Yield of May 1998 Pakistani nuclear tests,a comparison

[Skull and Bones]

Seismic data do not lie.

Seismic data has it's dependence on the terrain.

 

[SecularNationalist]

Oh don,t take those endiians seriously.Even my fart is more powerful than a endiian nuke

 

[shaheenmissile]

Funny that. Arguing for the sake of argument without a shred of knowledge or eevidence.
Both areas are mountain of granite in a desert.
So geology and topography are same. Yes topography is important because if it was a mountain in water logged area vs a mountain in desert, the effects had been different and I hadn't compared the two.
For example the Americans did a 5 megaton underground blast in Alaska where the ground was boggy and plenty of small lakes in the area. The visual effects were totally different in that test.
Do you see me comparing Pakistan test with that test? Because topography was different and so were the effects. The mud and water absorbed the shock.

So before you try to smart, do your homework. Try to watch some videos and learn about the point you are trying to make,because you are coming up with bull.
How topography isn't important? Won't a water body or muddy ground absorb the shock?

I made the video and many like this one,and. Know what I am talking about, while you are shooting in the dark like some butt hurt Indian[/

 

[VCheng]

Seismic data has it's dependence on the terrain.

Yes, which is why it is analyzed carefully, much more carefully than a few YouTube videos and Google maps imagery.

I go back to what I said in the beginning: No robust conclusion can be drawn by the material presented in the OP.

Yes measurements on the Richter scale amongst other seismic testing procedures, do produce inherent type A errors. However they are on the magnitude of 5-10%, i.e. best case scenario, a yield between 6.6kT to 13.4kT equivalent.

But if the below makes sense to you, well then, nothing I or anybody else can prove will make you change your mind.

It is okay to believe, but beliefs don't get influenced by facts and logic and science and all of other such stuff.

Seismic data is good at detecting waveform which tells that the underground event isn't natural but man made,because of the shape of waves. But it isn't accurate in calculating the scale of the event. For example in detecting the magnitude of earthquake there is usually error of many points on Richter scale, and a quake is many hundred megatons or gigaton event.
Richter scale itself is not an exact science, it's more of an estimate.
Building the argument further may I mention here that on Richter scale kiloton events are even more erroneously estimated as it's a small event and seismic data based predictions are inaccurate to a much higher percentage compared to megaton event

Yes, study of seismic waveforms is not as robust as analyzing YouTube videos, apparently.

 

[shaheenmissile]

Yes, which is why it is analyzed carefully, much more carefully than a few YouTube videos and Google maps imagery.

I go back to what I said in the beginning: No robust conclusion can be drawn by the material presented in the OP.



It is okay to believe, but beliefs don't get influenced by facts and logic and science and all of other such stuff.

Richter scale too is just an estimate, same a Beaufort scale.

 

[VCheng]

Richter scale too is just an estimate, same a Beaufort scale.

Is a seismic estimate better or worse than looking at YouTube videos?

 

[shaheenmissile]

How topography isn't important? Wo

Is a seismic estimate better or worse than looking at YouTube videos?

In this case YouTube is as good as the comparison is being made against a test if known established perimeter such as known yield and similar test conditions
Funny that. Arguing for the sake of argument without a shred of knowledge or eevidence.
Both areas are mountain of granite in a desert.
So geology and topography are same. Yes topography is important because if it was a mountain in water logged area vs a mountain in desert, the effects had been different and I hadn't compared the two.
For example the Americans did a 5 megaton underground blast in Alaska where the ground was boggy and plenty of small lakes in the area. The visual effects were totally different in that test.
Do you see me comparing Pakistan test with that test? Because topography was different and so were the effects. The mud and water absorbed the shock.

So before you try to smart, do your homework. Try to watch some videos and learn about the point you are trying to make,because you are coming up with bull.
How topography isn't important? Won't a water body or muddy ground absorb the shock?

I made the video and many like this one,and. Know what I am talking about, while you are shooting in the dark like some butt hurt Indian[

 

[VCheng]

In this case YouTube is as good as the comparison is being made against a test if known established perimeter such as known yield and similar test conditions

YouTube is just as good? Okay Sir, you win the Internuts.

 

[shaheenmissile]

YouTube is just as good? Okay Sir, you win the Internuts.

Well thanks sir.
Now go praise Agni-7

do you have any other link other then youtube its not working mate

@Windjammer can u help him?
Upload this video on daily motion or something and post here?

 

[Indus Falcon]

Very interesting thread. Thank you @shaheenmissile

 

[MilSpec]

Very Entertaining thread... Vcheng and internuts. LMAO

 

[zebra7]

Very Entertaining thread... Vcheng and internuts. LMAO

Indeed, but I am still clue less, what the hell the name of this visual test.

 

[shaheenmissile]

Granite? Nope. And geology and topography are totally different in their definitions and applications in this context. A google Map image does not tell us much about underlying geology.

Well yes, both Ras Koh and the Algerian site are granite mountains.That is similar geology.
Both are far from a large water body as waterbody absorbs shock.
Both are surrounded by desert.
So that is similar topography.

