Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Sep 2009 22:54

OK. Thanks. My bad.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 22 Sep 2009 23:02

NRao garu is adding his own ambiguity to the debate

***********
I think even a 60Kt yield will NOT generate a crater at 230 meter depth.

The BR paper has more details.

(I think the depth of S2 was much higher - closer to ground level.)

You mean to say S2 was in "Shallow Hollow" depth relative to ground level. Not to mistake with Shallow Hal movie?

you certainly tease NRao garu

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 22 Sep 2009 23:24

anusrinivasan you have no telugu knowledge, like I have no Tamil knowledge, so how can you pass such cooment with out applying what you say to yourself.

Yad Bhavam tad Bavathi

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 22 Sep 2009 23:28

shiv Post subject: Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2Posted: 22 Sep 2009 03:34 am

BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am
Posts: 4615 Manish_Sharma wrote:
If you were my maths and science teacher instead of Ram Kumar Gupta in 10th standard my marks would have been dramatically different.

Not saying higher or lower?

"vaazha-vaazha kozha-kozha"

For those who want to know what "zh" is pronounced like in Tamil you need to know Marathi. "zh" in Tamil sounds somewhat like the Marathi letter that looks like the symbol for infinity at the bottom, but the upper half is exactly like the Hindi letter "La". Don't have the required skills to produce it here.

Hee Hee!
Sorry Shiv I meant to write HIGHER.

Please forgive this Punjabi Puttar!

Though I understand your problem with "zh" very well. You would be surprised to know that this "zh" of Marathis and Tamilians is very very similar to Harayanwi "zh". If you ever travel to certain parts of haryana where Rajveer is the most common name. You will continuously hear "Raazzzbbeer". It is sooo difficult to convey in writing.

Funny thing is I live 4 months in Pune and rest between Delhi and Tiruppur. And this "zh" is a common thread between all three states with such different languages.

Regards
Manish

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 22 Sep 2009 23:29

John Snow wrote:anusrinivasan you have no telugu knowledge, like I have no Tamil knowledge, so how can you pass such cooment with out applying what you say to yourself.

Yad Bhavam tad Bavathi

Pls yaar Hindi Urdu English yaan Punjabi ivch gal karo mere naal...ay tussi log ki gal kar rahe ho mainu kuch vi palle nahin penda paya

Bum diya galla karen ussi hun...ki mauj da time ajay khatam nahin hua twaada

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 22 Sep 2009 23:31

Sorry OT, @John Snow, KS is a tam, so it is but natural that he is most likely using a common Tamil saying. So I decided to pull ramana's leg, about bringing a telugu poet into this .... to add some humour to this otherwise depressing thread for us jingos.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Sep 2009 23:34

arunsrinivasan wrote:Sorry OT, @John Snow, KS is a tam, so it is but natural that he is most likely using a common Tamil saying. So I decided to pull ramana's leg, about bringing a telugu poet into this .... to add some humour to this otherwise depressing thread for us jingos.

John Snow can you quote the full poem that I am alluding to? "Tiviri isumuna tailambu teeya vacchu!' The last lines might make the most sense to what KS was trying to convey!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Sep 2009 23:43

So the R Ramachandran article was a washout in the sense of same old same old paper with new coefficients as Ramana described?

No one seems to have found anything in it to add more fuel to the debate? Seemed like that to me, but considering lack of interest in the same from others I think the feeling is shared?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Sep 2009 00:09

shiv wrote:After all Arun S has been calling RC a liar for a couple of years - but if Arun had known - why do BR's pages still carry misinformation? Misinformation that some young armed forces officers believe in good faith - in the same way that it is claimed that India's strategic Forces Command was led up the garden path.

Shiv Arun_S has already mentioned on this thread a couple of times that the page is now completely out of date based on the newer data coming up and thus will need a major overhaul.

Ramana and others advised him for the dust to settle before he puts in lot of effort in this direction, makes sense to me.

