Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Locked
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7843
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

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

Post by Anujan »

ramana wrote: PS: While you are at it, see how one can squeeze 40-50 kt out of 3kg Pu in fission process. Like how much ould be the efficiency of that.
One fission of Pu 239 produces ~ 200 MeV =~ 200 x 10^6 x 1.6 x 10^-19 =~ 3.2 x 10^-11 Joules

Therefore One mole (239gms) of Pu 239 produces 3.2 x 10^-11 x 6.02 x 10^23 =~ 19.24 x 10^12 Joules

TNT produces (NW convention) 1000 cal per gram =~ 4.18 x 10^12 J per KT

50KT TNT produces =~ 2.10 x 10^14 J

Amount of Pu needed (assuming 100% efficiency) =~ 2.10 x 10^14 / 19.24 x 10^12 ~= 11 moles = 2.6Kg

if 2.6 Kg out of 3kg is used it is ~87% efficiency.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59878
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

Thats better than TN! No wonder the big bad wolf wants to know how they did it and thus all this questioning.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

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

Post by enqyoob »

kgoan:
it is the stuff this thread is so fascinated with. It pays well
I knew it! Though so dissed by Samuel here, it is so good to see that my deep elucidation of Frequency Domain System Identification, the simplest thing not yet realized by the Seismology Community if I am to believe what is written here, was of use to the right ppl. Get a hammer and 2 accelerometers and their power supplies and A/D converters, kgoan, and for a free round-trip ticket and food and a cheap hotel I'll be glad to assist your endeavors on Pacific islands. Or no hammer, but good running shoes and one angry 300lb Pacific Islander Sync Swimmer to stamp her feet.

As for the imagined Powers of Enlightened Moderators, kgoan, I can't even start a krikit thread where I could make some serious Rs. courtesy of the Bookie community, courtesy of the patented GUESS Predictor-Corrector System, let alone a Romance and Agony Column Thread. But .. if I do I shall surely open a major section for the sync swimming community. The "Moderator" label is only part of the full title which is
**KICK ME HERE - mod-e-RAT-or** But oh, yes, the sheer feeling of limitless power, per some here, has gone entirely into the space between my ears.
***

Seriously, I knew there was something very serious behind your comment and now that you explain it I see. Very disturbing indeed. Sell all my Taiwan stock, hain?
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9433
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Post by Amber G. »

R - thanks. have not yet but will visit the physics thread..If you posted there something .... May be you can x-post the relevant part here too as not that many visit the physics thread...
regards.
Last edited by Amber G. on 08 Oct 2009 02:43, edited 1 time in total.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Post by svinayak »

JE Menon wrote:
University of Nebraska and a certain Prof. Thomas Gouttierre was responsible.
Stand corrected. In the last minute my finger missed the right name.
Changes in History teaching in Pakistan:

