If it is fizzle then no need to test it again, test something new if any is handy.First fizzle claim needs to be established isn't it ?
On a serious note testing something new has never been ruled out , has it ? we have not yet signed the CTBT .
if you are serious try to read the SHOCK 3D paper in Current Science describing the POK I crater phenomenon and the S-I Post Shot Radio Chem paper. They both are trying to tell a story. Only thing is we need to understand it. For starters stick to the cavity size of both tests.
; had I studied this much in college I would have at least become a Physics teacher in some school.
Anyways I did go though the papers in question and also read the comments posted by Arun saar on first few pages of this dhaga. Even before I go into the details let me be honest I did not find any way of co relating the findings from the two papers.
Also I don't know why there was a mention of Terhune's equation on first few pages of this thread specially when the 'K' for S-1 site is unknown and it is not the same for POK-1 and S-1 .
Rc= K * Y1/3Rc
= cavity radius (not the same as crater radius unless a subsidence crater is formed)
where K= NTS /(Pob*dob)1/4
NTS= constant (for a nuclear test site) (not known for S-1)
Pob= Overburden density (not known for S-1)
dob= depth of burial (what is this ? ~ 230 meters )
This Terhune's equation will work for armchairs like me only if S-1 be exploded in the exact same site as POK-1 and at the same 'scale depth'.
A cursory glance at the kind of papers out there on under ground nuclear explosions and yield measurement based on composition of the strata and the near site rock formations is still giving me head ache.
Coming to the Coordinate isue:
To quote the POST shot radio-chem paper
It is also essential that a large number of samples be analysed to obtain the pattern of the distribution of these activities and, wherever necessary, evolve a method of integration to obtain the overall activity produced since any small sample taken in this puddle can hardly be expected to be a true representative of concentrations which can be related to the yield.What is reported here is one such methodology.
I.e. Just after the actual explosion the cavity is filled by the debris and overlaying rubble as governed by the late time phenomenology of the site ,it is apparent that samples exhibiting the desired radioactive signature were found to be distributed in a region which was symmetrical around the vertical axis (z) and not around a fixed point/origin in this puddle; this should explain the use of cylindrical coordinates.
Btw can anyone prove using data in above papers that the Crater formation of S-1 corresponds to a device YIELD of 25Kt or 20Kt ?