Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

[amit]

There is absolutely no conflict between the two, not having access to all data does not mean "out of the loop", and people can be aware of the results without being aware of the data.

Since both the fizzle and sizzle camps both agree that the correct yield estimate can only be arrived at after a thorough analysis of all the data can you tell me how people can be aware of the results without being aware of the data?

The only way that's possible is if folks with all the data told KS what the yield was, na? And guess who are the folks who have access to all the data?

And that is why KS has in a very nuanced way used NPA measurements and arguments to say there's a question over the TN yield and hence India cannot sign the CTBT. I've been repeating this point ad nauseam but...

That's why no one is asking KS to do the third party verification -- let GoI constitute a team of distinguished scientists with impeccable credentials at the very minimum.

Simple thing only right.

Sanku bhai, admirable sentiments and the correct thing to do IMHO.

However, do you think the GoI is going to announce this panel of eminent nuclear physicists who have experience in designing N-bombs at a press conference or via a PIB press release?

Do you think that if such a team is/has been/was constituted you or I or anyone on BRF will even get to know? And do you think the team is going to release the report with much fanfare at a glittering press conference?

Such a team will work in secret because they will have to be shown some of India's most sensitive and secret data. And their findings will never be made public. Instead people who need to know, for eg the service chiefs, selective babus and the top political leadership would be informed.

And isn't it curious that the current service chiefs have either kept out of the controversy or have expressed satisfaction with the advertised yield?

This is not a college or university experiment open to peer review you know. Everyone is extra cautious especially since the old NPA trick which started post 1998 seems to have re-surfaced. And that is shame the Indian nuclear establishment with phrases such as "shitty science" and others which question their personal integrity to get a reaction which might result in some vital data slipping out.

I don't think the Indian nuclear establishment is going to bite and so there shouldn't be too much expectations from Sikka's presentation.

[SaiK]

what if we had filled the pits with more containing materials like rocks and layered concrete substances? would the readings be different then? does this not change the dia of the cavity? or change the way the exploding particles disperse?

[Sanku]

There is absolutely no conflict between the two, not having access to all data does not mean "out of the loop", and people can be aware of the results without being aware of the data.

Since both the fizzle and sizzle camps both agree that the correct yield estimate can only be arrived at after a thorough analysis of all the data can you tell me how people can be aware of the results without being aware of the data?

Amit, I dont think you will get this, but let me try again.

In engineering, let us say I am a chip manufacturer, and makes chip using some high funda process. The chips I bake are given to the test team to try out.

Do they have all the data that is needed to make the chips? No.

Can they test and make sure the chip works? Yes.

Further when my chip is tested, it generates a lot of cryptic data that I as a chip maker use for debug, it is utterly useless to the tester who does not know what the data does. He probably does not even have access to that, can he still say all that the chip failed? Yes he can.

So Sanathan does not need ALL the data to make his conclusion, he just needs enough data, in some cases he does not even need data, he needs to be informed of the results?

Can he be informed of the results without having all the data? Yes again clearly.

Because the people having all the data are not RC and AK alone, they have fairly large teams, instrumentation teams, DRDO folks all involved in these exercises who also have access to the data and a lot of them can talk to Santy.

And that is why KS has in a very nuanced way used NPA measurements and arguments to say there's a question over the TN yield and hence India cannot sign the CTBT. I've been repeating this point ad nauseam but...

No Amit, you repeat but clearly you do not understand, KS cant talk about the home grown data at all period, there is nothing exceptionally complicated in this.

That's why no one is asking KS to do the third party verification -- let GoI constitute a team of distinguished scientists with impeccable credentials at the very minimum.

Simple thing only right.

Sanku bhai, admirable sentiments and the correct thing to do IMHO.

However, do you think the GoI is going to announce this panel of eminent nuclear physicists who have experience in designing N-bombs at a press conference or via a PIB press release?

Two things, one senior brass and people like Gen Malik and BK and BC WILL know and will stop asking for the same.
It is quite conceivable that this would be talked about and placed in the public, not the results but the fact of the committee, the news would definitely be picked by BRF with all the folks we have here.

