Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 07 Sep 2009 01:34

Neshant wrote:No matter how many pages of analysis are written here, all claims are hollow until a proper 200 KT test is conducted.

That's all the convincing anyone needs. Denials from the president and feeble prime minister that the h-bomb was a success is fooling nobody.


Neshant, in that case are you suggesting that there should be no discussion - we should perhaps erase the first 55 pages of this thread, have no recollection of any facts, logic etc., and just parrot whatever some political hack says?

As far as I can see, people are trying to conduct a reasoned discussion of some very intricate stuff where it is not in the best interests of India, surely, to announce everything that India can do or has done, in public. Your position seems to be that no such reasoning should be done, that people should just fall in line once some Authority of your choice has spoken.

A few pages back I saw that some mod had asked you not to waste bandwidth, but seemed to have deleted your post there to keep a flame war from erupting. Don't you think it is frustrating to people who have been arguing and thinking patiently, to see these sorts of posts?

Do you have some site to suggest, to conduct a 200kT test? What about the impact of such a test on India or Indians? What happens the day, week, month afterwards? India will suddenly become safer, stronger etc? Automatic UNSC Permanent Membership? Surely you must have thought deeply through these things before you come in here and post such a sweeping dismissal of all the reasoning and facts and logic here? Could you please share your wisdom?

Also, I must take issue with your choice of 200KT. This number seems to be based on the Minimum TN Warhead for an SSBN presented by Arun_S. But during the nuclear deal discussion, Arun was arguing very forcefully (and you were coming in from time to time and agreeing) that India needs at least 1MT explosions to be really considered a NWS, have deterrence etc.

Why have you downgraded the number to 200KT now, and if there is a 200KT test, will you not then say the same for needing a 1MT? China has demonstrated 1MT- plus. How can India be safe when there are nations out there that have demonstrated Tsar-Bombas with 50 MT? Why not test one of those at Pokhran?

Just curious..

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 07 Sep 2009 01:39

Am I correct that the three NT shafts were not existing prior to 1998? If they were ordered in the immediate period prior to the tests, how deep a shaft do you think would have been made for testing a TN as you put it?


Gagan, then what was prepared for testing in 1995, aborted at the last minute? Just 1 or 2 shafts? Seems like a very limited test series if that were the case. Also, I saw someone say here that the 1995 shafts were deepened for 1998. Which means that the 1995 tests were going to be much closer to the surface? That would seem to be either much smaller-yield devices or intended to cause big craters? I wonder what was the reasoning. Wonder who knows and will tell also.

ss_roy
BRFite
Posts: 286
Joined: 15 Nov 2008 21:48

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ss_roy » 07 Sep 2009 01:46

It is unfortunate that we are fixated on test yields and 'who said what'. The real question IMHO is- What kind of nuclear deterrent does India want? and what will it do to obtain it?

Does it want a nuclear deterrent against TSP? In that case, 50-100 Nagasaki's (reliable 20kt plutonium) + Agni I (solid) are enough. I think we had that even in the mid 1990s.

Does it want a nuclear deterrent against China? In that case 50-100 more Nagasaki's (or heavy FBFs) along with reliable solid fueled missiles on submarines (or stored in well designed tunnels) are enough. The crucial part is selecting targets that are hard to rebuild and cause massive economic damage. The chinese care more about money and image than their citizens lives (much more so than india, where we don't seem to care about anything)

I think we should aim for a nuclear deterrent that would be sufficient to deal with any county or eventuality. For that purpose we require about a thousand 100-200kt warheads on IRBMs/ICBMs + 15 nuclear subs (rest land and aircraft based). Of course we also require leaders with spine and a modicum of self-respect. The first can be built by spending money, the second requires a mindset not found in our current political leadership.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ldev » 07 Sep 2009 01:49

pankajs wrote:Need reassurance on nuclear deterrence: ex-Army chief

Essential read for all - too long to post in full
-------------------------------------------
Karan Thapar: Now, the armed forces will have question marks assessing the yield because there is a dispute about it?

General V P Malik: Particularly about the mega-tonne weapons, I'm talking about the fusion weapons, the thermo nuclear ones.



