India Nuclear News & Discussion - 10 Aug 2007

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

India Nuclear News & Discussion - 10 Aug 2007

Postby Arun_S » 09 Aug 2007 23:58

Old thread is here.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
mayurav wrote:
Arun_S wrote:The reprocessing will be simpler but largely in-line with Pu driver based AHWR-I/II design. And of course there will no Pu driver required.


Thanks! So does this mean that future AHWR fuel cycles will not require Pu (or U233) on a sustained basis (apart from startup) once it attains equilibrium?


Stage 1 : Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) (Fig. 5).
Stage 2 : High temperature reactor based power packs.
Stage 3 : Accelerator driven fertile converters.
Stage 4 : Accelerator driven system with a fast reactor sub-critical
core together with a mainly thorium fuelled thermal core somewhat
similar to that present in AHWR.

Stage 1 : Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) (Fig. 5).
This is the classic AHWR concept. Will require lot of fissile material to charge the start-up. Thereafter at equilibrium will smaller flow of fissile driver fuel. As AHWR reactor design matures this hold promise of not requiring any driver fuel in-flow.

Stage 2 : High temperature reactor based power packs.
The objective here is to prove smaller form factor reactor and to prove higher efficiency thermal energy conversion to electricity and in parallel direct conversion to Hydrogen gas.

Stage 3 : Accelerator driven fertile converters.
This reactor core is almost identical to Stage-1 classic. Just that Pu fuel pins are not used. The neutrons gap earlier filled by fissile Pu is replaced with ADS driven neutron flow.

Stage 4 : Accelerator driven system with a fast reactor sub-critical
core together with a mainly thorium fuelled thermal core somewhat
similar to that present in AHWR.

Again very similar to classic AHWR. Instead its core will be be a fast core (no moderator) and ADS will directly fission Thorium there generating many more neutron than via ADS driven spallation source. The excess neutron from fast core will fill in the neutron gap earlier filled by fissile driver fuel.

Stage 1,3,4, are most promising. With Stage 3,4, no driver fuel is needed.
Last edited by Arun_S on 10 Aug 2007 21:00, edited 1 time in total.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 10 Aug 2007 00:39

FYI Only :: Worldwide Reactors :: 2007


Eye-opener onlee. :shock: BELGIUM has 3 times as much nuclear-generated electricity as India. And Japan as about 20 times, or twice as much as Russia!

From this one can c why they all get big-time :twisted: when someone does a nuke-bum-inflation, since they are all sitting on gigatons of the stuff.

I c y a global test ban, AND FAST, is very much in India's interest, unless, by Prof. Karnad's criterion, India wants to be 1/3 the World Power than Belgium is. Or 1/20 the World Power that Japan is (probably a good description already..)

Imagine what happens when Belgium, Sweden, Armenia and Canada come under the Ummah's control. There's enough Pu there for BakPaks to blow us all clear past the Ass-steroid Belt. :eek: :eek:

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 10 Aug 2007 01:01

finally a western op-ed that clearly says it:-
[quote]
Hard bargaining by India and a mutual willingness to leave some grey areas has led to a treaty that essentially conforms to the prime minister’s commitment to ensuring future safeguarded reactors will run without interruption even if India tests a nuclear weapon, that India will have the right to reprocess spent fuel and that only standard International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards will apply to Indian facilities.

Washington gave these concessions in part by outsourcing those commitments it couldn’t legally make. So, the US will continue to deny India enrichment technology but will agree to supply nuclear fuel so long as India reprocesses it in a safeguarded facility. The US will maintain the right to demand the return of nuclear fuel and equipment if it deems this necessary but will do so after due consultations with India and by paying “fair market valueâ€

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 935
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Postby sivab » 10 Aug 2007 01:26

[size=150][url=http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/10/stories/2007081056171100.htm]“For nuclear renaissance, the world needs Indiaâ€

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 935
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Postby sivab » 10 Aug 2007 01:38

http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/10/stories ... 461400.htm

[quote]Mr. Karat said:

“The United Progressive Alliance Government is in minority in Parliament as far the nuclear deal is concerned. The Government will not be able to get the agreement ratified in Parliament. We will not only oppose the deal in Parliament categorically and decisively. We will also go to people and mobilise them against the deal.

