Reply to N. C. Steenland by the authors
We welcome the chance to respond to the comments by Steenland on our two recent papers. Let us first acknowledge the gap that exists between geophysical practice, discussed by Steenland, and geophysics research development of the type presented in our papers. It is correct, healthy, and inevitable that such a gap should exist and yet understandable that not all techniques get transferred (as a successful example, take use of log spectral density which, while problematical from an analytical point of view, is widely used to ascertain depth to sources; Spector and Grant, 1970). On the other hand, we are reluctant to concede defeat in our case (and this applies to a host of similar theoretical studies of potential‐field interpretation) simply on the basis of there being limitations to the theory. Where theoretical demonstrations of a new technique are found to be practically useful, they will be adopted (often with appropriate modifications) by the industry; a good example is the use of Werner deconvolution, quoted by Steenland. Even where their limitations prevent this, theoretical developments often show the way for future studies.