General Malik's seems to be implying that:

1. There are TN MT (mega ton) fusion weapons in the arsenal.

2. However that there are doubts about the yields of the mega ton weapons.

Anil Kakodkar and RC's position is that extensive simulation gives them the confidence that the design yields will be realized.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10431
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 07 Sep 2009 01:56

narayanan wrote:Which means that the 1995 tests were going to be much closer to the surface? That would seem to be either much smaller-yield devices or intended to cause big craters? I wonder what was the reasoning. Wonder who knows and will tell also.

Saar, as per the article in India Today, the TN was perfected only by 1996. So in 1995 there would have been no requirement to test a TN. This may account for the the depth requirement in 1995 being less than in 1998.
Is India's H-Bomb a Dud?
The Indians, it is learnt, mastered the technology of designing the H-bomb only in 1996. Chidambaram, in fact, terms their device "98 vintage".
Last edited by pankajs on 07 Sep 2009 02:10, edited 1 time in total.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11005
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gagan » 07 Sep 2009 02:08

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaShakti.html
These two shots were fired in shallow shafts (NT 1 and 2) in an area known as Navtala Wells, due to the nine dry wells located close together there. These shafts were constructed very rapidly in 1996 using existing wells as the starting point for construction. One shot was fired in a sand dune, which made tunneling quite easy.


How the CIA was fooled
The name of the third shaft, where a sub-kiloton or low-yield test was conducted, was less controversial. It was called Kumbhakaran, after a mythological figure who when disturbed from his deep slumber would fly into a frightening rage. Since the well in which the shaft was sunk had lain dormant for many years the name was appropriate. There were three other shafts designated Navtala (Hindi for nine wells), a name given to the area because it had old, disused drinking-water wells. The team used three of them to sink shafts for the tests and these were called nt1, 2 and 3.

All the six shafts were to be used for the May 1998 tests, but the bomb team only exploded five devices. The device in NT 3 was pulled out and taken back under orders from R. Chidambaram, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) chairman, because he felt the team had the results they wanted with just five blasts. As he told the team laconically, "Why waste it?"

So the shaft for Shakti 1,2&3 had existed earlier.
The three Navtala shafts were created in 1996 from those dry wells. The depth of the shafts IIRC was ~ 50m for S4&5.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby NRao » 07 Sep 2009 02:16

pankajs wrote:
narayanan wrote:Which means that the 1995 tests were going to be much closer to the surface? That would seem to be either much smaller-yield devices or intended to cause big craters? I wonder what was the reasoning. Wonder who knows and will tell also.

Saar, as per the article in India Today, the TN was perfected only by 1996. So in 1995 there would have been no requirement to test a TN. This may account for the the depth requirement in 1995 being less than in 1998.
Is India's H-Bomb a Dud?
The Indians, it is learnt, mastered the technology of designing the H-bomb only in 1996. Chidambaram, in fact, terms their device "98 vintage".


IF we accept that the "fizzle" is debatable, THEN that article (of Oct 1998) will perhaps be part of that debate and not considered a reliable source.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 07 Sep 2009 02:24

1. There are TN MT (mega ton) fusion weapons in the arsenal.
:eek: :shock:
Hadn't seen that interpretation b4. Have there been any MT-level underground tests that stayed all underground? Must cause some earthquake, hey? Otherwise, where will they test it? Northern Arunachal? Andamans? Islamabad?

Gagan, I saw that article about the Kumbakarna etc., but it seemed a bit too DDMish to trust the numbers. A "well" is a nice starting point, but how deep is a water well? Also, why dig where the water table used to be closer to the ground? The detection danger was due to the soil being brought out and heaped, not due to the hole in the ground, which is easy to keep hidden under a tent. If these were holes dug for nuke tests in 1995, they should have been several hundred feet deep already.

Is a 50m shaft good enough for any nuke test, I wonder. The part about the fusion weapon being post-1996 is also curious. So the 1995 tests were going to be only for the fission things... Interesting, but I find it rather hard to believe. Maybe the dial-a-yield was only mastered by then, it may have been all either 20kT fission or 1MT fusion choices b4 then.
There must have been a big rush to get that developed before SeeTeeBeeTee.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10431
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 07 Sep 2009 02:32

May be an FBF was the most advanced device with us in 1995. It would still be an advancement over our 1974 pure Fission device.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10431
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 07 Sep 2009 02:40

Here is a more reliable voice on the subject of 1995 test. The full article has lots of other info.