“If the Government still wants to pursue the deal, it will have to pay a heavy political price. It will not only face the opposition of the Left parties, but also of people as a whole.â€

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 10 Aug 2007 02:37

[quote="sivab"][size=150][url=http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/10/stories/2007081056171100.htm]“For nuclear renaissance, the world needs Indiaâ€

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 10 Aug 2007 03:04

The nuclear agreement and Parliament

B.P. Jeevan Reddy

The executive may not be bound to voluntarily place the 123 agreement before Parliament for approval. However, Parliament does have the undoubted power to examine the agreement.

The ‘123’ agreement on civil nuclear cooperation arrived at between the governments of India and United States and the debate it has generated in the country calls for an examination of the role of Parliament in the case of such agreements. The purpose of this article is not to say either that the agreement is beneficial to India or that it is inimical to its interests. That aspect is best left to experts and others in the field.

The fact remains that this agreement, if and when operationalised, is going to impact upon, and influence in a very large measure, the economic, political, military, and foreign policies of our country apart from the energy sector. It may have more significant implications for our nation than the World Trade Organisation agreements, which we signed during the Uruguay Round of Trade Negotiations.

The issue is whether the executive, the Government of India, has the final say in concluding this agreement or whether Parliament has the final word. In other words, the question is whether under our Constitution, the executive has the exclusive say in the matter of arriving at such agreements. Our Constitution effects “distribution of legislative powersâ€

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4107
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Postby sanjaykumar » 10 Aug 2007 03:06

There, you have people objecting on the basis of proliferation misconceptions. It is time the U.S. realised India is not a ‘proliferation threat.’ In a 2001 paper, I introduced a new parameter — the Stockpile Increase Significance Coefficient (SISC) — defined as a measure of the significance of a unit increase in the number of nuclear weapons a country has, i.e. the significance of x weapons going to x+1. The SISC is obviously maximum when x=0. As x increases for a country like India with a programme based on self-reliance, the coefficient approaches zero as the country ceases to be of interest in the context of nuclear weaponisation. This is when the hurdles to international cooperation likely disappear. That, in my opinion, is the reason why the U.S. came to India with this deal. Obviously this graph would not apply to a country with weapons based on clandestine acquisition.



Stockpile Increase Significance Coefficient hehehe what that tells me is that India is no soft state. It is shrewd and calculating. They calculated that incremental inflation of their stockpile would force an accomadation. But others such as Pakistan will not benfit from SISC as x stays small and more than needing accomadation their weapons are irritants needing to be removed. Good show.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16403
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 10 Aug 2007 03:16

I think this is the best time to test.

It will stop all disagreements in India, the US Congress will have enough time to get over its pretence, it should jolt the Aussies into selling ore for less, Japan can go back to checking on China, and, Bush will never know the difference.

And, BR can be a big, smiley family.

williams
BRFite
Posts: 379
Joined: 21 Jun 2006 20:55

Postby williams » 10 Aug 2007 03:47

From RC's confidence level I think he was consulted in all matters and DAE and Babu's have calculated the cost of future testing. India is a hard power with a soft face :D

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 10 Aug 2007 03:50

williams wrote:
India is a hard power with a soft face



That's the best kind. :)

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 10 Aug 2007 03:53

IMHO, i didn't like the soft face.. akin to having weak skin with strong bones. I'd prefer a "responsible" face rather.

