We appreciate Messrs. Choudhury and Amaravadi’s interest in our paper and thank them for pointing out some typographical errors in the paper. In fact, we were aware of these and some other similar errors. To us, the corrections of these errors are quite obvious to any serious reader of the paper and they do not seem to deserve any special attention of the general readers of Geophysics. However, we take this opportunity to list them below.

No abstract

Results of studies carried out with the help of a three‐dimensional seismic model on waves diffracted from edges of varying radius of curvature R and depth h with respect to wave length λ are described. The amplitude decay, travel time, and apparent velocity of the wave diffracted from a sub‐surface edge of semi‐infinite length are found to depend on the parameters R, h, and distance from the edge on the surface provided the ratio of the parameters to λ are less than some limiting values. The nature of the amplitude decay is independent of R when the depth exceeds 2λ, and independent of h when R exceeds 1.5λ. When these are below the limiting values (h= 2λ and R= 1.5λ), the nature of the decay depends appreciably on R and h. The apparent decay in amplitude on the surface due to geometrical spreading by the diffracting edge is less than that of a cylindrical secondary wave source and decreases with increase in depth of the edge. The nature of the travel time curves of the diffracted waves near the edge depend on R/λ when the depth is within about one λ. Apparent velocity of the wave depends largely on R/λ in the zone of diffraction up to a distance of about one λ from the edge on the surface. Beyond this distance the velocity is almost the same irrespective of R/λ and depend only on h/λ. The width of the zone of diffraction caused by an edge of finite length comparable to λ is more and more narrow as the ratio of the distance of the edge on the surface to its depth increases.

No abstract

No abstract