It was pretty clear in 98 that we had a TN, if not a fully weaponised one a fairly working one. There was some confusion in where it the yield and working % of TN was. It is only now that we are calling it a total dud.

Heck when the credibility of entire BARC is at stake (now one way or the other), BR will be a small fry in collateral damages.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Sep 2009 00:11

But it could be a large fish in some people's eyes no?

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 23 Sep 2009 00:25

Having read Dr. Karnad's latest book (India's Nuclear Policy) and having also never stopped probing into this field (much more than I've ever let my BR comrades know), I cannot imagine that he could have been so entirely gullible to base all sorts of statements and assessments when he was one of the strongest critics of the yields and more incredibly in that very book questions whether the TN device would work at all (at page 70).

Srinivasan gave an on record comment in the book (at page 68) in which he averred... "that without more tests the reliability of the 20KT fission design is 100%, of the tritium boosted design "It will surely work,... there will be a bang! But the full performance of the booster part will be subject to less than 100% surety; [and]in the case of the full thermonuclear device the confidence will perhaps be less.""

To date, nothing has been said that would cause much debate with the above statement.

For a gentleman of Karnad's undoubted talent, knowledge and experience to believe the SFC doesn't know this is not correct and to base assessments of 100-300KT weapons on probable guesswork is a bit hard to swallow.

This is especially true as two variants of the Agni entered service and cleared SFC user trials.

It could be why he capped the Agni-1's warhead at 20-30kt and the Agni-2 at 90-150KT.

Nobody has yet done any assessment of scalability of fission and boosted-fission weapons beyond 50KT. That would be an interesting study.

G. Balachandran and A. Gopalakrishnan have written two useful op-ed pieces in the Hindustan Times and Rediff respectively.

Everyone is using this as an opportunity to get their 15 minutes of fame and frankly Santhanam has not said that much that wasn't already known or at the least suspected. We've been extrapolating, speculating, inventing, convoluting and guessing ever since.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 23 Sep 2009 00:29

Tiviri ismuna tailambu teeya vachhu
Tirigi kundeti kommu sadhimpa vacchu
Cheri moorkhuni mansu ranjimpa raaddu.

***

you can squeeze oil from Sand
You can go on hunting expedition and find a Rabbit with a horn (or three legged one)
But never try to humor a fool.

Anusrinivasan garu it is our good fortune that most Tamil speaking intellectuals and intelligentia can speak or understand Telugu. like wise most Telugu intelligentia and intellectuals draw upon the rich tradition of Tamil literature especially Bharathiyar, Tirupavai Tirvambai and many Tamil scholars

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Sep 2009 01:19

ramana/John Snow,

This is from one of our own.

Cratering Phenomenology and Yield Estimation

Now for the event S-1(Indian thermo-nuclear explosion of May 11, 1998), Y = 45. In hard, dry rock using (3) we compute easily that the critical depth for producing a retarc is 194 metres, which is close to the shaft depth for S-1 stated by Chengappa in [3], pg. 427. In fact the medium for S-1 was wet [3], and somewhat softer and since Chengappa says [3] that the S-1 shaft was over 200 metres, the S-1 event did produce a small sand mound, consistent with our equation (3).

Since Chengappa wrote the depth was greater than 200 meters, there cannot be a crater at all. Right?

In fact the new article be Ramachandra (or the "Sikka" paper), claims the depth was 230 meters and very hard rock (pink granite?). At 230 meters, IF my calcs are right, I could get a yield of 100Kt and not get a crater.

Am I missing anything?

Also, I have come across very, very similar equations, where two of the constants change (from that presented by Sunder). But, even then it really does not make a difference.

John Snow,

based on this equation, @ 20 Kt, S2 should be at about 144 meters for a retarc. I do not recall if there was a crater size provided anywhere, but for any crater to be formed S2 should have been placed higher/shallower than that.