Do you think that if such a team is constituted you or I or anyone on BRF will even get to know? And do you think the team is going to release the report with much fanfare at a glittering press conference?

And isn't it curious that the current service chiefs have either kept out of the controversy or have expressed satisfaction with the advertised yield?

No not at all, the current chiefs do not speak publicly on such matters while holding office. This was discussed nothing curious about it.

I don't think the Indian nuclear establishment is going to bite.

Look at the view of the Former CNS about peer review which I just posted above.

So while you may have your view, please be aware that they run independent of how things have been done in India and what most Indian strategic thinkers have usually pictured Indian doctrine.

[Dileep]

The ONLY available job spec for KS was "in-charge of site preparation". The notions that he was "test director" or any other position are all speculatory.

[Sanku]

The ONLY available job spec for KS was "in-charge of site preparation". The notions that he was "test director" or any other position are all speculatory.

Good enough for the purposes, surely now that it is not going to mean that he was the tunnel digger himself.

The point remains valid, despite his formal place on the board. Between the troika of RC, him and AK he was the only non BARC guy, the insider nevertheless.

[enqyoob]

So a page and a half after I posted that question (yet again) I have only one answer to cite from ramana (1) and Arun_S (0):

N^3,

I don't know. If you know let me know. Maybe bad surki?

But I HAVE posted the answer many times, and will copy the last summary I posted when I can find the locked thread and extract it. It has nothing to do with good or bad "surki" whatever that is. It is independent of any guesses here about Shale Content or Marbles or Radiological Readings or Sensor Functionality or Volterra Integral Equation Solvers or Relativistic Effects.

The summary of the summary of the summary of the answer is:

The actual yield of S1+S2 (simultaneous) was GREATER THAN the design yield that the test designers used to calculate effects on neighboring assets that had to be protected: Khetolai and the Logistics Base.

I am NOT saying whether it was 43 or 63 or 200 or 1 or 2 kT. All I am saying is that whatever it was, it was GREATER THAN the predicted yield. Because there was damage, and because they were totally confident that there would be no venting or radiation in the air because they allowed the school kids in Khetolai to be outdoors at test time, not "sit under the desk, put ur head between ur knees (and kiss ur musharraf goodbye)" as is the recommended procedure for being around nuclear blasts. They asked for the kids to be outdoors because of the minute risk that the school building might suffer damage and say, ceiling tiles or mortar would fall on the kids, if not worse things.

Some people got in a huff and tried bluffing that Indian designers don't consider civilians in designing experiments. I suggested that that would be slander / blood libel. It is like accusing hardworking scientists who have devoted their lives to Indian science and security, of being cold-blooded child-killers or at least of being incredibly reckless idiots. Such a line of argument reflects only on the person making it.

Other than that, no one who is dissastisfied with the accuracy of the yield prediction of S1+S2, seems to have even attempted to answer this question carefully.

For a deterrent, what was really needed to be shown is that Indian nuclear weapon designers could accurately predict the yield of their weapons. The above is clear proof of that. Given that even a small yield above fission means that the fusion got started, this means that Indian nuclear weapon designers know enough to adjust the fusion level in such a device. Q.E.D.

The precise upper limit does not need to be revealed to anyone, nor demonstrated live. To me, that is the end of the debate.

I won't waste more space here, but this is the kindergarten reasoning that all the peer-reviewed nuclear physics arguments here have been unable to defeat. I am OPEN to its being defeated, since I have no political axe to grind, but I submit that the continued (and I must now assume deliberate) ignoring of this basic point, does seem to drive me to the conclusion that the motive behind ignoring it and still jumping up and down screaming "FIZZLED! INDIA HAS NO DETERRENT! (see at least one of the posts early in this thread, that has obviously survived moderator attention) is all political.

Sorry, but as they say, when all other possibilities are excluded, what remains must be the truth or a FORTRAN error.

[Sanku]

Venting != earthquake, they are also determined by different factors, any greater yield could have 1) no venting big earthquake, 2) no earthquake all vented out, 3) neither since it was in a different shaft altogether

200 KT tests with 5 Richter scale signatures are known.

the damage does not depend upon the yield alone but the depth too

The depth of s1 shaft != depth of s2 shaft, possible that s2 caused the damage by over yielding and s1 still went phut

The damage does not depend on the yield and the depth but on the frequency of vibration too and the duration

No models for the above exist and have been posted.

