q | ‘ 2.4 1350 FT/SEC | o —~ 2 2.0 5 << * o o ° S ; me 16, a — < wr Ww = - 4 - > $ °o 4.2 9 & — a < e ” 0.8 F— | 0.4 ; 0 _ _—_— I.— 1000 t 2000 | 3000 GROUND RANGE, FT | 4000 Fig. 2.2-—Earth acceleration arrival times vs ground range tor! ee 2.5 i 5000 — 6000 % phot!\Operation Castle. CONCLUSIONS The only conclusion that can be derived from the ground-motion data of Project 1.7 is that they are insignificant. They are inadequate for either correlation with damage or recorder shelter design needs and do not supplement or complete the data from Mike shot of Operation Ivy. REFERENCES 1. R. H. Thompson, Instrumentation for Projects 1.2a, 1.3, and 1.7, Operation Castle Report WT-907 (in preparation). 2. J. J. Meszaros and C. N. Kingery, Ground Surface Air Pressure vs Distance from High Yield Bursts, Operation Castle Report WT-905 (in preparation). 3. C. D. Broyles and M. L. Merritt, Ground Level Pressures from Surface Bursts, Operation Castle Report WT-904 (in preparation). 34