There is increasing evidence that changes in history teaching in Pakistan were being matched with changes inside India after 1971. The western institution and think tanks ; probably are involved in this change in both countries. University of Nebraska had a program to change the curriculum of Afghanistan text books after 1980 to make Russians as enemies during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Finally AH Nayyar a Pakistani commentator said 'The fact of the matter is that jihad by sword came into not only Pakistani textbooks but Afghan textbooks as well, only because the US wanted it so. He said the task of putting jihad into textbooks in Afghanistan(and prob. Pakistan) was given to a University of Nebraska department in the Cold War years'. He said 'the same University of Nebraska entity has now been instructed by the President Bush's wife to take charge of getting jihad OUT of Pakistani(actually Afghan-corrected) textbooks.' At least one education program the U.S. did sponsor probably did little to break the culture of violence that envelops children here from an early age.
The Agency for International Development paid the University of Nebraska $50 million over eight years, from 1986 to 1994, to produce educational materials for Afghan primary- and secondary-school students. But texts on a range of subjects were highly politicized and often had a militaristic overtone, Tom Gouttierre, director of the university’s Center for Afghan Studies in Omaha, now concede.
Some questions prodded students to tackle basic math by counting dead Russians and Kalashnikov rifles. In addition to arming such groups for hitech jihad, the United States became directly involved in their indoctrination process. Between 1986 and 1992, USAID underwrote the printing of explicitly violent Islamist textbooks for elementary school children. The University of Nebraska, Omaha (UNO), oversaw this $50 million contract with the Education Center for Afghanistan (ECA), a group jointly appointed by the seven mujahideen organizations that the ISI and CIA had taken under their wing. With this money, the Peshawar-based ECA published a series of first- through sixth-grade textbooks whose recurrent theme was the promotion of Islam through violence. The education changes in Pakistan and Afghanistan from 1980 may considered as social engineering projects and may be one of largest ever done in history. This social engineering resulted in a steady stream of Islamic jihad militants for the next 25 years that it has changed the world as never before. India has been the biggest targeted country due to the effects of this social engineering.
Taking rather a different tack than Dr.Seuss, these USAID-funded books instructed children that, in the Persian alphabet, Alif is for Allah, Jim is for Jihad, and Shin is for Shakir, adding that “Shakir conducts jihad with the sword. God becomes happy with the defeat of the Russians.” Third- and fifth grade books depicted automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, and tanks. A fourth grade mathematics text noted that “the speed of a Kalashnikov bullet is 800 meters per second,” and then asked students, If a Russian is at a distance of 3,200 meters from a mujahid, and that mujahid aims at the Russian’s head, calculate how many seconds it will take for the bullet to strike the Russian in the forehead.
One of the two official views of history also causes problems for the study of History in Pakistan. This view popularized by Dr Ahmad Dani locates Pakistan as part of a Central Asian historical and cultural entity, rather than within India/South Asia. In the first decade after Pakistan's independence, Pakistan considered its history to be part of a larger India's, a common history, a joint history, and in fact Indian textbooks were in use in the syllabus in Pakistan. However, this changed in the early 1960s when Ayub Khan's government wanted to create a 'History of Pakistan' independent and separate from that of India's. The historians who were given this task attempted to 'take out' Pakistan from Indian history and just look at Pakistan without India. This gave rise to the writing of a Pakistani history disassociated from an Indian past and links were established with Central Asia. All the association with the Indian history has been negated or totally omitted.
It is very clear, that in Pakistan, it is 'Muslim history' that is being taught, and not 'Indian history'. In fact, this Muslim history, as we argue above, is perceived to be a Pakistani history dating from 712 AD. This has major repercussions on what is taught and the way it is taught. For example, since there is a Muslim history and there are courses and subjects called 'The Freedom Movement' which looks at the struggle for an independent Pakistan - the seeds of which according to some historians were sown in 712 AD, but for others in 1857 - seems to overlook the colonial period entirely and treats the Freedom Struggle as a struggle from Hindu domination, not colonial rule.
In none of the curricula studied, did we find a single course on British India, or on colonialism; the period after 1857 is seen as the beginning of the Pakistan Movement and of the Freedom Struggle. From the 'Muslim' period, we move on to the 'Struggle for Pakistan'. In essence, the Freedom Movement is shown to be a movement for the freedom of Muslims in India, but not of India from colonialism. What is interesting, though not at all surprising, is that post-independence modern India, is not taught as part of the history syllabus in Pakistan. For that matter, nor is there a course on the history of modern Pakistan, since both of these countries in this era, are treated under politics.
Interestingly enough, teachers at the University of Karachi's international relations department said that as late as 1989, the term 'South Asia' was "banned" in the department, since it was considered too 'pro-India' and was thought to be a part of an India-centric thinking. South Asia as a subject was introduced only after a democratic government took over in 1988-89 after the death of General Ziaul Haq.
One objective of change in Pakistani text book is to create an benign Islamic political history of the Mogul period in the sub-continent so that there is no antipathy towards the Muslim culture and Muslim people by the non-Muslims in the sub-continent. For the Muslims when a Islamic political history is glorified and is a continuum of the larger pan Islamic history; it energizes the Muslim community and unifies them over any political/ethnic differences. Pakistan after 1971 was rocked by decussating by Baloch and Sindh and unrest. The change in the education was to bring a common Muslim history to bind the provinces. This process was a way for creation of a sub-continent Muslim ruling class accepted by all the people in the sub-continent in the long run. The assumption here is that non-Muslim population will loose their Hindu attributes and blend with the Muslims in the long run and accept their hegemony. For 30 years in its 55-year history, Pakistan has had governments that were run by the military or put into office and sustained by the military. It is not a matter of surprise that the government-textbook connection has developed into a military-textbook bond. This started in the 1970s when a former prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, introduced a full two-year course on the ‘Fundamentals of War’ and ‘Defense of Pakistan’ for Class XI and XII respectively.
In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation. The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code. Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtu, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $51 million on the university's education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994.
During that time of Soviet occupation, regional military leaders in Afghanistan helped the U.S. smuggle books into the country. They demanded that the primers contain anti-Soviet passages. Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines, agency officials said. They acknowledged that at the time it also suited U.S. interests to stoke hatred of foreign invaders. "I think we were perfectly happy to see these books trashing the Soviet Union," said Chris Brown, head of book revision for AID's Central Asia Task Force. AID dropped funding of Afghan programs in 1994. But the textbooks continued to circulate in various versions, even after the Taliban seized power in 1996.
In the ‘Fundamentals of War’ themes like objects and causes, conduct, nature, modern weapons, operations, ethics, war and modern warfare were thoroughly discussed. The ‘Defense of Pakistan’ dealt with Pakistan’s defense problems, economy and defense, foreign policy, military heritage, the role of its armed forces during peace and the qualities of military leadership. There was a military science group for intermediate students, which consisted of war, military history, economics of war, military geography, defense of Pakistan and special military studies as subjects.
General Ayub Khan abolished history from the school system, and got official textbooks prepared for history students at the university level. Between 1960 and 1980 the students read no history at all for the first 12 years of their studies.[ why from 1960 the year Indian movies were banned in Pakistan ] Instead, they were taught a newly invented subject called "Social Studies", which was an uneven and coarse amalgam of bits of civics, geography, religion, economics and history. During the 13th and 14th years (undergraduate period) they read a history book prepared by the government. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's regime did not make any change in this scheme.
Last edited by svinayak on 08 Oct 2009 02:44, edited 1 time in total.
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

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

Post by samuel »

--
wait a second. i thought these Pu things don't come even close to 50% Something skipped here.
--
(it'll pay better if you go talk to one of the oil companies...they'll tell you what methods they use in a black box and then you'll really think our guys hand out way too much information. they should've used a random number generator to fire them randomly with only one guy on one computer knowing the seed).
Last edited by samuel on 08 Oct 2009 02:47, edited 1 time in total.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59878
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