Saying a thing 10000000 times does not make it true.

Full circle.

[Sanatanan]

On page 2 of this tread:

The cavity size, coupled with the properties of the rock, would give a very accurate estimate of the yield, probably better than the radio-chemical analysis. Why? Radio-chemical analysis works on sample basis, and with the huge counts of atoms split. The cavity is formed by the physical effect, which is the one ultimately going to do your work.

I wonder if the cavity, which lies only a few hundred metres below, could be measured by echo tomography?

Now, the following is a conjecture on my part. Would nevertheless like to seek opinion from gurus in this forum whether the method proposed is in the realm of feasibility:

The material surrounding the cavity, might remain thermally hot (with a temperature gradient in some relation to the distance from the centre of the cavity) for a considerable period of time (say weeks) after the blast, because of poor heat conduction by rocks, soil etc. If this is true then, it might be possible to utilse infra-red sensing via satellites to determine the "heat-affected zone" and thus estimate the crater size. Perhaps the Americans and others already have done this!!

[enqyoob]

The problem with Sanku's argument above is that it says that the designers had absolutely no clue what the effects would be - despite having had many years to make all the soil measurements they needed, in a military test range.

(and despite having data from POK-1, 1974).

BUT.... people outside, far outside the controlled-access test range, are somehow magically able to come out and say with total confidence that S1 and S2 were fizzles. So per Sanku,

even 200 kT blasts can have only 5.0 seismic effects

Khetolai had somewhere between 5.2 and 5.4. But Sanku is comfortable claiming that S1 was far below 43 kT!

OK, now for the other pieces of evidence:
The GOI, starting from around May 12, 1998 INCLUDING Dr. K. Santanam, made it very very clear that the yield of S1+S2 was limited by the proximity of Khetolai and other villages. The evidence clearly shows that they pushed it too far even then.

So, no, citing this is not "full circle" except that it resets all the techno-babble to its proper value: zero.

Thanks!

[amit]

Sanku,
Of all the outlandish explanations and conjectures I've read on these two threads your comparison between the design, manufacture and testing of chips to the design, manufacture and testing (of yield) of TN bombs is the most interesting.
So you think both processes are of the same order of difficulty?
I find it incredible that someone would pose an engineering and production line processes analogy to explain why KS despite not having access to Radio Chem analysis data and other measurements could still guess the actual yield of the TN!!!
But that also brings us to another point. If KS can do that without access to all data, then surely RC, AK and Sikka with access to all the data could do so as well.
Yet why is it you doubt their word and not KS? Do you belong to camp which thinks they are economical with the truth?

[amit]

Another point Sanku.

Don't find it a bit odd that KS never said something to the effect: " According to tests and measurements done by DRDO we suspect the the TN was a fizzle?"

That would have settled the argument you know because unlike RC nobody had called KS a liar and a fool.

Yet what does KS do? He quote NPA data and says according to this NPA data the TN was 60 per cent sizzle and so India shouldn't sign CTBT.

Gosh this is really fun!

[shiv]

Interestingly Sublette's analysis says that fission bomb S2 of 12 kt ("Taj Mahal") produced an 80 meter crater which he finds is a "credible evidence" of 12 kt explosion producing 42 meter cavity at 150 meters. Check the math.

But, finding no surface disturbance over S1 (White House") - he feels is evidence that it did not work. However it says (elsewhere in the site) that 90% (or is it 95%) of US tests produced no surface disturbance because they were "fully contained". However the crude methods used by the Indian Army to dig tunnels suggests that any half respectable Indian bomb should either have vented or produced a surface effect. Naturally Indian scientists cannot produce a bomb that works or calculate the depth needed to fully contain the bomb and not produce any surface effect and India Army uses crude methods. The only possibility according to Carey Sublette is under performance. This is good science of the type that we are seeing a lot in this thread too.

