ramana wrote:Samuel and Raj Malhotra, Another indirect method is from the 3-D simulation of POK I paper in Current Science. It says that the cavity (not crater is 30m-page 6 of the pdf) for value of 12kt in shale. From this we can compute the expected cavity radius for the ~ 43 kt and adjust for hardness of "pink granite" to shale. We then compare this to measured value in the Radio-chem paper. Both these are BARC data and so on one can say corrupted data. One hitch is that the 3-D paper doesnt say if its diameter or radius. So we need to calculate for both. per Terhune the Radius of cavity = k*(Y]^1/3
K= 12 - 16 with 12 for granite. Assume shale is 14 or a reasonable value between these two.
Therefor RC2/RC1= (Y2/Y1)^1/3
RC2 = RC1*(Y2/Y1)^1/3
As granite is stiffer than shale by not much the cavity will be smaller than that calculated for shale by small percentage.
Lets see what this results in?
Pls give the conclusions also
I think Santhanam left 3 clues in his paper. The first was that fission bomb was 25kt which lot of people are coming around to. The second clue was about the designed yield of TN which I am trying to unravel and third clue I have discussed below.
I think that we should simply take technical data from Sikka new paper. Feed data in it such that for 43kt shot at 230m, we get a gentle retarc. Then replace the retarc with 70m subsistence crater to get design yield of TN.
Now what is the dispute between BARC & DRDO. We are reading that dispute as dispute about yield. I don’t think that is the dispute. It would be idiotic to assume that Santhanam was not told about the “design yield”. Note-GoI & BARC are saying that he was not aware of “design” (not yield). The dispute (my guess) is about fusion Burn. That is why Santhanam says that BARC & DRDO agreed on S2 in which the actual yield was 25kt but reported as 10-15kt. And the reason he says that they disagreed were (my guess) that DRDO (probably) said that (almost) nil fusion burn took place in S1 and the test is not adequate for weaponization and BARC said that (some) fusion burn did take place and hence test was adequate for generating data for FBF and TN. I think that is why BARC is saying that DRDO-Santhanam has no data (from instrumentation) and they have held drilled – radioisotope data close to their heart. Santhanam is saying that he has adequate data from his own instrumentation and hence (almost nil) fusion burn took place.
Hence my conclusion, till refuted. BARC tested a 500kt to 1MT TN as S1 which failed and produced only 25kt. The 6th test was pulled as it was 100-350kt and would have produced only 5-10kt on fizzle which would have been difficult to disguise. India does not have FBF Or TN. BARC thinks that it can design FBF or TN on this data and Santhanam says NO!!!!!!!!!
I am reproducing my last post again, to encourage somebody to give some answers. I will be glad to be proved wrong.
This is the multi-million dollar question
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.
, which i think will reveal the difference between three yields of S-1 "design yield" vs "claimed yield =43kt" vs "actual yield =20kt". I think that Sanathanam has already given info that part of yield of Fission bomb was used to save H&D of TN. Now the only reason he & PKI could be so sure of failure is that "design yield was way higher". So what was the yield that could be contained in 230m depth shaft in hard rock pink granite with 72m subsistence crater (my guess would be anything between 200kt-1mt)
Guys waiting for the answer to Ramana's question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The resident experts are ignoring my queries therefore I will try to connect some dots in my own limited way:-
1. PKI said that if 10% fusion fuel burned then it would lead to 20kt fusion yield. It meant that PKI was talking about 200kt fusion yield which means something like 500kt to 1MT yield of the TN. My assumption is that TN nuke design started during PKI time and he knew that the TN was supposed to yield 500kt to 1MT and hence was not even satisfied with “then” reported 50kt yield.
2. Santhanam talked about 350kt to 1MT yield TNs, why ??.
3. SBM has referred to weight of 400kg for S1, it is too much for chotu 43kt TN, as I said before that even in 1960s the TN of this yield weight around 50kg.
4. Arun_S talks about boosted primary, boosted spark plug and tertiary, hence 50kt design yield is way toooooooo less for such a configuration.
5. Why would a team of scientists testing a TN for the first & perhaps the last time test a 43kt chotu TN? I think village thing is a red herring.
6. My take is that 230m shaft in “pink granite hard rock” could take a 500kt-1MT TN explosion
7. My (revised guess) is that S1 was meant to be 500kt-1MT device in which even the boosted primary fizzled leading to FBF yield of 17kt instead of 40-50kt and 2-4kt fusion yield instead of 200kt fusion yield with minor yields from spark plug and tertiary.
8. Ashely Tellis also said that primary failed to boost, this observation may have been based on intelligence reports.
9. My guess is that the 6th test was pulled as it was the lighter smaller, say 150kg-350kt yield TN whose fizzle would have given 4-5kt yield and would have been difficult to disguise as chotu TN.
10. Sanathanam (through Arun_S?) has stated that FBF was 17kt but this NOT equivalent of stating that it burned properly.