:D

Must be using element Uo.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9433
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Post by Amber G. »

One of my old post - which may be helpful if one is converting one unit into other -
For those of us who do not run into KT or MT energy in our morning walks and are curious to check some numbers ....(It Can be found in any elementary physics or wiki but for continence here are some numbers for quick reference..)
(= here is just approx... one or two significant figures only)

1 KT (or TNT - explosive power when 1000 Tons of 2-methyl-1,3,5-trinitrobenzene Burn) = 10^12 calories
= 4.18 x 10^12 joules
= 1.2x 10^6 KWH = 4x10^9 BTU
= 2.62 x 10^25 MeV
= 1.45 x 10^23 Atoms fissioning = 0.241 Moles of the matter
= 57 gm of material fissioning (U235/Pu etc)
= 47 mg of matter turning into energy
= 12 gm of Deuterium fusing (or 15 gm of LiD) fusing ..
From above from fisson (U235/Pu etc) one would get (Theory - upper limit - 100% efficiency) about 17KT/Kg, from Fusion about 82 KT/Kg (For Pure Deuterium) to 64 KT/Kg (for Li(6)D) and about 21470 KT/Kg from anti-matter/matter bomb.

Anujun - Already has the value for 3Kg Pu (51 KT - 100% efficiency)
Last edited by Amber G. on 08 Oct 2009 02:55, edited 1 time in total.
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

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

Post by samuel »

Bosslog, can we drop this maximum potential efficiency business and propose some numbers that are somewhat known. The Pu on Fat guy was approx 2/13.5 efficient. Ok that was way back then. But is it realistically possible to push like 30%?
The whole 10Kg Pu 20KT examples on internet I think assumes ~10% efficiency, right?

S
PS: Isn't Pu-239 a whole lot more efficient than U-23x?
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9433
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Post by Amber G. »

S - Experts like Gerard, Ramana could give better/relavent info you ask.. My values are basically from elementary physics theory/numbers ..so these are upper limits. .

There are many numbers parameters (which one sees in Wiki, books etc) which are not not "confirmed"... Heck even elementary parameters like exact (to more significant figures) values of U235 cross-section area etc) are/were classified.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9433
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Post by Amber G. »

Sankuji,

Lastly I know which paper and which issue you are talking of, however it would have been much much better if you could then come up and argue those points when those making the points were still participating in the thread.
(Emphasis added by me)
1 I was away enjoying my vacation, photographing bears in National Glacier Park and hiking in Grand Canyon so it did not come as a priority.

2. What was there to ‘argue’ .. wasn’t it a self-evident truth? (that is there was no double integral/cylindrical coordinates etc) …Are you really telling me that one has to argue points like “in spherical you can do golmal”)

3. And it was discussed in internet flora (in mav’s blog) so much so that one need not add anything.

I hope that answers your concern.
…Yes you are [wrong] -- as much as those making those wrong statements (albeit left un-argued then) are in my view…
I am not clear how “un-argued” qualifier is even relevant but I plead guilty as charged that I do pass “judgments” (I try to qualify those with IMO but nevertheless you are right). Actually sometimes I even get paid for those “judgments” - when I am grading a student’s paper, or doing a peer review of a scientific paper etc…I can live with your criticism that I passed a judgment here because it is true.

As to “I am wrong” in your view, I have no doubt about that (and as I said I can live with it if you call me wrong)… but I think critical point is for almost anyone else (again I agree that that is *my view* only) will agree about my statement about silliness -(of “cylindrical coordinate systems, and anyone who uses them are idiotic “–(my paraphrase - not exact quote) type analysis.

I don’t know exactly what you meant by “It will be good to be careful” but thanks for the advise. I would be.

But you did raise a good point – why I did not ‘argue’ “then”… Sure better late than never…But to be truthful I have some questions let us see if you (generic “you” - greatful if any one can shine some light. If nothing else, the discussion would be “technical” So here are some points, which had been talked about in last 100’s of pages but I think never resolved... Thanks in advance to anyone who answers etc..

1 What exactly are ‘hydrodynamic .. fiber optic’ sensors… How/why they are ‘better’ than Coax? (Seems like lot of statements like light travel faster in fiber did not make much sense to me.)

2. What are ‘sacrificial neutron sensors’ which can get ‘full spectrum’ of neutrons. (particularly would like to know how one measure spectrum (vs intensity/flux) in time span of a micro-second? - What kind of detectors is one talking about?

3. What are ‘sacrificial xray sensors” (whose data is supposed to settle the debate between fusion vs fission part of S1). I mean how (even in theory) one can determine the origin of X-ray photon as it applies to S1 event.

Thanks in advance.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9433
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Post by Amber G. »

ramana wrote:Thats better than TN! No wonder the big bad wolf wants to know how they did it and thus all this questioning.
If I am not mistaken in my calculation put before, for TN we get 82-64 (depending pure D on Li(6)) per Kg vs 17KT/ Kg for fission ... theoretically at least .. ...
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9433
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Post by Amber G. »

samuel wrote:PS: Isn't Pu-239 a whole lot more efficient than U-23x?
FWIW from physics point of view even for, say Pu-239, the values are statistical averages.. as Anujan mentioned 200 Mev per fission is somewhat statistical value (depends on what the fission fragments are etc..) not to mention the KE (of fission products) may be about 165 MeV only .. (rest, for example, gamma rays may not contribute much to the boom).. may values like 180Mev/fission may be the upper limit.)

