Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Sep 2009 07:17

shiv wrote:
at least two more tests with hydrogen bombs to collect information on parameters to simulate and improve their performance.

To "improve their performance" we need to have something functional? IF it is not functional, then we need to build one that is able to function?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2009 07:39

Let me come to a completely theoretical question.

Public sources reveal at least 2 separate designs for Thermonuclear bombs with Teller Ulam said to be the easiest and most fail safe and the "layer cake" design made by our old friends the USSR.

Apart from at least 2 known designs - various materials have been mentioned for various components - Plutonium, U238, U235, Lead, Bismuth, Tungsten, Beryllium, Tritium, Deuterium, Lithium, Polystyrene, steel and god knows what else.

The exact new elements that form when any of the nuclei of these elements are hit by high energy neutrons will depend on exactly what material is used.

When you do a Radiochemical estimation of the products that result from high energy neutrons (which come from fusion) you will be estimating for elements that have been formed depending on the original material used. If you reveal what you are looking for you are revealing the exact components of the device and therefore revealing certain design parameters.

This is not something that is going to be done in public or released to the public.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2009 07:40

NRao wrote: To "improve their performance" we need to have something functional? IF it is not functional, then we need to build one that is able to function?

vaazha vaazha kozha kozha

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 23 Sep 2009 07:45

Sikka has provided plausible explanations for 1) Why the A frame was not damaged 2) Why the underground structure was different for the fission and the TN bomb.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Sep 2009 07:46

On the contrary N^3 that RR article will be clincher. I agree seismology is all quackery. But rock mechanics is not. Lets see.

shiv, You used to ask me how K=12 for granite? Well Sikkaji says its pink granite(not chaddi) in the strata for S-I shaft.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2009 07:49

ramana wrote: shiv, You used to ask me how K=12 for granite? Well Sikkaji says its pink granite(not chaddi) in the strata for S-I shaft.

Yes I noticed that. Sikka's words have to be taken as confirmation of that. I recall you had linked some paper that quoted K=12 for granite..

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Sep 2009 07:50

shiv wrote: This is not something that is going to be done in public or released to the public.

Shiv,

This is why I think all this talk of forming a panel of eminent scientists to do a peer review is just wistful thinking, IMO.

I'm not casting aspersions on the integrity of these scientists who I'm sure are all true patriots. However, a secret remains a secret only when only a few people know about it on a strict need to know basis.

And this is one reason why KS or Abdul Kalam for the matter, despite being a part of the core team were never shown the Radiochem analysis data or the actual bomb design as far as I can recall.

The indirect demand that every doubting scientist be shown all the classified data so that they can come to a conclusion on the fizzle vs sizzle debate only dilutes the importance of this data which we all know the NPA's have been desperate to get their hands on for the past decade.

JMT

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Sep 2009 07:59

I have no proof, but it seems to me that the Tellar Ulam design is itself suspect and the result of subterfuge.
The sloika is supposed to be what a FBF is, but clearly we need some guru educated in noo-clear physics to actually verify tellar ulam.

K Santhanam was RAW. He would have access to all the maal RAW brought in from foreign shores, nay he would be THE man who would screen the halaal from the haraam.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2009 08:01

Every time you talk to anyone who has done anything significant in the defence industry they speak of their interaction with people from other nations who are in the same business. AM Rajkumar has spoken of informal comments made about design by Brits and others by Americans. My late cousin Suresh used to relate (with a smile) of how a designer from Sukhoi dismissed some printed material, and then patted his own chest saying, "What is technology? I am technology"

So there is some interaction between people of the same discipline across nations - which is why it would make sense to cancel visas to Indian and Pakistani nuclear scientists to the US after the 1998 tests.

It begs the questions: What was tested in S1? What was the design? Did that design derive its origins from any earlier designs? If so what were they? What information was sought by the test?

A final parting shot. Who can give a guarantee that the S1 device was not tested in the S2 shaft and vice versa. Or the S3 shaft for that matter? 0.3 kt would certainly constitute a fizzle

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2009 08:06

amit wrote: data which we all know the NPA's have been desperate to get their hands on for the past decade.