The same article by Sunder states the following:

The cratering curves in [2] achieve a maximum at Ds = 40 and for this value of Ds the corresponding Rs value in hard rock is 45 and 50 for alluvium. This means that for a shaft like S-1 with depth of emplacement D = 200 metres or thereabouts, the maximum crater size will be obtained by a device whose yield is

(200/40)**3.4 = 237 kilotons

and this will produce a crater of radius 250 metres.

It is a rather small article and ALL equations (added in 1st edit: used by other researchers) are very similar (what I have come across replaces the 3.4 with 3.0. That is the range. And, the constant for soil density varies of course.)

And, THAT article had to be proofed by BR. And, I suspect you know who all might have done that.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Sep 2009 01:21

ramana,

When I said my own calc, all I meant was that I was toying with various values - just to see what are the worst vs. best cases. Not trying to trip anyone.

Having said that this does make sense to me. And therefore bugs me - since it is not addressed.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Sep 2009 01:30

Thanks. Two things:

So if an expected crater radius of 72m and DOB of 230 m is for what yield?

K Santhanam gives the crater radius for the S-2 in his op-eds.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Sep 2009 01:46

Anujan wrote:
ramana wrote:Instead of going after each other as Kilkenny cats(N^3 you will love this analogy) think of what can India do to reduce the US and world sanctions if there is a need to re-proof.
ramana
Thinking can along three directions

Thread 1: (Objective is to get the bum with minimum takleef) Why does China get away with anything it does ? Tinamen, Spy plane, Tibet, Xinjiang ityadi. It is because they are economically powerful and so integrated into the world economy that they can retaliate in umpteen possible ways. So we will wait till we become economically prosperous and then do whatever we please. We will be sanction proof in 25 years.

Thread 2: (Objective is to sit on the "high table", bum may be traded for that) Nukes are not needed. We have enough to deter Pakistan. Desh-wide nuclear bombing will not occur and is a cold war construct. Lets cooperate with powers that be, maintain the non-proliferation regime and grow economically.

Both are fallacious

Thread 3: (Objective is to explode a bum on the "high table") Test and test now. If sanctioned, bring down the non-proliferation regime by promising weapons cooperation with all countries who get out of the NPT. Realize that all the countries on the "high table" are not respected for their adherence to morality, but a single minded pursuit of their national objectives at the cost of one or more nations.

If you accept three axioms

1. Our security is guaranteed only by a minimum level of force. The danger of SDREs being wiped off due to a nuclear attack is very real
2. The behavior of others are aimed solely at safeguarding their interests. This frequently affects our security. This type of behavior by others have not been moderated by our inaction, cooperation or morally guided actions.
3. Guaranteeing prosperity at a national level brings with it a level of takleef that cannot be avoided.

Then the conclusion is clear. Its time we became bullies. The fault is entirely of the world.

Glad BRF is paying off for atleast some members. Now having strategised and set goals how to achieve them?

What are the top five negative impacts of Objective #3? And Positive impacts ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Sep 2009 02:00

ramana wrote:Thanks. Two things:

So if an expected crater radius of 72m and DOB of 230 m is for what yield?

K Santhanam gives the crater radius for the S-2 in his op-eds.

Give me some time.

Sunder does have a word to say about this, BUT, I think (need to double check) that he arrived at a value based on the depth of the POK-1 test. And, therefore, I feel that his computes are probably a little off (because POK-1 was at around 107 meters and in much softer soil, vs. POK-2 (S1) was in granite).

I will have to find the graph he used and make an assumption or two and come up with a ball park figure - perhaps a range.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Sep 2009 02:15

I have a nagging suspicion.

What the scientists and GoI are doing is an orchestration.

I have another suspicion.

The way various BRF adminullas are writing, all is maya onlee.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 23 Sep 2009 02:20

Response to shaardulaji:

hang on n3 saar. it does not help understand and is confusing.
if youdont intend to blow 40%. why then add extra 40%? why take the risk?

