Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 10 Sep 2009 10:29

>>>Pls tell me where in the paper they mention any more than 2 holes?

I have explained in my previous post itself, how &why it is so. I will give you a clue - the sample from the hole at the centre and the one at 32 metres away can't give same result..isn't it? so, there has to be more than two holes drilled. If you still can’t understand, sorry, I can’t help any further. Now let me add one more thing. If you read that carefully, you can see that they have also drilled holes at other radius as well, apart from 32 metres.

>>>Each hole gives a core. Each core is partitioned into samples for measurement considerations, coming from different height. Each of these samples represent a point on the graph in Fig-4, one for a specific sample section coming a particular depth section of the drilled core.

That is why they used the cylindrical co-ordinates and integrated to accommodate the variations. To my understanding, ‘H’ represents the depth of the sample core.

>>>Three observations:
>>>1) Radio chem yield estimation is known in industry to be the most accurate method to determine yield.

Let us be clear about one thing. In that BARC paper we are discussing, they are not revealing the Radio-Chem analysis results. They are only explaining how, by using the Radio-Chem Analysis results, they had estimated the size of the molten mass.

So, without the data, any analysis is out of question.

>>>2) The initial press release of 45 kt +/- 3 (corresponding to 7%)was based on close in sensors (BTW they are not necessarily only seismic, but also sensors that measure more directly)

Whatever..it has no bearing with the 20% error. These two measurements are independent.

>>>3) So what do you make of a methodology where the most accurate Radio-chem method of yield estimation is dished out with +/- 20% error estimate. That is many times worse then the error due to other sensors that are supposed to be less accurate (as specified by tolerance of measurement).

This is what the BARC paper say about the Radio-Chem Analysis

Quote
Radiochemical measurements of radioactivity

In order to take care of the expected inhomogeneity of the rock samples, about 100g of samples were ground to powder with a mesh size of less than 164 micron. In view of the large variation in the level of radioactivity, three different types of samples were prepared and assayed using high resolution gamma-ray spectrometry. These include (a) 25-30 g samples in a standard counting vial, (b) 100-200mg samples in the form of thin disc source, and (c) dissolution of a known amount of the powdered samples and assay of an aliquot (standard 5ml volume). In order to confirm the noninterference of gamma rays, radiochemical separations on a few selective samples were also carried out for measurement of activity of Zirconium, Cerium and Cobalt. The results obtained by all the four methods were found to agree within the experimental errors (5-7%).

Unquote.

From the above, it is clear that the ‘most accurate radio-chem analysis for yield estimation’ has an experimental error margin of 5-7%. The 20% they are talking about is the overall error margin for the fusion yield – they have not specified the break-up. Further, my understanding is that "Radio-Chem analysis is the most accurate" is due to its ability to measure the byproducts of explosion, which can reveal how much of each fuel has burnt, from which we can calculate the total yield. The design data is not available, the Radio-Chem result is not available. So everybody has to grope in the dart. No joy here.

>>>Pls read again. What you are saying is applicable to fission yield. I am talking of fusion.
>>>No, my point is they can't take cover of errors due to:
>>>Quote:
>>>In the assessment of fusion yield, the sources of errors are uncertainty in the elemental composition of the surrounding rock and its effect on the neutron spectrum used in the Monte Carlo simulations of the activity.
>>>to attribute to fusion error tolerance.

This is what the BARC paper say about the error analysis.

Quote
Error analysis
The possible sources of error in the measurement of fission yield are : assay of radioactivity (5-7%); nuclear data such as half life, gamma-ray branching intensity and fission yields (8%); and the error in integration which arises mainly due to the error in Rc (15%). In the assessment of fusion yield, the sources of errors are uncertainty in the elemental composition of the surrounding rock and its effect on the neutron spectrum used in the Monte Carlo simulations of the activity. The propagation of these errors leads to an overall error on the measured yield which is around 20%. Thus it is concluded that the total yield of the thermonuclear device is 50 + 10 kT.

Unquote

How do you say that they can’t “take cover for errors due to”…? Do you have any set of data to counter their assertion or conclusion? They have merely said “The propagation these errors leads to…20%.” And nothing else. I don’t think anybody can deduct anything else from their statement..In short, the fusion yield measurement has an overall error of 20% - take it or leave it.