Narasimha Rao and the Bomb
K Subrahmanyam
Perhaps it was fortunate that the tests got postponed by two years. That gave enough time for Dr Chidambaram to finalise his design of the thermo-nuclear device that was tested in May 1998.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Arun_S » 07 Sep 2009 03:41

narayanan wrote:Also, I must take issue with your choice of 200KT. This number seems to be based on the Minimum TN Warhead for an SSBN presented by Arun_S. But during the nuclear deal discussion, Arun was arguing very forcefully (and you were coming in from time to time and agreeing) that India needs at least 1MT explosions to be really considered a NWS, have deterrence etc.

Narayanan-ji please check your Chitragupt (record keeper) and tell me when I committed the sin of arguing very forcefully for 1 MT explosion. :rotfl:
Irrespective what your Chitragupt says, mortals on this forum know that I have consistently maintained the position that 200 Kt - 350 kt TN is essential.

It will be clear to mortals on this thread that you were branding all those do not agree with your view point as 1 MT, 10MT and Gigga tonne proponents. Good way to paint them as unreasonable extremists.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby NRao » 07 Sep 2009 03:48


enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 07 Sep 2009 04:03

I have consistently maintained the position that 200 Kt - 350 kt TN is essential.


OK, Thx, Arunji. :oops: (My day for crow breakfast, crow lunch, crow dinner ) The 1MT proponents must have been someone else.

Great relief - now I can paint the 1MT-10MT-50MT-Eye-see-Bee-Em-TsarBombayaNamah crowd as Experts w/o fear of offending you. 8)

IIRC (and I must be mistaken, obviously) the nuke deal tamasha (one of the many threads) was about the absolutely necessity of Eye-see-Bee-Ems delivering 1MT warheads. I know I was in the small minority calling such weapons "targets" and "Liabilities", a position I still maintain.

I don't offhand have anything against the 200KT number, though I keep asking why the PRC etc. cannot move their C^3 from buried facilities under Beijing to buried facilities under Mount Chandralekha, putting them out of reach of even the Tsar-Bomba. In which case the 200KT is again an unusable liability compared to having five 20KT "fizzles" or "fyoozzles" (I have learned from you that one one 200KT is probably lighter and more compact than ten 20KTs) that can be nicely distributed among 5 targets spread over a 50 or 100 mile radius.

dipak
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 19:18

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby dipak » 07 Sep 2009 04:07

ldev wrote:Gen VP Malik seems to be implying that:

1. There are TN MT (mega ton) fusion weapons in the arsenal.

2. However that there are doubts about the yields of the mega ton weapons.

Anil Kakodkar and RC's position is that extensive simulation gives them the confidence that the design yields will be realized.


Saar, kudos to AK for that claim. Its no mean feat to achieve the sufficient data in just ONE test.

His extra-ordinary abilities can be utilized for the nation in projects like Kaveri, Arjun ...
We want more likes of him, RC onlee.

Claiming that the yield was below expectation, the physicists said on the basis of a single test, it is highly unlikely that any simulation will suffice as every physicist knows.


Link as posted by NRao above
Last edited by dipak on 07 Sep 2009 04:15, edited 2 times in total.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Arun_S » 07 Sep 2009 04:10

Gagan wrote:
csharma wrote:Maybe DAE should invite PKI and Santhanam to look at the data and how they have arrived at the conclusion. That is assuming that this has not been done earlier.

Unless proven otherwise, I take it that Santhanam and PKI speak what they speak because they already have access to the data at BARC, have spoken to the current generation of scientists at BARC.


Pls re-read K.Santhanam's last statement, particularly in the last sentence, the key word being "at this time". Appears that at a future date if need be more will be unraveled.

The above was re-emphasized to me yesterday by a person who spoke at the semi-public seminar in IDSA.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11005
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gagan » 07 Sep 2009 04:18


"The Baneberry tests which are referred to from which simulation data are supposedly taken, refer only to the aftermath of the explosion and its geological effects. They have nothing to do with the actual device itself and is therefore irrelevant to debate about whether we need further tests," the physicists said.

Claiming that the yield was below expectation, the physicists said on the basis of a single test, it is highly unlikely that any simulation will suffice as every physicist knows.