JMT

The NPA are a huge bunch of ch**ths - excuse my Arabic. What the funk were they doing when Pakistan and China were using Xerox Khan to exchange designs and actual Uranium?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 23 Sep 2009 08:08

On the contrary N^3 that RR article will be clincher.

I don't disagree at all, ramana - my comments on Sikka's article were in response to Samuel's post (now a few pages past). Samuel seemed to be claiming that Sikka's article showed that DRDO techniques were extremely primitive. I am merely saying that what Sikka revealed in that article was a very simple explanation tailored to the Frontline reader, using only simple curve-fit type arguments, and that it says nothing at all about what techniques BRDO/BARC may have used in calibrating sensors or estimating the max yield that they could afford to have from S1.

The fact that Sikka can give such explanations to show why the foreigners were led astray, suggests to me that BARC/DRDO have no intention and no need to do techno-snow-jobs to obfuscate or cover up.

It looks like between RR and the SAAG article, the govt/ BARC are beginning to roll out the counter-attack.

I still maintain that this is all an orchestrated tamasha to pre-empt/deter the SeeTeeBeeTee bullies.

Hearing excerpts from BO's speech today on the Climate Change issue, I have to say that BO's team comes at everything with the suave elegance and tuned intelligence of a swaggering drunk in a bar. Dismally clueless, to put it mildly. For someone who supposedly has a deeply sensitive grasp of realities in say, Africa, BO came across as a complete idiot.

Santanam's smokebomb and the resulting noise provide excellent cover for GOI to use as a reason to reject these idiot bullies until more sensible ppl come to the front in the WHOTUS/GOTUS. To his credit, BO usually learns fast and adjusts, so there is hope. It's his leftist / urban savages advisors who are the problem.

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Sep 2009 08:13

shiv wrote:
amit wrote: data which we all know the NPA's have been desperate to get their hands on for the past decade.

JMT
The NPA are a huge bunch of ch**ths - excuse my Arabic. What the funk were they doing when Pakistan and China were using Xerox Khan to exchange designs and actual Uranium?

Shiv,

Remember that intersecting (corrected wrong word) rings diagram of nuclear proliferation that I think you posted a few years back. And how India was standalone? Maybe the interest in the bomb design could be because of that?

From what I understand the bomb knowhow went something like this:

US (including UK and France) --> Russia --> China --> Pakistan, NoKo and possibly Iran.

India doesn't figure in this and hence may have developed a different design which is of interest to these ch**ths?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2009 08:17

amit wrote:
India doesn't figure in this and hence may have developed a different design which is of interest to these ch**ths?

Either that or.. ahem ahem a(rihant)em

in which case the Venn diagram may need to be drawn afresh?

All liars in this game no?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Sep 2009 08:19

Who can give a guarantee that the S1 device was not tested in the S2 shaft and vice versa. Or the S3 shaft for that matter? 0.3 kt would certainly constitute a fizzle

Who is to say that all three were not TN - diff designs?

Well, for once I happened to glance at N^3 post on tossing out the fusion content .......... hazar bombs, etc. I am tempted to support this conspiracy. This is one that even RAW could not get hold of.

Actually I am waiting for some poetry from ex-PMji. I am sure that some good clues would be embedded in that. Sikka, AK, RC have grown old. Across the border Khan is really retiring. KS seems to be out of old and new ideas. Only ex-PMji remains to save the Indian TN - again.

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Sep 2009 08:21

shiv wrote:
amit wrote:
India doesn't figure in this and hence may have developed a different design which is of interest to these ch**ths?
Either that or.. ahem ahem a(rihant)em

Actually that technology demonstrator fired it's first missile the moment it landed in water - if you follow the timeline of this current nukkad on the state of the deterrent. The red herring could have been all this talk about CTBT pressure on India etc.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2009 08:24

NRao wrote: Who is to say that all three were not TN - diff designs?

If you can get an 8 to 13 kt design to deliver 20-25 kt and still weigh 1000 kg less it must have undergone some changes I guess.

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Sep 2009 08:26

A bit off topic but related to Indian deterrence posture.

