Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 23 Oct 2009 01:57

I see that the latest fizzlexpert conveniently omits the Khetolai Certainty

N^3 ji, but ... this prof Chari can use very impressive words in his titles of scholastic articles...

Pokharan II: The Incestuous Debate

.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Oct 2009 01:58

Sanku,

His "message" is what is bad - IMHO. IF he has a message.

et al.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Oct 2009 02:01

Gagan wrote:
NRao wrote:N^3,

What is Gagan talking about?
Err,
Merely that the yield was controlled because of the proximity of Khetolai.
The tests were a success.
N^3 saar has posted this several times and the jingo junta has posted the conspiracy theories even more number of times.

Ah. I c.

I just read: "I promise I shall depart".

Anyways, I will leave it to N^3.

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 23 Oct 2009 02:06

one week of relief enquoob is already bang with potshots and getting away!
Opponents of enquoob have to import AN/TPQ

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 23 Oct 2009 02:06

Sanku wrote:
Meanwhile Amber G et al. It would be good to not shoot the messenger. This appears to have become way to common here where we are too eager to rip the person apart and talk of the message.

No intention to rip any person, Note that there is "FWIW" qualification, nothing wrong in getting some back ground information on the person.

Note that I was quoting a quote, already in BRF and pointing out the link to give back-ground info. (If Zaid Hamid talks about Indian strategic interests will it be so out of bounds to remind people some of his earlier quotes? --- NO I am NOT equationg Chari wiht Hamid, just to prove a point

negi · Post by **negi** » 23 Oct 2009 02:08

Sanku wrote: Also why does CORRTEX have to be cumulative?

Different cables for different shafts would be used. Surely the destruction of cables in different shafts did not show any interference (like seismic signature)

From BRF archives about CORTEX

Here a cable is lowered and gets crushed during the test. You measure the radius of the hole by measuring the cable length. Then you back calculate what should be the yield that causes the cable to be of a particular length

Now we know shafts were spaced few Kms apart and in order to prevent dammage to these shafts the tests were conducted simultaneously ; and if CORTEX indeed works as described above then we cannot rule out interference of Seismic shockwaves (infact the TEST team has highlighted this as one of the reasons why other global seismic stations registered lower readings).

Given that seismic waves travel around anywhere between 3-8km/sec approx (depending on the type) I just brought up this possibility of CORTEX being used to measure the cumulative YIELD for there is no public statement disclosing CORTEX measurements of the TN or any other device tested under POK-II.All in all we are groping in the dark by referring to a mere mention of CORTEX reading when we don't know what exactly did it measure in first place.

K Sanathanan also says DRDO carried out fiber optic based "advanced tests", those I took to mean DRDOs version of hydrodynamic testing/CORRTEX -- but right now does not have a clear official confirmation of my understanding yet.

FAS org has pretty substantial info on nuke tests and measurements for arm chair bombermans like us ; it refers to use of fiber optic cables for relaying information from detectors (visible/x-ray) placed in the cavity and even around the test site to the measuring stations ; idea is to relay the information before the blast destroys the everything from the device to the transmitting media itself.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Oct 2009 02:33

negi wrote: Given that seismic waves travel around anywhere between 3-8km/sec approx (depending on the type) I just brought up this possibility of CORTEX being used to measure the cumulative YIELD for there is no public statement disclosing CORTEX measurements of the TN or any other device tested under POK-II.

Yes, but CORRTEX is also touted to be the second most accurate method after radiochem, I guess they would have set up one for each shaft, but as you said, there is no official statement saying "we had CORRTEX for each shaft" there is a semi-official press article which was supporting BARCs position which made this statement about CORRTEX not working out.

There were also reports as far back as 98 saying CORRTEX was used, the only way I think it makes sense to use it is per shaft. After all why do it for each?

FAS org has pretty substantial info on nuke tests and measurements for arm chair bombermans like us ; it refers to use of fiber optic cables for relaying information from detectors (visible/x-ray) placed in the cavity and even around the test site to the measuring stations ; idea is to relay the information before the blast destroys the everything from the device to the transmitting media itself.

