![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 18, 2014 and May 18, 2017. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm curious - "the device was hexagonal" - it was two dimensional? CGS 17:57 20 May 2003 (UTC).
Would anyone in the know mind injecting how, precisely, a nuclear explosive can serve any peaceful purpose which India could hope to achieve under any realistic circumstances? "Peaceful" seems vaguely propagandistic in context, and is certainly a loaded term to apply to a weapon, and while I'm no expert on military history or the foreign relations of the Republic of India, I'm vaguely skeptical about the NPOVness of calling it such. 68.96.162.252 08:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Was the weapon really 107 meters long? Or was the test shaft, the bottom of which hosted the device, 107 meters long? Is it typical to refer to the test in this way? I suspect the nuclear device itself was certainly not 107m from end to end. -- Jmeden2000 ( talk) 15:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The curious appellation of the program or device suggests some historical association with Robert Oppenheimer's famous invocation of Vishnu at the time of America's first nuclear test. Has this been looked into? Orthotox ( talk) 21:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
The reference quoted on the yield states
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaSmiling.html
Careful analysis of hard rock cratering effects establishes a tight bound around 8 kt for the yield however. For a detailed discussion of this issue see What Are the Real Test Yields?.
If you click the link "What Are the Real Test Yields?" you get this page http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaRealYields.html
There is a detailed comparison which you are doing which compares the crater features to U.S. descriptions of crater morphology for various underground test conditions.
The conclusion of this study is "The 8 kt yield range suggested by comparison with US cratering data is well within the range that seismic scaling laws provide - which extends from 3.2 kt to as high as 21 kt for a mb of 4.9 (though not all yields in this range are equally plausible), and matches some values given by Iyengar. It is significantly higher than estimates favored by seismologists for Pokhran, and the reported estimates of U.S. analysts, but is well within the uncertainties characteristic of seismic yield estimation."
In other words the crater study is giving a result not of 8 kt but 3.2 kt to 21 kt. What you are writing in the wikipedia is WRONG.
BernardZ ( talk) 15:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
This section states that the plutonium for the bomb was produced in a CIRUS reactor. However, this page /info/en/?search=CANDU_reactor#Nuclear_nonproliferation states that this is a common misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.125.90.25 ( talk) 17:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
— 121.244.200.9 ( talk) 12:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC) yhj tu yuuy yudftjy ukuuut u u uyi urdrty rtruut my ]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 18, 2014 and May 18, 2017. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm curious - "the device was hexagonal" - it was two dimensional? CGS 17:57 20 May 2003 (UTC).
Would anyone in the know mind injecting how, precisely, a nuclear explosive can serve any peaceful purpose which India could hope to achieve under any realistic circumstances? "Peaceful" seems vaguely propagandistic in context, and is certainly a loaded term to apply to a weapon, and while I'm no expert on military history or the foreign relations of the Republic of India, I'm vaguely skeptical about the NPOVness of calling it such. 68.96.162.252 08:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Was the weapon really 107 meters long? Or was the test shaft, the bottom of which hosted the device, 107 meters long? Is it typical to refer to the test in this way? I suspect the nuclear device itself was certainly not 107m from end to end. -- Jmeden2000 ( talk) 15:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The curious appellation of the program or device suggests some historical association with Robert Oppenheimer's famous invocation of Vishnu at the time of America's first nuclear test. Has this been looked into? Orthotox ( talk) 21:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
The reference quoted on the yield states
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaSmiling.html
Careful analysis of hard rock cratering effects establishes a tight bound around 8 kt for the yield however. For a detailed discussion of this issue see What Are the Real Test Yields?.
If you click the link "What Are the Real Test Yields?" you get this page http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaRealYields.html
There is a detailed comparison which you are doing which compares the crater features to U.S. descriptions of crater morphology for various underground test conditions.
The conclusion of this study is "The 8 kt yield range suggested by comparison with US cratering data is well within the range that seismic scaling laws provide - which extends from 3.2 kt to as high as 21 kt for a mb of 4.9 (though not all yields in this range are equally plausible), and matches some values given by Iyengar. It is significantly higher than estimates favored by seismologists for Pokhran, and the reported estimates of U.S. analysts, but is well within the uncertainties characteristic of seismic yield estimation."
In other words the crater study is giving a result not of 8 kt but 3.2 kt to 21 kt. What you are writing in the wikipedia is WRONG.
BernardZ ( talk) 15:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
This section states that the plutonium for the bomb was produced in a CIRUS reactor. However, this page /info/en/?search=CANDU_reactor#Nuclear_nonproliferation states that this is a common misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.125.90.25 ( talk) 17:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
— 121.244.200.9 ( talk) 12:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC) yhj tu yuuy yudftjy ukuuut u u uyi urdrty rtruut my ]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)