Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Sep 2009 03:03

Interesting. Are we seeing a pattern here? First RR, and now Indrani Bagchi.

??????

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 26 Sep 2009 03:09

No question of signing NPT, CTBT : India

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Sep 2009 03:11

NRao wrote:Interesting. Are we seeing a pattern here? First RR, and now Indrani Bagchi.

??????

The only pattern is there are lot of folks who want India to sign up. Where did the BARC press conf say that there is no need for tests? Its all shaping the opinion for whoever is paying them.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Sep 2009 03:17

As an old hand said "One flight test is worth a hundred ground tests!"

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Sep 2009 03:24

ramana wrote:
NRao wrote:Interesting. Are we seeing a pattern here? First RR, and now Indrani Bagchi.

??????

The only pattern is there are lot of folks who want India to sign up. Where did the BARC press conf say that there is no need for tests? Its all shaping the opinion for whoever is paying them.

That is not what I was pointing at. It was the depth at which the S1 device was placed and now sharing data. I see both as way to place a thing or two on the table to negotiate.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 26 Sep 2009 04:19

Spectral defence

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 26 Sep 2009 06:15

ramana wrote:I have this hunch that KS was expecting even the 43 kt one to produce the 72 m crater as thats around ~225 feet. Instead there was this hardly disturbed surface. He doesnt want to claim more than what was tested. His arguement is even that didnt happen.

Infact the above hunch is very close to reality.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 26 Sep 2009 06:54

Although ramana says that we should move beyond the question of S1 yield, the above post continues the li(n)e that S1 did not yield.

So let me quote ramana's very clear articulation of how a complex and dangerous system is designed. A nuclear test by India for the first time since 1974, is about as complex a system with its huge multitude of constraints with national and international consequences of disastrous potential, and its immense technical uncertainties. So, if ramana knows this, may I suggest with all respect that people in BARC/DRDO also may have heard of it?

Sanjay, In systems engineering objects are verified for use by:

1) Analysis
2) Test
3) Similarity
4) Demonstration

after a through design review.

When the subject matter is throughly understood and follows known scientific principles and there are sufficient design margins (decided by designer and user), analysis is adequate.

When the subject matter is fairly understood and there is insufficient design margins, test is required.

When an object is designed based on an existing tested/verified object and extrapolations are within science based limits its qualified by similarity.

Exactly. Which is why the S1-S2 test was designed with the firm constraint of not damaging Khetolai. And why I say that they would have conducted impact-response tests to enable prediction of the max yield that could be tested in S1-S2. Some extrapolation would have been involved, because the biggest shock wave to come through that region before was the one from POK-1, but, that was only extrapolation by a factor of less than 5, in a field where log to base 10 is usual to compare phenomena. Not a big deal.

Despite the simple and obvious nature of this, people here continue to refer to the "Khetolai Red Herring", and keep speculating on crater depth, A-frames that survive undamaged as rocks fly to heights of several meters through them, and all sorts of other nonsense. Either people are completely unable and incapable of elementary reasoning, or they are, well... no need to draw diagrams to explain it. The usual quarters will again start jumping around saying that I am "abusing" postors by pointing out the obvious.

Reminds me of the "Nuclear Physics PhD" who wrote the White Paper declaring that India has no need for any more electrical power, at the height of the . Only 186,000 villages with no electricity, and power cuts are only there for 50% of the time in the major cities. The entire Overseas Friends of the BJP got their saffron langotis in a knot because I

at them for that.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Sep 2009 07:01

N^3 thanks for using my post to explain the complexities of systems design. Science does not lie. Lets keep the matter of S-I success or otherwise aside. As more info comes up or we understand things better we might update as required.

The important thing is the UNSC declaration and the reaffirmation of the Indian technical capability at this time.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 26 Sep 2009 07:05

Ah, yes, ramana, but as u know I did start that discussion on the International Nuclear Thread when news of the UNSC vote first came out ...

But maybe it merits a separate set of threads for ppl to declare that MMS has signed away India's sovereignty, etc. etc. etc.