Actually fiber optics can be used for hydrodynamic measurements too, this was posted and discussed a while back as well. (in addition to all the other things you said)

Amber G

Amber G wrote:his prof Chari can use very impressive words in his titles of scholastic articles...
Quote:
Pokharan II: The Incestuous Debate

This certainly does not add value to debate, this is a clear use of sarcasm and mockery rather than meaningful opposition to the content.

Any issues with the title (which I personally think is quite a good approximation of the issue at hand) can be handled in words describing what the issue is rather than barbs of this sort.

I am sorry but I will have to maintain that this is in line with "shooting the messenger" tactics.

NRao

Even Santhanam says S1 is the issue, so how does that impact S1? In fact from the Toman equations it should not impact it at all!!! (I am glad you did not bring up the other three devices though. )

Because the seismic measurements were measuring total yield and not only S1 yield. So if the total yeild has to be scaled down (since one of its components S2 is scaled down) that automatically throws the yield calculation out of sorts and then the equations have to be rebalanced again.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 23 Oct 2009 03:41

Sanku wrote:
Amber G
Amber G wrote:his prof Chari can use very impressive words in his titles of scholastic articles...
Quote:
Pokharan II: The Incestuous Debate
This certainly does not add value to debate, this is a clear use of sarcasm and mockery rather than meaningful opposition to the content.

Any issues with the title (which I personally think is quite a good approximation of the issue at hand) can be handled in words describing what the issue is rather than barbs of this sort.

I am sorry but I will have to maintain that this is in line with "shooting the messenger" tactics.

^^^
Sankuji - FWIW my response was, obvious as I directory quoted N^3, was to N^3, who was commenting on "Effect of safety pin on rubber hot air balloon" and other fizzle experts ..by no means it was directed at you.

Sorry if you feel it does not add to debate, and I am in line with "shooting the messenger" tactics, and "did not handled in words describing what the issue is ....but that's the way some of my posts may look to you .....you can always ignore stuff..

Anyway, I did not think meaningful opposition to the content was warranted as the title was rather silly...So may be, "clear use of sarcasm and mockery" is okay, but if you don't think so, and want to have meaningful serious debate then may be you can explain why you think the title is "" quite a good approximation of the issue at hand". The word Incestuous means (according to my dictionary)
-

Of, involving, or suggestive of incest

. and Incest means: "

Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom."

Please go ahead and explain it.

Thanks.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Oct 2009 05:41

Because the seismic measurements were measuring total yield and not only S1 yield. So if the total yeild has to be scaled down (since one of its components S2 is scaled down) that automatically throws the yield calculation out of sorts and then the equations have to be rebalanced again.

Unless you know something that I do not, POK-I data can come in use only in pre-testing phase. Specifically to determine the depth (and therefore crater size, etc). The soil determines most of these metrics.

But, it is very interesting that Chari has brought this up ......... too.

IF (BIG IF) Chari (via internal know how) is claiming that POK-I data was used (implying that S1 was NOT placed in granite) AND Santhanam states that he expected 70-72 meter dia crater because S2 had a crater of X meters dia, THEN S1 should have been placed in a non-granite soil. IF that is the case, true, then the chances of a fizzle are very, very high. (But, not certain.)

BUT, then the depth could NOT have been 200+ meters.

Which is why I have been saying I am waiting for the other shoe. The other shoe as per my lay man analysis has to be that the depth was NOT 200 meters. It should be much, much less.

IF SO, then Chengappa is also - or his "source/s" is/are under the gun.

IF Santhanam knew what depth the S1 device was placed that would help a ton.

On the flip side, if Santhanam agrees with 200 meters or so, then even a 45 Kt would not create a crater even of a meter.

Let us see.

But coming back to your statement, I very much doubt that the total yield calc had anything to do with POK-I. IF at all it was only the S2 that could have benefited by POK-I. IMHO of course.

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 23 Oct 2009 06:32

So

now we are in Tri Sanku swargam even Dr. Triparty has to do some research again!

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 23 Oct 2009 06:49

Amber:

As you see clearly (and others try not to be able to) there is absolutely nothing of value in that article. It is just a "mocking", "sarcastic" titled piece of the usual high-class techno-snobbery that one sees in some 250 pages of fizzled attempts to make a case where is none, to mock the people who designed and conducted the Indian nuclear tests.

But they STILL can't defeat the simple, elementary truth of the Khetolai Certainty.

Jumraoji: Sorry, but I am back.

