− | It is futile to attempt to define accurately the vertical dimension, Z, of adjacent source bodies with [[magnetics]] because of the inherent ambiguity of potential field methods in determining Z (see, e.g. .<ref name=ch14r8>Skeels, D., C., 1947, Ambiguity in gravity interpretation: Geophysics, vol. 12, p. 43–56., 10., 1190/1., 1437295</ref> Furthermore, seismic and subsurface methods measure depth so much more accurately than magnetics that it is unwise to try to compete with these excellent techniques. This is not to say, however, that we should not use magnetics to estimate the approximate thickness of the sedimentary section in a new basin, i.e., in determining whether it is 2, 5, or [[length::10 km]] thick, for example, to a usual accuracy of about ±15% under f[[avo]]rable conditions. | + | It is futile to attempt to define accurately the vertical dimension, Z, of adjacent source bodies with [[magnetics]] because of the inherent ambiguity of potential field methods in determining Z (see, e.g. .<ref name=ch14r8>Skeels, D., C., 1947, Ambiguity in gravity interpretation: Geophysics, vol. 12, p. 43–56., 10., 1190/1., 1437295</ref> Furthermore, seismic and subsurface methods measure depth so much more accurately than magnetics that it is unwise to try to compete with these excellent techniques. This is not to say, however, that we should not use magnetics to estimate the approximate thickness of the sedimentary section in a new basin, i.e., in determining whether it is 2, 5, or [[length::10 km]] thick, for example, to a usual accuracy of about ±15% under favorable conditions. |