Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Sanku » 01 Oct 2009 16:28

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote:A clear pointwise statement by GoI establishment directly on how the points raised by KS are wrong.


Err pardon my asking Sanku ji but haven't you heard the AK and RC programme on NDTV and it's transcript? I think you must have been away. :eek:


I have, they did not offer any new points, they just said look at the papers we have published.

If they did I would be happy.

The only new data point has been Adm Arun Mehta's paper.
Last edited by Sanku on 01 Oct 2009 16:29, edited 1 time in total.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Sanku » 01 Oct 2009 16:29

shiv wrote:
Sadly Fauja's rant never settled the issue of whether Deepak would bash Rohinton or vice versa. The argument had veered to whose support who would get and what that supporter would bring.

Alas - for a time machine..


Why? You have that on BRF right now once more.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby harbans » 01 Oct 2009 16:40

Since there is a great deal of site-specific uncertainty (in a) in the determination of the absolute yield from seismic data and b does not vary significantly in the m-Y relation, the relative yields between two tests for a given site can be evaluated with much greater confidence by using the difference in m(B) values and eliminating a. By measuring the ratio of amplitudes of P waves (see picture) at 13 seismic stations common to both Pokhran-I and II (Table 2), Sikka and others have calculated the average change in m(B) to be 0.45. This, in turn, corresponds to a ratio of 4.46 between the yields of Pokhran I and II. A Pokhran-I yield value of 12-13 kt gives Pokhran-II yield to be 54-58 kt.

Clearly, this method of estimating the Pokhran-II yield critically depends on the Pokhran-I yield. It may be recalled that there is controversy over its value as well. On the basis of an apparent statement made by Iyengar that the Pokhran-I yield was 8-10 kt, this is the value that has generally been used by Western analysts instead of the official figure of 12-13 kt. Some, in fact, believe that it was less than 5 kt. A figure of 2 kt has also been stated.


http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thsc ... prd=fline&

Coming to think, it's not that DAE folks haven't done their homework. Sikkha has rebutted Western seismological claims and there's been no counter rebuttal. Ignore my last link as they give no graphs..this one provides necessary info. Apologies if posted earlier..

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Sanku » 01 Oct 2009 16:44

harbans wrote:Coming to think, it's not that DAE folks haven't done their homework. Sikkha has rebutted Western seismological claims and there's been no counter rebuttal. Ignore my last link as they give no graphs..this one provides necessary info. Apologies if posted earlier..


No they have, however they cant seem to answer KS, thats where they either go quite or use other methods.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby harbans » 01 Oct 2009 17:08

Sankuji, the GOI through the National Security Adviser MKN says:
Now, since both Santhanam and Iyengar were privy neither to the design of the weapon nor to the details of the radiochemical analysis and other measurements, their arguments are quite speculative. National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan, in fact, said in a recent interview (The Hindu, August 30): “First and foremost, DRDO has nothing to do with [this aspect of the] tests…. The measurements are not done by DRDO.” And, in any case, unlike Santhanam now and many Western analysts before him, Iyengar has not questioned the yield itself.


While i acknowledge KS might have been in charge of site preparation and laying out test equipment including that of DRDO and DAE, he might not have been in charge of analysis of all data. That would have still been done by DAE. So he had to rely on Seismic and accelerometer readings that DRDO also put up in addition. When he says he too has 'onsite' reading he certainly is referring to onsite accelerometer readings DRDO setup, which had a calibration issue raised before the tests.

Seismic data is pretty well demolished by Sikka and Co. in the link i posted above and rebutted in technical papers which have not been counter rebutted one bit by those experts. So, seismic part: Sikka 1: International seismic experts :0. That leaves accelerometer onsite readings put up by DRDO. Calibration issues pointed before tests plus inability to record some waveforms..so Sikka and Co. 1: KS and Co. 0.

With their rebuttals and pointing out where exactly the seismic experts have gone wrong in calculations Sikka and Co. seem to know what they are talking about. So on open source material, so far it's a two up on DAE AFAIK..

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Sanku » 01 Oct 2009 17:14

harbans wrote:While i acknowledge KS might have been in charge of site preparation and laying out test equipment including that of DRDO and DAE, he might not have been in charge of analysis of all data. ..


Harbansji, this is a old data point in the debate, after this KS came out and publicly said buzz off to MKN and laid out a part of what he knew, that has been pretty devastating.