(Gagan: welcome to BENIS.

)

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

I agree that Prof Charis article is an excellent exposition of the fizzle view. Its level of excellence perfectly matches the other data that has been reveled over the last few weeks and this may be the proverbial "other shoe" that has finally dropped after the stipulated three weeks (give or take a week or two). We all know that accuracy has never been a major requirement in discussion of yields or related issues as Dr.Santhanam himself has established, now taken further by Prof chari.

Of course I am a skeptic and will have my questions about all articles - but that should not in any way be construed as taking away the originality that the good Professor Chari displays.

it is alleged that the DRDO figures for the S2 fission device were accepted, but not that of the TN device. That is patently untrue because Santhanam stated that the fission device was "more than 20 kt for sure" while AEC states that the S2 fission device was 15 kt. The DRDO measurements for S2 have not been accepted either unlike Dr Santhanam's allegation. AEC is still quoting 15 kt for S2 and not Santhanam's "more than 20 kt"

Dr Chari questions the AEC's claim of 12 kilotons for Pokhran I (1974) while pointing out that some estimates put the yield as low as 2 kt. What is left out from this statement is revealing. "Western sources" (Link) say that the 1974 Pokhran explosion (which was as little as 2 kt and unlikely to be 12 kt) has a crater radius of about 47 meters. Using the Santhanam-Chari formula that states that the 25 meter radius correlates well with 25 kt (for S1 in 1998) it should be easy to follow that a 47 meter radius crater in 1974 correlates with a figure of less than 12 kt (and as little as 2 kt)

Charis' piece de resistance is here

This multitude of doubts, in fairness, requires an
independent analysis of the TN test yield. A RTI
application could be filed. It would be interesting to
see if the Government denies this information on the
‘national security’ pretext.

For a Professor who claims a voice in a journal brought out by the "Institute of Conflict and Peace Studies" the RTI argument is a remarkably obvious strawman that is set up only to bring it down in the next sentence. Any Indian citizen is welcome to use the RTI and Prof Chari should really have used it himself. However the RTI act clearly excludes the revelation of data pertaining to national security. The failure of an RTI would in no way support the professor's case and the inclusion of that paragraph adds nothing to the overall level of the article in terms of excellence.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 23 Oct 2009 07:30

shiv:
As usual, let me point out the gems that i tend to note and you tend to miss:

It was estimated in the West that around a 25 kiloton yield had accrued based on seismic data.

Qaid-e-Duh!

What the author heard from privileged sources at the time was that the first-stage boosted fission trigger functioned, but the second stage fusion reaction did not occur, resulting in a low yield of 20-25 KT being recorded.

Ditto

How can mere mortals, and sdres at that, counter such authoritative statements? I fear that if I post again my analysis of the "I heard from privileged sources who prefer to remain anonymous because they were violating the official secrets act" claim,

will fly left and right to "Mr. Seetal", "Webmaster" etc. again, and cause much grief to more postors.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Oct 2009 08:08

enqyoob wrote: How can mere mortals, and sdres at that, counter such authoritative statements? I fear that if I post again my analysis of the "I heard from privileged sources who prefer to remain anonymous because they were violating the official secrets act" claim, will fly left and right to "Mr. Seetal", "Webmaster" etc. again, and cause much grief to more postors.

Well privileged sources are often emails whose contents do not come under the purview of the RTI act, but are protected by the GFU (Go F.Yourself) act.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 23 Oct 2009 09:25

Scientists readying to testfire Agni-II
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/stor ... %20and%20N
Hemant Kumar RoutFirst Published : 23 Oct 2009 05:39:00 AM ISTLast Updated : 23 Oct 2009 08:22:08 AM IST

BALASORE: Amidst China’s concern over yet-to-be-tested longest range Agni-V missile, India
is poised to testfire an Agni variant missile to further strengthen the technological know-how.

Preparations are on a war-footing in the integrated test range (ITR) off Orissa coast for launching of 2000-km plus range Agni-II missile shortly. “The missile is scheduled to be fired from the Wheelers Island based test range facilities any time in-between November 3 and 8,” a source at the ITR told ‘Express’ today. Recently, China expressed concern over the scheduled test of 5000-km range Agni-V missile in late 2010 or early 2011 as the missile has the capability to strike most of the Chinese cities.

