Dear Raechel
The answer to your question is a bit
chicken-and-egg-ish.
If your data is well behaved (simple distribution,
pretty continuous) then you can get meaningful results
from very few samples (probably not less than 20 or
so!!)
We have examples in the book with data sets of 27 and
up. The 27 one is no good for geostatistics but this
has more to do with the fact that the samples are 1km
apart when the range of influence is probably about
125 metres. The main tutorial set in the old book
(available free at
http://uk.geocities.com/drisobelclark/practica.html)
which we now call "Page 95" has 50 samples very
inefficiently placed which still yield good results
for interpretation and estimation purposes. Even more
so for simulation basis.
So, I would say, go ahead and try it but look at your
distribution before you go to geostatistics. Small
data sets will give much better results if Normal
(Gaussian) or normalised or transformed in some other
way.
If I can be of any more help, please let me know
Isobel Clark
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
--
* To post a message to the list, send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* As a general service to the users, please remember to post a summary of any useful
responses to your questions.
* To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with no subject and "unsubscribe
ai-geostats" followed by "end" on the next line in the message body. DO NOT SEND
Subscribe/Unsubscribe requests to the list
* Support to the list is provided at http://www.ai-geostats.org