So many thousands of circles to march around in, beating the drums.

munna · Post by **munna** » 26 Sep 2009 07:07

narayanan wrote: Despite the simple and obvious nature of this, people here continue to refer to the "Khetolai Red Herring", and keep speculating on crater depth, A-frames that survive undamaged as rocks fly to heights of several meters through them, and all sorts of other nonsense. Either people are completely unable and incapable of elementary reasoning, or they are, well... no need to draw diagrams to explain it. The usual quarters will again start jumping around saying that I am "abusing" postors by pointing out the obvious

I agree after closely following the debate for the past many days the question and controversy around Pok-II in more in the realm of our strategic and deterrence posture. The question is not about the yield but about the capability to use the S-1 to create a workable warhead. RC and AK to their credit have clarified by saying nothing about Maha-Ati-Mega bum but merely said that India has the capability to do so, which can mean a lot of things with the minima being that we have the tech but have not used it to create bum to actually having created the bum. Clearly a debate between hawks and woodpeckers(note no sparrows) cannot be used to call people names without any public references to back up the allegations against RC and AK.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Sep 2009 07:21

Arun_S wrote:
ramana wrote:I have this hunch that KS was expecting even the 43 kt one to produce the 72 m crater as thats around ~225 feet. Instead there was this hardly disturbed surface. He doesnt want to claim more than what was tested. His arguement is even that didnt happen.
Infact the above hunch is very close to reality.

What ~225 FEET or about 69 meters?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 26 Sep 2009 08:12

ramana: As you can see, there seems to be no move to end the

about the S1 "crater" or "cavity" or "susbsistence" (and what is a retarc anyway? I know what a "retard" is, but I am not going there, someone might think I am calling them names).

If we are to move beyond that, that discussion must be closed. Can't have this situation where the obvious evidence that the design yield was achieved is ignored, and the technogibberish continues unabated. If you seriously intend to move beyond the "S1 was a fizzle!"

, then please MOVE beyond that, and ask ppl to stop repeating that. Including dear Arun_S.

Maybe I'll stop "participating" in this thread and start moderating it instead?

I understand that the way nuclear reactors do that is by shoving a lead rod up into the various holes in the core and stopping the emission of hot air.

Sounds like what is needed here too...

After all,

is that when I am actually participating, if I observe the unacceptable tactics of certain postors and deal with that, all the ro-dho starts.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 26 Sep 2009 08:25

Before u guys move on to munch at higher pastures , can the whole debate be summed up for non techy folks like me
and this is 'request".

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Sep 2009 08:35

N^3 the discussion wont be closed until it gets closed. And browbeating people will not close it. Science and facts will. Not conjecture and appeal to trust me.
So if you have issues then there is the option to not visit this thread.

Maybe I'll stop "participating" in this thread and start moderating it instead? I understand that the way nuclear reactors do that is by shoving a lead rod up into the various holes in the core and stopping the emission of hot air. Sounds like what is needed here too...

This isnt called for. Not acceptable.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 26 Sep 2009 08:46

"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 26 Sep 2009 08:51

the beauty of n guru is that he can call (others) names with out being called out!
Chaturaatmaa (vishnu sahasranamam).

Stopping of hot air can blow in face unless you allow venting, this is nothing unknown to gurus. If the ram roding continues, the core itself can melt down.

As long as dicussion is not veering to calling names and remains civil, even as a moderator not much trapping (of hot air or what ever) will be achieved but only waste of the Rod. Better spare it.

The below in itself tells that more reading is required rather than intervention. Lead rods are not used to stop hot air unless you can add some gyan in that direction.

Maybe I'll stop "participating" in this thread and start moderating it instead? I understand that the way nuclear reactors do that is by shoving a lead rod up into the various holes in the core and stopping the emission of hot air. Sounds like what is needed here too...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Sep 2009 09:02

Sanjay wrote:"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."

Thats beautiful. Shutting down thinking is the worst form of denial. We will end up being a rah-rah forum.

In that vein, I have a few unanswered issues on S-I:

1) The expected radius of cavity for S-I using the published radius of cavity for POK I and accounting for shale and pink granite and compare ot measured data from the radio-chem paper.

2)Right after the tests one of the reasons given for the simultaneous detonation of S-I and S-2 was the fear that the shock wave from one would damage the other shaft. From the announced yields of 43 kt and 15kt it hardly looks like that fear was a factor. The other reason was to confuse the outside monitors. It sure did the in-country crowd.

3) The CORRTEX data results we dont know yet.

4) The issue of expected crater of 72m radius is still there. I think it is linked to 2) above.

5) And the came to know of pink granite layer etc only recently?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Sep 2009 09:21

Its Zircoalloy control rods.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 26 Sep 2009 09:32

Ramana - as to 5, I've been hearing that for some time.

As to the fear - it was real. It may have been excessive caution, but the fear was real.

As to the others, BARC will keep some things close to themselves.

I would advise everyone to consider something - nobody on this forum is an "expert".

We all learn, interpret and assess what other's produce. With due respect to Bharat Karnad and Brahma Chellaney, they are no more qualified than I am - and less so in the operational use of nuclear weapons - and I do not consider myself an "expert". That does not mean I do not get great value from their work - it simply means that we are all looking for information and answers.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 26 Sep 2009 09:45

If one is to believe that the test was not successful, I am a bit intrigued as to how it was not known so far.