“India is building its minimum nuclear deterrence and the missiles are not targeted towards any of its hostile neighbours, including China and Pakistan. The 700-km range Agni-I along with Agni-II and the 3000-km range Agni-III form the triad of the country’s minimum, credible nuclear deterrence,” said a defence scientist.

Defence sources said the Agni-II missile, which was first testfired in 1999, is 21-meter long and 1.3 meter in diameter. It weighs 19 tonne and is designed to carry “special weapons” nuclear payload of over 1,000 kg. It has already been inducted into the Indian army and will be used by 555th missile group of the army.
This missile is part of the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP). The other missiles include Prithvi, Trishul, Akash and Nag.

Agni-II has appropriate on-board thrusters fitted on the second stage of the missile. Both stages of Agni-II have a solid propulsion system which allows the missile to be mobile and flexible.

“Scientists are working hard as the last test of Agni-II missile was a failure. During the test, the missile instead of traveling on the pre-determined trajectory started wandering mid-way. So this time they don’t want to take any chances. The missiles will be tested by the Indian Army,” informed the source.

Agni-II is a ready-to-fire missile with a launch time of about 15 minutes. Experts said having South China as the main target, the missile is designed to carry a one-tonne weapon based on the “boosted fission device” exploded in Pokhran in 1998. “The hidden tie-up between China and Pakistan has provided enough reason for the defence and security strategists to doubt the intentions of both the countries, potential nuclear powered neighbours. And the tie-up will definitely boost the arms race in South East Asian region further endangering the already fragile security scenario,” said experts.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Oct 2009 09:39

That is DDM filling in the blanks with khota sikkas. The reporter took the 1000 kg payload, boosted fission and voila - a 1000 kg FBF weapon!!!

<sarcasm>Ok if it is 400 kg FBF with yield of 200-500Kt and missile range >3000Km I will tend to agree. </sarcasm>

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Oct 2009 09:47

Gagan - on what information are you basing your estimate if yield/weight? If you have a specific public source I would like to see it and archive it for my reference.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 23 Oct 2009 09:49

Hemant Kumar Rout has also been previously accused to be a DDM when he was first to (accurately) report the failure of last Agni-II test.
Total payload is 1000kg.. so the weight of the Boosted weapon has to be substantially less.. how did you estimate wt./yield of the indian bomb?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 23 Oct 2009 10:00

Defence sources said the Agni-II missile, which was first testfired in 1999, is 21-meter long and 1.3 meter in diameter.

Arre Allah!

Experts said having South China as the main target, the missile is designed to carry a one-tonne weapon based on the “boosted fission device” exploded in Pokhran in 1998.

Again Arre Allah! As per official statement in 1998 there were only Fission device, Thermonuclear device and other sub-kt devices tested. By putting the boosted fission device quotes is he implying that as TN device ?

Its all happy time; still people havent woken up from the festive season, i guess.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Oct 2009 10:06

Shiv-ji saar,
Weight and yield chart of the US N bombs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_nu ... arison.svg

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 23 Oct 2009 10:30

shiv wrote:
enqyoob wrote: How can mere mortals, and sdres at that, counter such authoritative statements? I fear that if I post again my analysis of the "I heard from privileged sources who prefer to remain anonymous because they were violating the official secrets act" claim, will fly left and right to "Mr. Seetal", "Webmaster" etc. again, and cause much grief to more postors.
Well privileged sources are often emails whose contents do not come under the purview of the RTI act, but are protected by the GFU (Go F.Yourself) act.

Very interesting. A wholescale switchover to mav's side then?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Oct 2009 10:45

Amber G. wrote: Anyway, I did not think meaningful opposition to the content was warranted as the title was rather silly...
-
Of, involving, or suggestive of incest
. and Incest means: "
Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom."

Surely you know that usage is figurative? And the closeness and marriage are terms related to organizations and relations are organizational relations?

Shiv wrote:it is alleged that the DRDO figures for the S2 fission device were accepted, but not that of the TN device. That is patently untrue

Please look at the context the figures being talked about are readings from sensors and not total yield alone.

Meanwhile when I see repeated empty mockery as a instrument of debate, it is a testimonial to the content of the position. I learnt that from Shiv himself.

