...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Current Science: A Fortnightly Journal of Research >Yield estimation of Indian nuclear tests of 1998 - Reply
【24h】

Yield estimation of Indian nuclear tests of 1998 - Reply

机译：1998年印度核试验的产量估算-答复

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

It shouldbe clear to the general reader of the papers on the seismological estimation of the yield of the Indian nuclear tests of 1998 that these estimates are subject to large uncertainties- which is one of the purposes of our paper. Despite what Sikka et al. seem to believe, we set out to see what seismological evidence there is that the yield of 980511 is above about 20 kt, the upper bound of most non-Indian estimates and we hope we have given a fair assessment of the evidence. We are the only group outside India to make a plausible argument that the yield of 980511 could have been significantly greater than 20 kt. Sikka et al. claim we should have pointed out that the range of estimates extends up to 110 kt, they do not however, point out that by the same argument it extends down to 22 kt. We do not wish to comment on the minutiae of the argument of Sikka et al. on magnitude differences. If such an involved argument is required to arrive at a seismological estimate of yield, the estimate cannot be regarded as robust. Sikka et al. ask for, amongst other things, fuller explanations of our interpretation of M_s, and of how we reached the conclusion that the effects on mb of interference between P from the two largest explosions of 980511 are negligible. This we are happy to do, but this will take more time and journal space than we have been allowed for this reply. We therefore intend to deal with the request of Sikka et al. in a later paper. Perhaps however, we should emphasize that the Ms values reported by the NEIS (and used apparently by Evernden) are measured from earthquake signals which are mistakenly associated with 980511.
机译：对于1998年印度核试验产量的地震估计的论文的普通读者应该清楚，这些估计值存在很大的不确定性，这是本文的目的之一。尽管什么Sikka等。似乎相信，我们着手看看有什么地震学证据表明980511的产量高于大约20 kt，这是大多数非印度裔估计的上限，我们希望对证据进行公正的评估。我们是印度以外唯一一个有说服力的论点，即980511的产量可能大大高于20 kt。 Sikka等。我们应该指出，估计范围可以扩展到110 kt，但是他们没有指出，根据相同的论点，估计范围可以扩展到22 kt。我们不想评论Sikka等人的论点的细节。在幅度差异上。如果需要这样一个涉及的论点来得出屈服的地震学估计，则该估计不能被认为是可靠的。 Sikka等。除其他外，要求对我们的M_s的解释以及我们如何得出这样的结论做出更充分的解释：两次最大的980511爆炸对P之间的干扰mb的影响可忽略不计。我们很乐意这样做，但是这比我们被允许的回复要花费更多的时间和日志空间。因此，我们打算处理Sikka等人的要求。在以后的论文中。但是，也许应该强调的是，NEIS报告的Ms值（显然是Evernden使用的）是从错误地与980511相关联的地震信号中测得的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号