>>>Of course each instrument gathers some other types of data for the very same event.In meterology that is given, but all measurements and method result in a given error tolerance.

So, they are telling the same thing – explaining the given error tolerance for each set of measurement. That is why it is different.

>>>Taking Shiv's assertion at face value, can anyone figure out why heavyweights at BARC publish such papers that can be trashed by scientific analysis of fresh collage graduate?

If the fresh college graduate feels he is trashing the BARC papers with his ‘scientific analysis’, then all that the BARC people might think is that this particular college graduate may be suffering from some peculiar kind of juvenile delinquency.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 10 Sep 2009 10:41

geeth wrote:>>>Taking Shiv's assertion at face value, can anyone figure out why heavyweights at BARC publish such papers that can be trashed by scientific analysis of fresh collage graduate?

If the fresh college graduate feels he is trashing the BARC papers with his ‘scientific analysis’, then all that the BARC people might think is that this particular college graduate may be suffering from some peculiar kind of juvenile delinquency.

If a boy cries "Emperor is without clothes" call him delinquent "haain" !

BTW. it is Shiv's assertion that the paper is weak and nothing new in it being beaten and thrashed now.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 10 Sep 2009 10:50

Sarma wrote:Arun_S Sirji: I wasn't aiming my message at anybody in particular. BTW, Brajesh Mishra, in a recent Hindu interview, says that a review was conducted after the tests and it was concluded in that review that DRDO instrumentation malfunctioned.

I know you mean well. I am just a confused and uninformed person.

Thanks sir ji for your reply. Now I know where it came from.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2009 10:52

Arun_S wrote: BTW. it is Shiv's assertion that the paper is weak and nothing new in it being beaten and thrashed now.

That is why I did not take the bait - knowing that this is the sort of argument that is ready made for those who take the bait. It doe not add to the available data.

But did you note the fact that the "cavity" after a test becomes a cylinder?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 10 Sep 2009 10:58

geeth wrote:>>>Each hole gives a core. Each core is partitioned into samples for measurement considerations, coming from different height. Each of these samples represent a point on the graph in Fig-4, one for a specific sample section coming a particular depth section of the drilled core.

That is why they used the cylindrical co-ordinates and integrated to accommodate the variations. To my understanding, ‘H’ represents the depth of the sample core.

So in that case TF is the fission from that linear core {integral over the hight}.
So for a semi-hemispherical shaped cavity (more like a cup) , where in this paper do they do the second integral to arrive at the total fission. If you still can’t understand, sorry, I can’t help any further.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 10 Sep 2009 11:11

>>>So for a semi-hemispherical shaped cavity (more like a cup) , where in this paper do they do the second integral to arrive at the total fission. If you still can’t understand, sorry, I can’t help any further.

The equation is a single integal over "H". Where is this double integral coming from ? and your semi-hemispherical shape?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Sep 2009 11:17

geeth wrote: >>>Taking Shiv's assertion at face value, can anyone figure out why heavyweights at BARC publish such papers that can be trashed by scientific analysis of fresh collage graduate?

If the fresh college graduate feels he is trashing the BARC papers with his ‘scientific analysis’, then all that the BARC people might think is that this particular college graduate may be suffering from some peculiar kind of juvenile delinquency.

Unfortunately in the sciences, you can not say that, any one can raise valid questions on the basis of maths and they have to be countered.

The issues that Arun_S raise are very valid, and the appeal to BARCs status is not an answer to them, and as we have seen no one on the forum has been able to counter it.

The only counter has come from Shiv where he has pointed out that this paper was discredited as far back as 2001 so its not possible to discredit it any further.

So yes in short we in the public while there is no telling data that the test failed, there is no telling data of a conclusive large yield TN device either -- thus I would say the test was a no op, the status of Indian TN before and after the tests are exactly the same, unproven.

Does it mean non working? No it may work, but it is unproven.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 10 Sep 2009 11:17

Del, Curl and Spin
Weak paper props strong bum to yield.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 10 Sep 2009 11:25

shiv wrote:
Arun_S wrote: BTW. it is Shiv's assertion that the paper is weak and nothing new in it being beaten and thrashed now.