---------------

NRao

NRao wrote:Unless you know something that I do not, POK-I data can come in use only in pre-testing phase. Specifically to determine the depth (and therefore crater size, etc). The soil determines most of these metrics.

Well I was under the impression that the data is also used for correlating the cumulative yield to seismic signature during the test itself. Again it has everything to do with the items you talked about but also to characterize the exact mb equation w.r.t. yield.

------------------

Meanwhile in all the mocking replies this part is lost track of again

From the article above by Shri Chari

others urged that the passage of years and availability of open
data had enabled Indian scientists to fashion a low-yield TN
device; it was triggered by a fission core with a fissile
‘blanket’ around it to provide the second stage fusion
reaction.

Does this mean that the blanket around the boosted-fission/fusion device was indeed fissile and not inert at all?

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 23 Oct 2009 13:05

There is direct proliferation from (hands on bum makers on) Mava lok to people posting here.
In addition to amuse the mavalok there are couple of gora guys Texas toast Ralphy Jones (TTRJ) to provide some
western approval of desi crowd. He comes incognito and then goes there to do cowboy honky tonk. Its all time pass anyway. Ombaba equipped with piss prize screw driver just one turn away from CRE. Till then lets all be happy talking about incest injest between DRDO and BARC according to Charry

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 23 Oct 2009 13:11

Sanku wrote:From the article above by Shri Chari

others urged that the passage of years and availability of open
data had enabled Indian scientists to fashion a low-yield TN
device; it was triggered by a fission core with a fissile
‘blanket’ around it to provide the second stage fusion
reaction.
Does this mean that the blanket around the boosted-fission/fusion device was indeed fissile and not inert at all?

I don’t think it means to say that pusher/tamper (Third Stage) is made up of fissile material..

May be he thinks that S1 was a primitive Sloika design.. but then Sloika is a single stage device..
Or... he does not know the subject matter.. (No disrespect and no attack to the messenger intended)
JMT

About CORTTEX: As posted in previous pages, this test was also claimed to have failed ..

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Oct 2009 13:23

dinesha wrote:
Sanku wrote:
Does this mean that the blanket around the boosted-fission/fusion device was indeed fissile and not inert at all?
I don’t think it means to say that pusher/tamper (Third Stage) is made up of fissile material..

May be he thinks that S1 was a primitive Sloika design.. but then Sloika is a single stage device..
Or... he does not know the subject matter.. (No disrespect and no attack to the messenger intended)
JMT

.

Precisely, so there are only two possibilities (since sloika is single stage as you say)
1) He is wrong since he does not know what he is talking of
2) There was indeed a third stage

Assuming for a moment that he is not definitely wrong (since the other points are all correct, let us suspend judgment on this point for a moment) -- this is at least a first open source claim that there was a third stage, which is also "somewhat credible" (by which I mean that Shri Chari may or may not be wrong, but cant be laughed off)

Interesting.

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 23 Oct 2009 13:28

look to chari saars antecedents previous workings what he did you will get the pitcher

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 23 Oct 2009 14:01

Sanku wrote:
......
Assuming for a moment that he is not definitely wrong (since the other points are all correct, let us suspend judgment on this point for a moment) -- this is at least a first open source claim that there was a third stage, which is also "somewhat credible" (by which I mean that Shri Chari may or may not be wrong, but cant be laughed off)
Interesting.

Conclude whatever you want... since your (et al) main conclusions are already drawn prior to post 1 of thread 1 “BARC and DAE has failed miserably and India has failed to maintain credible deterrence.”

Fizzle experts have no counter to N3’s Khetolai arguments and already discounted the “scaling up of the boosted” capabilities.

Conclusions based on jumbled and non-substantiated argument is of no value and does not warrant any authority.
I can perceive your argument based on Prof. Charu’s imaginary 3 stage TN design with fissile pusher“ S1 was “N” mega ton device and it is not worth a cheap Chinese firecracker”

I guess KS needs to publish fresh views (if any) so that it can be rebutted to the finality..

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Oct 2009 14:22

There is at least one point which this gentleman Chari has made which is not the first such open source demand from the fizzle camp. And that is:

They need to be placed before a peer group from India and/or abroad to ascertain the truth, which is the accepted tradition to resolve scientific controversies.{So this great analyst thinks this is just a scientific controversy??? You know he missed a bargain, I had the Howrah Bridge to sell cheap!}

I suppose common sense says that if folks believe and support certain parts of his article then they would also believe and support this part. And why not? We've had a former AEC boss and one of the fizzle sides champion fighters, among others, also calling for international review.