And if it was known so far, they why the moratorium on no testing and the indecent hurry to sign away our rights to test (so to say) with the US civilian nuclear deal.

And now Obama is making the 'right' noise to seal India's fate, and seeing in context with the kowtowing the US is doing to the Chinese, India is up a gum tree!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Sep 2009 09:50

May ask ramana or anyone else what a real CORRTEX result datum actually looks like?

With complete ignorance I have two sides in my mind telling me two different things

1) The slightly more technical side of my brain tells me that the data will be in the form of a computer file of numbers which would look like meaningless gibberish until interpreted by an appropriately knowledgeable perosn

2) The normal (Hollywood) side of my brain tells me that CORRTEX results are displayed on a computer with a cheery jingle and a box that flashes saying "Congratulations. Your device yielded *.*** kilotons!
Now what do you want to do next

1)ANnounce success
2)Fudge
3)Abort, Retry, Slap nearest bystander?

The point I want to make is that nobody that I know of has revealed raw CORRTEX data. Only interpreted data. All such interpreted data will be subject to the same caveats that we have had so far about any data released by anyone for public consumption.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Sep 2009 09:51

RayC wrote:If one is to believe that the test was not successful, I am a bit intrigued as to how it was not known so far.

And if it was known so far, they why the moratorium on no testing and the indecent hurry to sign away our rights to test (so to say) with the US civilian nuclear deal.

RayC sir.

With utmost respect

Who was Sita?

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 26 Sep 2009 10:02

Shivji I thought of the same sita,

But I Thought "Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act"

kenop · Post by **kenop** » 26 Sep 2009 10:06

shiv wrote:
shiv wrote: PSLV on the other hand was never simulated on computer. If anyone denies this you have to give solid proof.
Knocking down my own straw man

Just when I was going to say that all vehicles of ISRO have been designed using see-eff-dee. I have no doubts. I know it,
However, let it be clear that ISRO operates under sufficient media scrutiny. If a rocket fails it fails in public. Nothing can be done.
A bit OT though.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 26 Sep 2009 10:45

John Snow wrote:Shivji I thought of the same sita,

But I Thought "Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act"

I too thought that is what Shiv meant since he is famous for his tongue in cheeks!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Sep 2009 10:56

Santy , has a long and interesting interview in Outlook latest issue.

Liar Liar

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 26 Sep 2009 11:15

ramana wrote:
Sanjay wrote:"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."

Thats beautiful. Shutting down thinking is the worst form of denial. We will end up being a rah-rah forum.

In that vein, I have a few unanswered issues on S-I:

1) The expected radius of cavity for S-I using the published radius of cavity for POK I and accounting for shale and pink granite and compare ot measured data from the radio-chem paper.

2)Right after the tests one of the reasons given for the simultaneous detonation of S-I and S-2 was the fear that the shock wave from one would damage the other shaft. From the announced yields of 43 kt and 15kt it hardly looks like that fear was a factor. The other reason was to confuse the outside monitors. It sure did the in-country crowd.

3) The CORRTEX data results we dont know yet.

4) The issue of expected crater of 72m radius is still there. I think it is linked to 2) above.

5) And the came to know of pink granite layer etc only recently?

Re Ramana, NRao & Arun_S

I don’t have any problem to defer to well informed and ‘well reasoned’ or say mathematically calculated reason rather than a dictat as some BRF moderators are desperate to issue.

It is but obvious that BRM paper dealing with yield etc has to be revised. I submit that following issues (may) be dealt with by the team revising the paper:-

1. If POK-1 yield is 8kt, how does it affect the estimation of POK-2?

2. How the know data matches the claims of Sikka 15kt & 43kt and Santhanam 20-25kt and 20-25kt?

3. If S2 was 25kt and shaft was around 100m (is soft ground) & its crater 25m then assuming for argument that pink hard rock granite starts at (say) 110m then how much yield could have been theoretically possible for S1?

4. If S2 was 25kt and shaft was around 100-110m (is soft ground) & its crater 25m then assuming for argument that pink hard rock granite starts at (say) 100-110m then how much yield could have been theoretically possible for S1 which would produce subsistence crater of 72m?

5. If S2 was 25kt and shaft was around 100-110m (is soft ground) & its crater 25m then assuming for argument that pink hard rock granite starts at (say) 100-110m then what would be crater produced by 45kt shot?

6. Using recent Sikka paper what yield would produce a 72m subsistence crater rather than retarc or “nothing” on surface?

