| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bhangmeter article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
‹See TfM›
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
No false positives?
editThe Vela Incident is considered by some scientists to be a false positive. Certainly it was not conclusive. Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Why the double flash?
editCan somebody improve on the explanation of why there is a double flash? I think the present explanation is rather confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.210.162 (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It's all theoric
editEverything about nuclear weapons is confusing, because it's almost all theory. Most of the numbers are suppositions based on calculations on paper. This "device" may as well not exist at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.168.170 (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- No, as the article says, these are real instruments, actually installed on Earth-facing satellites. Arlo James Barnes 23:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)