Perhaps its time to call in Wallace and others, give them the data and get over with it once and for all and decide it was a fizzle (spelled with as many zs and you can type in 30 seconds).

Disclaimer: It is generally accepted that in speculative articles such as this one, the credibility (or otherwise) is determined by the least credible point in the article. The lowest common denominator if you so will.

So I would judge the credibility of Chari's article from issues such as him wanting foreign experts or the fact that he wants someone to file a RTI petition. But then I'm not like a drowning man clutching at straws - a position that KS supporters have been reduced to on account of the fact that the other shoe is taking an inordinately long time to drop. Perhaps the shaft is deeper than expected and hence the time lag.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Oct 2009 14:49

dinesha wrote:
Fizzle experts have no counter to N3’s Khetolai arguments and already discounted the “scaling up of the boosted” capabilities.

That truly can not be countered, just as no one can counter that I had a discussion with little green men from mars, since that is a assertion, only based on one persons opinion, on a internet fora, not backed up ANY public domain source or science.

That is no more than an individuals statement of belief. To which he or she is entitled no doubt but no more.

Conclusions based on jumbled and non-substantiated argument is of no value and does not warrant any authority.

That is your view alone, the other view is that all the pieces fit in a perfect pattern if you chose route 1, the jumbled and non-substantiated issues etc keep happening because the data points are being forced fit into a different picture.

I guess KS needs to publish fresh views (if any) so that it can be rebutted to the finality..

That whole approach to me is so wrong, that to me tells "we are convinced that it sizzled now lets bash up any arguments that come its way"

A far more approach would be "for a moment make no judgment and use all open source data (without jumping and killing messengers) to understand whats happening"

Today, short of belief in one section of GoI (not even the whole GoI any more) the fact remains that there is no data to conclude a sizzle.

Truly the only country in a world to have such a TN device.

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Oct 2009 14:57

Today, short of belief in one section of GoI (not even the whole GoI any more) the fact remains that there is no data to conclude a sizzle.

Just curious, what kind of data would "conclude a sizzle"? That is apart from the fact that all the head of two governments, BARC, DAE a former and highly respected President have said it was a sizzle.

By the way how do we know for sure that the entire Chinese nuclear assets don't actually comprise of little fizzle bombs passed off as sizzles? Did we do any measurements?

Oh I get it the Chinese said they were sizzles and the Western NPT Ayatollahs concurred!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Oct 2009 14:59

amit wrote:There is at least one point which this gentleman Chari has made which is not the first such open source demand from the fizzle camp. And that is:

They need to be placed before a peer group from India and/or abroad to ascertain the truth, which is the accepted tradition to resolve scientific controversies.{So this great analyst thinks this is just a scientific controversy??? You know he missed a bargain, I had the Howrah Bridge to sell cheap!}

One word -- Arihant.

-----------

Complete OT alert. (Firstly I do not see any cred issues in the article -- thats why the biggest issues posted so far are the takleef with the title and Shri Chari's unrelated work being brought in and quoted out of context)

However since you raise a totally unrelated point on data out there--

Disclaimer: It is generally accepted that in speculative articles such as this one, the credibility (or otherwise) is determined by the least credible point in the article. The lowest common denominator if you so will.

Hardly, there is no 0 or 1. Mixing silver with 24 K gold reduces its caratage but does not make it equal to that of silver in one shot.

--------------

But then I'm not like a drowning man clutching at straws - a position that KS supporters have been reduced to on account of the fact that the other shoe is taking an inordinately long time to drop

Actually even if KS does not say anything ever, he has already broken the mantle of sizzle.

Short of making arguments like KS (who incidentally was the director of test site preparation and on the power troika of Nuclear test team) did not know which rock and depth the device was at (this is RCs reply to KS) there are no answers to be given.

Today, short of belief in one section of GoI (not even the whole GoI any more) the fact remains that there is no data to conclude a sizzle.

Truly the only country in a world to have such a TN device.

dinesha wrote:
Fizzle experts have no counter to N3’s Khetolai arguments and already discounted the “scaling up of the boosted” capabilities.