That is why I did not take the bait - knowing that this is the sort of argument that is ready made for those who take the bait. It doe not add to the available data.

But did you note the fact that the "cavity" after a test becomes a cylinder?

Shiv saar, Just wait I was going to respond to that

shiv wrote:
Arun_S wrote: Others are on the poor quality of the paper is that the author is using cylindrical coordinates system in the equation #4 (that's akin to catching the ear by wrapping arm around the head) instead of spherical coordinates system
About the "cylindrical coordinates" - here is an explanation. But it will not increase accuracy of the method whether you use sphere or chimney IMO - but I only quote from general reading and timepass.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/ugt.htm
Soon after the detonation, the molten rock around the cavity periphery begins to solidify and accumulate at the bottom of the cavity. As the gas inside the cavity cools and some gas seeps into the surrounding rock, the gas pressure in the cavity decreases to the point when it can no longer support the overburden. Consequently the crushed and sheared rock above the cavity will collapse progressively, especially when the horizontal in situ stresses are low. Over a period of a few minutes to a few hours after the detonation, a tall cylinder, commonly referred to as a "chimney," form. The chimney will propagate upwards until it naturally stabilises. The blocky rubble that accumulates in the chimney void occupies a greater volume (in the range of 20-30% more) than it did in situ. This causes the eventual arrest of the upward propagation of the chimney. The chimney height can be in the range 4 -10 rc , with values near the lower end of this range (5 - 6 rc ) being most common. If the collapse of the chimney material should reach the surface, the ground will sink into to the empty space thereby forming a subsidence crater. Some deeply buried explosions of low yield form cavities that do not collapse to the surface and, consequently, do not create subsidence craters. If the top of the chimney does not reach the ground surface, an empty space, roughly equivalent to the cavity volume, will remain at the top of the chimney.

The chimney dia is different from what one is measuring. What is being measured here is the total radiation around the cavity (that propagates radially from a point somewhere in the cavity, and NOT along a line extending to the top.) So if you recall high school geometry, one will use spherical coordinated for easiest measurement and integration of net radiation emanating from rock around the cavity.

This paper does not show any effort was made to integrate the total yield radially around the surface of the cavity (Equaltion #4 just does that along one linear section of the drilled bore). As you pointed out earlier this paper is not a traditional "Radio chem" yield measurement. Its only utility is to show that some Fusion did happen. and just because some fusion did happen does not prove if fusion level was desired full yield or seriously underperformed fusion stage. It does however shut the mouth of NPA accusation who may venture out to say fizzle was so bad that there was no fusion burn.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 10 Sep 2009 11:35

>>>Unfortunately in the sciences, you can not say that, any one can raise valid questions on the basis of maths and they have to be countered.

Valid questions, yes. People tend to ignore it otherwise.

>>>The issues that Arun_S raise are very valid, and the appeal to BARCs status is not an answer to them, and as we have seen no one on the forum has been able to counter it.

The basic argument he makes is that how can they analyze after drilling two holes. When that assumption itself is wrong, you can't call the rest of the issues valid.

>>>The only counter has come from Shiv where he has pointed out that this paper was discredited as far back as 2001 so its not possible to discredit it any further.

He merely said even these 'valid issues' that Arun_S makes are not original.

>>>So yes in short we in the public while there is no telling data that the test failed, there is no telling data of a conclusive large yield TN device either -- thus I would say the test was a no op, the status of Indian TN before and after the tests are exactly the same, unproven.

>>>Does it mean non working? No it may work, but it is unproven.

Now, tell me how & to whom it should be proven that the TN worked?

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 10 Sep 2009 11:35

They probably used cylindrical because Agni is also cylindrical and chimney too only small difference smoke goes down up go the rocket. Besides we are dealing with not so well behaved curves hence the saying caution on curves.

If you consider
Del, Curl, Div, Gradient and Lap Lace (some confuse it for lap dance which is also around polar co ordinates and spinning with gradient slide down) , All these are covered in Vector Algebra for "high" school kids.

