'India has simulation capability, N-tests not needed'

[BRAHMOS]

I would ask Kakodkar, with all due respect, to shove the simulation up his ***. He better not simulate that part.

Cool down dude, well, some ignorants have to be here to make this forum interesting... leave it... let them be happy with what they think...

 

[K^se]

No simulation equals actual testing...this is all bull ****.

Honestly no simulation testing even with the most precise statistical reference, can't detest from actual testing anomalies..

 

[gogbot]

o my god, you are actually right no simulation can account for actual testing.
quick everyone activate all your nukes, we have to see if they work for sure.

To all those who want to better them selves, It would be appreciated if you listen. OK lets begin

Testing gives us data.
Scientists make a hypothesis based on theory. And then test their Hypothesis to see if the theory is accurate.

is everyone with me up till this point.
now this individual here sums up the tests best

With all this debate over Pokhran 2, I decided to do some research on what exactly was done, what succeeded, what failed.

My references (dont laugh):
Nuclear weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Smiling Buddha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pokhran-II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nuclear weapon yield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Teller?Ulam design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Boosted fission weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pakistan - Chagai-I

Important terms:
Atomic Bomb:In fission weapons, a mass of fissile material (enriched uranium or plutonium) is assembled into a supercritical mass—the amount of material needed to start an exponentially growing nuclear chain reaction—either by shooting one piece of sub-critical material into another (the "gun" method), or by compressing a sub-critical sphere of material using chemical explosives to many times its original density (the "implosion" method). The latter approach is considered more sophisticated than the former, and only the latter approach can be used if plutonium is the fissile material.
Possible yield: 1KN - 500 KN
Countries: US, UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pak
* Israel unconfirmed

Hydrogen Bomb (Thermonuclear Bomb):They rely on fusion reactions between isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium). However, all such weapons derive a significant portion – and sometimes a majority – of their energy from fission (including fission induced by neutrons from fusion reactions).
Possible yield: No limit
Countries: US, UK, France, Russia, China
* India tested the 2 stage thermonuclear device for which the yield is being questioned.

India Tests:
Smiling Buddha (1974):
Yield: 8KT
This one did not test the actual fission weapon

Shakti (1998):
A total of five nuclear weapons were detonated at Pokhran during Operation Shakti. They are:

Shakti I
A two stage thermonuclear device with a boosted fission primary, its yield was downgraded from 200 KT(theoretical) to 45 KT for test purposes. The thermonuclear device tested at Pokhran was not an actual warhead. It was a device that was designed mainly to produce data to analyze the performance of India's Hydrogen bomb technology for future computer simulations and actual weaponisation. Dr. K. Santhanam, has disputed the claimed yield of this test, by stating that the Hydrogen Bomb was a fizzle. This has lead to an uproar in Indian nuclear and defense circles with arguments and counterarguments in favor of a re-test series.

Shakti II
A pure fission device using the Plutonium implosion design with a yield of 15 KT. The device tested was an actual nuclear warhead that can be delivered by bombers or fighters and also mounted on a missile. The warhead was an improved, lightweight and miniaturized version of the device tested in 1974. Scientists at BARC had been working to improve the 1974 design for many years. Data from the 1974 test was used to carry out computer simulations using the indigenous Param supercomputer to improve the design. The 1998 test was intended to prove the validity of the improved designs.

Shakti III
An experimental boosted fission device that used reactor grade Plutonium for its primary with a yield of 0.3 KT. This test device was used to test only the primary stage. It did not contain any tritium required to boost the fission. This test was designed to study the possibility of using reactor grade plutonium in warheads and also to prove India's expertise in controlling and damping a nuclear explosion in order to achieve a low (sub-kiloton) yield.

Shakti IV
A 0.5 KT experimental device. The test's only purpose was to collect data about the explosion process and to study the performance of various bomb components.

Shakti V
A 0.2 KT experimental device that used U-233, an isotope of uranium not found in nature and produced in India's fast breeder reactors that consume Thorium. This device too was used to collect data.

So Guys, chill, we do have a confirmed deployable fission weapon. From the allegations, looks like our thermonuclear test failed. Still we must have gained valuable insights.

Things noteworthy:
1. The mother of all bombs was tested by Russia (50 MT), followed by US (15 MT), China(3.3 MT), UK (3 MT) , France (2.6 MT)
2. The bomb dropped on Japan (Little bomb0 was an atom bomb (18KT). If that caused so much destruction, you can imagine what the hydrogen bomb would do.