That truly can not be countered, just as no one can counter that I had a discussion with little green men from mars, since that is a assertion, only based on one persons opinion, on a internet fora, not backed up ANY public domain source or science.

That is no more than an individuals statement of belief. To which he or she is entitled no doubt but no more.

Conclusions based on jumbled and non-substantiated argument is of no value and does not warrant any authority.

That is your view alone, the other view is that all the pieces fit in a perfect pattern if you chose route 1, the jumbled and non-substantiated issues etc keep happening because the data points are being forced fit into a different picture.

I guess KS needs to publish fresh views (if any) so that it can be rebutted to the finality..

That whole approach to me is so wrong, that to me tells "we are convinced that it sizzled now lets bash up any arguments that come its way"

A far more approach would be "for a moment make no judgment and use all open source data (without jumping and killing messengers) to understand whats happening"

So oday, short of belief in one section of GoI (not even the whole GoI any more) the fact remains that there is no data to conclude a sizzle.

Truly the only country in a world to have such a TN device.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Oct 2009 15:02

amit wrote:
Today, short of belief in one section of GoI (not even the whole GoI any more) the fact remains that there is no data to conclude a sizzle.
Just curious, what kind of data would "conclude a sizzle"? That is apart from the fact that all the head of two governments, BARC, DAE a former and highly respected President have said it was a sizzle.

The above is not data in any shape or form, they are claims or assertions.

I have already posted some data which would conclude that it was a sizzle.

The simplest and easily sharable non secret data would be that of Pokharan soil mechanics confirmed by a independent soil mech group.

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Oct 2009 15:11

Sanku wrote:The above is not data in any shape or form, they are claims or assertions.

I have already posted some data which would conclude that it was a sizzle.

The simplest and easily sharable non secret data would be that of Pokharan soil mechanics confirmed by a independent soil mech group.

Sanku,

You may have posted data to claim fizzle (you committed blasphemy and typed sizzle!

)

However, others have also posted reams of data to prove the more likelihood of a sizzle.

But all the data being posted is second hand data not the real data.

So it all boils down to, whom do you believe KS or RC, nah?

Added later: You want the soil mechanics of Pokharan to be shared???? Do you realise what that means, my friend? That would rule out the Pokharan test range for all future nuclear bomb tests as anyone who knows the mechanics would be able to determine the accurate yield from sesmic signature. I'm not a TFTA engineer and even I can understand this point.

Original post continued: But wait I'm very intrigued by your cryptic comment in the previous post regarding the point about Chari calling for foreign experts review. You wrote Arihant!

Now (correct me if I'm assuming something that you did not intend to imply) we know that the Russians helped a lot with the Arihant. Are you suggesting that we have Russian referees to look at the data and decide if it was a fizzle or sizzle?

I hope not otherwise I'd have to do

However, if you are then I find it very interesting. On the one hand one of the champions of the fizzle camp - you- want the Russians in. And the other, our own John Snow, alias Mr Das, has already posted that the bomb design came from the US.

Now I'd call all this very creative arguments - but that's because I'm in a good mood.

PS: Please note that apart from the Arihant issue, I'm not responding to your previous post because I'm not a goldsmith and I have no idea for caratage. However, I think Chari's article is more the costume jewelery stuff and less the asli jewelery.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Oct 2009 15:21

amit wrote:Sanku,

You may have posted data to claim fizzle (you just did blasphemy and typed sizzle! )

Sorry for the error, I meant to say that I have already posted what kind of data would prove sizzle.

So it all boils down to, whom do you believe KS or RC, nah?

Precisely. And I find the situation to be total disaster.

Now (correct me if I'm assuming something that you did not intend to imply) we know that the Russians helped a lot with the Arihant. Are you suggesting that we have Russian referees to look at the data and decide if it was a fizzle or sizzle?

I hope not otherwise I'd have to do

Actually I cant claim credit, Austin and Singha AFAIK had pretty early on laid out a nice and clean scheme to bring Russians in the picture with minimal interference and sort the matter out (one based on test and one without one)

I really liked their ideas.

I just happen to be someone with too much time at hand and so who just keeps picking up pieces of info from here and there and bringing it together

So yes, the option of involving Russians is one of the many meaningful possible options to solve the present mess.