As far as I can make out, they didn't put in the Li Iodide or Tritium or whatever it is, to get more than 2-5kT fusion beyond the Fission Primary. Because their hands were tied: Here is my view of the Instructions From The Top:

Yes, u can conduct tests. BUT..
1. You can't do anything that will alert See Ayyea. V cannot deal with the pressure that POTUS and gang will bring to bear on us - like 1990 and 2005.

(so this meant, no new shaft deep in the Thar where a 1MT could be tested. ALSO, no full evacuation of Khetolai. If Amirkhan devoted satellites and analysts to study POK, then you can be fairly sure that Khetolai and other villages had 1 or 2 residents with access to satphones/ cellphone)

2. NO venting, fallout etc.

3. Rush job: use what you have.

4. USE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM YIELD to get what you want. India is Bissful nation. V want whole Duniya to love us. Don't want to upset anyone. Insaniyat over Insanity. Planning to go make peace in Lahore right after these tests, so don't want rage from fallout, earthquakes etc. etc.

*************************************

So they took a weapon that might have had 25KT fission primary, 100KT hydrogen secondary, and emptied all except the absolute bare minimum needed to be able to tell that the secondary initiated and there were some traces of fusion achieved.

They could not have scaled back on the 25KT fission part, because that would mean cutting away part of the Pu or U or whatever the fissile material was, and that doesn't work because everything is designed and machined to perfection. So all they could do is keep the fusion stuff to bare minimum, with success criterion being: "YES! WE GOT TRACES OF FUSION INITIATION! The FISSILE TRIGGER IS WORKING IN TRIGGERING FUSION!"

Just to remind the herrows here: 2KT of fusion is still 4000 Hajaar-pound bums. It is detectable from close by, surely.

And because this worked, the BARC ppl say: Rest of the problem has been solved previously. If we had pumped in the rest of the tritium / Lithium iodide whatever, we would have got up to 125KT total. No need for further tests to prove that.

Maccho guys say:

Arre yaar! 2 KT? What kind of sdre bum is THAT?

But this misses the point of the demonstration.

The other point that the "fuzzle!" crowd is not realizing is that no one makes a 25KT trigger unless it is a design for a fairly MASSIVE thermonuke. Otherwise why not use a 10KT trigger? Can't that produce the pressure and temperature and radiation needed for fusion initiation? I would think it can. So when they claim that 25KT of S1 was fissile, they are confirming that the device was actually part of a massive bum. 300kT? 1MT?

This fits any "fizzle yield" claims from Santanam, who is reminding everyone that they have not really tested whether the fusion scales up as they imagine.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 23 Sep 2009 02:31

narayanan wrote:Response to shaardulaji:

hang on n3 saar. it does not help understand and is confusing.
if youdont intend to blow 40%. why then add extra 40%? why take the risk?
As far as I can make out, they didn't put in the Li Iodide or Tritium or whatever it is, to get more than 2-5kT fusion beyond the Fission Primary. Because their hands were tied: Here is my view of the Instructions From The Top:

Yes, u can conduct tests. BUT..
1. You can't do anything that will alert See Ayyea. V cannot deal with the pressure that POTUS and gang will bring to bear on us - like 1990 and 2005.

(so this meant, no new shaft deep in the Thar where a 1MT could be tested. ALSO, no full evacuation of Khetolai. If Amirkhan devoted satellites and analysts to study POK, then you can be fairly sure that Khetolai and other villages had 1 or 2 residents with access to satphones/ cellphone)

2. NO venting, fallout etc.

3. Rush job: use what you have.

4. USE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM YIELD to get what you want. India is Bissful nation. V want whole Duniya to love us. Don't want to upset anyone. Insaniyat over Insanity. Planning to go make peace in Lahore right after these tests, so don't want rage from fallout, earthquakes etc. etc.
*************************************

So they took a weapon that might have had 25KT fission primary, 100KT hydrogen secondary, and emptied all except the absolute bare minimum needed to be able to tell that the secondary initiated and there were some traces of fusion achieved.