Exactly what I wrote two pages back: Link
Gagan wrote:Someone needs to educate me wrt the baneberry nuclear explosion computer simulation model.

How important is it to know about crater and shaft behaviour? OK it is important to know to be able to prevent venting of the shaft.

But how is it relevent to the functioning of the bomb design? IIRC we are debating the bomb design itself NOT the aftereffects of the crater here.

By now it is adequately clear, that all the mature nuclear powers, needed to keep on testing and proofing their designs by multiple explosions inspite of all of them having greater scientific resources (both manpower and finances) and computing power than India possesses currently. Someone is trying to make a "chutia" of the nation by saying that we are so brilliant that we can design every type of nuke there is on the basis of ONE fizzle, when the fact is that India only has a 20 KT FBF warhead.


So, the 'release' of more information was another attempt to obfuscate the issue. Some more gobbledygook to silence the dhimmis. Looks like the arsenal of the RC, AK , MMS group consists of blanks.
There are now senior scientists and senior armed forces officials openly questioning the test. My my this is going to be interesting. I wonder how this is going to play out.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11005
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gagan » 07 Sep 2009 04:39

This obfuscation has a precedence:
This what mark hibbs wrote in the response section at armscontrolwonk.

Is this cool or what?

I remember what happened when I wrote that article in the fall of 1998 saying in the headline that the US had concluded that the Indian “H-Bomb failed.”

Almost overnight after the article was published I got a huge bundle of papers from BARC and DAE sent to me by diplomatic pouch from Mumbai informing me with all kinds of numbers that I was wrong.

I gave the papers to laboratory geoscientists at several European countries and the US. One main CTBTO monitoring scientist told me explicitly: “Nope. The stuff in these papers is shitty science. They haven’t shown that you are wrong.”

:evil:

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Arun_S » 07 Sep 2009 05:03

Kanson wrote:
Arun_S wrote:
    \quote="Kanson"] And I do remember Adm. Menon talking abt 12 MIRV for K-15./quote]

Pls no serious jokes on this thread, some one can die from it. :twisted:


Hahaha, I dont know who is the joker here, the one who babble without seeing what was written in the article or the one who dabbled that out. Pls reserve such scarcasm for Adm. Menon and India Today reporter who reported that.

Ahhhh ... first please provide the exact source / link that you attribute to Adm. Menon.

Kanson wrote:And I do remember Adm. Menon talking abt 12 MIRV for K-15. Prithvi PGM is precursor for that. That may not be feasible without the warhead being minaturised and of light weight.

It will be indeed hilarious to think of Prithvi style PG-muntion that has 12 MIRV muntion coming out of the 0.7m dia K-15 missile cone. I am amazed how cheaply you bought the Thames bridge and Eiffel Tower.

I am in greater awe of DAE/R.Chidambaram made "minaturised and light weight" nuclear bumb for those 12 MIRV, using state of art simulation of those untested but deterrent Bums. Indeed something India should be proud of, and the world should thus bow to India and BARC/RC. :rotfl:
Just a minor issue: What is the evidence? I haven't even heard fizzle from those bum!

Per GoI K15 is Sagarika (Shourya) the middle missile in this diagram:
Image clickyyy ...

This is hilarious. Are you suggesting to the unwashed pan chewing dehatis from Uttar Kasi to Dhanukoti that you are the representative of GoI in publishing the diagram of the missile. Or, it is for bubblegum chewing friends of NPA. Pls, let me make it as kind request. Whatever you are showing in your diagram is your thinking, your assumption, your impression and your rendering of that. Dont give any impression, illusion or allusion that you are representing GoI. Pls reframe your statement.

It is from GoI issued pictures and dimension/mass via DRDO. Unless you can please tell this Uttar Par-desh 'dehati' that I have misrepresented or twisted out of proportion K15/Shourya line drawing in the above mentioned picture or my article that was carried in IDR issue of Jan-2009! Let us see what error/defect you can point out w.r.t. what what GoI has issued/said regarding the missile shape & size.

And I demand you take back your double meaning insinuation calling me representative of friends of NPA.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 07 Sep 2009 05:21

Gagan wrote: Looks like the arsenal of the RC, AK , MMS group consists of blanks.