He has claimed knowledge of 4 out of 5 tests (barring radiological measurements) as well as of the design itself. The seismic data exists in India as well as from outside (discussed before on the forum)

He has also mocked MKN for being a spook.

Since then GoI has been cowering in dark places claiming, "trust us" without answering any of the points KS raised.

Also they were saying PKI was not saying the same thing as KS, after which PKI came out and said that all his concerns were verified as being correct by KS based on the data points that he talked of and the whole picture was a dud.

It looks bad for GoI right now.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby harbans » 01 Oct 2009 17:26

Sankuji, Ok let me give you the benefit of doubt here. Sikka has debunked experts on the seismic part and radiological part. Why does KS not debunk those scientific rebuttals that Sikka has already given. Check out that link i posted with the graphs. Does KS acknowledge Sikka's rebuttal has value? He should point out why he still supports some international experts on the Seismic part of the tests, when Sikka has given a technical rebuttal. But KS seems playing more to the media gallery here. JMT/ I'm a reluctant entry into this thread BTW.. :mrgreen:

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Sanku » 01 Oct 2009 17:59

harbans wrote: He should point out why he still supports some international experts on the Seismic part of the tests, when Sikka has given a technical rebuttal.


As I understand, the game had long ago moved away from the use of support of international experts from KS end. He is now clearly talking of the establishment data itself and wants a third party (within country) inquiry.

However we did discuss on BRF that the seismic part of test can not be proven or dis-proven without the access to the constants and measurements for various parameters of equations that are used.

As I understand the biggest flaw in the Sikka papers etc is that they do not use data from Pokharan but use internationally published data for other Seismic regions. This is justified in the name of preserving secrecy of tests (I dont know what secrecy dont ask me :-) )

Thus both the Indian and the firangi papers use data which is from outside India. It then becomes whom to believe.

Basically the papers do not completely quash the open question.

On radiology there are many issues

1) KS says that the paper that Sikka et al have put does not show enough data to make the claim that the paper makes
2) Arun_S reviewed the paper and laid various issues with it
3) Shiv and others (including NPA) have said that the radiological method in the paper is not THE method which is the most accurate but some other method of questionable accuracy.

The word used for the paper (not mine) has been Shitty science. Issues have been raised about the quality of journals in which these peer reviewed papers have been posted as well.

Complicated aint it. :-?

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Raj Malhotra » 01 Oct 2009 18:57

I fully agree that we should not attack RCji's personality but deal with technical discussion. Similarly it is NOT kosher to attack Santhanam personality and call him a CIA agent. Note:- He may be a CAI agent or on the other hand may have decided to sacrifice the benefits of being an insider at the highest level in order to put across his point of view.


Similarly if we limit our discussion to technical aspects then some oldie goldie-s should have self imposed constraint and stick to techical discussions without trying pakilogy.


I apologise for my behavior (without withdrawing any comments) as it was to put things in perspective. With this I bow out of the thread for the time being as I have nothing further to add except that S1 was 1000 kt but it fizzled and s6 was 350kt but never tested. (based on my guess)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby shiv » 01 Oct 2009 19:21

harbans wrote:Sankuji, Ok let me give you the benefit of doubt here. Sikka has debunked experts on the seismic part and radiological part. Why does KS not debunk those scientific rebuttals that Sikka has already given. Check out that link i posted with the graphs. Does KS acknowledge Sikka's rebuttal has value? He should point out why he still supports some international experts on the Seismic part of the tests, when Sikka has given a technical rebuttal. But KS seems playing more to the media gallery here. JMT/ I'm a reluctant entry into this thread BTW.. :mrgreen:



Harbans - if you are a newcomer to this thread let me tell you that an argument about yields actually goes nowhere.

The real issue is the fact that a fission bomb is supposed to set off fusion in fusion fuel. This is what is being questioned with regard to the S1 test of may 11 1998. The argument - to put it simply falls into three "teams"

1) The fusion did not occur at all
2) Fusion occurred but not much/not as much as claimed
3) All the planned fusion occurred.

This fusion business can be tested in two ways

One is to explode over Islamabad and see what happens - which is a bit chancy.
The other is to look for evidence of fusion by certain tests. Nobody is telling anything about that aside from whatever info has been released which are only hints and nudges.

So the argument goes round and round and round about who said what.