They could not have scaled back on the 25KT fission part, because that would mean cutting away part of the Pu or U or whatever the fissile material was, and that doesn't work because everything is designed and machined to perfection. So all they could do is keep the fusion stuff to bare minimum, with success criterion being: "YES! WE GOT TRACES OF FUSION INITIATION! The FISSILE TRIGGER IS WORKING IN TRIGGERING FUSION!"

Just to remind the herrows here: 2KT of fusion is still 4000 Hajaar-pound bums. It is detectable from close by, surely.

And because this worked, the BARC ppl say: Rest of the problem has been solved previously. If we had pumped in the rest of the tritium / Lithium iodide whatever, we would have got up to 125KT total. No need for further tests to prove that.

Maccho guys say:
Arre yaar! 2 KT? What kind of sdre bum is THAT?
But this misses the point of the demonstration.

The other point that the "fuzzle!" crowd is not realizing is that no one makes a 25KT trigger unless it is a design for a fairly MASSIVE thermonuke. Otherwise why not use a 10KT trigger? Can't that produce the pressure and temperature and radiation needed for fusion initiation? I would think it can. So when they claim that 25KT of S1 was fissile, they are confirming that the device was actually part of a massive bum. 300kT? 1MT?

This fits any "fizzle yield" claims from Santanam, who is reminding everyone that they have not really tested whether the fusion scales up as they imagine.

Saar tussi chaa gaye...great analysis

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 23 Sep 2009 02:37

Raveen ustad, how do you think we learnt Punjabi, by listening to Bale Bale and bangra, so you will also soon learn Tamil Telugu Kannada malayalam (which you must have already be familiar with otherwise you cant survive in Punjab)

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 23 Sep 2009 03:07

John Snow wrote:Raveen ustad, how do you think we learnt Punjabi, by listening to Bale Bale and bangra, so you will also soon learn Tamil Telugu Kannada malayalam (which you must have already be familiar with otherwise you cant survive in Punjab)

erudu kodi bega...gimme 2 quick (@ the pan wala) in Bangalore...thats all I learnt in my 9 months down there...lol
that and a few Tamil words you probably dont want to hear

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Sep 2009 03:29

NRao, Another point. The BRM article uses Ds = 52 based on the POK I crater data. And it shows that it was a maximum cratering event (MCE) ie peaceful only. However the R^2 article in Frontline says that Ds=67 for POKII tests due to the strata pink granite etc.. Infact it was at a minima and should have a no protrubence. page 3 of 5.

In fact Sikkaji says even the small retarc was due to reflected shock wave. Need to think about this. For that would explain the undamaged A frame wagera, wagera.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 23 Sep 2009 03:41

The actual values of ‘a’ and ‘b’ for Pokhran, as determined by the BARC scientists, are 4.04 and 0.77 respectively

Is this the first public mention of these values?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Sep 2009 03:48

N^3 Check this SAAG article. The preamble looks like your thought process!

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers ... r3413.html

Fizzle or not, the two stage thermo nuclear device, given the constraints of terrain, underground testing, the safety of villages nearby above all the stealth needed to test the device and the short time available, we should be satisfied that the fusion device did produce fusion though one may differ on the yield or the burn. Given our expertise and ability on computer modelling, it is certain that a robust device could be built in future if needed if it had not been done already.

Yes that I am aware of Gerard.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Sep 2009 03:49

That has been my point all along.

But, thanks for that Ds value, but I need a corresponding Rs value.

However, I am missing the graph that was produced by the authors that Sunder relies on.

removed estimates.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Sep 2009 04:04

Edited for checking the math....

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Sep 2009 04:32

Right. The values make a huge difference - as shown in your post (52 vs. 67) (which is why I withdrew my earlier estimates).