If this is so then there is nothing to test, nothing to proof.

The NPAs claim that 1974 Pok-1 fizzled. The only actual weapon tested during Pok-2 was based on the Pok-1. So the "shitty science" can only produce a fizzle, no matter how many times it is tested.

The only people with bomb design experience in India are those who designed the bombs.
If these people shoot "blanks", then blanks is all that India has.

No amount of baiting ("shitty science" etc) from the NPAs will produce the additional data from India that they so desire. Not even the NoKos fall for their tricks.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Arun_S » 07 Sep 2009 05:35

narayanan wrote:In which case the 200KT is again an unusable liability compared to having five 20KT "fizzles" or "fyoozzles" (I have learned from you that one one 200KT is probably lighter and more compact than ten 20KTs) that can be nicely distributed among 5 targets spread over a 50 or 100 mile radius.

How did you learn that from me? Pls ask for Chitragupt's record.

Too much crow eating can be deadly. Pls go slow.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 07 Sep 2009 06:12

What was Santhanam talking about in 2002 when he said this?

http://www.indiadefence.com/nuc_status.htm
During the question and answer session Santanam stoutly outlined India’s nuclear military “modus operandi” and touched on the current nuclear operational status. The bombs, he said, were ready to be handed over by the scientists for deployment when ordered. To put all doubts at rest he also confirmed that trials for delivery had been successfully proved


What has changed since 2002

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 07 Sep 2009 06:25

Gagan wrote:This obfuscation has a precedence:
This what mark hibbs wrote in the response section at armscontrolwonk.

Is this cool or what?


I remember what happened when I wrote that article in the fall of 1998 saying in the headline that the US had concluded that the Indian “H-Bomb failed.”

Almost overnight after the article was published I got a huge bundle of papers from BARC and DAE sent to me by diplomatic pouch from Mumbai informing me with all kinds of numbers that I was wrong.

I gave the papers to laboratory geoscientists at several European countries and the US. One main CTBTO monitoring scientist told me explicitly: “Nope. The stuff in these papers is shitty science. They haven’t shown that you are wrong.”




In fact Mark Hibbs needs to explain why Evernden wrote in Physics and Society, 27:4 (October 1998) pp 10-11. Naturally he will have to do what Indian scientists are doing - i.e question the other guy's credentials.

A quote from a subsequent letter,

In numerous articles, most particularly one that I co wrote with Gerald Marsh and that was published in this very Magazine (August 1987 page 36) I made it perfectly clear that accurate yield estimates can be extracted from seismic data if only people will take the trouble to do the analysis properly.

A note of mine in Physics and Society (October 1998, page 10) explains how to achieve accurate yield estimates of the Indian and Pakistani explosions. (India said is largest one was 43 kilotons and Pakistan said its was 18 kt; my estimates are 46 kt and 19 kt respectvely)



I think that if a lot of airtime is being given to people who quote one particular set of yield estimates, it is only fair to bring out all the data available to show other estimates that range from 5 kilotons to 60 kilotons.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby NRao » 07 Sep 2009 07:06



This:

"The Baneberry tests which are referred to from which simulation data are supposedly taken, refer only to the aftermath of the explosion and its geological effects. They have nothing to do with the actual device itself and is therefore irrelevant to debate about whether we need further tests," the physicists said.


That statement seems to be wrong:

https://asc.llnl.gov/news/news_archive/baneberry.pdf

Baneberry, a 10-kiloton nuclear event, was detonated at a depth of 278 m at the Nevada Test Site on
December 18, 1970. Shortly after detonation, radioactive gases emanating from the cavity were
released into the atmosphere through a shock-induced fissure near surface ground zero. Extensive
geophysical investigations, coupled with a series of 1D and 2D computational studies were used to
reconstruct the sequence of events that led to the catastrophic failure
.

However, the geological profile of the Baneberry site is complex and inherently three-dimensional,
which meant that some geological features had to be simplified or ignored in the 2D simulations. This
left open the possibility that features unaccounted for in the 2D simulations could have had an
important influence on the eventual containment failure of the Baneberry event. To address this issue, a
new study was undertaken that encompassed 3D high-fidelity Baneberry simulations based on the
most accurate geologic and geophysical data available.

