results were satisfactory.
However, cloud cover, usually present at low altitudes over
the EPG, made it difficult to obtain photography to the desired degree of success. However, this lack of data was supplemented by the use of less-accurate data from photo-
graphic film from another source. No film was usable from Shot 3 because of the low
yield of the device and the poor visibility at the time of the shot.
Pressure-distance data vertically above the shot were obtained only on Shot 2. Be-
yond the fireball, data was measured in the region from 10,000 to 15,C00 feet. Two wave
fronts were alao observed at very-high altitudes (~ 265,000 to ~ 335,000 feet). The first
wave probably was the blast wave; the second was presumed to be an acoustic wave. The
low-altitude (10,000 to 15,000 feet) data are plotted in Figure 2.6; these data are compared
Water Line
Snot |
sre @
BRL
NOL Land Line
NOL Water Line
$¢
@re@e
of
O NOL
s¢
NOL
sc
BRL
Snot 2
BRL
> NOL Water Line
7s
© BFL
1
|
Overpressure , psi
i
a SC
@ SRL
°
lwy Mike
» Jongle
500
4000
Range , Feet
Figure 2.4 Composite overpressure versus scaled ground range, Shots 1 through 6.
to theoretical pressure-distance curves which were constructed using the TheilheimerRudlin Naval Ordnance Laboratory (NOL) method for considering the variation of the
pressure-distance relation with altitude, which involves the determination of an equiva-
lent TNT charge radius. The upper theoretical curve for Shot 2 in Figure 2.6 is based
on an average change radii of 404 feet for the surface-level data obtained by Project 1.2a
with electronic gages.
The lower theoretical wave is based on an average charge radii
of 349 feet for the surface-level data obtained by Project 1.la with rocket-trail photo~