Btw, just out of curiosity I may ask how do you suggest an independent estimate of Pakistani blast yield without looking at seismic data from internet which can be both inaccurate and biased.

I came up with visual comparison based on known factors let's see the Smarty over here, you can come up with another way?

You must have heard the saying, criticise someone 's work is easiest thing in the world, to out do someone with better idea or a better way if doing same thing is difficult.

Similar? Oh really? They are very different regions, geologically speaking:

BALUCHISTAN BASIN
Few outcrops of Paleocene rocks are found in the
Baluchistan Basin, and subsurface information is
scarce. The greatest thickness of Paleocene rocks
shown on the isopach map (pi. 1) is in the northern
part of the basin, west of the town of Kharan Kalat.
Strata thicken abruptly northward in the Ras Koh
Range from 845 feet at Pakistan Standard Vacuum
Oil Company's section No. 173 to possibly 10,750
feet at Pakistan Tidewater Oil Company's section
No. 224. According to a Pakistan Tidewater Oil
Company report l this thickening of Paleocene strata
may be due to a fault, downthrown to the north,
where movement was contemporaneous with deposition.
On the basis of scanty and dubious data, it is
postulated that the Paleocene rocks that trend westward
throughout the southern part of Chagai District
(Kharan Kalat to the Iranian border) thicken
to the north; then, from approximately the central
part of the district, they thin rapidly toward the
Afghanistan border (R. H. Nagell, oral commun.,
1964). Additional work in this part of the Baluchistan
Basin is needed to show a more accurate picture
of the thickness of Paleocene rocks.
Southward from this thick sequence, Paleocene
rocks apparently thin to zero in the Central Makran
Range in the central part of the Baluchistan Basin.
Paleocene rocks crop out again farther south in at
least two isolated fault blocks in the Ispikan area,
west of the town of Turbat near the Iranian border.
It is inferred that Paleocene rocks thicken southward
from the Central Makran Range toward the
Makran coast of Pakistan, a region where younger
rocks crop out. This strongly suggests that the area
termed "Baluchistan Basin" is actually two basins
and that the term should be redefined. In this report,
however, the old usage is retained because of lack of
information need to accurately establish the actual
depositional basins present.
According to E. B. Fritz (oral commun., 1964),
the Paleocene fauna in the Khuzdar area of the
Kirthar depositional province is similar to the Paleocene
fauna in the Ispikan area. Fritz believes that
this similarity suggests that the Paleocene seas of
the Kirthar province were closely connected with
Paleocene seas of the Baluchistan Basin, probably
in the south.

The Baluchistan Basin is separated from the Indus
Basin by the central axis along which exposures
of Paleocene rocks seem to be absent because of erosion
or nondeposition. In the northern part of the
Baluchistan Basin, the Paleocene rocks are markedly
different from those in the Indus Basin. Clastic
ratios are very high, and the rocks contain beds of
volcanic material. Limited data indicate that the
clastic ratio increases northward. Little information
is available on clastic ratios in the southern part of
the Baluchistan Basin, except in the Ispikan area
where Paleocene rocks crop out in two fault blocks.
This scanty information indicates that the clastic
ratio increases southward. The northern and the
southern parts of the Baluchistan Basin are separated
by an area where Paleocene rocks apparently
are absent. This area, which bisects the Baluchistan
Basin, might be an expression of a western spur of
the central axis.