Comparision to Pak:
1. Pakistan conducted a successful fissile device test (40 KT).
2. They have not conducted any Thermonuclear tests.

I would say we are better off than them but not by much. Latest rumors are that Pakistan is progressing towards thermonuclear device design. But considering what the big 5 have (hydrogen bomb + miniaturization), it seems kind of silly trying to prove ourselves any better.

I feel reassured.

Alright now from that you can hopefully Understand that certain data was collected.

Alright the tests did not come up with the expected yield, so researchers come up with a new Hypothesis that can explain both theory and results .
If they cant then they have a problem. But obviously they did come up with a new hypothesis that can explain both the results and theory.

Now they take all this information they have, and make a software that can understand it. then they put it on the supercomputer. Then the supercomputer
simulates. Do not be afraid its not magic.

What i described to you here is called Scientific method.
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. One of the first to clearly outline the specifics of a scientific method was John Stuart Mill.

wait i know, that this will be hard for you to accept but this is the truth of the matter.
People like you may find it hard to accept such new and radical ways of thinking but just try.

 

[paritosh]

well...in this day and age...we really can't test a nuke device...CTBT or no CTBT.
No point attracting world attention and getting sanctions.
besides what do we have the super-computers for?

and please don't feed these trolls...one of them was trying to flame in the name of his missing prepuce on the last page..

 

[Developereo]

What i described to you here is called Scientific method.

This may work in India, but if you go to any reputable university in the world and tell them you have a theory which you have tested in simulations, but no actual experiments, you will be laughed out of town.


Here, I will make it simple for you:

You have two new airplanes in front of you. One has been physically tested, the other has passed in computer simulations, but no actual physical flight.

Which one will you bet you life on?

 

[gogbot]

This may work in India, but if you go to any reputable university in the world and tell them you have a theory which you have tested in simulations, but no actual experiments, you will be laughed out of town.


Here, I will make it simple for you:

You have two new airplanes in front of you. One has been physically tested, the other has passed in computer simulations, but no actual physical flight.

Which one will you bet you life on?

Alright gogbot don't troll. remember make statement that have explanations so that other people can understand.

OK clearly brother you have not read my post very well. or not completely. I urge you please read once again, I have explained everything very clearly. Please take some time to read it. out of respect for the quality of this forum at least do that.

If you may still have any issue please quote and make your argument. ALSO a litte more detailed explanation can also help.

All science uses Scientific method. You should read the wiki article again.

and also planes and nukes are not the same thing here. The nuke is destroyed mili seconds after detonation. A plane flies for many years.
What you are saying is that all bullets must be tested to ensure they work before they are fired.

 

[Developereo]

Alright gogbot don't troll. remember make statement that have explanations so that other people can understand.

OK clearly brother you have not read my post very well. or not completely. I urge you please read once again, I have explained everything very clearly. Please take some time to read it. out of respect for the quality of this forum at least do that.

If you may still have any issue please quote and make your argument. ALSO a litte more detailed explanation can also help.

So, I take it you can't answer my question then.

All science uses Scientific method. You should read the wiki article again.

I don't need to read it. I am trained as a scientist. Any scientific theory without experimental proof is worthless. It is not science, it is philosophy. (I consider string theory to be philosophy, not physics.)

Just because an answer comes out of a supercomputer (wow!) does not make it any more valid. Garbage in, garbage out. Words like supercomputer only serve to impress the nontechnical people. Anybody who is familiar with science and computer programming will want verifiable data.

and also planes and nukes are not the same thing here. The nuke is destroyed mili seconds after detonation. A plane flies for many years.
What you are saying is that all bullets must be tested to ensure they work before they are fired.

So, I take it you will choose the simulated flight plane.
Well, good luck to ya! Send me a postcard if you make it.

 

[paritosh]

Just because an answer comes out of a supercomputer (wow!) does not make it any more valid. Garbage in, garbage out. Words like supercomputer only serve to impress the nontechnical people. Anybody who is familiar with science and computer programming will want verifiable data.

what do you mean by that?
supercomputers are made for studying complicated phenomena like solving complicated scientific calculations and studying natural phenomena involving millions of variables...like prediction of tectonic movements and weather forecasting(it can be done otherwise as well ...but SC aids in a more refined analysis)
supercomputers are magnificent for simluated nuclear testing...don't you agree?