In any case the numbers given should not be taken as with that in mind.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

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

Post by amit »

Sanku wrote:Amit this is the sort of stuff which makes me weary frankly,
So true Sanku.

When no amount of verbosity, technical jargon and pontification can convince folks (who always seem to come up with counter-arguments) to your POV, one tends to get weary.

Chalo, let's agree to disagree. At least that shouldn't make you weary.
Last edited by amit on 08 Oct 2009 06:44, edited 1 time in total.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

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

Post by amit »

Amber G. wrote:
samuel wrote:PS: Isn't Pu-239 a whole lot more efficient than U-23x?
FWIW from physics point of view even for, say Pu-239, the values are statistical averages.. as Anujan mentioned 200 Mev per fission is somewhat statistical value (depends on what the fission fragments are etc..) not to mention the KE (of fission products) may be about 165 MeV only .. (rest, for example, gamma rays may not contribute much to the boom).. may values like 180Mev/fission may be the upper limit.)

In any case the numbers given should not be taken as with that in mind.
Amber G,

For what it's worth good to see you back. I always enjoy your posts. You have a flair. You can teach unruly equations manners which make them "well-behaved"!

Translation: You eschew the mumbo jumbo which makes it so much more credible.

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

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

Post by Bade »

Regarding 'golmal' in not-so-gol coordinates comment by some proponents earlier also caught my attention but no followup discussion was seen. So it must have been made in jest or so I thought.

The basis for this fallacy in some people's mind was that if one is measuring the remnant radioactivity in the underground strata from a bum explosion, one should have spherical symmetry in the distribution of the remnants or whatever one is trying to measure post-shot. So why use cylindrical co-ordinates to integrate over ?

In reality when you dig for samples, the easiest way is to dig vertically down at multiple sites around the area of the test site. So you now have a map of say the densities for various radionuclides, for multiple columns with cylindrical symmetry. So it is natural to do the integration this way using measurements from these columns.

All this is just an educated guess from memory with reference to that equation.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

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

Post by enqyoob »

photographing bears in National Glacier Park
Ah, u 2! Was the Pass over the Continental Divide open? I went there the day they first opened it this year - minutes after it was opened, in fact. Unfortunately, the bears were using zoom lenses from a distant ridge to photograph me that day.

I did get some good pictures of Mt. Gopalankutty for shiv to place in Northern Arunachal. Thanks for the estimates. 1KT = 47mg converted to energy, heh?

Reminds me that all this talk of fission and fusion is all irrelevant. A couple of grams of antimatter in a BakPak seems so much more elegant by comparison.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

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

Post by amit »

Sanku wrote:
Kanson wrote: Thats why they had a panel headed by Raja Ramana to take a overall view after the POK-2.
I think the composition of the panel and subsequent issues are discussed already.

That was a badly flawed panel on many counts.
Can someone please point me to which avatar of this thread this composition of the "panel" headed by the late Raja Ramana was discussed and the consensus reached was that it "was badly flawed (panel) on many counts".

I ask this question because I seem to remember that the report said Raja Ramana was shown the classified data, including the Radiochem analysis, after the DRDO report in 1998. And he - as the then doyen of the nuclear establishment - gave his judgment in favour of the POK2 results. There was no reference to the constitution of a formal panel under him.

The panel reference was, if I am not mistaken in reference to what the NSA said. He, as far as I can recall, said that an internal panel at BARC reviewed the data and found it alright. And this was supposed to have happened after KS went public.

In anycase I don't think any public name save for the Late Raja Ramana saab was disclosed as far as reviewing classified data is concerned. I would think the reason for that is obvious. If not I would suggest folks re-read Bade Saab's last post on the previous page.

So I fail to understand where all this talk of a "badly flawed panel" is springing from especially with reference to Raja Ramana.

We shouldn't mix apples and oranges IMVHO. So many issues and angles have been discussed in these threads that it is easy to forget, overlook and/or (indavertantly, I hope) misrepresent what has been said/discussed and concluded.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

amit wrote:
Can someone please point me to which avatar of this thread this composition of the "panel" headed by the late Raja Ramana was discussed and the consensus reached was that it "was badly flawed (panel) on many counts".

I ask this question because I seem to remember that the report said Raja Ramana was shown the classified data, including the Radiochem analysis, after the DRDO report in 1998. And he - as the then doyen of the nuclear establishment - gave his judgment in favour of the POK2 results. There was no reference to the constitution of a formal panel under him.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/204709/Can- ... odkar.html
The results were presented before the Atomic Energy Commission four times (Chidambaram was then the Chairman) where Raja Ramanna, father of India's nuclear bomb of 1974, was a member, Chidambaram said.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

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

Post by amit »

shiv wrote:
amit wrote:
Can someone please point me to which avatar of this thread this composition of the "panel" headed by the late Raja Ramana was discussed and the consensus reached was that it "was badly flawed (panel) on many counts".

I ask this question because I seem to remember that the report said Raja Ramana was shown the classified data, including the Radiochem analysis, after the DRDO report in 1998. And he - as the then doyen of the nuclear establishment - gave his judgment in favour of the POK2 results. There was no reference to the constitution of a formal panel under him.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/204709/Can- ... odkar.html
The results were presented before the Atomic Energy Commission four times (Chidambaram was then the Chairman) where Raja Ramanna, father of India's nuclear bomb of 1974, was a member, Chidambaram said.
Shiv ji,

Thanks for the link. But it still doesn't talk about the composition of the panel and so I fail to understand where this talk about the "badly flawed panel" is coming from? Do you have any idea? I was also referring to the assertion that this was discussed and the conclusion was it was a "badly flawed panel". I can't seem to recall that bit.

One point worth noting IMHO is that this review was done when Raja Ramana Saab was alive and working. So it was much before this present controversy. And he must have looked at both the DRDO report and the BARC report, including the radiochem report. So he had IMO he had a much more holistic look at the situation.

Also, unlike the present set of top scientists I'm sure (rather shall I say hopeful) nobody doubts his scientific ability and integrity? So his saying everything is OK carries some weight?

On another note I remember reading this news report and this had caught my eye then:
"We are saddened that two of our colleagues used heavy rhetoric which is not substitute of good science," Chidambaram, who was accompanied by several BARC scientists, including its director S Banerjee, said.

"Culture of science is to have discussions in the scientific fora or peer reviewed scientific journals and they (Santhanam and former AEC Chairman and India's top physicist P K Iyengar) should have understood the proliferation sensitive nature of the information," he said.
Express Buzz isn't the best forum to discuss this I would think.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

amit wrote:
Express Buzz isn't the best forum to discuss this I would think.

It was Pir review no? Why you want to be complaining complaining?
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

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

Post by RamaY »

Kgoan ji

Thanks for the insight. Puts things in perspective.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

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

Post by amit »

shiv wrote:It was Pir review no? Why you want to be complaining complaining?
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Shiv ji there should be a "get ready for rotfl" warning before this type of posts!
geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

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

Post by geeth »

>>>Regarding 'golmal' in not-so-gol coordinates comment by some proponents earlier also caught my attention but no followup discussion was seen. So it must have been made in jest or so I thought.

If I may say so, I was the one who asked Arun_S why it should be spherical co-ordinates. I also mentioned that the molten metal won't settle as a sphere, if that was what made him think about spherical co-ordinates. No, I didn't ask this question in jest, but did not proceed further after a couple of posts, because he kept on saying there was only ONE hole drilled. I thought no point, because even his spherical co-ordinates wouldn't fit into that single hole.

>>>The basis for this fallacy in some people's mind was that if one is measuring the remnant radioactivity in the underground strata from a bum explosion, one should have spherical symmetry in the distribution of the remnants or whatever one is trying to measure post-shot. So why use cylindrical co-ordinates to integrate over ?

>>>In reality when you dig for samples, the easiest way is to dig vertically down at multiple sites around the area of the test site. So you now have a map of say the densities for various radionuclides, for multiple columns with cylindrical symmetry. So it is natural to do the integration this way using measurements from these columns.
>>>All this is just an educated guess from memory with reference to that equation.

The argument put forth by Arun_S was that the explosion moves in a spherical direction, hence spherical co-ordinates should be considered. I was thinking in the same lines as you are..I also pointed out that double integrals are absent because they have talked about distribution along the vertical holes drilled - they have left out the distribution along the radial direction. BARC scientists had put up partial values and the final conclusion only.

Of course, I had posed the question based on my understanding after reading the BARC paper. To begin with, I assumed that the BARC team is right, and then proceeded to understand their point. What probably Arun_S did was, to assume that they are wrong, and try to prove them wrong. After he persisted with his one-hole theory, I didn't continue, realising I was hitting a wall.
Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1083
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

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

Post by Kailash »

Indian nuclear ambitions

** on second thoughts, that sounds a lot like DDM. Mostly gibberish.
Last edited by Kailash on 08 Oct 2009 11:03, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Post by Sanku »

Ah good to see such bonhomie and cheer in the forum after all.

Pir reviews, comments on how good the fellow BRFites are (after the few uneducated dehatis are conveniently put away) etc etc. So refreshing after all that conflict.

------

Amber G;

You asked me (generic me) some questions. Perhaps you can look at the prior pages where they have been discussed and then bring it up once more specifically (for example Ramana had posted on hydrodynamic methods etc)

Meanwhile
3. And it was discussed in internet flora (in mav’s blog) so much so that one need not add anything.


This makes no sense to me, of course information exists in many places but BRF is BRF. I do not know what a general reference to any other internet fora brings to value here. A post made here must be discussed here and not some where else if there is data in some other place it should at least be paraphrased or cross linked and up for discussion.

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

Amit -- yet again you are asking for data which was posted and discussed many times on this and/or previous thread. Please try searching. Google for KS statements on the panel as well.

I really have no intention of doing the heavy lifting for you repeatedly.

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

As I said, it would have been better if all the stuff about Arun_S critique on paper was done when Arun_S was here (and it has points that I have not seen addressed on BRF at least) -- to be fair, Geeth and Bade did engage in discussion on that, but left it halfway since Shiv protested "this is all old stuff and this radiological method itself has been attacked already for not being THE accurate method, so lets stop flogging the dead horse"

Given the respect I have for Shivji, I decided to got with his words and not waste time on a paper proving whose correctness even would add no value since even if correct the basic premise was already flawed.

Its a pity that the entire debate restarts just a day after the person who made the comments left.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

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

Post by amit »

Sanku wrote:----------------------

Amit -- yet again you are asking for data which was posted and discussed many times on this and/or previous thread. Please try searching. Google for KS statements on the panel as well.