Cant be laughed away, at the same time, not necessarily something WHICH IS TOTALLY CENTRAL to the argument.

Now I'd call all this very creative arguments - but that's because I'm in a good mood.

Good for you otherwise you need to be able to live up to the claim that you have demonstrated that you can disagree without loosing your cool right.

-------------

BTW> I believe I said it before and will said it again. I am fairly sure what constitutes your world view and am under no illusion what so ever as to the power of this debate to influence your mind.

-------------
Responding to the add.

1) That would rule out the Pokharan test range for all future nuclear bomb tests as
2) anyone who knows the mechanics would be able to determine the accurate yield from sesmic signature.

How does 2 follow from 1?

And anyway aren't we saying "no more tests are needed anyway" (as per RC)

The folks need to make up their minds.

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Oct 2009 15:24

Sanku wrote:Actually I cant claim credit, Austin and Singha AFAIK had pretty early on laid out a nice and clean scheme to bring Russians in the picture with minimal interference and sort the matter out (one based on test and one without one)

I really liked their ideas.

I just happen to be someone with too much time at hand and so who just keeps picking up pieces of info from here and there and bringing it together

So yes, the option of involving Russians is one of the many meaningful possible options to solve the present mess.

Cant be laughed away, at the same time, not necessarily something WHICH IS TOTALLY CENTRAL to the argument.

Like I said and suspected!

But have you considered something?

What if John Snow/Umrao Das is right and it is a US design (faulty) bomb?

Kind of complicates matters right?

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Oct 2009 15:29

And anyway aren't we saying "no more tests are needed anyway" (as per RC)

Sanku,

Can you do some heavy lifting and show me exactly where RC has said "no more tests are needed".

I hope you recall that there are several reports which say that he and AK wanted another test in 2003. There are other reports that they said that their was no need to test for 10 years, with AK personally saying 5 years?

Yet other reports have said that RC was of the opinion that more testing would be required if the quantum that satisfies the minimum part of our deterrence changes.

Sorry to say but it seems you haven't been doing your homework on this thread.

How does 2 follow from 1?

Anyone who knows the structure of the Pokharan soil structure can correctly interpret seismic data. I though that was established a long time ago.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Oct 2009 15:32

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote:Actually I cant claim credit, Austin and Singha AFAIK had pretty early on laid out a nice and clean scheme to bring Russians in the picture with minimal interference and sort the matter out (one based on test and one without one)

I really liked their ideas.

I just happen to be someone with too much time at hand and so who just keeps picking up pieces of info from here and there and bringing it together

So yes, the option of involving Russians is one of the many meaningful possible options to solve the present mess.

Cant be laughed away, at the same time, not necessarily something WHICH IS TOTALLY CENTRAL to the argument.
Like I said and suspected!

But have you considered something?

What if John Snow/Umrao Das is right and it is a US design (faulty) bomb?

Kind of complicates matters right?

As I said dear Amit, I am very well aware by now what to expect from you.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 23 Oct 2009 15:34

I need to preserve this gem for poster()ity:

dinesha wrote:

Fizzle experts have no counter to N3’s Khetolai arguments and already discounted the “scaling up of the boosted” capabilities.

To which fizzle expert counters:

That truly can not be countered, just as no one can counter that I had a discussion with little green men from mars, since that is a assertion, only based on one persons opinion, on a internet fora, not backed up ANY public domain source or science.

That is no more than an individuals statement of belief. To which he or she is entitled no doubt but no more.

Ah! See how easy that was? Just declare that "it was based on one person's opinion, on a internet fora".

As opposed to all the confirmed public-domain "science" on which the fizzle is "based". Like "privileged information whose sources cannot be revealed" citing "western estimates" done with the same precision as weather-forecasting.

This thread is so much fun. The sheer QUALITY and HONESTY of it.

Gagan: see why I have to come in and post it again and again and again? Some ppl just need reminding, because they cannot force themselves to remember what was posted even 2 pages ago.

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Oct 2009 15:35

Sanku wrote:As I said dear Amit, I am very well aware by now what to expect from you.

Yes dear Sanku, you can expect me to ask for facts and not settle for shibboleths.

Cheers!

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Oct 2009 15:37

This thread is so much fun.

N^3 I agree with you 400 per cent!

That's why I told Sanku that I'm in a good mood.