent to the resistivity of the surrounding medium, but no higher. Variations from this he explained as being due to dirt on the surface of the sheet. The difficult question of interpreting three-layer curves was tackled bravely in Thomas Manhart's paper, presented in abstract by S. F. Kelly. The author seems to be attaining some success through dividing three-layer curves into two approximation curves of the two-layer type.