Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

[rakall]

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) .

As Sanku rightly pointed out, that is the crux of the 150-page problem.. Too much credit being given to Raja Ramanna for being the father of 1974 PNE or for Kalam being the father of IGMDP.. and then too much credit or discredit (depending on which theory - fizzle/sizzle, you believe more) to RC as father of the 1998 not-so-PNE's

I guess the same should hold to any XYZ (esp when they are not around) - which inludes KS & *****S... Dont believe in something just bcoz KS said or Shiv said or some other senior member said.. just the way one does not believe what Kalam said or RC+AK Said..

If the same words of KS & RC have the same appeal - then where is the confusion !!!

[Sanku]

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.

Amit if you had followed the news reports carefully, the AEC review panel had basically used the Raja Ramanna review to state its claim that's what I am talking of, its obvious that Shri Raja Ramanna is no more.

Please look

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 015656.cms

This was first posted by Dinesha here
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 05#p738805

The AEC made this assessment at its formal meeting on September 5 to discuss issues in the wake of the controversy ignited by K Santhanam, a retired DRDO nuclear physicist and a member of the team involved in the tests, a Commission release said on Tuesday.


The commission utilised the meeting to reiterate the credibility of the type and yield of the tests as the matter was already discussed several times since May 1998, AEC Secretary K Murlidhar said in the release. Meetings were held on May 21, November 12,1998 and subsequently on March 26 and November 18, 1999, in the presence of Raja Ramanna, a former AEC member and father of 1974 Pokhran-I nuclear test, he said. "The Commission had been briefed about the successful tests in May 1998 at its meeting held on May 21, 1998 wherein, details of the type of tests, estimated yields and other technical details were given," he said.

This is what I meant by Raja Ramanna panel, i.e. a panel by AEC which essentially referred to 1999 review by him.

You can also follow the rest of the debate here. It took me some time to find it -- thats what I mean by heavy lifting.

Obviously if AEC review panel was enough the matter would have ended then and there no?

[shiv]

This does not square, are we saying that some on the forum believed that S1 fizzled more than 1-2 years back? If so what exactly were the reasons and counter reasons?

You have been bunking class haven't you. The S1 fizzle story has been there since 1998.

However since you ask, either read Mav's blog or let me leave it with a brief note below because it is all OT.

One fine day a man called Ravi CV appeared on the forum and posted views that the nuke was a fizzle. That was picked up by Arun who might possibly have been in touch on private email with this mysterious RaviCV. Arun then came out with the Chidambaram lies and fizzle line - virtually overnight. he was converted. Ravis CVs posts were deleted except for a few that survive. I have no idea who deleted them. Those who read those threads in detail may be able to add some detail. He might as well not have existed except for fossil evidence on this forum in some nuke threads.

Arun's technical arguments - possibly obtained from Ravi CV were ripped apart serially on Mav's blog. Ravi CV never returned to support Arun after sparking the fire, although others such as yourself performed yeoman service albeit not as effective as Ravi CV. Arun's supporters stood back and egged him on as he committed hara kiri. Some "friendship". Jagan's comment about "friends" is spot on.

In my last days as forum admin I expressly forbade links and references to Sunils blog on BRF in the interest of peace on here but John Snow insisted on bringing up the blog here in this series of threads with his reference to Mava something. Your name too features on the blog. You can have a read if you are interested.

PS pardon my personal question - you are not Ravi CV are you Sanku? All sorts of people have mysteriously appeared and disappeared on the forum over the years.

[NRao]

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 !!!

BR :: Cratering Phenomenology and Yield Estimation

This is probably the most concise article there is: with enough explanation and S1 as an example.

The mechanism of crater formation is explained in Toman's paper. For a device buried at
a shallow depth, ¯rst a small crater is formed since the bulk of the content escapes into the
atmosphere or as ejecta. As the device is emplaced at deeper depths, the crater diameter
increases to a maximum, then again starts to decrease and then at a certain stage instead
of a crater a retarc is formed. Emplacing it deeper produces then no visible disturbance
on the surface.

Do not know what you mean by "re;ease" - no release is normally planned (with a few exception perhaps), it should be accidental.

[Sanku]

You have been bunking class haven't you. The S1 fizzle story has been there since 1998.