GEOLOGICAL SETTING OF THE CENTRAL
HOGGAR
As shown in Figure 1, three main lithologic
associations may be defined in Central Hoggar,
irrespective of their presumed age: (1) quartzo-
feldspathic gneisses and granites, (2) banded highgrade
metasediments including quartzites, marbles,
and metapelites, and (3) low-grade metavolcanics and
graywackes. The latter association, still undated, is
known as "Pharusian" and forms linear belts or small
basins presumed to be upper Proterozoic in age. In all
three lithologic associations the main metamorphic
foliation is more or less gently dipping, often
horizontal, and often associated with polyphased
recumbent folds [Bertrand, 1974; Latouche, 1978;
Vitel, 1979], except in the vicinity of the late wrench
faults and in some linear belts of upright north-south
trending folds.
Amongst the metasediments two groups have been
defined: (1) those intimately associated with the
quartzofeldspathic gneisses, the Arechchoum series,
and (2) the Aleksod series which lies in structural
unconformity upon group 1 and shows a simpler
structural history suggesting ayounger age.
The two groups are very similar in lithology, but in
the Aleksod area a set of basic dykes allows the clear
separation of the two groups [Bertrand, 1974]. In
places, stratigraphic unconformities are preserved, for
example, in the Toukmatine series in the Oumelalen
area [Latouche, 1978] and the Tazat area [Blaise,
1967; Bertrand et al., 1968], but tectonic contacts are
more usual. It was from the distinction of two groups
of metasediments and from the noncritical acceptance
of the "classical" Pharusian unconformity, which was
considered as giving a lower limit for the upper
Proterozoic, that the existence of a Kibaran event at
about 1000 Ma was previously proposed in Central
Hoggar [Bertrand, 1974]. Some geochronological
results seemed at that time to supporthis assumption
[Bertrand and Lasserre, 1976], but they were
discussed using data from other regions [La Boisse
and Lancelot, 1977]. In fact, recent structural
investigations in the schist belts have shown the
tectonic nature of the "classical" unconformity (M.
Briedj and J. M. Bertrand, unpublished observations,
1980).
Two major events have been recognized in Central
Hoggar using available geochronological data [Picciotto
et al., 1965; Latouche and Vidal, 1974;
Bertrand and Lasserre, 1976; Bertrand et al., 1978,
and 1984; Vialette and Vitel, 1979; Latouche and
Vidal, 1974]: (1) the Eburnean event at about
2000 Ma is defined from quartzofeldspathic
gneisses, including orthogneisses and charnockites,
and from the older metasediments and (2) the PanAfrican
event at about 600 Ma.
The metamorphic evolution of Central Hoggar
reflects the dual influences of the history of the
Suggaran (Eburnean) basement and of the PanAfrican
imprint. From their structure and radiometric
age, the granulitic assemblages and the prebasic dyke
gneisses are attributed to the Suggaran event
[Latouche, 1978; Vitel, 1979; Ouzegane, 1981]. The
tendency, in recent papers and theses, is to attribute
the intermediate pressure metamorphism, often
corresponding to the most conspicuous foliation, to a
Kibaran event, and the low-pressure metamorphism
to a thermal effect related to granite emplacement
during the Pan-African, the low-grade retrogression
being the result of late wrench faults and/or associated
upright north-south folding. From the point of view
of the plutonic evolution, no Kibaran age has ever
been found in any granitic body. In the In Amguel
region, Vitel [1979] has proposed a classification of
the Pan-African granitoids dated by the Rb/Sr
isochron method [Vialette and Vitel, 1979] from 670
+ 20 Ma to 514 + 20 Ma.
To summarize, a polycyclic evolution has been
recognized in Central Hoggar, but with the exception
of the granitoid emplacement and associated low
pressure metamorphism of evidently Pan-African age,
most of the tectonic and metamorphic evolution was
considered as older, belonging either to an Eburnean
or a hypothetical Kibaran event. The new observations
and data presented in the following
sections were initiated after the discovery of flat-lying
retrogressive mylonites contrasting with zones where
older structures are preserved [Boullier and Bertrand,
1981].

Obviously I am not gonna read this mile long humbug. As I asked you in the comment above. Let me known when Smarty pants you,come up with doing what I did in the video, differently.

Also well known organization like FAS,NTI and Swedish Sipri use visual comparison to deduce similar results as I did. Do using YouTube and Google maps is not as unusual in these types of comparison ad You portray. Let me know when You device a better way, I am waiting

Obviously you do not want to learn from real academic material. It is your choice Sir. I can only provide the information, whether you chose to imbibe it or not is your choice. May be others will read it.

Again dodging my question Mr intellectual?
Anyway the mile long illegible humbug you posted is from oil drilling company I guess?
To what depths they go to? 4-6 kilometres?
That's why their surveys are for for that types if depths.
On the other hand how deep a shaft is dug for nuclear testing?
May be 100 or a few hundred meters. So whatever lies 6 kilometre under the mountain has no effect on that or has it?
So why are you being weird and posting tons of nonsense?

If you can comprehend that the release of energy is initially isotropic and then reflected by adjacent strata, both deep and superficial to the detonation, you may be able to appreciate the fact that the tremor and elevation induced by the shockwaves is a complex calculation.

This will be my last post addressed to you on this topic Sir.

You are thinking too much and unnecessarily confconfusing itself.
A 30kt explosion is too weak to be bounced back up by substrate if rocks in a manner strong enough to effect the shaking of the mountain.
A megaton range explosion will have that sort if effect. That's why substrate deep down were not considered while making the video

 

[genmirajborgza786]

Only if the depth of the devices is the same and the overlying geology is similar.

cheng bhai ,
in my opinion the Pakistan nuclear test yielded most probably somewhere between 20-27 KT

whats your take on this

But you are disputing the claims,so you are as much liable to presenting evidence as someone else.

Btw my dear if you want to keep your head bowed down in shame,you may continue doing that,this thread may not be appropriate for you and wont cure your inferiority complex.Try not to waste your time here,look elsewhere. May be an Indian thread where they post a pencil Diagram of Agni-6 and say its deployed and ready to fire.

jeez man seriously
why are you so intolerant to others view, look pal , this is an international discussion forum not all will agree with you, but doesn't mean that you will resort to personal attacks , that's just not done
&
if you can't stand the Heat , then get out of the kitchen

 

[genmirajborgza786]

YouTube is just as good? Okay Sir, you win the Internuts.

as far as i know the you tube link the poster has provided is of a guy "saf riz" who is from the U.K of Pakistani origin , & if God Forbid he share the same "Genius" theory , of YouTube video link being as authentic as that of seismic data analysis , then I really feel sorry for the drop in standards of the British GCSE/IGCSE education syllabus , i mean
this itself is even worse then the "Genius" "YouTube/Seismic Data analysis theory"