Desh Bhagat
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 10 Aug 2007 03:21

Postby Desh Bhagat » 10 Aug 2007 04:12

This agreement so one sided, this government has effectively sold the nation to americans. I wonder how many hundreds of millions dollars going to line the pockets of gandhi clan and congress wallahs. It's bofors once again. This PM doesn't even wants to debate this parliament, I wonder what his motive is not to do so. Shame on them.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 10 Aug 2007 04:20

In July 1998, R Chidambaram (then Chairman of the AEC) was the guest of honor at my engg convocation. His speech was long and all about the May'98 A-tests, reasons, hurdles, achievements, challenges, future outlook etc. I'd preserved the speech copy given to all the 3000+ present in the convo stadium. Can't find it now. Would've been great to revisit his vision then and reality now.

"Sigh".

williams
BRFite
Posts: 379
Joined: 21 Jun 2006 20:55

Postby williams » 10 Aug 2007 04:20

Desh, first you got to realize that apart from cooperation there is a buyer - seller relationship embedded in the agreement. We are the buyers/leasers what ever you want to call it. The paranoia of buying the wrong stuff is always there, that is why you need a return, warranty policy and we have that.

This discussion has been going on in the parliament for a long time. PM did set the parameters before negotiating. Our system of democracy has allowed the executive branch ala the cabinet to conduct foreign policy. So I don't agree with the "sellout" phrase. If the GOI does a good job in explaining the fine prints of the agreement and their plan to thwart future American games, I will be satisfied.

Desh Bhagat
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 10 Aug 2007 03:21

Postby Desh Bhagat » 10 Aug 2007 04:41

williams, I am very wary of the Americans, history is littered with examples where US has abondoned treaties whenever it suited them. Our leaders must learn from history, where British manipulated treaties to finally colonize india. Call me paranoid, I don't trust the Anglo-Amerian Zionist axis.. Americans will simply using us to contain the chinese. By being closer to west, this gov't is undoing what we have achieved for last 60 years. We could have simply signed a bilatteral agreement with the Russia to assure nuclear fuel supplies.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 10 Aug 2007 04:50

Desh Bhagat wrote:
By being closer to west, this gov't is undoing what we have achieved for last 60 years. We could have simply signed a bilatteral agreement with the Russia to assure nuclear fuel supplies.


Did you know that Russia would have refused to do so because it is a member of the NSG, and wants the Indo-US deal to go through before it can supply fuel?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 10 Aug 2007 05:04

and there exists a reason for everyone to accept someone as "super power".

we need to move away from this "all is lost" mentality to seeing what we can achieve better in the future. Its important for each citizen to have this responsibility on their shoulders rather just rattle without a sword.

just by this agreement we are not chewed.. only if India buys F18s, Defence weapons, and All American fuel where we need to take a look at our falthoo-ness.

if gurus agree, then its a good deal to proceed to NSG. Lets attack NSG to let us source most of our fuel and technology from friends like France & Russia (allegedly). A nice balance of fuel source is very important to have control over our future. We can let about 20% of external fuel source for American business perhaps... hey, we are the originators of quota system. lets empower it, right to our benefits.

seriously, we need a deal that 100% of "non NPA world" and the non-paki-centric world respects us. we have to let go certain breeders for this purpose.

I am sure, people are hurt 'cause of the FBR issue., that many are not seeing good answers there since, the answers lies in our strategic requirements.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 10 Aug 2007 05:05

[quote="sivab"][size=150][url=http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/10/stories/2007081056171100.htm]“For nuclear renaissance, the world needs Indiaâ€

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 10 Aug 2007 05:23

Figures.

Dr. Chidambaram confirmed

1. the kgoan explanation about the "waste dumps" being the goldmines (or Pu mines, which is more lucrative).

2. The fact that the tests demonstrated validity of the computer simulation, in pushing the LOWER EDGE OF criticality for a boosted-fission / fusion weapon. This was sooooooooooo good to hear. Makes ALL the difference between a Chagai damp squib, and a hi-tech, super-efficient simulation validation.