Somebody like Unabomber also used cylinders (pipe bums)
***

As the gas inside the cavity cools and some gas seeps into the surrounding rock, the gas pressure in the cavity decreases to the point when it can no longer support the overburden. Consequently the crushed and sheared rock above the cavity will collapse progressively, especially when the horizontal in situ stresses are low.

This is very important, when I make good Phulaka, it behaves excatly like this.
The pressure created by the vaporising of moisture in the whole wheat atta ( if well fused with water in correct amount not too much water nor too dry atta, like the right amount of Li or D or T,) the phulka gradually raises or puffs up to a point where it is now a tensor filed taking the shape of ellipsoid, thats because I cant make perfect circular phulka, SHQ does that with rolling pin which is cylindrical to create circle which the becomes spherical.. after that because of the heat transfer now crossing the point of charring point a hole gets created and the high pressure steam is vented, which sealed up noramlly with Ghee and the consumed with chana masala...

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Sep 2009 11:45

geeth wrote: >>>The issues that Arun_S raise are very valid, and the appeal to BARCs status is not an answer to them, and as we have seen no one on the forum has been able to counter it.

The basic argument he makes is that how can they analyze after drilling two holes. When that assumption itself is wrong, you can't call the rest of the issues valid.

Uh, no, for the paper to be believable the number of holes has to talked about clearly, it does not do that, OTOH Arun_S has shown how he comes up with two holes.

>>>The only counter has come from Shiv where he has pointed out that this paper was discredited as far back as 2001 so its not possible to discredit it any further.

He merely said even these 'valid issues' that Arun_S makes are not original.

No he said that this method itself is not the right method, hence the paper does not tell us anything, his stand is that discussing the paper is pointless since it has no information (w.r.t. understanding the yield) worth discussing.

Now, tell me how & to whom it should be proven that the TN worked?

It needs to be proven
1) To the scientific establishment at large in the country, including DRDO.
2) It needs to be proven to the armed forces planners who know the exact capabilities at hand.
3) It needs to be proven to peer group of Nuclear physicists -- outside the conflict of intrest of domain.

With the yield being formally proven to the above -- we can have a clear cut case where these people can come out and make a formal claim of India being protected by TN weapons of proven design of a certain yield -- an official GoI statement -- with backing no internal dissenters.

We also need to prove to our enemies that our weapons will have a proven effect of them -- even Krishna needed to display the vishwaroop and TWICE once for enemies and once for friends.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 10 Sep 2009 11:48

geeth wrote:>>>So for a semi-hemispherical shaped cavity (more like a cup) , where in this paper do they do the second integral to arrive at the total fission. If you still can’t understand, sorry, I can’t help any further.

The equation is a single integal over "H". Where is this double integral coming from ? and your semi-hemispherical shape?

Explosive process is spherical, in this case it also melts to certain depth the spherical rock wall. After explosion the melt accumulates at the bottom and fills part of spherical cavity (hence my use of the term a cup (albeit an inverted cup). To measure by-products in rock due to bomb's neutrons, protons and gamma rays one has to measure the gradient of these by products (radially) along radial lines at different axis and then double integrate it over the volume to arrive at the total measure of by-products in rock that will tell how many atoms of Pu fission-ed and LiD fuzed.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 10 Sep 2009 12:02

Krishna did not beleive in one Test, he tested repeatedly even then Kamsa did not get nor sisupala nor Dussasana Karna or Duryodhana...

I would have failed my M Tech IE if I said one test is enough to deploy and use even a toggle switch leave alone a complex system.
Reliability with one shot will sound death blow to sampling theory and SQC.
Hotelling may you rest in Peace (wise sampling)

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 10 Sep 2009 12:14

>>>To measure by-products in rock due to bomb's neutrons, protons and gamma rays one has to measure the gradient of these by products (radially) along radial lines at different axis and then double integrate it over the volume to arrive at the total measure of by-products in rock that will tell how many atoms of Pu fission-ed and LiD fuzed.