Your figures are well within the ball park, outside of one issue: the Ds and Rs values are related, which is why I was trying to get to that graph - it would be so much easier if we can get that one graph. (Do not have time to chase that right now.)

But, bottom line, IMHO, even with a 45 Kt (designed) yield, I doubt if we would see a crater for S1 @ 230 meters depth.

The other thing I would like to point out is that the improper usage of a constant would make a difference in yield estimates and therefore design considerations.

Perhaps we need to wait and see what KS has to say about the RR article. The two seem to be on the opposing side of the fence.

______________________

My gut feel is that India does have a TN on top of an Agni.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Sep 2009 04:37

N Rao, the graph is in the Sunder paper. Its on page 7 of pdf. Rs for Ds eqaul 67 is ~ 20m more like 17m.

lets wait and see.

To me looks like BARC was too close mouthed for their own good. And all this they could have told before the tests.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 23 Sep 2009 04:38

Gerard wrote:
The actual values of ‘a’ and ‘b’ for Pokhran, as determined by the BARC scientists, are 4.04 and 0.77 respectively
Is this the first public mention of these values?

No.

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/oct252002/992.pdf
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jul102001/72.pdf

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 23 Sep 2009 06:11

Here is the 2001 paper by Murphy and Barker that was used by Sikka to rebut Barker's 1998 claim of POKII. Note POKII spectral curve seems to be from Barker's own 1998 Science article.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/dgwwtubktbdbew38/

Barker rejects Mb, Ms etc based yield estimation in 2001 paper.

These results lead us to conclude that the network-averaged teleseismic P-wave spectra provide considerably more diagnostic information regarding the explosion seismic source than do the corresponding narrowband magnitude measures such as mb, Ms and mb(Lg), and, therefore, that they are to be preferred for applications to seismic yield estimation for explosions at previously uncalibrated test sites.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2009 06:25

sivab wrote: http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jul102001/72.pdf

Ah - the famous Douglas and Marshall paper.

A. Douglas*, P. D. Marshall, D. Bowers, J. B. Young,
D. Porter and N. J. Wallis
AWE, Blacknest, Brimpton, Reading, RG7 4RS, UK
Indian scientists estimate the yield of the 11 May 1998
nuclear test at Pokhran as around 60 kt. Some of the
assumptions made in making this estimate appear un-
justified: for example, the assumption that interfer-
ence between P waves from the two largest explosions
in the test reduces the observed body-wave magnitude
and that the NEIS estimate of surface wave magnitude
is reliable. We show from a comparison of P amplitude
observations at twelve common stations for the 11
May 1998 and 18 May 1974 tests that the maximum
yield of the 1998 test is around 40 kt with the assump-
tion that the yield of the 1974 test is 13 kt. However,
one Indian estimate of the yield of the 1974 test is 8 kt,
implying that the 1998 test has a maximum yield of
around 25 kt. Our estimate of yield from surface
waves is 15–20 kt. The evidence is then that the yield
of the 1998 test is closer to 20 kt than the 60 kt
obtained by Indian scientists. Even assuming however
that the Indian yield estimate is correct the capacity of
the International Monitoring System being set up to
verify the Comprehensive Test Ban, should be suffi-
cient for the System to act as a strong deterrent to any
nation on the Indian Sub-continent and adjacent areas
attempting to carry out a clandestine test.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Sep 2009 06:40

Can someone speculate on why Santhanam wants two nuclear tests? What does he want to test? I assume he means a test of a TN weapon, but why two?
Does India have two TN designs?
Does he imply one test to test the weaponized version, and the other re-test to take care of any problems that may have cropped up.

Why two?

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 23 Sep 2009 06:45

Even assuming however
that the Indian yield estimate is correct the capacity of
the International Monitoring System being set up to
verify the Comprehensive Test Ban, should be suffi-
cient for the System to act as a strong deterrent to any
nation on the Indian Sub-continent and adjacent areas
attempting to carry out a clandestine test.