 

[BRAHMOS]

Well guys, both of you are correct in some or the other...

 

[Developereo]

what do you mean by that?
supercomputers are made for studying complicated phenomena like solving complicated scientific calculations and studying natural phenomena involving millions of variables...like prediction of tectonic movements and weather forecasting(it can be done otherwise as well ...but SC aids in a more refined analysis)
supercomputers are magnificent for simluated nuclear testing...don't you agree?

I agree, to an extent.

My point was that if there is a flaw in your program logic, either by programming error or faulty assumptions, then your results will not be correct. That is why long term climatic models tend to be useless because we simply do not understand all the variables involved.

That is what is meant by GIGO (garbage in garbage out), whether it's a $50 used computer, or a multimillion dollar supercomputer. The results are only as good as the program and data fed into it.

I have worked in the IT field, and programming errors are notoriously hard to find. Especially in complex simulation software like atomic explosions, climate modeling, protein folding, etc, etc,

 

[gogbot]

So, I take it you can't answer my question then.



I don't need to read it. I am trained as a scientist. Any scientific theory without experimental proof is worthless. It is not science, it is philosophy. (I consider string theory to be philosophy, not physics.)

Just because an answer comes out of a supercomputer (wow!) does not make it any more valid. Garbage in, garbage out. Words like supercomputer only serve to impress the nontechnical people. Anybody who is familiar with science and computer programming will want verifiable data.



So, I take it you will choose the simulated flight plane.
Well, good luck to ya! Send me a postcard if you make it.

I notice you list your location as "the moon".
You do know where the word "lunatic" comes from, no doubt?
(sorry, it was too easy)

Well thank you sir for both quoting and explaining. most people don't even do that.

You say you were trained as a scientist. If i may be so bold as to ask could you be more specific.

Now you also keep saying that there are no experiments
so i don't understand, didn't they detonate the bombs at Pokhran 2 tests. They had 5 tests for different purposes. as i stated in my post earlier. So please can you read it more carefully, i request you again.

Those tests yielded data, which seemed to be sufficient.
Once predictions are made, they can be tested by experiments. If test results contradict predictions, then the hypotheses are called into question and explanations may be sought. Sometimes experiments are conducted incorrectly and are at fault. If the results confirm the predictions, then the hypotheses are considered likely to be correct.

As i have also stated in my Post earlier.
The supercomputer simulates, based on data collected. A program has been written for the supercomputer to use this date to make predictions.

All this i have already stated in my first post. but u seem to ask the same questions.


Sir, can i also as when do you feel its enough testing has been done.
people keep saying more tests are needed, but how much more is required. i ask u 1,2 or 10,000.

Many space flights today are conducted on the basis of simulated results. Why?, because enough data has been collected for computers simulations to be an accurate guide on what could and might happen. in terms of using equipment and tools anyway.

Also i said i would like to mention that a plane is not a suitable, comparison of a Nuke.

One device is used only once after its creation, the other is used many times.

A more accurate comparison would be booster rockets. Now just because the booster rockets had a partial failure. where they were unable to maintain trust for a desired period of time. but instead gave out early. And later on though analysis u identified and rectified the problem which was not a "big deal". Considering the costs and environmental effects of testing it again, would u do it?

(Speaking of planes, India tested LCA like 1200 times before inducted , i don't think its researchers have any experiment deficit.)

It would be preferable for India to detonate 15 nukes right now just to make a point. But people need to show restraint and logic when dealing with such serious issues, as nuclear testing.
you do not need to test it just to make a point to everyone else.

I state again sir that experiments were conducted. they are called the PoKhran tests.

Also on a side note , the LCH in CERN will be testing an aspect of string theory, They will be looking for the presence of or the lack of gravitons after a collision. This is the first test ever on string theory.
Also in my opinion, if you would be so short sighted as to trow away string theory as simple philosophy, then how would people develop the theory to the point it is today. where it could actually be tested to a degree. At one point General relativity was just philosophy. The structure of the atom or its existence. was all considered philosophy.
You should always explore new ideas and focus on trying to prove them. Instead of just demanding proof and passing judgment.

No of course its easy for you to demand more nuke tests, a direct method, to prove India has H-bombs, perhaps if you were to view the situation from a more indirect perspective.it might help you shed some light on the issue.

Computer simulations are an alternative means of testing your weapons based on data you already have in your possession.