The computational model used included about 40 million zones and the simulation required
approximately 40,000 CPU hours to complete, thus making it the largest simulation of its kind. The
simulation helped establish a new capability to perform underground test containment simulations in
3D, thus making it possible—for the first time—to accurately represent complex geologic features in
the simulation. Comparison of the results of the study with available data and with the results of the
previous 2D computational studies provided new insight into the cause of the Baneberry containment
failure.


The 3D study (and actually the 1D and 2D too) DID include the explosion itself. Actually, without simulating the explosion it would not have been possible to model the aftermath!!!

The modeling work AK talks about should have value IMHO - until proved otherwise.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 07 Sep 2009 07:20



This is quite funny isn't it? :roll:

I will now say that someone on this forum is a thief and then demand that he proves that he is not one.

It is up to the doubters to prove that the original claims are wrong. I have not yet seen any new evidence. It's all talk talk talk and people accusing each other of shitty science. A dharmayuddh of dung beetles.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11005
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gagan » 07 Sep 2009 07:27

The only thing that would be of prime interest to a bomb designer from the baneberry simulations would be how the bomb design itself contributed to the size of the explosion.

I mean, the size of the Pu sphere, the trigger, the explosive charge, the casing. How did these affect the size of the explosion.

How the shock wave travelled through the earth's various layers ultimately resulting in the venting is of significance to a geologist or a test site preparation expert - not a bomb designer.

And it is not possible that the US would have declassified details of the bomb design itself and how the various parts of the bomb resulted in the 10 KT yield.

A fission weapon designer's job is done once the 3rd generation of Pu atoms have fissioned.

A thermonuclear weapon designer has to wait slightly longer, the 1st-2nd gen Pu atoms undergo fission, give out the neutrons, the plasma gets formed, the X-ray pressure fuses the LiD, the 3rd gen Pu / U atoms in the tertiary case undergo fission. Naturally for the dance to complete successfully, the tandav has to be perfectly synchronized, the margin of error is said to be very very small.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 07 Sep 2009 07:35

(continued on to shiv's post about the ppl who are screaming).... who still cannot explain why the village of Khetolai, located about the same distance from the test site as the Logistics Base of the guys who did the testing, happened to suffer severe damage to the homes, from the "fizzled fyoozzle". And what would have happened if it was not a "fizzled fyoozzle" in that case.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 07 Sep 2009 07:40

Gagan wrote:Naturally for the dance to complete successfully, the tandav has to be perfectly synchronized, the margin of error is said to be very very small.



Actually there are some margins for error. What those errors do is result in suboptimal yields not necessarily "non explosions". Suboptimal yields using large quantities of reactor grade Pu seems to be one method of deliberately creating subkiloton yields.

The impression I have gained from general reading and timepass are that the "scalable" (5-150 kt) warheads that the US uses are controlled by varying the amount of Tritium. This does not mean India==Yamerika. It only means that mileage may vary due to a variety of reasons. Some are by design, others inadvertent.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby NRao » 07 Sep 2009 07:51

Gagan wrote:The only thing that would be of prime interest to a bomb designer from the baneberry simulations would be how the bomb design itself contributed to the size of the explosion.

...................................

A thermonuclear weapon designer has to wait slightly longer, the 1st-2nd gen Pu atoms undergo fission, give out the neutrons, the plasma gets formed, the X-ray pressure fuses the LiD, the 3rd gen Pu / U atoms in the tertiary case undergo fission. Naturally for the dance to complete successfully, the tandav has to be perfectly synchronized, the margin of error is said to be very very small.


I am sorry, i did not get what you are trying to say here. Can you please b emore explicit, specially WRT the claimed Indian effort related to the Baneberry simulation.

Thx.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 07 Sep 2009 07:56

There is no way that the US govt will have given away the precise composition and process of the Baneberry or any other thermonuke explosion. However, that is completely irrelevant, and the point of the simulation was most certainly not to see if the explosion itself could be simulated.

They would have had to state in court what the yield in kT of the test was. That's about it.

What the Banebery test dataset must have shown, is how the effect of a nuclear explosion of a given yield propagates through a medium with given distribution of soil characteristics, so that the "transfer function" between the explosion characteristics and the sensor signal can be computed.

