I have, they did not offer any new points, they just said look at the papers we have published.amit wrote: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.Sanku wrote:A clear pointwise statement by GoI establishment directly on how the points raised by KS are wrong.
Why? You have that on BRF right now once more.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..
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thsc ... &prd=fline&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.
No they have, however they cant seem to answer KS, thats where they either go quite or use other methods.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..
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.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.
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.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. ..
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.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.
)
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..
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.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 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. Do you see in which measurement the systematic error shows up in large measure ?Badeji, there are two statements hereBade wrote: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.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 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.Bade wrote:Regarding accuracy and other comments made earlier.
Yes thats why KSs statement are so damaging, he claims insider status (logically not difficult to grant him that)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.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuk ... 0-barc.htmFigure 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.
No Sanku, only targeting the ideas. Nothing personal here in my smileys.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.
He says he does. What to do now?harbans wrote: But did he know about the weapon design, LiD amount, soil and chemical characteristics etc?
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.Sanku wrote: KS seems to indicate that all his tests (3+ ?) agreed with each other
But that is not what KS says right? He says the same devices can not work for one test and not for the other.Bade wrote: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.Sanku wrote: KS seems to indicate that all his tests (3+ ?) agreed with each other
I do not know for sure, only DRDO and BARC knows the exact answer to it.
This is exactly what is said in the BRM paperharbans 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.
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.harbans wrote: Yes thats why KSs statement are so damaging, he claims insider status (logically not difficult to grant him that)
http://www.pib.nic.in/release/rel_print ... elid=52813Dr. 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”.
I dont think logically as there is any chance of him not being an insider.shiv wrote: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.harbans wrote: Yes thats why KSs statement are so damaging, he claims insider status (logically not difficult to grant him that)
Just for the record..
If you know the design even then? If the expectations of yields were known even then?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.
Err thats about PKI strictly speaking, and that's the GoI official stand. They have not question Santy's insider status.harbans wrote: Indeed thats what the PIB press release from GOI says. He was not privy.
http://www.pib.nic.in/release/rel_print ... elid=52813Dr. 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”.
Sanku wrote:
If you know the design even then? If the expectations of yields were known even then?
No you can back calculate surely.
- 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 RCOutsider - that's me
alsoAfter-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
``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.''
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)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.
Because we "can"shiv wrote:Why did K Santhanam say in 1998 that we can make "Neutron bombs"?
Sanku wrote:
What do we need an article for this, frankly?
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.Sanku wrote:
Because we "can"
----
Sorry couldn't resist