Of course the proof of the pudding is working designs of thermonuclear weapons. Clearly we have not tested any of those. What conclusion you want to reach from this is entirely yours.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby harbans » 01 Oct 2009 19:41

Shivji, thanks for the summarization. So neutrons that are generated from fission are supposed to hit a certain quantity of LiD, which convert Li into helium and Tritium. The Tritium then interacts with the deuterium and releases fusion energy. From what i have been gleaning through even the most efficient TN bombs function with a fusion part efficiency of 50%. Seismic and radiochemical tests on the gamma ray spectrum analysis would define how it worked in addition to other online tests. Just some sites i went through, pretty detailed paper by AK and Co..with plenty of graphs etc.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuk ... 0-barc.htm

The following link is a press release. Also contains the rebuttals..

http://www.pib.nic.in/release/rel_print ... elid=52813

Apologies if repeated. But it seems no one outside the design team can comment on the efficiency of the fusion part as the were not privy to the design.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Bade » 01 Oct 2009 19:45

The word used for the paper (not mine) has been Shitty science. Issues have been raised about the quality of journals in which these peer reviewed papers have been posted as well.

If Current Science from the Indian Academy of Sciences (http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/) is a shitty science journal, then what hope does BRM or its posters have for credibility in what they post on the forum outside of BRF. So stop making such nonsensical statements. :rotfl: If you do not believe in what Current Science publishes, then might as well dissolve the entire S&T community in India if they are not willing to publish in western journals with work approved only by western experts.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Bade » 01 Oct 2009 19:49

Regarding accuracy and other comments made earlier.

Gendanken experiment: Say you had measured values of the same hypothetical event as 50+/-10, 40+/-12, 45+/-15 and 500+/-2 using different equipment.

Clearly, +/- 2 is a small error, but which one would you believe or consider an outlier ? :mrgreen: Do you see in which measurement the systematic error shows up in large measure ?

ps: to make it more relevant say the fourth method gave a result of 10+/-2...still it is an outlier.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Sanku » 01 Oct 2009 19:58

Bade wrote:
The word used for the paper (not mine) has been Shitty science. Issues have been raised about the quality of journals in which these peer reviewed papers have been posted as well.

If Current Science from the Indian Academy of Sciences (http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/) is a shitty science journal, then what hope does BRM or its posters have for credibility in what they post on the forum outside of BRF. So stop making such nonsensical statements. :rotfl: If you do not believe in what Current Science publishes, then might as well dissolve the entire S&T community in India if they are not willing to publish in western journals with work approved only by western experts.


Badeji, there are two statements here
1) Quality of journal -- which was discussed to be a low impact journal
2) Quality of paper -- described as shitty science

There is a third angle -- am I saying this? No I am merely summing up various PoV's since harbans asked what has the stand been on Sikka papers etc.

Dont be shooting the messenger please.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Sanku » 01 Oct 2009 20:01

Bade wrote:Regarding accuracy and other comments made earlier.


If it was to me, I agree, I was using only two data point example without considering that 1 and 2 would be very different. If they were then it moves to correctness in which case more samples would be needed.

KS seems to indicate that all his tests (3+ ?) agreed with each other

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Sanku » 01 Oct 2009 20:03

harbans wrote: But it seems no one outside the design team can comment on the efficiency of the fusion part as the were not privy to the design.


Yes thats why KSs statement are so damaging, he claims insider status (logically not difficult to grant him that)

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby harbans » 01 Oct 2009 20:18

AFAIK no one has countered this data till date? They've given the post shot radioactivity chemical analysis and methodology of arrival of yield and fission-fusion percentage.

Figure 3 gives the gamma-ray spectrum of a typical sample indicating the gamma-ray peaks due to fission and activation products. The measured radioactivities of fission products were used to arrive at the number of fission per gram of the sample using the appropriate fission yields. Though the activities were measured for all the fission products listed in Table 1, the fission per gram was obtained from the activity data of 95Zr and 144Ce. These are high yield fission products, are refractory in nature and do not have gaseous precursors which can escape (like 137Cs), or form volatile compounds (like 103,106Ru). The number of fissions/gram (F) as a function of the height for these two nuclides is plotted in Figure 4. Both the nuclides give the identical distribution pattern indicating the overall reliability of the measurements.