China refutes A Q Khan's charges on nuclear proliferation

This must be a first. I think Xerox Khan's days are numbered. I wonder if he's hidden a confession somewhere as insurance.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2009 08:47

About the "layer cake" design
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/peopl ... MEX60.html

"Layer Cake" Test

On August 20, 1953, the Soviet press announced that the USSR had tested a hydrogen bomb. The explosion, which had taken place eight days earlier in Kazakhstan, yielded the equivalent of 400 kilotons of TNT making it about 30 times larger than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The device tested was known as the "Layer Cake." It was small enough to fit in a plane, which meant that unlike "Mike", the American thermonuclear device tested a year earlier, it could easily be turned into a deliverable weapon. However, "Mike" was based on a concept that could be turned into a weapon of virtually unlimited explosive power. The "Layer Cake" design limited the amount of thermonuclear fuel that could be used and therefore the bomb's explosive force.

Initial Soviet research into the H-bomb followed closely the path the U.S. scientists were pursuing. The work was conducted by a group in Leningrad led by Iakov Zel'dovich that had been given access to information provided by atomic spy Klaus Fuchs. This included a detailed description of the "classical super" design, physicist Edward Teller's original idea for a super bomb. Zel'dovich's team began calculations on the basis of this information. But in 1948, Igor Kurchatov, director of the Soviet nuclear program, set up a second team to investigate the feasibility of the H-bomb. Its assignment was to check the Zel'dovich group's calculations.

Andrei Sakharov was a member of this second team. Before long, he had come up with an innovative new scheme. He suggested a "Layer Cake" design, which would consist of alternating layers of hydrogen fuel and uranium. High explosives surrounding the "Layer Cake" would be used to implode and ignite an atomic bomb at the center of the device. The atomic explosion would heat and compress the hydrogen fuel sufficiently to cause a fusion reaction. The fusion reaction in the hydrogen would lead to the emission of high energy neutrons which would in turn create further fissioning in the uranium.

Another talented young physicist Vitalii Ginzburg's came up with what Sakharov called the "Second Idea." Initially Sakharov suggested that the hydrogen fuel should consist of a mixture of deuterium and tritium, both of which are isotopes of hydrogen. Ginzburg suggested using lithium deuteride instead, a compound of lithium and deuterium, which has the advantage of being a solid at room temperature. In addition, it would produce tritium during the course of the explosion. Kurchatov understood immediately that Ginzburg's idea was a breakthrough and he arranged to have lithium deuteride produced on an industrial scale.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 23 Sep 2009 09:14

Splitting atoms, not hairs
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Splitting ... 56942.aspx

After a long lull, doubts have once again been expressed about the efficacy of the Indian 1998 nuclear tests. In this context, many issues have been raised: How big a deterrent should India have? Should India sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? While many of these questions do have some relevance for Indian strategic planning, they have been linked to the success of the 1998 tests and, in particular, whether the yield of the 1998 tests were in conformity with the planned yields.

There is no confusion about the design/planned yield of the 1998 thermonuclear test: it was 45 kiloton. This has not been disputed by anybody. According to the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), the estimated yield of the test was in rough agreement with the design yield subject to the usual errors associated with such estimates. It must be stated at the outset that there is no unanimity among the Indian critics of the DAE about the yield of the tests.

P.K. Iyengar, former DAE chairman, and the only nuclear scientist among those critical of the 1998 test, does not question the DAE estimates and is on record saying, “If one goes by the numbers for the total nuclear yield put out by the Department of Atomic Energy, which I see no reason to dispute, the yield of the thermonuclear device detonated on May 11, 1998 was around 40 kilotons.”

The DAE estimates are, however, contested by some Indian non-scientists and non-nuclear scientists. Till very recently, they had relied solely on the estimates of some foreign scientists for their contention. These estimates had been contested by DAE scientists and Indian scientific journals had carried an extensive debate on the issue with both the foreign and DAE scientists presenting their case. However, none of the Indian critics of the DAE ever presented any scientific argument in support of their case.