[Arun_S]

My point is everybody and anybody who is trying to prove or disprove KS’s assertions are claiming that the yield values are arrived or calculated using following three analysis..
(a) Sesmic – highly inaccurate
(b) Accelerometer measurements
(c) Post-shot radio-chemical and cavity analysis

Sesmic analysis has been debated as inaccurate, accelerometer malfunctioned.. Radio-chemical analysis was done by DAE ?
If there was any other accurate measurement and analysis method in which KS was part of the team.. it is yet to be pointed out..
Just my humble opinion ..

Close in sensors are accurate including seismic accelerometers/sensors. There are no arguments about it.
Only the far field seismic analysis are inaccurate for lack of field calibration data.

As I said before item (c) above (Post-shot radio-chemical and cavity analysis) is also accurate, but as we know now BARC did a small portion fo that for teh purpose of proving fusion happened rather than accurately determining the yield.

As for sensor malfunction. I do not buy BM's assertion because as NSA the transformation of S1 fizzle to political message of selling it as success was his contribution.

[shiv]

as we know now BARC did a small portion fo that for teh purpose of proving fusion happened rather than accurately determining the yield.

Wrong. BARC only published that. Nobody publishes the real measurements.

At best neither you nor I have proof that they did not do it so concluding that they did not is not good science.

[shiv]

(a) Sesmic – highly inaccurate
(b) Accelerometer measurements
(c) Post-shot radio-chemical and cavity analysis

Chengappa says:(pg 423)

As many as seven accelerometers and five geophones that measure the shock waves generated from the blast had to be placed in a calculated pattern close to the shafts where the first three tests were done. Apart from that two seismic recorders were mounted to check the intensity of the blast on the Richter scale.

The data from these has not been published.

[Sanku]

The problem with Sanku's argument above is that it says that the designers had absolutely no clue what the effects would be - despite having had many years to make all the soil measurements they needed, in a military test range.

Naryanana please do not speak for me, I can do that quite well thank you.

I am merely questioning what has been said by BARC scientists, it is different from saying that designers had no clue.

I am saying that I do not trust the GoIs statement that Khetolai was a limiting factor.

And given that we don't even know what were the shaft depths of S1 and S2, we cant say which over yielded and which under yielded.

If we are not allowed to not take GoIs statement as axiomatic truth, there is no reason to debate anyway.

I have outlined a very simple scenario where the S1 could fail and S2 work better than expected and still have damage to Khetolai. Its as simple as that.

This does not involve saying that BARC had no clue.

----------------

As far as what GoI claimed including Dr Santhanan since 1998, all that comes open to question after 2009 when Dr Sanathanan talked about the yield being around 60%.

[Sanku]

Another point Sanku.

Don't find it a bit odd that KS never said something to the effect: " According to tests and measurements done by DRDO we suspect the the TN was a fizzle?"
!

Amit, this is the 12th time I am saying this I guess, KS can not say what you want him to say because that will be a clear breach of OSA, and he will be speaking on behalf of DRDO for which he has no authority, he can only speak in a personal capacity, but of course that is quite significant (as felt by Gen Malik too)

This is actually quite simple. I have absolutely no idea why you keeping saying that over and over again.

[Sanku]

Sanku,
Of all the outlandish explanations and conjectures I've read on these two threads your comparison between the design, manufacture and testing of chips to the design, manufacture and testing (of yield) of TN bombs is the most interesting.
So you think both processes are of the same order of difficulty?
I find it incredible that someone would pose an engineering and production line processes analogy to explain why KS despite not having access to Radio Chem analysis data and other measurements could still guess the actual yield of the TN!!!
But that also brings us to another point. If KS can do that without access to all data, then surely RC, AK and Sikka with access to all the data could do so as well.
Yet why is it you doubt their word and not KS? Do you belong to camp which thinks they are economical with the truth?

Amit, you perhaps have trouble understanding this because of lack of an engineering background, I am only explaining by example, how engineering works -- this is but one representative example if you see.

Your claim -- that 100% of data should be available for making any statement is flawed.

KS was on the sight looking at the test setup and the its response WHEN the explosion happened. He would have immediate first hand feedback from the test rig.

If the test had not worked entirely as expected, it broad countures would have been visible to KS immediately.

Its actually quite simple.