3. He confirmed why India did not go for a needless megaton boom.

4. He confirmed what I had said is the way to win the Hearts and Minds - build stockpile - don't just blow it away in "tests". Beyond a point, stockpile wins hearts and minds, because they have far more to gain by cooperating with you than by putting embargos on you.

....

and, the only thing that some worthy postors saw was

nothing in 123 prevents GOI from testing whenever it decides to...

SO LET'S TEST NOW!


And to add to the joy, v c that "DishBaggat" has appeared with some super-well-thought-out perspectives.

:roll: :roll:

I think I'll retreat to the Pakistan Enlightened Moderation thread. Far more sensible than this one.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 10 Aug 2007 05:34

Arun ji, isn't fuel cycle synchronization important for reprocessing?, that is well needed for the next stage reactors (3 stage plan)? perhaps, already "ready Pus" is a gold mine is a sound logic (considering certain fuel has gone for higher burn ups in our breeders).

the fan in from already cooled yucca waste deposit into our FBRs is an excellent idea rather to wait for so many years to really get to where we want.

Sope, we can expect our larger AThWRs and ADS to be fully deployed within safeguards, and completely IPRed by 2020, as of now.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1663
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 10 Aug 2007 05:51

Arun_S wrote:The paper refers to AHWR I & II as two designs of AHWR and not the reactor build numbers. Pls see pg 11 (Pdf page 1 where AHWR II is mentioned.

Other AHWR concept that is gather traction is Step-4 of page 8 (Pdf 1 involving subcritical Th core with a ADS:

AHWR.Stage 4 : Accelerator driven system with a fast reactor sub-critical core together with a mainly thorium fuelled thermal core somewhat similar to that present in AHWR.

The reprocessing will be simpler but largely in-line with Pu driver based AHWR-I/II design. And of course there will no Pu driver required.


Thanks Arun for that explanation. Will do some reading on ADS.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1663
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 10 Aug 2007 06:11

enqyoob wrote:4. He confirmed what I had said is the way to win the Hearts and Minds - build stockpile - don't just blow it away in "tests". Beyond a point, stockpile wins hearts and minds, because they have far more to gain by cooperating with you than by putting embargos on you.


Now isnt this one interesting. What RC said was that at some point at which x+n= GOTUS accepting the inevitable. And in fact realizing that its better to have India on side. So, the stockpile as of 2005 maybe 2004 (when that decision was made to engage India) was already nothing to sneeze about in the perception of GOTUS. 8) GOTUS respects power and in this league anything less than something in mid 3 figures in terms of warheads would not command that respect and the consequent decision to engage. Very interesting indeed.


and, the only thing that some worthy postors saw was


nothing in 123 prevents GOI from testing whenever it decides to...

SO LET'S TEST NOW!


And to add to the joy, v c that "DishBaggat" has appeared with some super-well-thought-out perspectives.


:lol: Very innovative name this DishBaggat. And yes ofcourse testing will be done morning, afternoon and evening till all the bums have been used in tests.

Desh Bhagat
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 10 Aug 2007 03:21

Postby Desh Bhagat » 10 Aug 2007 07:26

I think the best course for India would be to get acceptence by the NSG, then sign bilateral deals with Russia and France (get over the formalities/legalities). Make sure that we don't give US/UK more then 10% of our nuclear business. I am sure France and Russia would have no problem if India were to conduct tests in future. with US, I simply can not trust them (call it hang over from the cold war days).

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1663
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 10 Aug 2007 07:30

India looks to win NSG waiver

Since the next big diplomatic initiative on India's radar is the exemption from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, India is restarting its diplomacy with key NSG member countries. The Prime Minister's special envoy on the nuclear deal, Shyam Saran, will be travelling to Russia, Germany, Brazil and Argentina next week.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16403
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 10 Aug 2007 07:50

I fully agree. The world's uranium reserve are too small for once through fuel cycle and the whole world will be forced to adopt closed fuel cycle. It is good time to invest in Nuclear mine fields AND also for the world to be in good books of India, to have access to close fuel cycle know-how.


