Pal and Dasgupta (1984) intended to present the results of a theoretical study about the conventional Wenner and Schlumberger vertical geoelectric sounding over a highly specialized inhomogeneous anisotropic subsurface. In a subsequent paper (Pal and Dasgupta 1985) they applied their previous study to a simplified model satisfying the same basic assumptions.I was at once attracted by the unusual titles, of the two papers. However, I was surprised at the total fallacy of the study. My criticism is detailed below.
T H E MODELThe authors assume a transverse conductivity c,., that varies with the distance r according to the law cr,.=ct(r/P)", where n, p, 6, are suitably chosen constants. The coefficient p must have the dimension of a length (see the authors' fig. 1). Obviously the transverse conductivity model has cylindrical symmetry around a vertical z-axis passing through a surface point 0, the location of the current source A , of direct current with intensity + I , i.e. A E 0.My criticism starts with the following preliminary questions.1. Which geological and geophysical observations can be approximated by that particular transverse conductivity model? 2. What is the material and/or physical significance of the vertical axis of symmetry (r = 0), where the transverse conductivity drastically reduces to zero when n is positive, or reaches infinity when n is negative? 3. How could one recognize, in the field, this axis, and in particular the location of point 0 in order to locate the current source A?Without an answer to these questions even the expert reader has difficulties to apply the ideas the authors have intended to propose.