There are a number of ways of estimating nuclear test yields. Some on-site, some off-site; some off-site estimates that require data on the geology of the test site, and some that do not. The on-site methods are a) radiochemical analysis; b) close-in ground motion; c) hydrodynamic-CORRTEX. The off-site methods are seismic estimates using a) surface wave characteristics; independent of test-site geology data; b) body wave characteristics requiring some on-site geological data and c) using Lg wave characteristics requiring some on-site geological data.

Each of the above methods has its own estimate error. In terms of accuracy, the radiochemical analysis offers the best estimates. This was the method used by the United States estimating the yield of their nuclear devices. The Hydrodynamic (CORRTEX) and ground-in motion estimates rank second in their accuracy. While negotiating on the test methodology before ratification of the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, the US had insisted on the CORRTEX system for measuring the yield of an explosion, while the Soviets had favoured seismic monitoring. Seismic methods are the least reliable, especially when only one of the seismic methods is used.

The DAE had used all of the above methods in their estimates of the yields. The foreign experts who had disagreed with the DAE had employed only one method: the seismic method using body wave, which is the most unreliable of all of the above methods.

As mentioned earlier, till very recently the Indian critics of the DAE had based their criticism solely on the estimates of foreign scientists. Only very recently, former Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) scientist K. Santhanam revealed that there was a disagreement between the DAE and the DRDO on the yield of the 1998 test based on one method used by both parties, namely the close-in ground motion characteristics of the test. The DRDO seemed to have used only this method for estimating the 1998 yields.

As in all experiments, the success of the effort depends much on the instruments used and the calibration of these instruments. While Santhanam is on record as stating that the DRDO’s calibrations “were acknowledged to [have met international standards] by the BARC [Bhabha Atomic Research Centre]”, it’s a matter of record that much before the tests, the DAE had strongly questioned both the sensitivity of the DRDO instruments and their calibration and these had not been agreed to by the DAE. So, it’s not surprising to find the DAE and DRDO estimates not matching each other.

However, notwithstanding the fact that the DAE had used all six methods of estimation of nuclear yields, and that the DRDO had used only one method and that too under circumstances that were questioned by the DAE before the tests, it should be possible to resolve the issue by placing all the pre-test and post-test data before a group of Indian scientists qualified to judge all elements involved — the pre-test instrumentation sensitivity and calibration methods and the post-test data and charts — to come to the relative correctness of the two estimates.

It is interesting to compare the Indian and Pakistani reaction to the foreign estimates of the yields. As was the case with India, the foreign critics estimated the Pakistani yields to be far less than what was claimed by Pakistan. However, unlike in the case of India, there has not been, so far, any response from Pakistani scientists about the foreign estimates of their test yields. The Pakistani armed forces, of course, have kept quiet all along.

G. Balachandran is a Visiting Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) and Research Consultant, National Maritime Foundation (NMF).

As per this report DRDO was not responsible for CORRTEX and hence KS is relying only on ‘so claimed’ faulty accelerometer readings...

ss_roy · Post by **ss_roy** » 23 Sep 2009 09:31

Arun_S,

Why not start two threads

1] Retesting and related stuff.

2]1998 Postmortem and related stuff.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Sep 2009 09:49

He is an accommodationist right after the tests. What does he think?

CORRTEX data was not released yet.

Essentially a number of cables are buried at known depths and a signal is sent thru them. The explosion will cut off the signals when the cavity expands. From this they can figure out the size of the cavity and hence the yield.

An indirect way is the cavity radius determined by bore hole drilling for the RC analysis. The radio chem paper says its 40 +/-4m. In granite it gives ~ 37kt.

But the cavity radius precision is not clear.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Sep 2009 09:56

Oh while at it, hats off and kudos to vsunder for estimating the depth of S-I shaft to 1 m accuracy. His estimate was 229m in the crater phenomenonology paper. Per RR article in Frontline its 230m!

We do have our experts here.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2009 09:58

dinesha wrote: it should be possible to resolve the issue by placing all the pre-test and post-test data before a group of Indian scientists qualified to judge all elements involved

This has already happened with regard to seismic data and craterology

What is NOT going to occur is sharing of radiochemistry.