In order to obtain the total number of fissions, it is necessary to devise a method of integration. The radius of the crush zone was obtained from the drilling data and was found to be about 60 m. This gave an estimate of the cavity radius (Rc) as 40 ± 4 m. The early samples from the recent drilling operations at a position 32 m away from the earlier position showed nearly same level of radioactivity indicating that the Rc is positively more than 32m. The total number of fissions (TF) was obtained by integrating the fitted curve (Figure 4) over the entire active zone . This integration was carried out using the following equation,


Yield Equation***** (4)


where r is the density of the material.

As stated earlier, the signatures of the fusion reaction are activation products due to 14 MeV neutrons, such as, 54Mn, 22Na, 58Co, 46Sc, as marked in the gamma-ray spectrum (Figure 3). The estimation of 14 MeV neutron yield from the measured radioactivity of these products requires the knowledge of the amount of the target elements present at the site of the event and the reaction cross sections. The two major radionuclides which could be assayed in most of the samples were 54Mn and 46Sc. Although the fission neutron spectrum has a high energy tail, the total number of neutrons produced by fusion fraction being much larger, the majority of the high energy neutrons can be attributed to fusion neutrons.


http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuk ... 0-barc.htm

Yes thats why KSs statement are so damaging, he claims insider status (logically not difficult to grant him that)

I am not sure about this. Indeed he's an insider as far as P2 went. But did he know about the weapon design, LiD amount, soil and chemical characteristics etc? Mr Nair of ISRO for example was interviewed the other day about the water on the moon discovery, and he mentioned asteroids and comets bringing water to the moon. It was not so as far as the discovery went. It's developing on the moon due to protons carried out with solar winds reacting with lunar soil for example. Every top shot in a program is not necessarily aware of the intricacies involved in a project and that too where intricate device details are with a separate specialized departments. JMT/

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Bade » 01 Oct 2009 20:18

Sanku wrote:Badeji, there are two statements here
1) Quality of journal -- which was discussed to be a low impact journal
2) Quality of paper -- described as shitty science

There is a third angle -- am I saying this? No I am merely summing up various PoV's since harbans asked what has the stand been on Sikka papers etc.

Dont be shooting the messenger please.


No Sanku, only targeting the ideas. Nothing personal here in my smileys.

Current Science has low impact, maybe because it is not read and quoted much elsewhere. Though personally I do not see much issue with its quality. But then IIT system also has low impact till some of their products are chiseled at better impact institutions around the world. But do we condemn its utility entirely ? No, similarly we should encourage and not run down an indigenous (how I hate that word) effort to have a place for putting our flag. Anyway, I do not agree with either 1) or 2) you listed there. :-)

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Sanku » 01 Oct 2009 20:26

harbans wrote: But did he know about the weapon design, LiD amount, soil and chemical characteristics etc?


He says he does. What to do now?

Meanwhile for the critique of rest of the paper please refer to first few pages of thread 2. A lot of it is discussed in detail there.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Bade » 01 Oct 2009 20:27

Sanku wrote:KS seems to indicate that all his tests (3+ ?) agreed with each other

All the other tests where his results apparently agree were a factor of 2 or more lower in expected yields. The only one where it disagrees or his equipment malfunctioned was for the larger yield TN test. So was there an unknown (not accounted for yet) systematic failure of the DRDO test setup for the larger yield test, which led it to being discarded in the final analysis. It is routinely done in science analysis. Removing the unexplained outlier, if all other methods give similar results. Just trying to point that out.

I do not know for sure, only DRDO and BARC knows the exact answer to it.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Sanku » 01 Oct 2009 20:34

Bade wrote:
Sanku wrote:KS seems to indicate that all his tests (3+ ?) agreed with each other

All the other tests where his results apparently agree were a factor of 2 or more lower in expected yields. The only one where it disagrees or his equipment malfunctioned was for the larger yield TN test. So was there an unknown (not accounted for yet) systematic failure of the DRDO test setup for the larger yield test, which led it to being discarded in the final analysis. It is routinely done in science analysis. Removing the unexplained outlier, if all other methods give similar results. Just trying to point that out.

I do not know for sure, only DRDO and BARC knows the exact answer to it.


But that is not what KS says right? He says the same devices can not work for one test and not for the other.

Plus there is the question of CORRTEX tests as well as seismic signature at Indian site.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36292
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby SaiK » 01 Oct 2009 20:37

nothing is gonna happen to testing nor the yield result. we are not going to test [going by the political stance], nor going to say, we agree to evalute our yeilds based on Santanam's report.