But here they have not shown the double integration..they have fixed the cavity radius and took the cylindrical mass. They have also mentioned that the cavity radius is obtained from the drilling data. Ofcourse they have not revealed the critical data for the public view. Does it mean that they have not done it? Don't you think that, if they reveal the distribution curve along the radial as well, it will be revealing the whole distribution?

Even in the single integral, they are not revealing the value of H because it will give out information.

Don't you think that they have revealed less information due to security reasons, rather than lack of knowledge about it?

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 10 Sep 2009 12:17

Sanku,

If you have got to say something on your own, I can understand that. No need to beat around the bush and say Arun_S said this, so, it must be true or Shiv actually meant that instead of this etc., etc.

Unfortunately, it is not you and me who can decide upon who should know what and things like that. There is always a chance that those who are not in the loop does

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 10 Sep 2009 12:26

geeth wrote:>>>To measure by-products in rock due to bomb's neutrons, protons and gamma rays one has to measure the gradient of these by products (radially) along radial lines at different axis and then double integrate it over the volume to arrive at the total measure of by-products in rock that will tell how many atoms of Pu fission-ed and LiD fuzed.

But here they have not shown the double integration..they have fixed the cavity radius and took the cylindrical mass. They have also mentioned that the cavity radius is obtained from the drilling data. Ofcourse they have not revealed the critical data for the public view. Does it mean that they have not done it? Don't you think that, if they reveal the distribution curve along the radial as well, it will be revealing the whole distribution?

Even in the single integral, they are not revealing the value of H because it will give out information.

Don't you think that they have revealed less information due to security reasons, rather than lack of knowledge about it?

No data, why paper?
The authors should just shut up and maintain their line, rather than make fool of themselves and the journal.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 10 Sep 2009 12:33

>>>The authors should just shut up and maintain their line, rather than make fool of themselves and the journal.

I am asking you again, why do say that they are fools for not revealing the data? I would say you are a bigger fool, asking for the data.

Also, tell me, for which other nuclear explosion, even this much data is available in public?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Sep 2009 12:43

geeth wrote:If you have got to say something on your own, I can understand that. No need to beat around the bush and say Arun_S said this, so, it must be true or Shiv actually meant that instead of this etc., etc.

Umm, its you asked me for clarification, when I posted an agreement with Arun_S, all I am saying is that I understand what Arun_S is saying and it makes a lot of sense to me

You are indeed at liberty to take your disagreement directly with those posters, however I do reserve the right to agree or disagree with some one who posts here, right? -- in addition I am making some points of my own but using prior statements as background.

Meanwhile, "let us trust since they would know" is always a little tenuous and now completely broken since a lot of those who would be expected to be in the know (overall) are saying the exact same things.

Last post on this topic now till some new developments come up.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 10 Sep 2009 12:49

Irrespective of credibility of BARC’s public post shot analysis and irrespective of need for further testing, it clearly emerges from the discussions here that
1. “K. Santanam was in charge of ‘on-site accelerometer measurements’ which malfunctioned.
2. K.S was not part of any other “post shot” analysis. (Otherwise he would have been one of the Author)

IOW K.S has no more intimate knowledge of yield achieved then PKI or BK or BC. This implies that his assertions are more political then scientific.. that is, his utterances has provided equal ammunition to everyone with vested interest .. Hawks, Doves, GOI and NPAs...

BRF should also focus on the credibility of KS’s utterances... it is his storm raising.. .. he should back up his statements scientifically (rather then lip service).. before he undermines country’s security..

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Sep 2009 12:52

dinesha wrote:Irrespective of credibility of BARC’s public post shot analysis, it clearly emerges from the discussions here that
1. “K. Santanam was in charge of ‘on-site accelerometer measurements’ which malfunctioned.
2. K.S was not part of any other “post shot” analysis.

Its not clear how those above assertions are justified, a person in charge of test program is not only in charge of the accelerometers. He was on the core team overseeing all aspects of the test.

This is what I mean by shooting the messenger.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 10 Sep 2009 12:54

>>>Meanwhile, "let us trust since they would know" is always a little tenuous and now completely broken since a lot of those who would be expected to be in the know (overall) are saying the exact same things.