7. Assuming shaft depth of 230 m, what would be thickness of pink hard rock granite required to contain various assumed yields of say 50kt, 100kt, 150kt, 200kt, 250kt, 300kt, 350kt, 500kt, 750kt, 825kt, 1000kt etc. (Note Sikka comment that pink hard rock granite was hard enough to reflect the shock ways upwards even at 43kt)

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 26 Sep 2009 11:39

I don’t have any problem to defer to well informed and ‘well reasoned’ or say mathematically calculated reason rather than a dictat as some BRF moderators are desperate to issue.

Could be more dangerous than the bomb we are discussing.

So, would you take it easy and not fan flames?

The moderators are not 'desperate' to issue any fatwas.

They are desperate to moderate.

Your help will be appreciated.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Sep 2009 14:00

K Santhanam Interview in latest Outlook Issue

Interview Part1
Interview Part2
Interview Part3
Interview Part4
Interview Part5
Interview Part6

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Sep 2009 14:06

Austin wrote:K Santhanam Interview in latest Outlook Issue

Interview Part1
Interview Part2
Interview Part3
Interview Part4
Interview Part5
Interview Part6

Austin - all the articles and related ones are online here. I pdfed and saved all

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262027

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 26 Sep 2009 15:38

I am a person from a nuclear background, who spent close to 16 years in Trombay, published articles in various journals. I was doing strategic analysis long before I came to Delhi.

What is striking is in his numerous media interactions and articles, KS has never once mince the word “Boosted”. Given his credentials, it’s not an omission by accident but by design.. He simply says our MCD is based on 20-30 KT fission weapon. But nothing can be inferred from it..

either he does not acknowledges the existing FBF capability to create bigger hype about the TN testing
or he does not want to talk about lack of FBF capabilities because of it being detrimental to our strategic health..

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 26 Sep 2009 15:50

Quoting ramana 25 Sep 2009 04:39 am

The debate has reached a hiatus with the news conf. It means what they said. So we can take a break till new information comes in. Am going to lock in a couple of days. Thanks everyone for all the contributions and otherwise.

ramana

quoting ramana: 26 Sep 2009 01:31 am

N^3 thanks for using my post to explain the complexities of systems design. Science does not lie. Lets keep the matter of S-I success or otherwise aside. As more info comes up or we understand things better we might update as required.

The important thing is the UNSC declaration and the reaffirmation of the Indian technical capability at this time.

So from the latest I gather that the only direction is to stop pointing out why the claims that POK-2 tests were not successful, are completely without foundation. It must be all this "new information" streaming in, I assume.

Oh, I have no intention at all of trying to "moderate" this, any more than I believe in the "Moderate Taliban". But I do intend to point out from time to time that the whole discussion is very easily shown to be without any basis, since no one doing the "science" discussion has any "science" to base it on - only pure speculation or hearsay with references that cannot be checked. Easy to "prove" by this technique that the Round Earth Fallacy is also a Conspiracy along with the mythical Apollo Moon Landings, quoting this retired astronaut who spoke on condition of anonymity since they are not allowed to speak to the media, and the simulations that I just did on my computer between sips of coffee.

By all means I intend to visit the thread. I need the entertainment.
Thank you.

John Snow: It is an unfair assumption that I can read.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Sep 2009 15:52

The only boosted weapon we know of is S-1 first stage , since S-1 is claimed to have fizzled , not sure if S-1 first stage can be used as a proven independent boosted weapon , if you leave that out of picture for what ever reasons , then indeed we have the S-2 which is pure fission.

shiv wrote:Austin - all the articles and related ones are online here. I pdfed and saved all

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262027

Oh ! I wasted some time scanning it , thinking they wont make it online , but never mind the online ones you posted are far better

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 26 Sep 2009 16:18

I have realized the errors of my ways and had the proverbial "Aha!"moment. To all the experts here:

In Rajasthan and Gujarat, there are fairly frequent earthquakes. Is there any real proof that these claimed "nuclear tests" ever occurred? The first report in the reliable western media was from the Americans (as always), reporting a 5.0 magnitude earthquake.

Shortly after this came out, Indian officials suddenly CLAIMED that there had been nuclear tests, and that they had caused magnitude 5.4 tremors.

No one has measured any 5.4 there AFAIK.

Then the Indian officials claimed that they had conducted 3 MORE tests, none of which were detected by the reliable western experts who use only the most advanced and sophisticated instruments with the latest software updates on legitimate licensed computers with 100% licensed and virus-checked software.