------------------------------------

The post shot verification is for greater accuracy it should not change the first result totally. For example if my first instrumentation gives me a figure of 100 say, with a error margin of 10% say, the actual figure would be 90-110.

Post shot measurement is likely to find a figure within that range 90-110, say 97 with 5% error.

So the second measurement would narrow down to 92-102 (better than 90-110) what it is not likely to do is change the figure of 90-110 to 500-700.

So unless the online test structure was totally broken, KS would now roughly what the yield was.

This is basic engineering.

[shiv]

As far as what GoI claimed including Dr Santhanan since 1998, all that comes open to question after 2009 when Dr Sanathanan talked about the yield being around 60%.

But Dr Santhanam himself is above question because his u turn is more convenient to some viewpoints. In most instances such a change of mind is vacillation and inconsistency, but in this case it is integrity, patriotism and a conscience.

But that is character assassination which must not be done. We must look at the data that Santhanam has provided and that data is 60 percent yield based on foreign seismic estimates.

Sikka, the author of the radiochem paper himself admits 20% error rate. On the other hand the foreign seismic sources quote no error - so they are not in error. After all if there was an error in their measurements they would have said so. Any good scientist would do that and do you have any doubts about them? The fact that they have not quoted any error shows that there is no error, just like the fact that Sikka has not published the proper radiochemical analysis means that it does not exist.

However there is no evidence that Santhanam knew the exact design details and the expected fission-fusion break up. But that means nothing. He was in the inner circle and they would have shared data I am sure The absence of proof is not proof of absence after all - except when we are looking the absence of proof of radiochem data from Sikka - which is proof of absence.

[Arun_S]

as we know now BARC did a small portion fo that for teh purpose of proving fusion happened rather than accurately determining the yield.

Wrong. BARC only published that. Nobody publishes the real measurements.
At best neither you nor I have proof that they did not do it so concluding that they did not is not good science.

It is one thing to not publish paper with measurement and another to not even drilling enough cores to take required measurements for radiochem yield estimation (per their own published paper).

[shiv]

Wrong. BARC only published that. Nobody publishes the real measurements.
At best neither you nor I have proof that they did not do it so concluding that they did not is not good science.

It is one thing to not publish paper with measurement and another to not even drilling enough cores to take required measurements for radiochem yield estimation (per their own published paper).

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. You just don't know. I don't either but I am not claiming to know.

[Arun_S]

The forthcoming talk at IDSA by Dr. S.K. Sikka should be discussed there.
Measuring Nuclear Test Yield: Understanding Pokhran II

Speaker: Dr. S.K. Sikka, Scientific Secretary, Office of the Principal Scientific Advisor to Government of India
Date & Time: 14th September 2009 at 1100 hrs
Venue: IDSA, Main Auditorium
[BY INVITATION ONLY]

Received via email:

Please refer to my e-mail dated 7th September 2009 inviting you for the Special Address by Dr. S.K. Sikka, Scientific Secretary, Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser to Government of India, on Monday, 14th September 2009. Due to some unavoidable circumstances, Dr. S.K. Sikka has expressed his inability to deliver the talk on the above date. Hence, his talk on 14th September stands postponed.

We deeply regret any inconvenience that may have been caused to you on account of the change of programme.

We thank you for your interest and time for considering our invitation.

[shiv]

Received via email:

Please refer to my e-mail dated 7th September 2009 inviting you for the Special Address by Dr. S.K. Sikka, Scientific Secretary, Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser to Government of India, on Monday, 14th September 2009. Due to some unavoidable circumstances, Dr. S.K. Sikka has expressed his inability to deliver the talk on the above date. Hence, his talk on 14th September stands postponed.

We deeply regret any inconvenience that may have been caused to you on account of the change of programme.

We thank you for your interest and time for considering our invitation.

No new data then?

Long live this thread!

[NRao]

Obfuscation is the best policy for India here on out. Total, controlled, deliberate, planned confusion.

[ramana]

Here is some new data folks - found when I was comparing Sikka's opinion of chimney with the other link given below - but it has nothing to do with chimneys and everything to do with yield.

