Reply by the author to discussion on Tooley et al. (GEOPHYSICS, 49, 2195–2196)

Denham and Palmeira recently pointed out in December 1984 Geophysics that the energy flux at normal incidence in Figure 11 of Tooley et al. (1965, 30, 552) is not correct for a compressional velocity ratio (V₂/V₁) less than unity. The problem is that there is a discrepancy between the curves and the parameters cited. The curves correctly represent the angular dependence of energy flux ratios but for density ratios significantly less than the value of unity cited in Figure 11. Because both the density and velocity ratios vary, Figure 11 cannot be used to isolate the effect of changing the velocity ratio as was originally intended.