My initial reading tells me that the Layer cake design for thermonuclear bombs makes it impossible to scale up above several hundred kilotons - but the teller Ulam design allows Tsar Bomba to occur

If you are not looking for megaton yields Layer Cake seems a good enough design and as far as I can tell it does not need a separate "spark plug" - the layers spark each other - but I need to do some more reading of info that is available.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 23 Sep 2009 10:57

Austin wrote:Spectral defence
R. RAMACHANDRAN

S.K. Sikka, a scientist involved in Pokhran-II, shows how the U.S. calculations of yield of the thermonuclear device were way off the mark.

Interesting revelation by S.K.Sikka, not directly but by via a newspaper reporter; This after canceling IDSA talk to "By Invitation Only" audience. Speaks volumes on lack of credibility and/or confidence.

1) It is all bout "Timing":
- A.) In Nov. 2000, this masterpiece was published in Current Science:
  ""S.K. Sikka, GJ Nair, Falguni Roy, Anil Kakodkar and R. Chidambaram. 2000. "The recent Indian nuclear tests: A seismic overview", Current Science Vol 79, No 9, 10 Nov 2000', pp. 1359-1366.
  http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/nov102000/contents.htm.
  
  B.) When Barker's paper came out in 2001, these gentlemen would have known the similarities with African Sahara HTS at that time. Then, why wait till 2009 when they are being publicly undressed, to announce/release this virgin psudo-paper (via proxy) in a magazine?
  
  C.) When Barker's paper came out in 2001, the controversy was still very much alive. If Sikka's claim is true, this should have come out THEN ! Of course, some people will find some "great strategy" behind withholding information like this till Sept. 2009.
The timing in itself points to knee-jerk reaction in response to Santhanam's expose.

2) Absence of a rationale for the 230 m DoB (depth of burial) if the yield was "as expected".

3) Absence to explain the presence of large amounts of LiT (repeat LiT) salts in the debris. An important issue pointed out earlier by PKI.

4) Absence of why ARC/Karnal which is only ~30 degrees away got something else.

If Sikka can only publish this new "discovery" somewhere, even if it is in a reputable journal like "Current Science", some scientist in India or abroad can take these scientific claims seriously. Unfortunately, no serious scientist would publicly challenge something in a newspaper article. A person could always attribute mistakes to incorrect reporting by newspaper reporter.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 23 Sep 2009 11:14

Ramana rightly summed it up earlier as following:

ramana wrote: I read the Sikka article. Its the same old fitting new constants form world over to get the results they want. Earlier they used Nevada data, Now he wants to use Algerian data.

He was supposed to be the S-I designer. He could have given us confidence that the test confirmed his design parameters that he used. Instead of talking about his area of expertise he is frittering away his valuable time in areas which are not his ken. As its stated in the article seismic is most unreliable method. So why use that. Its over ten years after the tests and those methods don't matter.

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Sep 2009 11:16

Arun_S wrote:Of course, some people will find some "great strategy" behind withholding information like this till Sept. 2009.

Not to dispute on the technical points in your post but this same argument can be used regarding KS going public in 2009, while earlier supporting the nuclear deal and saying India's security is not impaired by the deal.

He could have come clean before the deal or after he retired? Maybe he was also following some "great strategy"?

Could it be Sikka's new information came out because KS and others wanted to conduct the debate via the media? I suppose two can play the game, nah?

Added later:

f Sikka can only publish this new "discovery" somewhere, even if it is in a reputable journal like "Current Science", some scientist in India or abroad can take these scientific claims seriously. Unfortunately, no serious scientist would publicly challenge something in a newspaper article. A person could always attribute mistakes to incorrect reporting by newspaper reporter.

Sorry to say this but this exact argument could be used against KS. BTW had KS published any scientific paper regarding POKII? I would certainly like to know. Thanks!

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 23 Sep 2009 11:27

Sanjay wrote:Arun_S - have you made a bomb of any kind - petrol, Molotov cocktail or any such device ?.

Sounds like qualification question, I presume Chidambram and Sikka made great strides in petrol bum, Molotov cocktail or any such device before graduating to TN bum?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 23 Sep 2009 11:32

amit wrote:
Arun_S wrote:Of course, some people will find some "great strategy" behind withholding information like this till Sept. 2009.
Not to dispute on the technical points in your post but this same argument can be used regarding KS going public in 2009, while earlier supporting the nuclear deal and saying India's security is not impaired by the deal.