Trust or not to trust is one's option - But it is absolutely objectionable to call "those who know" a bunch of liars or fools, just because they are not revealing information to your liking. Also, those who would be expected to be in the know are all saying exactly opposite to what you say. And nobody is calling those who don't agree with the official line as traitors or liars or fools - this is the difference I want to point out.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 10 Sep 2009 12:56

>>>>Last post on this topic now till some new developments come up

OOPS! New development took place already onlee...so another post from Sanku. Carry on.. we are like that onlee

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Sep 2009 13:02

geeth wrote:>>>Meanwhile, "let us trust since they would know" is always a little tenuous and now completely broken since a lot of those who would be expected to be in the know (overall) are saying the exact same things.

Trust or not to trust is one's option -.

Frankly I do not see where anyone has been called liar or a fool in recent posts, if that happened long ago harping on that single aspect to the exclusion of all other debate does not mean anything.

Further trusting or not is also not a matter of choice, but of established credibility -- when it is a life or death matter it would be amiss to leave trusting or not trusting to choice.

The decision can be made on a more informed basis while looking at the the choice on what to trust.

Geeth wrote: >>>>Last post on this topic now till some new developments come up

OOPS! New development took place already onlee...so another post from Sanku. Carry on.. we are like that onlee

this was only in context of our discussion Sir, please allow me the right to say what I want within civil means, I just dont see what the alacrity amongst some people to shut up a discussion on this.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 10 Sep 2009 13:03

Sanku wrote: Its not clear how those above assertions are justified, a person in charge of test program is not only in charge of the accelerometers. He was on the core team overseeing all aspects of the test.

This is what I mean by shooting the messenger.

Are you implying he was part of 'cavity analysis' or 'radio-chemical analysis' team? Please provide pointers for that..?

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 10 Sep 2009 13:15

>>>Frankly I do not see where anyone has been called liar or a fool in recent posts, if that happened long ago harping on that single aspect to the exclusion of all other debate does not mean anything.

See Arun_S' post 36 minutes before this post of yours.

>>>Further trusting or not is also not a matter of choice, but of established credibility -- when it is a life or death matter it would be amiss to leave trusting or not trusting to choice.

So, what is the solution you propose? Abuse RC and Kakodkar in the hope of forcing them to test another round?

>>>The decision can be made on a more informed basis while looking at the the choice on what to trust.

Decision can be made by whom? The 'informed ones' are the desion makers as well.

>>>this was only in context of our discussion Sir, please allow me the right to say what I want within civil means, I just dont see what the alacrity amongst some people to shut up a discussion on this.

You have high hopes if you believed that I would create "New Developments". As per standard English language, One would have thought that you would keep quiet till a new development like ...ahem...another round of Nuclear Explosions for eg.,

Don't worry, there is no alacrity (atleast on my part) to shut you up from discussions. You are most welcome to contribute further to this ongoing discussions. I enjoy reading your posts.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Sep 2009 13:16

dinesha wrote:
Sanku wrote: Its not clear how those above assertions are justified, a person in charge of test program is not only in charge of the accelerometers. He was on the core team overseeing all aspects of the test.

This is what I mean by shooting the messenger.
Are you implying he was part of 'cavity analysis' or 'radio-chemical analysis' team? Please provide pointers for that..?

I am not implying anything. He was the director of test program at Pokharan, all the test activities were under his belt. If was one of the four big wigs including Kalam, AK, RC. Prior posts out line the detailed instrumentation during the tests as well.

If you are saying he was only in "charge of accelerometers" despite that, I have nothing to say to you.

I can accept that he is not a specialist in weapon design, that is fine. But as a physicists responsible for the overall test program it is just inconceivable that he was "out of the loop" on what was happening.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Sep 2009 13:23

geeth wrote:So, what is the solution you propose? Abuse RC and Kakodkar in the hope of forcing them to test another round?.

Apart from rest of the post which I think is clearly unrelated to the topic, this is what I will borrow from Karan Thapar's war of words (including Bharat K, S K Singh, and R Gopalan)

Every one agreed that the least needed activity was for the GoI to form a neutral committee having people outside the reporting chain of BARC to revisit the test and give a report.