However since you ask, either read Mav's blog or let me leave it with a brief note below because it is all OT.

One fine day a man called Ravi CV appeared on the forum and posted views that the nuke was a fizzle.

In my last days as forum admin I expressly forbade links and references to Sunils blog on BRF in the interest of peace on here but John Snow insisted on bringing up the blog here in this series of threads with his reference to Mava something. Your name too features on the blog. You can have a read if you are interested.

Ouch!! I remember when RaviCV appeared, this was during the 123 deal time frame. However that thread moved fast and all of RaviCVs posts were deleted before I could read them.

Then being a true blue BRFites I never went to Mavs blog since you forbade it (not that it stopped you from banning me then) So that is since when Arun_S has had the fizzle view eh?

Thanks for the history lesson, much appreciated.

------

Didnt know I would make it to Mav's blog either. Funny!!

BTW> What yeoman service have I done to whom? I wasn't aware that I was doing any.

[amit]

Then Rakall the question arises whom do we believe? Since it is unlikely that anyone of us will get to see the real data we have to depend on second hand or third hand information on what happened.

And if we can't trust it because Raja Ramana says so or because Kalam or AK or RC says so, then why have we spend 150 pages dicussion what KS said?

Is there some reason why KS has more credibilty and truest than all these wrothies? Or is it because his POV somehow fits with our worldview that the GoI institutions are filled with incompetent folks?


Finally who are we to pass judgment on anyone of these folks (including KS) who have done more for India than anyone of us have done? Who are we to call any one of them either liars or incompetent.

And saying we don't know what Ramana's reaction to the findings was is tantamount to saying that he kept quiet even after knowing it was a fizzle. Do you think a man of his eminence would do that? And if he did, surely he had good reason? And doesn't that call into question why KS decided to trun whistle blower?

I'm sorry speculation of this nature can be done in many different directions.

[NRao]

So now I see whats happening now is a residue of a old battle on the forum.

I would not go that far, but perhaps in the mind of one or two.

Having stated that the web has its own deficiencies in that it cannot fully communicate our thinking + feelings. This many a time leads to a totally different conclusion.

I happened to meet both Alok_N and Sunil - in person, and, really both were good at what they did - just that their styles of posting could have been interpreted in such a way that could have caused abrasion.

BUT, we need to move on taking only the discussion points with us, including theirs.

[enqyoob]

Glossing over inconvenient details when they come up and after many many days asking "where was this discussed" does not add any value either.

I am so glad that someone has finally caught on to this. For instance, it has been shown that:

1. The village of Khetolai suffered damage, and if S1+S2 was any more powerful than it was, the damage would have reached levels where deaths have occurred in other places.
2. The children of Khetolai were asked to stand outside their school, 4km from the blast site (that is within the visible horizon) when S1+S2 occurred. Therefore, the test designer were perfectly confident that no venting would occur.

3. Dr. K. Santanam has been quoted as confirming right after the tests that the yield was limited by the need to protect Khetolai and other villages, and I believe the same statement also included something to the effect that risk of damage/fallout across the Pakistan border ruled out moving the test closer there and doing more powerful blasts.

...and various other things confirming the above. These were shown in the #1 thread on this topic.

Yet, some thousand posts later, some people refuse to acknowledge this simple proof that Actual Yield of S1+S2 was NOT LESS THAN Design Yield.

No "heavy lifting" is needed to grasp this.

[Sanku]

Glossing over inconvenient details when they come up and after many many days asking "where was this discussed" does not add any value either.

I am so glad that someone has finally caught on to this. For instance, it has been shown that:

1. The village of Khetolai suffered damage, and if S1+S2 was any more powerful than it was, the damage would have reached levels where deaths have occurred in other places.

Narayanan, in the current context please continue following Ramana's prescription and not reply to me or use my posts.

Meanwhile you are right glossing over inconvenient details is a habit for many such as

1) There is no S1 + S2. There is S1 in depth D1 and S2 in depth D2. There is no coupling of "+"

2) Venting != Shock.