He could have come clean before the deal or after he retired? Maybe he was also following some "great strategy"?

Could it be Sikka's new information came out because KS and others wanted to conduct the debate via the media? I suppose two can play the game, nah?

Added later:

f Sikka can only publish this new "discovery" somewhere, even if it is in a reputable journal like "Current Science", some scientist in India or abroad can take these scientific claims seriously. Unfortunately, no serious scientist would publicly challenge something in a newspaper article. A person could always attribute mistakes to incorrect reporting by newspaper reporter.
Sorry to say this but this exact argument could be used against KS. BTW had KS published any scientific paper regarding POKII? I would certainly like to know. Thanks!

Sikka should have talked about this after Murphy and Wallace published in 2001. If he did so at that time, his "great discovery" would have been taken in a positive context of scientific argument especially because he uses their work to prove his "great discovery".

There is no "great strategy" in talking such things in a newspaper article in 2009. This desperate curve fitting is like finding some torn handkerchief to cover the nakedness.

Santy's "great strategy" is simple - he wants to stop a sellout.

No, Sunthanam never published any paper on POK-2, but at least he did not publish rubbish. NAH?????

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 23 Sep 2009 11:39

ramana wrote:Thanks. Two things:

So if an expected crater radius of 72m and DOB of 230 m is for what yield?
K Santhanam gives the crater radius for the S-2 in his op-eds.

This is the multi-million dollar question, which i think will reveal the difference between three yields of S-1 "design yield" vs "claimed yield =43kt" vs "actual yield =20kt". I think that Sanathanam has already given info that part of yield of Fission bomb was used for TN. Now the only reason he & PKI could be so sure of failure is that "design yield was way higher". So what was the yield that could be contained in 230m depth shaft in hard rock pink granite with 72m subsistence crater (my guess would be anything between 200kt-1mt)

Guys waiting for the answer to Ramana's question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Sep 2009 11:39

Fair enough Arun_S I'll trust you judgment on this since you are the resident expert here.

Regarding NAH, please don't read too much into it. It's a Bengali habit to end a question with nah (actually the correct phonetic spelling would be na?).

Since I'm more comfortable in Bengali than in English some form of Bengali usage sometimes creeps into my writing - something I have to guard against when doing professional work.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 23 Sep 2009 11:43

What do people think of this paper by Sikka, Roy & Basu? The authors apply a correction to the Douglas magnitudes after which they show a normal distribution.

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/oct252002/992.pdf

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 23 Sep 2009 11:49

Zooming out of the details and looking at it, there are two stances. One is from a technology dem. POV and other from a end-user POV.

BARC stance: N3's post:

narayanan wrote:
And my take on what ramana said is that I don't see how they could have PLANNED to have the remaining 40% yield, because that would have been the end of Khetolai. At minimum, it would have been criminally dangerous and irresponsible test planning, and I am sure they would not have done that.

So I agree with ramana that the "remaining 40%" may not have gone off. My take is that it could not have been INTENDED to go off.

Maybe they didn't know how, so they did not try. Maybe they knew how, and used the bare minimum just to get some "trace" data and decided that trying any more would be too risky.

But either way, what they planned, they got. Any more and it would have been a disaster.
As shiv says, we all agree that no big 150kT or 200kT or 1MT device has been live-tested by India.
Whether there is a fair amount of confidence that any such devices, if built , will work, is somewhat open to question. Big question, I would agree. Maybe the GOI has decided that Indian Credible Minimum Deterrent will stick to 25-40kT devices,and focus all the R&D on delivery systems. I would agree with that choice for other reasons, because I firmly believe that 1MT ICBMs are liabilities..

IMVHO, this is could be the why BARC says its done.Radiochemistry data should have confirmed that. And this sums up BARC's stance - the TD view.

DRDO stance is the end user POV. Simply put, what DRDO is saying is, look all that is fine but what about the its final configuration in the warhead form? KS says two more tests are needed. Is he saying , please give us the final version instead of proof of concept?