There was disagreement between R Gopalan and others on whether the tests succeeded or not, he also disagreed on the need for further testing.

Every one also agreed that the nuclear device was never meant for Pakistan, thus the concept of deterrence against Pakistan was insulting actually.

However, S K Singh and Bharat Karnad agreed that the China specific deterrence were unclear, and it was very likely that China had the same view.

They also agreed that all measure need to clarify the deterrence are not only needed ASAP but were needed as of 5 years back.

I hope you know who S K Singh and Bharat Karnad are and what has been their standing in the strategic world.

I unfortunately am not aware of Shri Gopalan who was introduced as a nuclear specialist -- any gyan will be welcome.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 10 Sep 2009 13:31

My point is everybody and anybody who is trying to prove or disprove KS’s assertions are claiming that the yield values are arrived or calculated using following three analysis..
(a) Sesmic – highly inaccurate
(b) Accelerometer measurements
(c) Post-shot radio-chemical and cavity analysis

Sesmic analysis has been debated as inaccurate, accelerometer malfunctioned.. Radio-chemical analysis was done by DAE ?
If there was any other accurate measurement and analysis method in which KS was part of the team.. it is yet to be pointed out..
Just my humble opinion ..

amit · Post by **amit** » 10 Sep 2009 13:33

Sanku wrote:I can accept that he is not a specialist in weapon design, that is fine. But as a physicists responsible for the overall test program it is just inconceivable that he was "out of the loop" on what was happening.

What do you make of M R Srinivasan's comment that KS was not part of the core team with access to all data?

This has been discussed extensively in the previous avatar of this thread. Why are you persisting with line of reasoning? Unless of course you think MRS doesn't know what he's talking about.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Sep 2009 13:37

dinesha wrote:My point is everybody and anybody who is trying to prove or disprove KS’s assertions are claiming that the yield values are arrived or calculated using following three analysis...

A simple request, please look at the first two posts that Arun_S made on this thread, they talk of various instrumentation and measurement methods and issues and in general how to determine the yield.

Isnt it funny that no one is questioning the FBF yields, but only the TN ones? The seismic data and many other methods don't depend on the type of fission-fusion right?

That alone tells that saying that we cant trust TN yield because of instrumentation/methodology limitations is flawed since if that was the case we dont know whether the FBF worked or not. No one said that.

May be the DRDO accelerometers did not malfunction but only reported other values? Those which were not in the final claim? Does any one know more on that.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Sep 2009 13:42

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote:I can accept that he is not a specialist in weapon design, that is fine. But as a physicists responsible for the overall test program it is just inconceivable that he was "out of the loop" on what was happening.
What do you make of M R Srinivasan's comment that KS was not part of the core team with access to all data?
.

There is absolutely no conflict between the two, not having access to all data does not mean "out of the loop", and people can be aware of the results without being aware of the data.

That's why no one is asking KS to do the third party verification -- let GoI constitute a team of distinguished scientists with impeccable credentials at the very minimum.

Simple thing only right.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2009 13:48

The various reported and claimed yields range from 5 to 60 kilotons.

Arun is merely rehashing the same stuff that has been around for the last decade. Nothing new can come from calling anyone a fool or a liar. No amount of character assassination can increase the amount of data available. Character assassination is only a way of saying "He is a fool and is therefore wrong. I am therefore right". In other words it is an ego trip where someone demands that he be believed over someone else.

But the thread is sure fun and I will continue posting to fill another 60 pages

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 10 Sep 2009 13:56

Dear Sanku,
If you go through the previous discussions here in BRF you will find that Wallace et al had questioned the combined yield of S1, S2 and S3. ..Hell, if you go through the reference you have provided you will find that some of them have claimed the total yield of May 11 test to be 10- 15 kt.. The question mark is not only about the yield of TN device but about the entire test series including 1974 test..

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Sep 2009 14:10

dinesha wrote:Dear Sanku,
If you go through the previous discussions here in BRF you will find that Wallace et al had questioned the combined yield of S1, S2 and S3. ..Hell, if you go through the reference you have provided you will find that some of them have claimed the total yield of May 11 test to be 10- 15 kt.. The question mark is not only about the yield of TN device but about the entire test series including 1974 test..