3) A bomb which did not explode did not vent, a bomb which exploded did not vent !-> (does not imply) that if the bomb exploded in a different shaft it would vent

4) Nothing has been shown about Khetolai in any technical terms other than some random assertions

5) Depth and rock in which yield happens is critical to the shock equation (and hence different for both)

I am hoping you will NOT reply to me. Please.

[prashanth]

To sit in 2009 and judge whether the Leaders of that time should have exploded thermonuclear weapons, is not entirely fair, to put it in the New BR PC-speak. The world could have mass-starved India into submission without even caring by just neglecting to pass the next Aid India Bill - and the grand total of 0.1% of the world economy that was India, would hardly have caused a ripple in the markets. If u remember the photo from ISRO, the rocket payload modules used to be taken to the launch sites on sturdy Raleigh bicycle luggage carriers. So indeed would the thermonukes have had to be carried into battle in bullock carts drawn by bulls fed on A-1 CattleFeed. OK, maybe Jeeps. I would say that the Leaders of that time really got their priorities right, to get India to where you can type such judgements on the internet today - and Indians can read them and wonder. I was looking up the data recently: 246% increase in foodgrain production in 50 years, which was the only way to outpace a 175% increase in the # of mouths (well.. in shiv's words, "opinions".) They got the important things right.

Fine analysis sir, hats off to you.
Passing "judgments" on leaders of our country anonymously is one thing. But facing the reality and running a country is different. You have put this very clearly.
Sorry for this three liner, but I couldn't resist.

[rakall]

This is probably the most concise article there is: with enough explanation and S1 as an example.

The mechanism of crater formation is explained in Toman's paper. For a device buried at
a shallow depth, ¯rst a small crater is formed since the bulk of the content escapes into the
atmosphere or as ejecta. As the device is emplaced at deeper depths, the crater diameter
increases to a maximum, then again starts to decrease and then at a certain stage instead
of a crater a retarc is formed. Emplacing it deeper produces then no visible disturbance
on the surface.

Do not know what you mean by "re;ease" - no release is normally planned (with a few exception perhaps), it should be accidental.

Thanks you.. My question is - if there is accidental release into atmosphere, which is less likely.. an accidental release with crater formation or accidental release with retarc formation?

Reading the lit in the links you posted - is it correct to surmise that there is less likelyhood of 'accidental release' with retarc formation?

[archan]

I am hoping you will NOT reply to me. Please.

So, you wouldn't stop responding to him (to a a post the does not even quote/name you AFAIK) but you expect him to not respond to you, hain? how does this work..

[Kanson]

Mb waves doesnt rely on depth. Recorded Mb value for POK2 is 5.2. Sitting here, one cant say any coupling didnt occured.

[NRao]

Thanks you.. My question is - if there is accidental release into atmosphere, which is less likely.. an accidental release with crater formation or accidental release with retarc formation?

Reading the lit in the links you posted - is it correct to surmise that there is less likelyhood of 'accidental release' with retarc formation?

That is my understanding too.

3) A bomb which did not explode did not vent, a bomb which exploded did not vent !-> (does not imply) that if the bomb exploded in a different shaft it would vent

It did not vent because they chose a depth at which it could not vent @ 45 Kt yield.

[Sanku]

Mb waves doesn't rely on depth. Recorded Mb value for POK2 is 5.2. Sitting here, one cant say any coupling didnt occured.

1) That's different from saying it occurred.

2) What do you mean Mb waves doesn't rely on depth? Rely on for what?

[Kanson]

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".

This is probably the most concise article there is: with enough explanation and S1 as an example.

The mechanism of crater formation is explained in Toman's paper. For a device buried at
a shallow depth, ¯rst a small crater is formed since the bulk of the content escapes into the
atmosphere or as ejecta. As the device is emplaced at deeper depths, the crater diameter
increases to a maximum, then again starts to decrease and then at a certain stage instead
of a crater a retarc is formed. Emplacing it deeper produces then no visible disturbance
on the surface.

Do not know what you mean by "re;ease" - no release is normally planned (with a few exception perhaps), it should be accidental.

Thanks you.. My question is - if there is accidental release into atmosphere, which is less likely.. an accidental release with crater formation or accidental release with retarc formation?

Reading the lit in the links you posted - is it correct to surmise that there is less likelyhood of 'accidental release' with retarc formation?