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Sep 2009 11:57

Neela wrote:DRDO stance is the end user POV. Simply put, what DRDO is saying is, look all that is fine but what about the its final configuration in the warhead form? KS says two more tests are needed. Is he saying , please give us the final version instead of proof of concept?

Neela,

Unless KS or somebody from his side refutes this point made by G. Balachandran in the HT article linked above, then I personally think fizzle POV is quite a bit underminded.

However, notwithstanding the fact that the DAE used all six methods of estimation of nuclear yields, and that the DRDO had used only one method and that too under circumstances that were questioned by the DAE before the tests, it should be possible to resolve the issue by placing all the pre-test and post-test data before a group of Indian scientists qualified to judge all elements involved — the pre-test instrumentation sensitivity and calibration methods and the post-test data and charts — to come to the relative correctness of the two estimates.

So this DRDO-DAE dispute on measurements started even before the tests were carried out? And DAE is the one which had more accurate tools for measuring the yield data? Yet we are saying DAE data is wrong while DRDO data is right? Doesn't it look as if something is not adding up?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 23 Sep 2009 11:59

dinesha wrote:Splitting atoms, not hairs - G. Balachandran
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Splitting ... 56942.aspx
There are a number of ways of estimating nuclear test yields. Some on-site, some off-site; some off-site estimates that require data on the geology of the test site, and some that do not. The on-site methods are a) radiochemical analysis; b) close-in ground motion; c) hydrodynamic-CORRTEX. The off-site methods are seismic estimates using a) surface wave characteristics; independent of test-site geology data; b) body wave characteristics requiring some on-site geological data and c) using Lg wave characteristics requiring some on-site geological data.

Each of the above methods has its own estimate error. In terms of accuracy, the radiochemical analysis offers the best estimates. This was the method used by the United States estimating the yield of their nuclear devices. The Hydrodynamic (CORRTEX) and ground-in motion estimates rank second in their accuracy. While negotiating on the test methodology before ratification of the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, the US had insisted on the CORRTEX system for measuring the yield of an explosion, while the Soviets had favoured seismic monitoring. Seismic methods are the least reliable, especially when only one of the seismic methods is used.

The DAE had used all of the above methods in their estimates of the yields. The foreign experts who had disagreed with the DAE had employed only one method: the seismic method using body wave, which is the most unreliable of all of the above methods.

As mentioned earlier, till very recently the Indian critics of the DAE had based their criticism solely on the estimates of foreign scientists. Only very recently, former Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) scientist K. Santhanam revealed that there was a disagreement between the DAE and the DRDO on the yield of the 1998 test based on one method used by both parties, namely the close-in ground motion characteristics of the test. The DRDO seemed to have used only this method for estimating the 1998 yields.

As in all experiments, the success of the effort depends much on the instruments used and the calibration of these instruments. While Santhanam is on record as stating that the DRDO’s calibrations “were acknowledged to [have met international standards] by the BARC [Bhabha Atomic Research Centre]”, it’s a matter of record that much before the tests, the DAE had strongly questioned both the sensitivity of the DRDO instruments and their calibration and these had not been agreed to by the DAE. So, it’s not surprising to find the DAE and DRDO estimates not matching each other.

However, notwithstanding the fact that the DAE had used all six methods of estimation of nuclear yields, and that the DRDO had used only one method and that too under circumstances that were questioned by the DAE before the tests, it should be possible to resolve the issue by placing all the pre-test and post-test data before a group of Indian scientists qualified to judge all elements involved — the pre-test instrumentation sensitivity and calibration methods and the post-test data and charts — to come to the relative correctness of the two estimates.
As per this report DRDO was not responsible for CORRTEX and hence KS is relying only on ‘so claimed’ faulty accelerometer readings...

Balachandran is WRONG, and spinning myth.

DRDO did not use just one method to estimate 1998 yields.
Per below they had at least two methods:Close in accelerometers, and CORRTEX.