GoI's silence is basically to mute the whole discussion.. slowly die this down.. and forget about it. dont ask, dont tell .. its strategic anyways., and the umbrella is well preserved., only the real truth will know the real truth.

the unknown unknows will remain under some 100s of feet at pokhran. We have to start talking constructive rather keep this desi finger pointing and discussing this is dud or that person is bad, yadi yada.. lets accept something needs to be done on this, and that mil research on TN or some super duper waveless MTs evolve.

there is a concentrated effort by forces to sign for CTBT, NPT etc.. and there are very large counter forces, saying they are void anyway by the very fact of the legality of those drafts.

the only way, we can be "great power" is to invent something new here.. wake up one day, and read newsline that we did a MT weapon test, but no sensors detected it.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby shiv » 01 Oct 2009 20:44

harbans wrote:Apologies if repeated. But it seems no one outside the design team can comment on the efficiency of the fusion part as the were not privy to the design.


This is exactly what is said in the BRM paper

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... rajan.html

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby shiv » 01 Oct 2009 20:48

harbans wrote:Yes thats why KSs statement are so damaging, he claims insider status (logically not difficult to grant him that)


To be absolutely neutral - the counter claim has been that he did not have inside knowledge of design. Using the same logic, it should not be too difficult to grant that counter claim equal status. Not doing that would make one side or the other a liar/liars. I suggest that we do not go down that route without something to back up such a claim.

Just for the record..

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby shiv » 01 Oct 2009 20:53

Not sure why that shitty science thing was brought up here. One more instance of using NPA sources to back up some idea as someone pointed out when I did that in the deterrence thread.

It was originally a comment by a Mark Hibbs in the link below. I have written 2-3 rebuttals in that link in an attempt to put an ungli up Mark Hibbs backside.

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2445/ind ... -revisited

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby shiv » 01 Oct 2009 20:57

In the ultimate analysis neither CORRTEX, nor cavity radius, nor seismology will tell anyone whether any fusion occurred, and if so how much and if that fusion was the planned amount.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby harbans » 01 Oct 2009 20:59

To be absolutely neutral - the counter claim has been that he did not have inside knowledge of design. Using the same logic, it should not be too difficult to grant that counter claim equal status. Not doing that would make one side or the other a liar/liars. I suggest that we do not go down that route without something to back up such a claim.

Shivji, you responded to Sankujis quote, not mine. :D

Indeed thats what the PIB press release from GOI says. He was not privy.

Dr. Chidambaram wondered how without the knowledge of the design, the nature of fission-fusion break-up and quantity of thermo-nuclear material, Mr. Iyengar could calculate the efficiency the fuel burnt as 10%. He said, “no one outside the design team had the data to calculate fission-fusion yield break-up or any other significant parameter related to fusion burn”.


http://www.pib.nic.in/release/rel_print ... elid=52813

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Sanku » 01 Oct 2009 21:00

shiv wrote:
harbans wrote:Yes thats why KSs statement are so damaging, he claims insider status (logically not difficult to grant him that)


To be absolutely neutral - the counter claim has been that he did not have inside knowledge of design. Using the same logic, it should not be too difficult to grant that counter claim equal status. Not doing that would make one side or the other a liar/liars. I suggest that we do not go down that route without something to back up such a claim.

Just for the record..


I dont think logically as there is any chance of him not being an insider.

So no not all claims are equally believable, however some people were making it a point of saying "you say he is an insider when he himself does not" at least that argument is demolished.

I have no doubt whatsoever that he was the ultimate insider. BARC, RAW and DRDO and the head of test preparations at POK II as well as nuclear physicist.

Thankfully there is his own word to back it up. Yes and I do not believe MKN when he says KS did not know. Laughable is the word that comes to mind.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Sanku » 01 Oct 2009 21:02

shiv wrote:In the ultimate analysis neither CORRTEX, nor cavity radius, nor seismology will tell anyone whether any fusion occurred, and if so how much and if that fusion was the planned amount.


If you know the design even then? If the expectations of yields were known even then?

No you can back calculate surely.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby ramana » 01 Oct 2009 21:04

Amit, Bharat Karnad still teaches at the NDC, New Delhi and MHOW. All these are insiders who are bringing the deabte outside for various reasons. The immediate pressure to stave of CTBT accession has been delayed.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Sanku » 01 Oct 2009 21:11

harbans wrote: Indeed thats what the PIB press release from GOI says. He was not privy.