I quote
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/ugt.htm

The volume of the final cavity is proportional to the yield, e, so that the final cavity radius may be expressed as

rc = r'c e1/3

For typical test conditions, r'c ~ 10 -12 m/kt1/3, so a 1 kt explosion produces a cavity of radius 10-12 m, depending on the depth of burial. A deep 150 kt explosion would produce a cavity with a radius of approximately 55 m.

The equation rc = r'c e1/3 did not seem to work, so I checked for a cross ref and found this
http://www.atse.org.au/index.php?sectionid=388

rc = r'c e^1/3

From this we have:

55 meters = 10 x (150^1/3)
and
10 meters = 10 x (1 ^1/3)

Now Sikka says the radiius of the cavity (rc) was 40 meters

So we get

40 = 10 x (e ^ 1/3)

(e ^ 1/3) = 4

e = 64 kilotons is the yield of S1



shiv ban gaya necaler scientist!

PS -I think the BRM paper on craterolgy also says similar stuff
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... crater.pdf

Shiv, Glad you found it. I was alluding to the same here.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 24#p735524

Can you or someone do the same for the POK I from the 3-D simulation data?

Thanks.

[shiv]

what 3D simulation data?

[shiv]

In article I) the diameter of the cavity for POK I is simulated and compared to the measured value. It is also stated to be in shale with a overburden of granite.

In article II) the radius of cavity of S-I is given with a tolerance band. Assume this is in similar material.

Is there a way to relate the yields of POK I and S-I based on these figures which will give an independent assessment without refs to seismic and radio-chem data?

So I would develop a relationship of yield vs cavity radius. When comparing the two events, the ratios will cancel the unknowns like soil etc. Then plug in various estimates for POK I yield and see how S-I varies with it.

Another thing to do is find a relationship which allows calculating the yield for POK Idirectly based on the radius taking into account soil constants for shale. The cavity is in shale only based on the computer 3-D model.
-----------

These two articles are purely Indian based and there are no foreign sources or biases. And there is no radio-chem calculation uncertainities, sesimc wave interference, seismic station location anomalies.
----------

Terhune says the relationship between radius of cavity and yield is

Rc = K * Y^1/3

K = 12 to 14
K is 12 for granite.

We can now calculate the POK I yield and that of S-I.

Which articles? No links in this post.

This one is from 2004 and uses Shock 3D to simulate 1974
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/apr102005/1133.pdf

It quotes 12 kt yield as a starting point and a depth of 107 meters. The word granite does not occur anywhere. The 107 meters is shale, sandstone and degraded sandstone.

[ramana]

USe the cavity dimensions of 30m that was verified from the site.

[Sanku]

As far as what GoI claimed including Dr Santhanan since 1998, all that comes open to question after 2009 when Dr Sanathanan talked about the yield being around 60%.

But Dr Santhanam himself is above question because his u turn is more convenient to some viewpoints. In most instances such a change of mind is vacillation and inconsistency, but in this case it is integrity, patriotism and a conscience.
.

Indeed not, and as a matter of fact, it is entirely possible that Dr Santhanam is wrong. I have never claimed that his statement provides incontrovertible proof.

What it does only is that due to lack of similar such incontrovertible proof by GoI, the whole matter of TN success becomes "your word against mine"

An interesting kind of device.

[Bade]

The various reported and claimed yields range from 5 to 60 kilotons.

Someone should have already pointed this out earlier. I confess having not followed the discussions in all associated threads closely. Still, let me begin with the given number 50+/-10 kT for the yield. If the uncertainty quoted is all for 1sigma error estimate, then all this follows:

The yield is with 67% probability better than 40 kT with a 33% chance it is lower than 40 kT.
The yield is with 90% probability better than 30 kT with a 10% chance it is lower than 30kT.
The yield is with 99% probability better than 20 kT with a 1% chance it is lower than 20kT.

So the so called 'shitty science' statistics is consistent with the NPA claims that is was no better than 20kT at the lower limit with the highest confidence level.

ps: I am sure the experts already know this, as I have not surmised nothing new either.

[Sanku]

The various reported and claimed yields range from 5 to 60 kilotons.

If the uncertainty quoted is all for 1sigma error estimate, then all this follows:

An interesting take, I didn't think of that, but I should have. Serious question though, I don't understand how the figure for 1 sigma comes about?

[Bade]

An interesting take, I didn't think of that, but I should have. Serious question though, I don't understand how the figure for 1 sigma comes about?

If I understood the question right, if you make a set of measurements and it hopefully follows a gaussian distribution (not always true) then the standard deviation of all measurements about the mean is just the 1-sigma error estimate.

[Arun_S]

The various reported and claimed yields range from 5 to 60 kilotons.

Someone should have already pointed this out earlier. I confess having not followed the discussions in all associated threads closely. Still, let me begin with the given number 50+/-10 kT for the yield. If the uncertainty quoted is all for 1sigma error estimate, then all this follows:

The yield is with 67% probability better than 40 kT with a 33% chance it is lower than 40 kT.
The yield is with 90% probability better than 30 kT with a 10% chance it is lower than 30kT.
The yield is with 99% probability better than 20 kT with a 1% chance it is lower than 20kT.

So the so called 'shitty science' statistics is consistent with the NPA claims that is was no better than 20kT at the lower limit with the highest confidence level.

ps: I am sure the experts already know this, as I have not surmised nothing new either.

Saar, Please tell us what is the minimum bum tests population sample size required before the above statistics becomes valid?

[sanjaykumar]

http://www.chowk.com/articles/indias-nu ... odbhoy.htm

Why blow the whistle eleven years later? An irresistible urge to tell the truth or moral unease is scarcely the reason. Santanam’s “coming clean” has the stamp of approval of the most hawkish of Indian nuclear hawks. Among them are P.K. Iyengar, A.N. Prasad, Bharat Karnad, and Brahma Chellaney. By rubbishing the earlier test as a failure, they hope to make the case for more nuclear tests.

[shiv]

USe the cavity dimensions of 30m that was verified from the site.

Reference for this? And the reference to granite in Pokhran 1974 depths

[enqyoob]

By rubbishing the earlier test as a failure, they hope to make the case for more nuclear tests.

Trouble is, I can only HOPE that's all there is 2 it. The case for more tests could be made quite easily without rubbishing the efforts of the people who made the POK-2 tests a success. The "most hawkish" seem to have overstepped the bounds by more than a little, by also rubbishing Pres. Kalam and others. This is the really sad part - for 60 years the nation was united in the priorities of the nuclear program.

[shiv]

By rubbishing the earlier test as a failure, they hope to make the case for more nuclear tests.

On BRF the intent may have been noble, but the method was a self goal.

By introducing the tactic of character assassination the discussion got into a lungi dance of attacking and defending personalities rather than hard data of which nothing more has been released.

The most effective route would have been to say "One test of 60 kt is not enough and I stand by my word on this" rather than take the convoluted line of "It was not even 60 kt so xyz is a liar. I stand by my word that he is a liar" Trying to establish the latter as fact leads to greater difficulty than the former. You are now trying to disprove released data about tests and simultaneously prove an allegation (of lies) with no hard evidence.

The former would have been swallowed with little argument.

"One test of even 60 kt is not enough" is easy enough truism to understand and digest for any listener without forcing him to simultaneously swallow the pill that someone is a liar along with the "60 kt is too low" pill. And if the latter point becomes more contentious than the former the message is lost.

That is what happened on BRF. It is possible to move on, I think.

[amit]

Amit, you perhaps have trouble understanding this because of lack of an engineering background, I am only explaining by example, how engineering works -- this is but one representative example if you see.

Sanku,

Simple question onlee.

Was POKII an engineering event/experiment or a high level physics event/experiment?

I think if you ponder on the answer to this question you'll understand why your commodity type chip production and testing analogy doesn't work here.

Incidentally, have you been to any chip-making factory? I have been to several in the line of my work. Let me assure you that the testing is done by folks with very basic engineering skills.

They are usually not as well qualified as nuclear physicists and their testing equipment is off the shelf stuff and not specially designed instruments and I think are slightly less complicated than those used to measure yield in nuclear tests. Yet you use a linear analogy to move from chip testing to measuring the yield of a nuclear explosion!

Your claim -- that 100% of data should be available for making any statement is flawed.

KS was on the sight looking at the test setup and the its response WHEN the explosion happened. He would have immediate first hand feedback from the test rig.

If the test had not worked entirely as expected, it broad countures would have been visible to KS immediately.

Its actually quite simple.

Actually I'm quite amazed at how simple you really think it is.

You say if the test had not worked entirely as expected, its broad contours would be visible to KS immediately (BTW only to KS or everyone else?).

Can you enlighten this non-engineering background ignoramus what broad contours are you talking about that would be apparent in a jiffy from a nuclear test conducted several 10s of meters underground?

I mean it's easy to understand if the device exploded or not, but apart from that how can there be an immediate understanding of whether the blast yield was 100%, 60%, 33% or some other percentage? Also, remember the post-POKII press conference picture that was posted in the last thread? Curious isn't it that KS is showing a victory sign?

And the question still hangs in the air as to why KS to whom it was immediately apparent that POKII TN was a 40 per cent dud kept quiet all these years and even gave his full support for the N-deal which you yourself have said has/will result in CRE for India's nuclear programme?

Don't you see that something doesn't add up? It's actually quite simple.

This is basic engineering.

If this is basic engineering I kinda feel glad that I took a decision during my student days that I'd do something which I found more interesting than engineering.

[sudeepj]

By rubbishing the earlier test as a failure, they hope to make the case for more nuclear tests.

On BRF the intent may have been noble, but the method was a self goal.

The most effective route would have been to say "One test of 60 kt is not enough and I stand by my word on this" rather than take the convoluted line of "It was not even 60 kt so xyz is a liar. I stand by my word that he is a liar" Trying to establish the latter as fact leads to greater difficulty than the former. You are now trying to disprove released data about tests and simultaneously prove an allegation (of lies) with no hard evidence.

The former would have been swallowed with little argument.

That is what happened on BRF. It is possible to move on, I think.

K Santhanam has been quite explicit in what he has said, that is, yield achieved was 60% of what was desired and by that measure, the experiment to verify the design was a failure. I.e. (going by Santhanams statements) the goal was to achieve a radiation-implosion and that did not happen as expected.

Even if the yield was 50KT, but radiation implosion had been achieved, it would have added a lot of robustness to the Indian deterrent posture - by way of extended range MIRV missiles, number of weapons deployed, and confidence in the minds of the users that their weapons would work as advertised.

The personal attack notes injected in the debate were undesirable but to an extent unavoidable. On the other hand, so is getting distracted by these attacks from the nature of the debate! Who cares what self important folks have to say.

Let me also add, that a lot of 'proof' that has been extended has been by way of 'He said so, I respect the gent a lot, so it must be true'. I understand that people need to have their heroes on pedestals, but will the enemy accord the same respect to these heroes? You might be able to stop an argument by appeal to authority but a war? All said and done, RC et al are not Oppenheim or Teller.

[shiv]

The personal attack notes injected in the debate were undesirable but to an extent unavoidable. On the other hand, so is getting distracted by these attacks from the nature of the debate! Who cares what self important folks have to say.

Let me also add, that a lot of 'proof' that has been extended has been by way of 'He said so, I respect the gent a lot, so it must be true'. I understand that people need to have their heroes on pedestals, but will the enemy accord the same respect to these heroes? You might be able to stop an argument by appeal to authority but a war? All said and done, RC et al are not Oppenheim or Teller.

The same arguments hold true for "heroes" of each side. It is inevitable that when one side of a debate brings in a personal angle the other side will do that too. It is certainly avoidable - if the temptation to bring in a personal angle is tempered by the maturity that you can be tarred by the same tar that you are using on others.

Rhetoric is a beautiful tool in debate and while it is clear that RC et al are not Oppenheimer or Teller, Abdul Qadeer Khan certainly stands on par with Oppenheimer. I say this because I know damn well that I am steering the debate away from the topic (as you have done above) and my intention is to make others bite bait that I can then manipulate successfully. And some sucker or the other will bite the bait.

When you are talking about data and science, better to keep personalities out of it because for every asshole who is born there is a bigger asshole waiting to latch on to him and bait him