So no one of any credibility has detected any of those "sub-kiloton tests" either. Do you really imagine that these short dark rice-eating types could actually have conducted NUCLEAR tests? They claim to have done it way back in 1974 as well... when there was another 5.0 tremor in the area. So I am predicting that their next "tests" will be when there is another minor quake in the area.

I have not seen any REAL EVIDENCE that India ever conducted nuclear tests. Have they shown pictures of the inside of the cavity, and if so, is there any evidence that those pictures were not taken in the Khajuraho caves? Have any western Independent Experts been taken inside these caverns and allowed to take their own samples to confirm these claims?

Haria · Post by **Haria** » 26 Sep 2009 16:29

claims that POK-2 tests were not successful, are completely without foundation.

"I will not believe 2+2 = 4" What attitude... Why do I find it similar to OneWHoShouldBeBanned.

.....the whole discussion is very easily shown to be without any basis...........

Seems like the above mentality is based on the question -- what are facts - some deductions derived from the perceived information - which are too subjective to be of any use. eh?

Easy to "prove" by this technique that the Round Earth Fallacy is also a Conspiracy along with the mythical Apollo Moon Landings, quoting this retired astronaut who spoke on condition of anonymity since they are not allowed to speak to the media, and the simulations that I just did on my computer between sips of coffee.

Another proof of flawed reasoning. Why go so far.... This attitude is clear in your reason and belief that "2+2 != 4"

By all means I intend to visit the thread. I need the entertainment.
Thank you.

Visiting ne Trolling

John Snow: It is an unfair assumption that I can read.

So John has made a wrong assumption.... Perhaps you can think and a supernatural power puts those thoughts on BRF and the also bypasses the reading process and put the info directly in "Ï do not know what cells in your skull -- if there are any"

I have not seen any REAL EVIDENCE that India ever conducted nuclear tests.

Perhaps the real evidence would be to put you on a atom-bum and test it..... I guess TN should be tested ASAP with you on top to collect REAL and UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE first hand..

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 26 Sep 2009 16:44

>>>"I will not believe 2+2 = 4" What attitude

Pls show me who has eqalled 2+2 to 4

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 26 Sep 2009 16:46

>>>Perhaps the real evidence would be to put you on a atom-bum and test it..... I guess TN should be tested ASAP with you on top to collect REAL and UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE first hand.

I am sure he wouldn't volunteer..since you had this brain wave, I would suggest you sit on the bum..any problem?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Sep 2009 17:06

This is from Santhanam's Outlook interview:

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262027

In May 1998, we had a TN device, its designed yield was 45 KT and that was placed in one of the shafts in Pokhran.

and

Between 1995 and May 1998, the device for a thermonuclear test was (made) ready. It was a device for 45 KT; anything above it would have caused a venting of radiation that would have been a violation of the Partial Test Ban Treaty to which India is a party.

The idea that there was a device that was supposed to yield more than that has been knocked down by Santhanam. However just because Santhanam agrees with what RC and Kakodkar says does not mean that it is true. We have to see who else denies this - so it is till possible that the device was supposed to have yielded 875kt to 1 megaton.

There are a lot of new articles coming - so let us comb them

*summary of the information so far*

A 45 kt device was lowered into one of the shafts at Pokhran
That shaft remained undamaged
The A Frame and winch remained intact
There was no crater
There was a 25 meter crater
The yield of the fission device was 25kt and not 15 kt as claimed by RC
The yield of the thermonuclear device not more than 60% of its designed yield.
The thermonuclear device yielded 25kt+2kt fusion
There was a 20-25 kt yield in the TN test
One report speaks of weaponization 15 kt fusion devices
Calculations by experts on here show that 17 kt was the yield of S1
PK Iyengar thought the yield was 40kt
He said maybe 10% fusion burn
He also mentioned that 400 grams of LiD had been consumed

I think that is clear enough and a summary of most of the info over the last few weeks

Santhanam has an effective, if crude way of speaking - but it could also be deep bitterness: About Kalam who was his boss and not the other way round as someone said:

He was head of the DRDO. He is a missile man, he’s not familiar with nuclear issues. You must have seen the statement of Dr H.N. Sethna. I think Dr Kalam was put up to give a statement and Dr Sethna from Bombay gave such a whack after which Dr Kalam does not know where to hide his face.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 26 Sep 2009 17:25

If you look at the Bush-Manmohan Singh agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation carefully, there’s only a reference, half an article, which says that if the security environment around India changes and is of adverse nature, then the two countries will enter into consultations. This is a procedure by which the US is not taken by surprise about the developments. So, this is part of diplomacy between India and the US.

How realistic will be this consultation ...specially with BO?