Dr. Chidambaram wondered how without the knowledge of the design, the nature of fission-fusion break-up and quantity of thermo-nuclear material, Mr. Iyengar could calculate the efficiency the fuel burnt as 10%. He said, “no one outside the design team had the data to calculate fission-fusion yield break-up or any other significant parameter related to fusion burn”.


http://www.pib.nic.in/release/rel_print ... elid=52813


Err thats about PKI strictly speaking, and that's the GoI official stand. They have not question Santy's insider status.

Only MKN and other outsiders questioned. The insiders have not.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36292
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby SaiK » 01 Oct 2009 21:13

on the ctbt, evesdropping on hillarious-rotilini lines could reveal more. there is large political movement that we should go about finish signing all possible treaties, having tested [forget the result].

It is obvious, that any counter pressure to such signing only shows that there remains to be seen some deficiency in our setup/design/or preparedness for proceeding to lab tests. It could be the test data or access to P5 resources.

Singing treaties has to be benificial to our S&T folks and not just political junkies, who has no more 5-5(years) vision, and develop cataract soon if they get outside sitting in opposition bench in the parliament.

The faster we move to policy based democracy and voting, the better is for our NFU and deterrance. The first thing is we need to remove our babooze out of this S&T business.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby shiv » 01 Oct 2009 21:15

Sanku wrote:
If you know the design even then? If the expectations of yields were known even then?

No you can back calculate surely.



No.

Not me. I can't

Whatever the truth I am yet to see any article where yield or efficiency of fusion, if any can be calculated by the amount by which a person qualifies as an insider or outsider.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby shiv » 01 Oct 2009 21:22

Outsider - that's me
- was a song by Cliff Richard. Maybe he really meant "outside her" but I wouldn't know. Cliff Richard is CR - which is quite close to RC

I am looking for evidence to show that R Chidambaram was an outsider. Knowing that RC was an outsider, and that KS was an insider would certainly add new meaning to the debate.


We could then start talking about exactly what that new meaning might be.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16197
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby NRao » 01 Oct 2009 21:27

Even a blue-ribbon panel of scientists could be split by a voice vote?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby shiv » 01 Oct 2009 21:31

Why did K Santhanam say in 1998 that we can make "Neutron bombs"?
http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/1 ... 50174.html

After-H-bomb it could be the N-bomb. DRDO's Chief Technology Adviser and one of the principal architects of Pokhran'98, Santhanam, said that India is capable of fabricating a neutron bomb - an enhanced radiation weapon


also

``The natural and mutually reinforcing partnership between the DRDO and DAE dated back to the early 1970s,'' he said, adding, ``the complimentary technological capabilities of nuclear technology and defence technology resulted in a new weapon technology and system.''
:D

It is clear to me that Santhanam is an insider.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Sanku » 01 Oct 2009 21:35

shiv wrote:Whatever the truth I am yet to see any article where yield or efficiency of fusion, if any can be calculated by the amount by which a person qualifies as an insider or outsider.


I dont understand, if you know that you design your weapon for X yield, of which x/4 will come from fission alone, and then you explode it, based on the yield you will know how much came from fission and fusion. (Assumption here is that fission is guaranteed to work)

Even if not, I think if the yield is < planned yield the chances of fusion not happening are much higher right because if fission had dropped, the design would most probably not trigger in the first place?

All this would be known to the folks who know the design?

What do we need an article for this, frankly?

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Sanku » 01 Oct 2009 21:41

shiv wrote:Why did K Santhanam say in 1998 that we can make "Neutron bombs"?


Because we "can" :mrgreen:

----

Sorry couldn't resist

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby shiv » 01 Oct 2009 21:42

Sanku wrote:
What do we need an article for this, frankly?



Not we. Me. I would like to see more sources to corroborate and confirm the idea that yield can be calculated by the degree to which a person is an insider or an outsider.

I am a natural skeptic. I don't believe things easily. I am not much of a believer and tend to get very demanding before I swallow some things that others might embrace eagerly at face value. Different strokes for different folks.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby shiv » 01 Oct 2009 21:47

Sanku wrote:
Because we "can" :mrgreen:

----

Sorry couldn't resist


No this is true. We can. But they must produce fusion neutrons to be called Neutron bombs. I was just wondering whether Mr Santhanam had a temporary delusional belief in India's ability to produce high energy neutrons. As an insider he clearly knew that no fusion or very little fusion occurred in May 1998 - so his statement of 1998 seems to contradict his 2009 position.

Which is correct?


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests