comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Apr 11, 11:14=A0am, Jim wrote:
> In article
> <47d46df4-d0f1-4035-93d4-9391d2301...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

> > > What matters is how much they predicted and by factor the actual event=

> > > was in relation to those predictions; a figure you haven't provided.
>
> > sure, if you prefer- they were off by about 300%. =A0but the reason i
> > provided the absolute value instead of the percentage is that
> > depending on the context, one can be much more meaningful than the
> > other- =A0concerning the repurcussions of the atomic bomb (the
> > conversation was talking about vaporizing the atmosphere early on), a
> > figure stating estimates were "10 million metric tons of tnt" off is
> > much more instructive than "300%" off. =A0for example, a device meant to=

> > be .000001MT that yielded 1,000x more than expected wouldn't be nearly
> > as much of a threat as castle bravo's relatively palty 3x miss in
> > expectation.
>
> Ed, given that first bomb was just that, how do you think the scientists
> (fermi, oppenheimer and others) could have estimated the yeild given the
> calculations needed and the computational methods available (like a
> slide rule for ome).

castle bravo was far from the first bomb- it was the largest yeild
bomb detonated by the united states.