Once that is shown to be successfully computed, and the computation "predicts" the venting at the right time (3.5 minutes after the test) and at the right place and to the right height, it is clear that the computation is successful, and the prediction capability is validated. Such a prediction does not happen by coincidence, and will not happen until there is a good understanding of the shock propagation through heterogeneous media. And then that prediction capability, along with thorough measurements of the medium around the POK S1 and S2 shafts, would have allowed calculation of the "transfer function" between the sensor output and the explosion that caused it. IOW, I am guessing that they knew the field well enough, to do the tomographic inversion from the sensor data to find the actual yield.

If you didn't have the field data, your yield calculation would be garbage, as happened to the hordes of "international experts".

This is more validation than is used for most See Eff Dee codes used in designing the aircraft and missiles that will deliver these bums, so it is fine.

The funny thing is that people clamor for the Govt. to "explain" highly technical stuff, then they can't figure out head or tail of the explanation because they never paid attention in class.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10015
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby arun » 07 Sep 2009 07:57



:-? If as Dr. P.K.Iyengar avers, Dr. Santahnam was NOT privy to data required to estimate yield, why does Dr. Iyengar believe that Dr. Santhanam’s allegation’s needs to be paid any attention :?: :

…………… The scientists were of the view that since Chidambaram is well aware of the fact that only a small number of persons have access to the Pokhran-II data and Santhanam is not one among them the onus is on him to prove the test gave the desired yield in the face of what they said some evidence to the contrary. ……………

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 07 Sep 2009 08:02

The "onus" is not on anyone to prove anything. The data are Clasified. End of yada-yada-yada.

This "()nus" thing brings a story back to mind. Early in my PIGS career, there was a Senior Research Engineer who worked in our lab. 20 feet from our side door was this high barbed wire fence, inside which we could see a 30-foot high man-made hill with a door set into it like a cave mouth. There was a big skull and cross-bones sign on the door, and the sign of nuclear radiation. There was a wooden board across the top saying "*******'s Folly".

Reliable Rumor had it that this was a nuclear waste dump (and there was a research reactor visible across the parking lot). Well... our SRE had heard that nuke radiation made one impotent. So the legend is that he used to open his zipper and stand facing *******'s Folly in the fond hope of getting some of these beneficial effects.

No luck. He had seven daughters.

I heard he died of leukemia a couple of years ago.

(So anyone who feels the "Onus" coming on can go on one of those Ground Zero Tours, open theirs above the S1 subsistence non-crater and see if they make a Geiger counter tick).

kenop
BRFite
Posts: 1333
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 07:28

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby kenop » 07 Sep 2009 08:04

NRao wrote:The 3D study (and actually the 1D and 2D too) DID include the explosion itself. Actually, without simulating the explosion it would not have been possible to model the aftermath!!!

The modeling work AK talks about should have value IMHO - until proved otherwise.


IMO it does not simulate the explosion process. It starts at the end of the explosion process and finds out the effect of the explosion on the surrounding mass.
The BARC claim is: we can simulate the process of an exploding bomb (starting with the trigger) and calculate the yield. The available data is enough to test the design of weapons of different configurations.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11005
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gagan » 07 Sep 2009 08:09

Shiv-ji saar,
As you know, the TN warhead has several sub components.
Primary goes off => 20KT yield
Secondary goes off=> 5KT yield
Pri+Sec+Tamper go off in a synchronized manner => 200KT- Megaton explosion

However,
Pri + fizzle secondary + Tamper => ~50 odd KTs
Pri + fizzle secondary + cracked tamper => yield of primary only.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 07 Sep 2009 08:14

=> 200KT- Megaton explosion
And Khetolai and the Army/DRDO Logistics Base would have been a smoking crater along with all the schoolchildren standing out in the yard gazing at the lovely flash. :roll:

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 07 Sep 2009 08:15

Gagan wrote:Shiv-ji saar,
As you know, the TN warhead has several sub components.
Primary goes off => 20KT yield
Secondary goes off=> 5KT yield
Pri+Sec+Tamper go off in a synchronized manner => 200KT- Megaton explosion

However,
Pri + fizzle secondary + Tamper => ~50 odd KTs
Pri + fizzle secondary + cracked tamper => yield of primary only.



Not doubting this in any way.