I notice you list your location as "the moon".
You do know where the word "lunatic" comes from, no doubt?
(sorry, it was too easy)

Also thank for being the first one to notice my location and make a joke on it. I wanted to have a location that instilled with it a certain amount of humor. You are the first one to get the joke kudos to you

Well guys, both of you are correct in some or the other...

Wise guy ehe . retract this statement and say i am the only on who is right OR else

I will mess with your gyroscope BRAHMOS, no kidding. no mater how fast you are u cant do anything with out navigation.

 

[gogbot]

I agree, to an extent.

My point was that if there is a flaw in your program logic, either by programming error or faulty assumptions, then your results will not be correct. That is why long term climatic models tend to be useless because we simply do not understand all the variables involved.

That is what is meant by GIGO (garbage in garbage out), whether it's a $50 used computer, or a multimillion dollar supercomputer. The results are only as good as the program and data fed into it.

I have worked in the IT field, and programming errors are notoriously hard to find. Especially in complex simulation software like atomic explosions, climate modeling, protein folding, etc, etc,

Now i understand, your problems with using Supercomputers. But them anyone can have this issue. Not only India , US , Russia and CHina all use Comp sims to make new bombs. They could all be wrong. are u suggesting they all start testing nukes.

Or are u only saying that to India because of its one test. May be they can test to see the accuracy of computer results. A more idirect way by testing aspects of the program.

I am putting out speculations. here.

Can they test the Program's accuracy Indirectly and thus get accurate sims from comp.

 

[Developereo]

You say you were trained as a scientist. If i may be so bold as to ask could you be more specific.

Physics and computer science.

Now you also keep saying that there are no experiments
so i don't understand, didn't they detonate the bombs at Pokhran 2 tests. They had 5 tests for different purposes. as i stated in my post earlier. So please can you read it more carefully, i request you again.

Those tests yielded data, which seemed to be sufficient.
Once predictions are made, they can be tested by experiments. If test results contradict predictions, then the hypotheses are called into question and explanations may be sought. Sometimes experiments are conducted incorrectly and are at fault. If the results confirm the predictions, then the hypotheses are considered likely to be correct.

Let's say you make some experiments and get results. If everything works fine, great. Otherwise, you look at your equipment, your theory and the experiment data, and you try to figure out what went wrong. You can come up with a theory of what to change to make it work the next time round. Now you can either do the experiment (test) again, or you can simulate it. You are happy with the simulation. I would prefer a physical test. Especially if my country's security is at stake.

Also on a side note , the LCH in CERN will be testing an aspect of string theory, They will be looking for the presence of or the lack of gravitons after a collision. This is the first test ever on string theory.
Also in my opinion, if you would be so short sighted as to trow away string theory as simple philosophy, then how would people develop the theory to the point it is today. where it could actually be tested to a degree. At one point General relativity was just philosophy. The structure of the atom or its existence. was all considered philosophy.
You should always explore new ideas and focus on trying to prove them. Instead of just demanding proof and passing judgment.

Well, the string theorists may call it proof, but they will have a tough time convincing the rest of the scientific community. One reason is that gravitons are predicted by other theories so, by themselves, they can only provide circumstantial evidence at best for string theory. The other main reason is that strings are supposed to be millions of times smaller than an electron, so there is no reasonable hope of detecting them directly in the foreseeable future.

Relativity and quantum mechanics made predictions which were verified experimentally. Modern electronics would not function without our understanding of quantum mechanics. It doesn't mean QM is 100% right, but it does mean that it is pointing in the right direction. In fact, Einstein got his Nobel Prize on the photoelectric effect because it was felt that relativity hadn't been proved sufficiently at that point.

 

[Developereo]

Now i understand, your problems with using Supercomputers. But them anyone can have this issue. Not only India , US , Russia and CHina all use Comp sims to make new bombs. They could all be wrong. are u suggesting they all start testing nukes.

Or are u only saying that to India because of its one test. May be they can test to see the accuracy of computer results. A more idirect way by testing aspects of the program.

I am putting out speculations. here.

Can they test the Program's accuracy Indirectly and thus get accurate sims from comp.

I was making a statement about computer simulations in general. Nothing specific to India.

 

[hack]

Developereo is correct...no simulation will match testing especially when you don't have correct test data to co-relate.If the hydrogen bomb did not work as expected then it does not matter how many simulations you run,what will you co-relate it to?

Remember only one thermo-nuke has ever been tested by India.