In POK-1 venting happened. So what they were saying WRT to POK-2 may be true. i.e they planned for the retarc. And this will inturn answer ur q.

[rakall]

I will answer the first question of you post last..

And if we can't trust it because Raja Ramana says so or because Kalam or AK or RC says so, then why have we spend 150 pages dicussion what KS said? .

Thats exactly the point I am making..

Is there some reason why KS has more credibilty and truest than all these wrothies? Or is it because his POV somehow fits with our worldview that the GoI institutions are filled with incompetent folks?

I wonder..

So what does that make RC, AK, Kalam, RajaRamanna and a lot of others?

Finally who are we to pass judgment on anyone of these folks (including KS) who have done more for India than anyone of us have done? Who are we to call any one of them either liars or incompetent.

Why should anyone do that?

And saying we don't know what Ramana's reaction to the findings was is tantamount to saying that he kept quiet even after knowing it was a fizzle. Do you think a man of his eminence would do that?

Well... why would he do that.. may be he could be any one of the following

a. Liar & untrustworthy
b. Not at all a man of eminence (= incompetent)
c. Not a patriot (= he helped hide the turth)
d. None of the above

I would certainly take "d".

And saying we don't know what Ramana's reaction to the findings was is tantamount to saying that he kept quiet even after knowing it was a fizzle. Do you think a man of his eminence would do that? And if he did, surely he had good reason?

Either he had access to all data ... believed in what he saw.. could interpret what he saw and stood by the conclusions he could draw for himself..

Or refer to multiple choice above.

Then Rakall the question arises whom do we believe? Since it is unlikely that anyone of us will get to see the real data we have to depend on second hand or third hand information on what happened.

You answer the following question and I will tell you whom to believe

* What is the true range of Agni-3 with a 1500kg payload : 2000km or 3500km or 5500km ?

* Does a solid fuelled version of Prithvi-SRBM exist?

[Kanson]

He was a member of the Atomic Energy Commission until April 2004. Dr. Ramanna also served as Minister of state for Defence

[NRao]

In POK-1 venting happened. So what they were saying WRT to POK-2 may be true. i.e they planned for the retarc. And this will inturn answer ur q.

The RC team has always maintained that the depth was planned. In fact we came to know only recently that they had even modeled the entire thing.

However, even the best plans can go horribly wrong. Baneberry was such a case (which is why it is so famous among testers). It was a 10 Kt device placed at some 280 Meteres. The plug failed and the radioactive went 10,000 ft or about 3000 meters into the air.

WRT POK-II, S1 what we can say is that it either fizzled and therefore the A-frame was still there, or that it did sizzle and there was a small mound - a planned retarc. IF it had fizzled I doubt if there could have been a small mound (retarc). BUT, in either case the shaft mouth would have survived along with the A-frame. So, IMHO, the survival of the A-frame is really no indicator of a fizzle. IF at all, IMHO, it proves a sizzle.

And, in neither case would we have a 70-72 meter radius crater - for sure. So, it would be nice if Snathanam could clarify his comment on the crater matter and actually even let us know (IF possible) why he expected the A-frame to vanish.

[rakall]

In POK-1 venting happened. So what they were saying WRT to POK-2 may be true. i.e they planned for the retarc. And this will inturn answer ur q.

Thanks you.. My question is - if there is accidental release into atmosphere, which is less likely.. an accidental release with crater formation or accidental release with retarc formation?

Reading the lit in the links you posted - is it correct to surmise that there is less likelyhood of 'accidental release' with retarc formation?

That is my understanding too.

3) A bomb which did not explode did not vent, a bomb which exploded did not vent !-> (does not imply) that if the bomb exploded in a different shaft it would vent

It did not vent because they chose a depth at which it could not vent @ 45 Kt yield.

Yes.. they chose depths at which both S1 & S2 would not vent.. But.. I am trying to make a different argument (or conspiracy theory)

The design of fission device is either of the two -- Uranium or Plutonium... If there was any venting that would have released significant samples into air -- any info that one would probably gather from that is to determine whether the device was Uranium or Plutonium.. and may be if the samples contain traces of elements from either the casing or trigger -- determine whether it was a "test device" or "weaponised device".. it was well known that India's devices were of plutonium design and that India was capable of weaponising -- so not great info to gather there (even if "some" release occured)

However - the case of TN explosion is different.. any samples in vented air would have given the snooping party a good idea of the design with regards to 1. what kind of trigger was used 2. what material was used for fusion 3. what kind of fusion did we attempt..

