11-19-2009, 12:13 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-gangajal+Nov 18 2009, 06:14 PM-->QUOTE(gangajal @ Nov 18 2009, 06:14 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, that is another puzzle. Is it possible that RC is simply toeing the official government line? I think he does not really believe in his own statement. This is why he avoided talking with his mentor Iyengar. If he is so confident then why did he allow the BARC paper which claimed the yield to be 50+10 kt to be published with plots that have no units? No one would believe such a paper. Such behaviour only makes BARC look foolish.
I don't believe that the S1 device was placed at the shallow depth of 120 m. No one would place a more powerful device at a shallower depth then a less powerful device. I think Chengappa was right when he said that the S1 device was placed at a depth greater than 200 meters.
[right][snapback]102640[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What if the devices were emplaced in S-2 shaft already at an earlier date? We know there was water seepage in the S-1 shaft that was pumped out per Chengappa.
Maybe they had to detune the device to account for shallow depth and that led to the fizzle?
From most Western commentators the secy part is not the difficult one compared to the pry side.
I don't believe that the S1 device was placed at the shallow depth of 120 m. No one would place a more powerful device at a shallower depth then a less powerful device. I think Chengappa was right when he said that the S1 device was placed at a depth greater than 200 meters.
[right][snapback]102640[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What if the devices were emplaced in S-2 shaft already at an earlier date? We know there was water seepage in the S-1 shaft that was pumped out per Chengappa.
Maybe they had to detune the device to account for shallow depth and that led to the fizzle?
From most Western commentators the secy part is not the difficult one compared to the pry side.