Dud bomb was made a success by govt diktat

While the DAE has claimed that the DRDO's seismic systems had malfunctioned, they have not yet responded to the fact that there was another, more sophisticated test, called the CORRTEX test which also confirmed the DRDO finding. The CORRTEX estimates the size of the explosion by measuring the time it takes to crush a cable inserted into the test shaft.

In the case of the Pokhran tests, the Terminal Ballistics Laboratory, Chandigarh, had a more sophisticated and sensitive system using a fibre- optic cable which gave an estimate of the yield in terms of the time the shock wave takes for the light to be extinguished in the cable.

The ARC is now part of the National Technical Research Office and the scientist who carried out the analysis is still in service with the outfit. Another source has pointed out, that the same facility had given a yield for the 1974 test as being below the one claimed.

Don't know if DRDO also had Neutron energy spectra from sacrificial sensors (these can resolve yield from Fusion versus Fission).

First it was NSA Narayanan claiming DRDO has NO data. And he got slapped by Santhnam's rebuttal.
Now Balachandran claiming DRDO had data from only ONE type of measurement.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Pol ... 040401.cms

At the same time, Mr Santhanam also slammed Mr Narayanan for calling his claims ‘horrific’ and questioning his credibility. He said the national security advisor was “barking up the wrong tree” by contending he was not privy to test measurements and information and suggested that Mr Narayanan had given “misleading” statement over 1998 explosions as he was not NSA at that time.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 23 Sep 2009 12:01

shiv wrote:
NRao wrote: To "improve their performance" we need to have something functional? IF it is not functional, then we need to build one that is able to function?
vaazha vaazha kozha kozha

Nitpick: to be phonetically precse, it should be "vazha vazhaa, kozha kozhaa".

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Sep 2009 12:04

Arun_S,

So you'd take the word of a journalist like Manoj Joshi who has no technology writing experience over the word of G. Balachandran in a matter like this??

This is what Manoj wrote:

While the DAE has claimed that the DRDO's seismic systems had malfunctioned, they have not yet responded to the fact that there was another, more sophisticated test, called the CORRTEX test which also confirmed the DRDO finding. The CORRTEX estimates the size of the explosion by measuring the time it takes to crush a cable inserted into the test shaft.

What's his source?

Balachandran is WRONG, and spinning myth.

Dictionary.com definition of mythology:

A set of stories, traditions, or beliefs associated with a particular group or the history of an event, arising naturally or deliberately fostered

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 23 Sep 2009 12:14

amit wrote:Arun_S,

So you'd take the word of a journalist like Manoj Joshi who has no technology writing experience over the word of G. Balachandran in a matter like this??

Just that I have my own sources that I can cross check from.
That also means I may know there were more than 2 measurement data source apart from Accelerometer & CORRTEX, but then I wont put that on forum.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Sep 2009 12:16

Thats the trouble with speaking indirectly through media and playing games. You dont convince anyone but your cronies, and certainly neither your in house detractors or external enemies.

Trying to brush away some one like the line up KS has behind him is plain arrogance, people suggest either that they were with GoI or wrong, only two possible options -- this is hubris.

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Sep 2009 12:18

Arun_S wrote:
amit wrote:Arun_S,

So you'd take the word of a journalist like Manoj Joshi who has no technology writing experience over the word of G. Balachandran in a matter like this??
Just that I have my own sources that I can cross check from.
That also means I may know there were more than 2 measurement data source apart from Accelerometer & CORRTEX, but then I wont put that on forum.

Then I suppose we have to take your word for it and not follow the BRF tradition of cross verification via independent sources? OK, I'll take your word for it.

But it's interesting to note that everyone who has challenged the fizzle theory has been either alleged to be lying, or not knowing their science, or having a ulterior motive or not privy to facts which even BRF members have access to, etc.

Let's see how this pans out.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 23 Sep 2009 12:19

Arun_S wrote:
amit wrote:Arun_S,

So you'd take the word of a journalist like Manoj Joshi who has no technology writing experience over the word of G. Balachandran in a matter like this??
Just that I have my own sources that I can cross check from.

hmm mysterious anonymous sources who do not publish nonsense (or know their arguments to be nonsense - hence do not publish). who will ever know? but who saves India from saviours?