I really have no intention of doing the heavy lifting for you repeatedly.

------------------------
Dear Sanku,

Perish the thought! You don't have to do any heavy lifting for me, I'm quite capable of doing it for myself. Besides, you are as it is busy doing heavy lifting for a person who chose to leave the forum for various reasons that we don't know of but did so after taking a cheap parting shot at another member who was the ex-Forum Administrator who chose to resign and become an ordinary member.

Trust me, I have read each and every page of these three threads and have a pretty good memory of who posted what.

I had a particular reason for making those couple of posts on Raja Ramana.

And that was this: Personal likes, dislikes and beliefs cannot be passed off as data.

The comments on that particular "panel" of which Raja Ramana was a part were all of the above and there was no data about its composition, apart from the fact that Ramana and RC were a part. Hence I fail to understand how it's competence can be questioned.

Besides, if KS' judgment on the worth or competence of the panel can be taken as the last word, I see no reason not to trust the judgment of AK and RC. It's one's word against the other nah?

However, I have no objection if you stick to your POV. It's sufficient for me that this discussion is there for all to see. Let others make a value judgment based on what they think is right or wrong.
Last edited by amit on 08 Oct 2009 11:44, edited 1 time in total.
milindc
BRFite
Posts: 740
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

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

Post by milindc »

Apologies if posted earlier. This is an article from June 17,1998.
I came across this article while researching if RC started retrofitting the observed data to perceived yield, then what was the timeline ?

Now, this is just one month after the test.

Surveys show no radioactivity at Pokhran, says BARC
....

The yield of the thermonuclear device was chosen so that the seismic damage to surrounding villages (the nearest one was five km away) was minimal, the report on preliminary results of the tests, said. The depths of emplacements were fixed so that the explosions were contained with no radioactive venting, the report said, adding that "we were guided here by our past experience at Pok-1, backed by computer simulations of past shot phenomenology of these events".

Close-in array accelerementers and geophones spanned distances up to four km from surface ground zeroes, while the stand-alone stations were deployed between one km and 10 km. The report also gave details of vertical ground acceleration and velocity profiles at various distances from surface ground zero of tests one and two conducted on May 11.

The report said test two resulted in a crater while test one produced a sand mound, and ''this was as expected from our pre-shot rock mechanics computer simulations, as also from depth considerations and different geology of the two shafts (test one was in harder rock and buries deeper)''. {is 'test one' in this context is S1?}

Fortyfive national seismological observatories gave body waves between five and 5.4 magnitude and for these body wave magnitudes, the yield of May 11 explosions is bracketed in the range of 40 to 70 kiloton.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Post by Sanku »

amit wrote: And that was this: Personal likes, dislikes and beliefs cannot be passed off as data.
.
Very true and I will add one more item to that list. Glossing over inconvenient details when they come up and after many many days asking "where was this discussed" does not add any value either.

The discussion on the panel is in preceding pages, along with KSs response on the panel, after which he had the article explaining how he has data and after which RC and AK did the press conf.

So the not only the panel question was discussed and debated, it has been superseded by many other events post that.

I can not help it if you take out one old point in isolation from the entire chain and then ask "why".

This is particularly surprising when you go on to claim
Trust me, I have read each and every page of these three threads and have a pretty good memory of who posted what.
And yet the order of events seems to be totally forgotten, so let me remind you.

IDSA seminar
Semi formal denial by GoI, Kalam et al speak out
KS explicitly says that he stands by it
KS is called a maverick
Raja Ramanna panel submits report
KS rubbishes the report and publishes his own
The press conf.
KS says that the press conf does not answer qusetions (which it does not) and asks for blue committee.

This is where we are. At each step the new developments were discussed, so please let us update ourselves shall we?

-----

BTW what is it with people who themselves dont think twice about using words like cheap shot etc and passing judgment on others behavior some of them who are not around themselves but see no harm in taking the moral high ground on others POV?

what ever happened to practice what you preach and all that?
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

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

Post by amit »

Sanku wrote:IDSA seminar
Semi formal denial by GoI, Kalam et al speak out
KS explicitly says that he stands by it
KS is called a maverick
Raja Ramanna panel submits report????
KS rubbishes the report and publishes his own
The press conf.
KS says that the press conf does not answer qusetions (which it does not) and asks for blue committee.

This is where we are. At each step the new developments were discussed, so please let us update ourselves shall we?
Sanku,

I must say a very good summary of the discussion so far of the nearly 150 pages that we've gone through.

However, one data point has me nonplussed! Raja Ramana panel submits report? After KS' revelations in May 2009? :eek:

I wonder what quantum dilation or whatever they call it, he used to do that from where ever he is now. Link
arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

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

Post by arnab »

Sanku wrote: And yet the order of events seems to be totally forgotten, so let me remind you.

IDSA seminar
Semi formal denial by GoI, Kalam et al speak out
KS explicitly says that he stands by it
KS is called a maverick
Raja Ramanna panel submits report
KS rubbishes the report and publishes his own
The press conf.
KS says that the press conf does not answer qusetions (which it does not) and asks for blue committee.

This is where we are. At each step the new developments were discussed, so please let us update ourselves shall we?

-----
IDSA seminar
Yes
Semi formal denial by GoI, Kalam et al speak out
Yes

KS explicitly says that he stands by it

Sure - but no data given BRF factless wonders go into paroxysm of doom and gloom. His statement is being read as a ‘fact’ but counter statements by RC et al are derided as merely ‘statements’

KS is called a maverick

Well he is asked to show data and publish it. NSA says only BARC has all the data. Arun_S assures us that KS has data (life insurance) and will release when required. We are still awaiting.
Arun_S tries to prove the RC (current science paper) as rubbish. Makes 3 points (I think) (supported by Sanku ji as ‘damning’ . Presumably Sanku ji had understood RCs paper and Arun_S’s response. So I find it surprising he has defered to Ramanna on Amber.G’s queries). Anyway the ‘points’
First, the equation was wrong (r is radius etc. Rebuttal was r is ‘rho’, considering KS said there was no crater and Sikka et al agree and prove why there would not be a crater, ‘rho’ seems realistic).
Second – errors too high. Convincingly rebutted by Bade sir (systemic error)
Third – double integral. Amber.G calls this ‘idiotic’ (paraphrase)
Next – attempt to diss the quality of the journal (along with consistent abuse of RC et al).
In fact the only arguments offered were that Scientists had sold out and BRF patriots were the last folks standing. The ‘RC et al are ‘ba$tards’ argument (Krishna ?)

Raja Ramanna panel submits report
RR panel had reviewed the data and found no anomaly (Sanku ji says panel flawed)

KS rubbishes the report and publishes his own

Sorry what did he publish? What data? Or was it another ‘statement’?

The press conf.
KS says that the press conf does not answer qusetions (which it does not) and asks for blue committee.


I thought there was a point-by-point rebuttle – to which the response was essentially – ‘I don’t believe you’. Most convincing.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

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

Post by amit »

Ok let me do some heavy lifting.

The NSA said this:
He said the Atomic Energy Commission had last week given the "most authoritative" statement on the efficacy of the 1998 nuclear tests and no more clarification was required from the government.
Link

To which KS said this:
He rejected Naryanan's contention that the review of the thermonuclear test by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) should set at rest all doubts on the efficacy of the nuclear explosion.

Santhanam, who was the DRDO co-ordinator for the 1998 nuclear tests, said there was a "strong and clear" need to form a group of stalwarts and give them access to all the relevant data.

"Only then will the credibility (about the assessment of the tests) be increased... AEC and BARC cannot be judge and jury, more so when the issue relates to their claims of the thermonuclear yield," he said at an interaction at the Indian Women Press Corps.
Link

Do note that this review is different from what this says:
The results were presented before the Atomic Energy Commission four times (Chidambaram was then the Chairman) where Raja Ramanna, father of India's nuclear bomb of 1974, was a member, Chidambaram said.
Link

My point and that of some other posters (as I understand it) was if Raja Ramana saw the results and certified it then it gives it much greater credibility. Is this such a leap of faith?
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

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

Post by amit »

arnab wrote: Raja Ramanna panel submits report
RR panel had reviewed the data and found no anomaly (Sanku ji says panel flawed)
Arnab,

Nice summary but what is this Raja Ramana panel? Some kind of standing body or institution with a door and name plate?

Dr Raja Ramana died in 2004. How can he be a part of a panel which reviewed data after KS made his revelations in May 2009?

There's a massive confusion (do note I am not using the word obfuscation in the interests of harmony).
rakall
BRFite
Posts: 798
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

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

Post by rakall »

amit wrote:
arnab wrote: Raja Ramanna panel submits report
RR panel had reviewed the data and found no anomaly (Sanku ji says panel flawed)
Arnab,

Nice summary but what is this Raja Ramana panel? Some kind of standing body or institution with a door and name plate?

Dr Raja Ramana died in 2004. How can he be a part of a panel which reviewed data after KS made his revelations in May 2009?

There's a massive confusion (do note I am not using the word obfuscation in the interests of harmony).

the said Raja Ramanna panel (AEC panel of which he was a member) reviewd the results in late-1998 (or later) after BARC had finished most of the post-shot measurement & analysis activity..

This was probably necessitated bcoz of the low-yield attributed to the tests by western seismologists; and (may) also due to the DRDO report authored by KS which according to their close-in accelerometer measurements had had doubts on the yield of S1.
Last edited by rakall on 08 Oct 2009 13:36, edited 1 time in total.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

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

Post by amit »

rakall wrote:the said Raja Ramanna panel reviewd the results in late-1998 (or later) after BARC had finished most of the post-shot measurement & analysis activity..

This was probably necessitated bcoz of the low-yield attributed to the tests by western seismologists; and (may) also due to the DRDO report authored by KS which according to their close-in accelerometer measurements had had doubts on the yield of S1.
Precisely Rakall boss.

That is why I was amazed that Sanku dismissed reports on this review with a one-liner:
That was a badly flawed panel on many counts.
I really wanted to know why this panel was "badly flawed".

Truth be told, considering the fact that Raja Ramana died in 2004, I did not even for a second imagine this review was being confused with the AEC review which the NSA mentioned. :-?

I guess you have to be ready for the unexpected when too much heavy lifting is done!
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4577
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

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

Post by Tanaji »

Acharya wrote:Stand corrected. In the last minute my finger missed the right name.
I am aware that it is bad fashion to ask for reference, but for old coots like me, can I trouble you for the link? Bing or google for your quote did not yield much.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

Sanku wrote:
Meanwhile
3. And it was discussed in internet flora (in mav’s blog) so much so that one need not add anything.