But a yield of less than some arbitrary amount (for example 43 or 27 or 5 kt as opposed to 200 kt) does not necessarily prove that the sequence of events definitely was
Pri + fizzle secondary + Tamper => ~50 odd KTs
Pri + fizzle secondary + cracked tamper => yield of primary only.


Scalability of yield is something the US has proven to itself. Scalability is possible, but India has not proven to any member of the public that scalability is possible in India. That by itself cannot be extrapolated beyond a point.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby NRao » 07 Sep 2009 08:17

If we use our friendly, free search engineS, we will surely see that the Baneberry simulationS has been a work in progress - with each analytical team adding in some way or another. The LAST team to do so seems to be the BARC team - in 2006.

From the original documents I am sure that they ALL had detailed info on the pressure waves generated by the explosion and the damage done. No one can claim that they can simulate events related to this explosion unless they have these two sets of information (pressure and damage).

Then, the fact that the BARC team's paper was accepted by an international has to indicate that the team contributed something to the simulation effort. It just has to. Which is why I feel that the BARC effort has to have value. Which makes me believe that they know what they are talking about. Considering that this was a very, very complex simulation - people across the board need to be careful what they say. No matter who they are.

Now, it is my understanding that K. Santhanam did not have access to the details of the explosion. IIRC I read that he was basing his comments on a graph or so (some data) - which is fine (not a knock on him).

I do not recall anyone saying that the explosion was a success.

So, everyone seems to be right - in their own ways.

There are only two ways to make SURE that what India is spot on: either test again or have ChiPak do something stupid and push India to test.

MMS cannot order a test - he has (painfully) painted himself into a corner.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11005
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gagan » 07 Sep 2009 08:17

NRao saar,
N^3 has sumarized what I want to say.
Essentially, the US baneberry data related mostly to the after effects of a explosion. The nuclear-thermonuclear reaction has already taken place. Now the baneberry model simulates the transfer of the energy as it propagates through the various layers of the earth to reach the seimographs and sensors.
It even predicts with knowledge of the geology wheather the shaft will vent. It will even tell you why a certain yield will be recorded by the seismographs. (AK/RC say 60KT but some scientist in the west says 25KT)

BUT

the model will not predict how a weapons grade Pu ball of 10cm diameter in an explosive jacket, surrounded by foam and besides a Pu rod with LiD inside and the whole thing covered by a 3cm thick reactor grade Pu tamper will give a 200KT yield.
The US will not release the latter data. The heartburn is because the design itself failed. This is the real issue.

AK/RC don't want to talk about the design or why it failed or what changes they want to make. They only want to somehow prove why the west recorded 25 KT while they say 60KT using the baneberry.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby NRao » 07 Sep 2009 08:18

kenop wrote:
NRao wrote:The 3D study (and actually the 1D and 2D too) DID include the explosion itself. Actually, without simulating the explosion it would not have been possible to model the aftermath!!!

The modeling work AK talks about should have value IMHO - until proved otherwise.


IMO it does not simulate the explosion process. It starts at the end of the explosion process and finds out the effect of the explosion on the surrounding mass.
The BARC claim is: we can simulate the process of an exploding bomb (starting with the trigger) and calculate the yield. The available data is enough to test the design of weapons of different configurations.


Read my above post and let me know if you have any issues with it.

Thx.

csharma
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby csharma » 07 Sep 2009 08:19

As I said earlier, BARC should let Santhanam look at the data. This should not be an ego clash.

Once Santhanam is convinced it will send a huge signal to the armed forces and the public about the yield of the TN devices.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11005
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gagan » 07 Sep 2009 08:22

shiv wrote:Scalability of yield is something the US has proven to itself. Scalability is possible, but India has not proven to any member of the public that scalability is possible in India. That by itself cannot be extrapolated beyond a point.

Saar,
I hit the post button in a hurry.
India has not even proven that the three events occurred in synchrony as they should have occurred. We are not into the scalability paradigm yet, where the boosting gas is released in a certain amount and the fusion fuel is released into the chamber in a certain amount.

If BARC demonstrates a successful TN detonation, then it has to demonstrate scalability and dial a yield by various combos of fusion fuel release into the chambers and hot test each situation.

I think it is foolhardy for the army to accept it in any other way.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests