Kumthekar, B. K.
Normalized to: Kumthekar, B.
3 article(s) in total. 3 co-authors, from 1 to 3 common article(s). Median position in authors list is 2,0.
[1]
oai:arXiv.org:0912.4015 [pdf] - 32059
Response to the comments of Dwivedi and Srivastava on the propagation
and dissipation of Alfven waves in coronal holes
Submitted: 2009-12-20
Chandra [1] made an attempt to show that the work of Dwivedi and Srivastava
[2] (hereinafter DS) can be investigated even analytically and their results
are erroneous. Dwivedi and Srivastava [3] picked up some values of Chandra [1]
and tried to show that they are not physically acceptable. Some results of
Chandra [1] are not physically acceptable, as these are the outcome of the
wrong approach of DS. However, the results are numerically correct whereas the
results of DS are numerically wrong.
[2]
oai:arXiv.org:0912.4018 [pdf] - 32060
Comment on "Dispersion relation for MHD waves in homogeneous plasma"
Submitted: 2009-12-20
Pandey & Dwivedi (2007) again tried to claim that the dispersion relation for
the given set of equations must be a sixth degree polynomial. Through a series
of papers, they are unnecessarily creating confusion. In the present
communication, we have shown how Pandey & Dwivedi (2007) are introducing an
additional root, which is insignificant. Moreover, five roots of both the
polynomials are common and they are sufficient for the discussion of
propagation of slow-mode and fast-mode waves.
[3]
oai:arXiv.org:0706.1121 [pdf] - 2003
Controversy on a dispersion relation for MHD waves
Submitted: 2007-06-08
Kumar et al. (2006) obtained a fifth order polynomial in $\omega$ for the
dispersion relation and pointed out that the calculations preformed by Porter
et al. (1994) and by Dwivedi & Pandey (2003) seem to be in error, as they
obtained a sixth order polynomial. The energy equation of Dwivedi & Pandey
(2003) was dimensionally wrong. Dwivedi & Pandey (2006) corrected the energy
equation and still claimed that the dispersion relation must be a sixth order
polynomial. The equations (11) $-$ (19) of Dwivedi & Pandey (2006) and the
equations (24) $-$ (32) Kumar et al. (2006) are the same. This fact has been
expressed by Kumar et al. (2006) themselves. Even then they tried to show this
set of equations on one side gives the sixth order polynomial as they got; on
the other side, the same set of equations gives the fifth order polynomial as
Kumar et al. (2006) obtained. The situation appears to be non-scientific, as
the system of equations is a linear one. These are simple algebraic equations
where the variables are to be eliminated. However, it is a matter of surprise
that by solving these equations, two scientific groups are getting polynomials
of different degrees. In the present discussion, we have attempted to short out
this discrepancy.