Talk:Underwater explosion

message: I've added a todo list with some initial thoughts about improvements to this article. Alan Pascoe 19:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todo list 

message: Hmm.  Not sure if I agree with the explanation of how the wilson cloud formed.  I always thought that the condensation clouds formed as a direct result of the rarefaction zone behind the shockwave allowing water vapor to condense.  Any thoughts on the matter? Ops101ex 17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The precise wording in the source (on page 49) is: "This dome is caused by the velocity imparted to the water near the surface by the reflection of the shock wave and to the subsequent breakup of the surface layer into drops of spray." If your wording better reflects this statement then feel free to change the article. If you think the source is wrong then change the article but provide an alternative source. Alan Pascoe 20:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that quote is referring to the spray dome caused directly by the displacement of water.  I was referring to the large condensation clouds in the atmosphere propagating outward behind the shockwave.  However, I have not found a good source other than a page from Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapon Archive, in which it was just briefly mentioned. Ops101ex 20:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Where's the Baker image? Ncalvin 17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilson Cloud 

message: Here's another underwater nuclear test image if anyone thinks it would add to the article.  I have no information on the depth of the nuclear depth charge at the time it detonated. Tempshill 05:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  another image 

message: The section on the effects of deep-water explosions claimed that the same techniques used to analyze tsunamis and meteor-generated waves were applicable to underwater nuclear tests. I read the source, which contradicts this. The book says that while we initially thought explosion-generated waves were like tsunamis (and thus could be used as a weapon against coastal populations), recent analysis shows that they're actually a very different type of wave, and expend most of their energy before reaching the shore.
I rewrote the paragraph.  There might be other sections that cite the book incorrectly, though. --MillingMachine (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies 

message: The "Shallow underwater explosion" section of this article states that in the Baker shot the water vapour in the air condensed as a result of a Prandtl-Glauert singularity. However, the page on Prandtl-Glauert singularity states that it is a theoretical concept which does not actually occur in reality. It doesn't appear to be correct to say that the condensation is caused by a singularity of this sort, but although the final section of the Prandtl-Glauert singularity page (on condensation clouds) describes a scenario that appears superficially similar, I lack the grounding to say whether it is relevant or not to the topic of this page. I'm hoping that someone with the required knowledge can take a look.194.75.37.250 (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prandtl-Glauert singularity 

message: The article nominally covers underwater explosions generally. But it has almost zero mention or coverage of anything but nuclear explosions. Nothing about 
:* civil explosions (demolition in water)
:* explosions against ships (depth charges),
:* large installations (operation Chastise/"dambusters") 
Needs coverage to be balanced across the topic. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Non nuclear explosions