WTF is this supposed to mean? IMS does not have presence on Indian soil per the map posted earlier on the forum. Deliberate under-reporting in the name of "scientific" calculations? Under-reporting acts as a deterrance for further testing? Does this surprise us?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2009 06:46

Gagan wrote:Can someone speculate on why Santhanam wants two nuclear tests? What does he want to test? I assume he means a test of a TN weapon, but why two?
Does India have two TN designs?
Does he imply one test to test the weaponized version, and the other re-test to take care of any problems that may have cropped up.

Why two?

He says "At least two" in yesterday's Deccan Herad. The DDM have reported it as two in the headline.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/266 ... ove1h.html

‘Two more tests to improve H-bomb’
New Delhi, Sep 22, DHNS:

Reiterating his claims that the 1998 thermonuclear test was a 'fizzle', retired defence scientist K Santhanam on Monday said India would require at least two more tests with hydrogen bombs to collect information on parameters to simulate and improve their performance.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2009 06:50

Satya_anveshi wrote: WTF is this supposed to mean? IMS does not have presence on Indian soil per the map posted earlier on the forum. Deliberate under-reporting in the name of "scientific" calculations? Under-reporting acts as a deterrance for further testing? Does this surprise us?

Good catch satya. The NPA via seismologists have continuously been trying to prove their mettle and their importance. The "shitty science" of Mark Hibbs is a more recent example.

All my Prof relatives and friends in the US need to fight for funding - and I wonder if this "CTBT monitoring" is a way for geology depts to get funding.

I don't know..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Sep 2009 06:54

Monday, 21st :: NDTV :: Santhanam on Pokhran N-test

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Sep 2009 07:01

shiv wrote: Two more tests to improve H-bomb

Scientists said such assertions are flawed, as a different methodology (related to the volume effect of the explosion) would be applicable to determine the crater size in case of a fusion bomb. Santhanam claimed that the DAE never made the detailed radio-chemical analysis public to justify its claim on 45 kt yield. He said there are two DRDO units which have capabilities to independently analyse the radio-chemical data to verify DAE’s assessment.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2009 07:04

NRao wrote:
Scientists said such assertions are flawed, as a different methodology (related to the volume effect of the explosion) would be applicable to determine the crater size in case of a fusion bomb. Santhanam claimed that the DAE never made the detailed radio-chemical analysis public to justify its claim on 45 kt yield. He said there are two DRDO units which have capabilities to independently analyse the radio-chemical data to verify DAE’s assessment.

And:

at least two more tests with hydrogen bombs to collect information on parameters to simulate and improve their performance.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 23 Sep 2009 07:08

ramana:
Much appreciate your leading me to that article. Yes, I do feel that this is all that the GOI can reveal. The following passage is interesting:

The two-stage thermonuclear device, with a fusion-boosted fission trigger as the first stage and with the features needed for integration with delivery vehicles, was tested at the controlled yield of 45 kt and had the purpose of developing nuclear weapons with yields upto around 200 kilotons

Well... ppl seem to be arguing about the 45kT, but the phrase "controlled yield" is what strikes me.

Sorry the pressure of work precludes careful reading of the technical stuff. But I feel that after some 100 pages of that, there isn't anything to be gained from the technical stuff. The pictures are nice to see....

On a related subject - Sikka's revelation through Ramachandran's article, is merely a sanitized, made-4-TV version showing very rudimentary correlations, and all he is out to do is to give a very simplified explanation of why the foreigners bumbled to the wrong conclusions.

Samuel derives conclusions about BARC/DRDO techniques from that article - absolutely no basis for doing that, sorry. Imagine trying to explain a Fourier Transform to "Frontline" or "The HUNDI" papparazzus. (OK, no rolling-eyes smiley..)