This makes no sense to me, of course information exists in many places but BRF is BRF. I do not know what a general reference to any other internet fora brings to value here. A post made here must be discussed here and not some where else if there is data in some other place it should at least be paraphrased or cross linked and up for discussion.

<snip>

but left it halfway since Shiv protested "this is all old stuff and this radiological method itself has been attacked already for not being THE accurate method, so lets stop flogging the dead horse"
.

Mav's blog and my name in the same post bring memories flooding back of the last iteration of the drama we have had on these threads.

"Mav" refers to Sunil who left BR shortly after Arun_S made his first remarks about RC being a liar. He withdrew honorably, but not without making his feelings known.

For those who were not on the forum then Sunil was the person who took "Bharat Rakshak Monitor" and converted it into the peer reviewed (not Pir reviewed) journal SRR. Sunil had a deservedly large following on the forum and the forum went through great tumult when he left and I, as one of the forum admins, was deeply involved with the exchanges both private and public that occurred in those days.

To cut a long story short I was trying to 'save the forum" and chose to stand solidly behind Arun_S despite his reprehensible forum language. Sunil/Mav went on to start his own blog.

As for Sikka's radiochemical paper, Carey Sublette says this:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/I ... ields.html
Radiochemical analysis is commonly said to be the most accurate means of yield determination. But this statement refers to an entirely different type of radiochemical analysis from what BARC performed in this study. The most accurate method is to determine the percentage of material fissioned by comparing the ratio of fission products to fissile material in a sample, thus giving the efficiency directly and with knowledge of the weapon design (how much fissile material is present) the yield can be easily calculated. Unfortunately publishing such data also discloses weapon design information normally kept secret.
Perhaps it is more credible when an "International pir" such as Carey Sublette says it because nobody has publicly called Sublette a liar. But note that R. Chidambaram said pretty much the same thing in an article that has been pooh poohed

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers5/paper451.html
For reasons of proliferation sensitivity, we have not given the details of the materials used in the device or their quantities. Also, our nuclear weapon designers, like nuclear weapon designers all over the world, have not given the fusion component of the total yield for our thermonuclear test.
Incidentally I have discovered that Chidambaram was not lying when he stated, "like nuclear weapon designers all over the world, have not given the fusion component of the total yield for our thermonuclear test."

Here is an article about CORRTEX that I referred to earlier (Bade asked about it)

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/11/world ... -view.html
Before the experiment carried out at the nuclear test site in Nevada on Aug. 18, the United States said it would detonate a device that would approach the 150-kiloton limit on underground tests that is set by a 1974 treaty. Administration officials said that based on previous experience, the explosion should have been in the 140-kiloton range.
The American side installed two Corrtex devices at the test site. The Corrtex system estimates the size of the explosion by measuring the time it takes to crush a cable inserted in such holes. The Russians used similar devices. Both sides also took measurements of tremors in the earth using seismographs far from the test site. Other Complications
One American Corrtex device is said to have measured the blast at slightly more than 150 kilotons. The other device measured slightly greater than 160 kilotons, officials said. But an estimate by official American Government seismic instruments is said to have confirmed expectations that the blast would be in the 140-kiloton range, officials said. The results were first disclosed by The Washington Post.
Other results complicate the picture. Charles B. Archambeau, a scientist who works with the Natural Resources Defense Council, initially estimated the size of the blast at 115 kilotons based on publicly available seismic data, according to Mr. Cochran.
The Energy Department has decided to carry out a chemical analysis of debris in the test hole to better assess the size of the test. But the Administration says ''the results will remain confidential since we do not discuss the yields of U.S. nuclear tests.''
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

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

Post by amit »

''the results will remain confidential since we do not discuss the yields of U.S. nuclear tests.''
This is typical of the kind of secrecy that other nations follow in nuclear matters.

Remember what Israel did to Mordechai Vanunu? The guy spend 18 years in prison including 11 in solitary confinement. Link

Yet here on BRF we read comments that such secrecy is unnecessary and hides incompetence blah, blah.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Post by Sanku »

amit wrote: My point and that of some other posters (as I understand it) was if Raja Ramana saw the results and certified it then it gives it much greater credibility. Is this such a leap of faith?
No, as I have said over and over again. The appeal to Raja Ramanna, or to Kalam or to XYZ is a appeal to personalities (esp when they are not around) Neither do not know what exactly did Raja Ramanna okay to. This could be a direction from then GoI to keep the matters as they were. We dont know.

Meanwhile I hope you spent some time reading the link on what you posted there is no comparison with KS at all.

A lot of country have done a lot of things to their people bringing it all in this thread is just a diversion.
rakall
BRFite
Posts: 798
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

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

Post by rakall »

A lot of people have done a lot of research on muke topics, courtesy this thread.. some on equations & some on crater phenomena - to the extent that you might be eligible to become "Doctors".. if you are not already one..

Can someone please explain which crater phenomenon vents more -- I mean, which releases more of the radioactive samples from core of the explosion into the air.. Is it the crater phenomenon as formed for the fission test (15KT S2) or just the retarc as formed for the TN test (40KT S1) ?

Can somebody please help with that !!!
Last edited by rakall on 08 Oct 2009 17:36, edited 2 times in total.
Locked