Surely there would have been flights of U2 or etc for air sampling.. Did the weapons team feel that there was a greater need to hide that info from snoopers.. Did that consideration mean that the S1 device was buried at a great depth such that no crater formation occured, and thereby completely removing any chance of venting..

Besides the higher yield of S1, was there a consideration of 'near zero venting' that forced emplacement very very deep ? Was that the reason why there was no crater & only a retarc - and this became a reasons that fizzle theroists could use to question yield ??

I am only making a guess (call it speculation or obfuscation, if you will).. just another view point to add to the existing zillion ...

[Kanson]

However, even the best plans can go horribly wrong. Baneberry was such a case (which is why it is so famous among testers). It was a 10 Kt device placed at some 280 Meteres. The plug failed and the radioactive went 10,000 ft or about 3000 meters into the air.

You mayberight. You cant predict everything to 100%. Westeners say even those depth > 200m is not sufficient to stop the venting. But there is no conclusive proof to say this way or that way.

WRT POK-II, S1 what we can say is that it either fizzled and therefore the A-frame was still there, or that it did sizzle and there was a small mound - a planned retarc. IF it had fizzled I doubt if there could have been a small mound (retarc). BUT, in either case the shaft mouth would have survived along with the A-frame. So, IMHO, the survival of the A-frame is really no indicator of a fizzle. IF at all, IMHO, it proves a sizzle.

And, in neither case would we have a 70-72 meter radius crater - for sure. So, it would be nice if Snathanam could clarify his comment on the crater matter and actually even let us know (IF possible) why he expected the A-frame to vanish.

These are all beating around the bush. 70 m radius based on what calculation ? Unless there is something substantial, these thing matters a little.

[amit]

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.

Amit if you had followed the news reports carefully, the AEC review panel had basically used the Raja Ramanna review to state its claim that's what I am talking of, its obvious that Shri Raja Ramanna is no more.

Please look

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 015656.cms

This was first posted by Dinesha here
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 05#p738805

The AEC made this assessment at its formal meeting on September 5 to discuss issues in the wake of the controversy ignited by K Santhanam, a retired DRDO nuclear physicist and a member of the team involved in the tests, a Commission release said on Tuesday.


The commission utilised the meeting to reiterate the credibility of the type and yield of the tests as the matter was already discussed several times since May 1998, AEC Secretary K Murlidhar said in the release. Meetings were held on May 21, November 12,1998 and subsequently on March 26 and November 18, 1999, in the presence of Raja Ramanna, a former AEC member and father of 1974 Pokhran-I nuclear test, he said. "The Commission had been briefed about the successful tests in May 1998 at its meeting held on May 21, 1998 wherein, details of the type of tests, estimated yields and other technical details were given," he said.

This is what I meant by Raja Ramanna panel, i.e. a panel by AEC which essentially referred to 1999 review by him.

You can also follow the rest of the debate here. It took me some time to find it -- thats what I mean by heavy lifting.

Obviously if AEC review panel was enough the matter would have ended then and there no?

So Sanku,

How do you know that the matter did not end there and then? After all I find it strange that KS took so long to come out with his dissent.

But whatever, I still don't see how all this justifies this flipant remark

I think the composition of the panel and subsequent issues are discussed already.

That was a badly flawed panel on many counts.

I wold suggest a bit more circumspection before rushing to post.

[Kanson]

However, even the best plans can go horribly wrong. Baneberry was such a case (which is why it is so famous among testers). It was a 10 Kt device placed at some 280 Meteres. The plug failed and the radioactive went 10,000 ft or about 3000 meters into the air.

You may be right. You cant predict everything to 100%. Westeners say even those depth > 200m is not sufficient to stop the venting. But there is no conclusive proof to say this way or that way.

But that doesnt make one stop make such prediction and making plans according to that, na ?

[rakall]

In POK-1 venting happened. So what they were saying WRT to POK-2 may be true. i.e they planned for the retarc. And this will inturn answer ur q.