Perhaps, but my specific point was only with what was being discussed in context of Santy. I have no issues in conceding that in general the yields have been all questioned by other NPAs, thats par for the course.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 10 Sep 2009 14:12

shiv wrote: No amount of character assassination can increase the amount of data available. Character assassination is only a way of saying "He is a fool and is therefore wrong. I am therefore right". In other words it is an ego trip where someone demands that he be believed over someone else.

But the thread is sure fun and I will continue posting to fill another 60 pages

Well at this moment character assasination/provocation would be the exact way for those who want India to conduct further test, whether it desirable or not.

The best conclusion that I could make after reading each and every post the moment they were posted in the past 60-70 pages are that

(i) KS words are more political to prevent India signing the CTBT, he has given the right ammunitions to who ever is the opposition party for the years to come.

(ii) It is pay back time for KS and the Indian establishment to the foreign Non Proliferation stun guns using their on claims, enabling India not to sign CTBT and continue further testing. This is because KS mentioned that his conclusion was based on analysis by the world over

JMT

Shiv sir, yes this definitely is fun and this thread is one of the best I have come across BRF and I would refer anyone to this thread to learn and understand about what discusion is all about and what can happen in it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2009 15:06

Here is some new data folks - found when I was comparing Sikka's opinion of chimney with the other link given below - but it has nothing to do with chimneys and everything to do with yield.

I quote
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/ugt.htm

The volume of the final cavity is proportional to the yield, e, so that the final cavity radius may be expressed as

rc = r'c e1/3

For typical test conditions, r'c ~ 10 -12 m/kt1/3, so a 1 kt explosion produces a cavity of radius 10-12 m, depending on the depth of burial. A deep 150 kt explosion would produce a cavity with a radius of approximately 55 m.

The equation rc = r'c e1/3 did not seem to work, so I checked for a cross ref and found this

http://www.atse.org.au/index.php?sectionid=388

rc = r'c e^1/3

From this we have:

55 meters = 10 x (150^1/3)
and
10 meters = 10 x (1 ^1/3)

Now Sikka says the radiius of the cavity (rc) was 40 meters

So we get

40 = 10 x (e ^ 1/3)

(e ^ 1/3) = 4

e = 64 kilotons is the yield of S1

shiv ban gaya necaler scientist!

PS -I think the BRM paper on craterolgy also says similar stuff
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... crater.pdf

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 10 Sep 2009 15:24

Even if r'c is 12 for Granite strata as posted by ramana
e = (3.333) ^ 3
e = 37 KT
If the rc is 40 mtrs then the yield would be 37 KT

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Sep 2009 15:49

Although Austin had posted this piece before and highligheted the portion where the Adm asks for hot tests of warheads for the SLBM, this piece has a few more insights which are directly related to the discussion ongoing on this thread and hence would like the liberty to re post some pieces

http://www.forceindia.net/guestcolumn1next.aspx

But the trouble with excessive secrecy is that while it may or may not deceive the enemy, it can certainly obfuscate the truth and lead you to the wrong conclusions; often with deleterious consequences. Now that the submarine is out of the closet, we need to discuss some aspects of this project which has a vital bearing on national security.

India must be unique amongst nations that undertake major expenditure on defence R&D in that both timelines and cost ceilings are infinitely flexible and neither accountability nor responsibility for delays, or even failure, are ever affixed. Subjective in-house ‘peer reviews’ can never be a substitute for hardnosed audits and progress-checks by independent experts, as well as end-users. The dismal story of projects like the Kaveri turbo-jet engine, the Light Combat Aircraft, the Arjun battle tank and the Trishul surface-to-air missile could have been very different, had they not been wrapped in furtive secrecy and been subjected, instead, to periodic scrutiny and oversight.

Compare the above two for what is the current status on the TN device.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2009 15:57

dinesha wrote:Even if r'c is 12 for Granite strata as posted by ramana
e = (3.333) ^ 3
e = 37 KT
If the rc is 40 mtrs then the yield would be 37 KT

37 kt to 64 kt then.

Fine - I will add this as one more set of conclusions to the mess of conclusions available