Bharat Rakshak

Originally posted by Kaushal: Hmmm ... sigh . People assume the ignorance of others far too readily. Didn't intend to. My understanding is that the differences in media is captured in the constant "a". That is all. This is a conclusion arrived upon by the "experts". The "do...

Originally posted by Kaushal: The simple fact of the matter is that teleseismological methods of estimating yield are just not accurate enough within an order of magnitude, not least because these are empirical formulae based on a dash of physics and a dollop of statistics. This is not surprising s...

Originally posted by sunil sainis: schawla > wallace quotes the Indian estimates. Where does he do this? He mentions the Indian estimates but never sources any of his claims of POK1 having an mb=4.9 . You maybe right. In the Seismic Research Letters, vol 69, p 386-393, the claim that mb=4.9 is not ...

Originally posted by sunil sainis: Yes but how is that relevant? The main questions are: what is the error on the western estimates of Y_pok1? As I understand, Wallace used the published or announced Y_pok1 yield by the Indian scientists so there is no need for "western estimates of Y_pok1&quo...

Originally posted by sunil sainis: > error in the (mb_pok2-mb_pok1) is small, the main source of error is the Y_pok1. Is not Y_pok1 declassified ? Good for him, what relevance that has to the issue of the Indian tests i fail to grasp. If Wallace is claiming that the US Govt. inflated the Soviet tes...

Seems like Deja-vu but we had a similar discussion some time ago and it was pointed out that in mb = a + 0.75LogY, the "a" can be factored out in case of POK because of data from the 74 test. But then Sunil Sainis pointed out that the ratio will not make sense because of instrumentation er...