The RC team has always maintained that the depth was planned. In fact we came to know only recently that they had even modeled the entire thing.

However, even the best plans can go horribly wrong. Baneberry was such a case (which is why it is so famous among testers). It was a 10 Kt device placed at some 280 Meteres. The plug failed and the radioactive went 10,000 ft or about 3000 meters into the air.

.

EXACTLY..

Please see my previous post -- it could just have been the higher yield of S1 (compared to S2).. Or besides the yield, was there a consideration to ensure zero leakage such that any air-sampling spyflights did not pick any clue w.r.t design of the device.. the latter probably places added emphasis on emplacement design/depth for S1 ==> retarc is safer than crater, such that there is no leakage/venting of any (the oft abused) "proliferation sensitive" info..

[Sridhar]

The RC team has always maintained that the depth was planned. In fact we came to know only recently that they had even modeled the entire thing.

The rediff article from June 17, 1998 mentions that they did not expect a crater at the thermonuclear site and that the behavior of the rock strata was modeled.

[Sanku]

Gentlemen just one point -- if we agree that it comes to "do you believe RC or KS"

We are essentially saying -- "Indian TN capability may or may not exist based on whether you believe KS or RC"

A Schrodinger's cat variety of capability.

I am sure everyone here understand whats the significance of this situation.

[NRao]

Kanson,

The 70-72 meter radius crater was first suggested by Santhanam (if you missed it).

rakall ji,

IF I understand you, what you are stating is NOT any form of conspiracy and certainly NOT a theory.

The "RC Team" has always maintained (as far as I can recall) that the depth was deliberately selected. They first never released the depth info. It was Chengappa, in his book, that seems to have been the first to report "greater than 200 meters". The next data point that I could find is the V. Sunder BR article, per whom, we should expect a retarc - and he says in the article that is what it was. (In fact if you read the V. Sunder article, what struck me at least, was the casualness of the retarc. IF my interpretation is right, that is as scientific as one can get to be.)

The next data point was Santhanam who stated that he expected a 70-72 meter radius crater and the shaft + A-frame to collapse. This actually meant that at >200 meters the device was more powerful OR that the device was placed at a much greater height.

The last data point was the RR article - where he says depth was around 230 meters. He states a lot more (granite, provides a formula for computation, which was withdrawn, etc)

So:
1) Depth was per design
2) Chengappa: depth >200 meters
3) V Sunder: assuming depth >200 meters (#2), then retarc = small mound
4) Santhanam: 72 meter radius crater
5) RR artcile: depth around 230 meters, pink granite
6) Somewhere in there is the Baneberry data used to model S1
7) The toman equation shows at >200 meters and 45 Kt, expect a retarc
8 ) V. Sunder, "RC Team": retarc/small mound

[NRao]

Gentlemen just one point -- if we agree that it comes to "do you believe RC or KS"

We are essentially saying -- "Indian TN capability may or may not exist based on whether you believe KS or RC"

A Schrodinger's cat variety of capability.

I am sure everyone here understand whats the significance of this situation.

And the sun rises from the east.

[NRao]

Sanku,

Let me ask you a question, and, it is not meant to start another worthless thread.

Why would you believe KS?

[negi]

We are essentially saying -- "Indian TN capability may or may not exist based on whether you believe KS or RC"

A Schrodinger's cat variety of capability.

Even KS has not questioned Indian Capability ; he has his reservations about the 'measured yield' ; which in the first place might vary by 'at least' 10Kt (50 ± 10kT as per radio-chem paper) even by BARC estimates (such is the nature of problem at hand).

[shiv]

The RC team has always maintained that the depth was planned. In fact we came to know only recently that they had even modeled the entire thing.

The rediff article from June 17, 1998 mentions that they did not expect a crater at the thermonuclear site and that the behavior of the rock strata was modeled.

Some of that modeling was published in this paper

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/apr102005/1133.pdf

[shiv]

Gentlemen just one point -- if we agree that it comes to "do you believe RC or KS"

We are essentially saying -- "Indian TN capability may or may not exist based on whether you believe KS or RC"

A Schrodinger's cat variety of capability.

I am sure everyone here understand whats the significance of this situation.

Sanku - I am a Wiki physicist. The problem is not whether Schrodinger's cat exists or not. It certainly exists. The problem is one of fixing it's position exactly.

The position of the Indian nuclear deterrent cannot be fixed exactly.

It is NOT that is does not exist.

Now please re read your statement and confirm that what you wrote is what you meant.

[Sanku]

Gentlemen just one point -- if we agree that it comes to "do you believe RC or KS"

We are essentially saying -- "Indian TN capability may or may not exist based on whether you believe KS or RC"

A Schrodinger's cat variety of capability.

I am sure everyone here understand whats the significance of this situation.

And the sun rises from the east.

Yes, I know, but still I repeat it (many times) because to me that's a huge statement never the less.

Even KS has not questioned Indian Capability ; he has his reservations about the 'measured yield' ; which in the first place might vary by 'at least' 10Kt even by BARC estimates (such is the nature of problem at hand)

What I meant here was the deterrence capability based on weaponized TNs whose confidence level would have come from S1 test success, in that context I shortened capability to one word. Sorry if it was not clear.

Now please re read your statement and confirm that what you wrote is what you meant.

The reference is to the fact that you dont know whether the cat is alive or not till you open the box, i.e. a capability whose working is dependent on a belief system and which works or not will be known only when we use it.

[SaiK]

The question to ask is did Schrodinger's cat made noise to reflect that he is alive, [assuming neither the cat nor the dog is out on the other side].

If it did, what kind? how it was measured? what does it reflect? dying or made a killing?

And this is where our analysists (call them whatever), are debating.. and I am pretty sure, these noise analysis will be there quite sometime to come.

Perhaps.. we may not be even alive.

[Kanson]

The Commission had been briefed about the successful tests in May, 1998 at its 155th meeting held on May 21, 1998 wherein, details of the type of tests, estimated yields and other technical details were given. Some subsequent media reports that appeared to question the reported yields of tests were discussed at the 157th meeting of the AEC held on November 12, 1998. The Commission noted at the time ''more recent reports have confirmed the Indian estimate of 60 kilotons for the combined yield of the fission device and the thermonuclear device.'' The statement said some members of the Commission had felt that the media reports could be more in the form of a disinformation campaign. Subsequently, at the 158th and 160th meetings of the AEC held on March 26, 1999 and November 18, 1999 respectively, results of radio-chemical analysis of bore hole samples, reconfirming the estimated yields, were presented to the Commission.

Dr Raja Ramanna, who was then a AEC member, noted that the design yield of the thermonuclear test had to be kept at 45 KT in order to protect the nearby Khetolai village form the combined yield of the thermonuclear and fission test (the two tests had to be necessarily done together as the two shafts were only 1.1 Km apart).

[NRao]

Yes, I know, but still I repeat it (many times) because to me that's a huge statement never the less.

Sorry for that statement of mine.

However, a few items of interest:

1) Schrodinger did not know that what you experience is not real and what is real you cannot experience

2) What is a "huge statement"?
a) The absence of a TN - in specific I mean?
b) That there a total lack of a deterrence?
c) Or a partial lack of deterrence?
d) The India will not have the option to test in the future?
e) All of above?
(Only trying to understand.)

[shiv]

Well I am probably going to move on from this thread unless something new and exciting comes up.

The thread now reminds me of a dunken man who was hanging from a live cable when something earthed him. He was fried in an instant and his body fell leaving his empty coat on the wire, flapping in a the wind. making a pale parody of the man's antics before he was shaheedized.

[NRao]

True.

Wait till Santhanam comes out of his self imposed hibernation.

[ramana]

Great job.

[ramana]

Kgoan, All those examples/analogies don't apply to India. Its the Indian majority group's historical attitude that protects the minorities in India. lets not bring in Western European constructs and look at India through tinted glasses.

BTW, Cochin is a standing monument to Indian ethos. So lets not draw wrong lessons and flagelleate.

Again India is not Nazi Germany despite all that Uty of Chicago profs say and their minions in India.

BTW, Hitler was creating a new Christianity and thus had the support of the Pope of that time. We can talk in the Non-Western world view which was creaated during your sabattical. There is no such thing in India.