How many other nations are good at this 'close fuel cycle'?

My gut feel is that the US and the rest - IF they do not have it - will be only interested in squashing this entire technology thread. Or, of course, getting access to it to make money.

The unseen one had made this argument that at this rate (after the 123 was agreed to) India would replace the ME as far as energy goes - to the extent that GNEP will be killed to!!!

Technically I think it is possible, but politically or financially it would one hell-of-a ride.

IF this is true, then my hats off (once again) to AK and gang. Probably that is why he is not jumping around.

AniB
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 18 Sep 2004 00:34
Location: Rockies

Postby AniB » 10 Aug 2007 08:51

Gary Mulhollin tried to warn Congress (March 2006) that they were going to lose some sort of direct control to the executive branch. (The rest of his positions can be used to raise your blood-pressure whilst you mentally refute ch00tiyapa).

Maybe that’s how the Atomic Energy Act is formulated. Post IEAE and NSG, these gents have an up-down vote. If vetoed, they need 2/3 majority. N^3, Rahul S. and Raju have posted the legal details/language.

So this why Hyde, Ackerman and 200 other worthies and (leaders of India-caucus) were SOOO complacent. Despite poison pills. Why Bush, Basmati and Bird-shot-Cheny remained positive and cool.

At that time I was so incensed thinking maybe the ill-wishers who voted against Hyde Act were really our friends (for trying to stop this infamy).

Burns and Menon have girded circles around Kong-ress. Vague language is double edged sword.

We cant fall-off the floor wrt neutrons economy.. The 3 stage demands vastly expanded reprocessing facilities anyway. High-end organics, diamides, crucibles, robotics. Above all special PUMPS.

A small entry will kick start Indian industry. Maybe even 9D CNC machines from IIT Delhi. (Vijay, Valkan?)

Why do so many Indians become histrionic in trying to deal with a [b]badmash chachas[/b]? Chapters around the Geeta are filled with Hudaibiya-like events. Simply required at times.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5688
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 10 Aug 2007 09:58

Calvin, it is not only the corona. You need higher and wider towers, thicker/longer bushing, bigger switchgear etc to work with the higher voltage. Also, AC will ALWAYS have varying electric field, and it will have losses over the ground capacitor. Higher the voltage, higher the loss. To reduce that you need to keep the lines higher.

JSnow, I don't think I understand you fully. For a given voltage of transmission, the ohmic losses (I^2 X R) is the same for DC and AC. But AC have some additional losses as well. They are the inductive and capacitive losses. The magnetic flux and electric field around a conductor varies according to the current and voltage respectively. Any conductor that comes in those fields will take some energy out. For an AC power transmission line, one major factor is the capacitive coupling to the ground and the losses thereoff. So, the lines must be routed high above the ground.

So, if you forget the "killer" problem of voltage conversion, DC is the ideal means of power transmission. In my post I was referring to the HIGH VOLTAGE DC transmission system being proposed by some, and trying to debunk the myth. I don't see any convincing technology that can enable voltage conversion at an efficiency level that would better the total efficiency levels of AC voltage conversion and transmission losses.

IOW, AC have more transmission losses, and DC have more conversion losses. And AFAIK, we don't have an efficient conversion technology to beat AC, yet.

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 10 Aug 2007 10:06

Isnt arcing a big issue with HV DC transmission.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5688
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 10 Aug 2007 10:56

pradeepe wrote:Isnt arcing a big issue with HV DC transmission.

Same for DC and AC for transmission. The switchgear may need to be different though.

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 10 Aug 2007 11:06

Dileep wrote:
pradeepe wrote:Isnt arcing a big issue with HV DC transmission.

Same for DC and AC for transmission. The switchgear may need to be different though.


Dileep, Thanks. Need to read up a bit I guess. I had assumed that since AC swings through its peak and null, its less susceptible. Is there a DC component to the AC?

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5688
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 10 Aug 2007 11:18

For a given voltage (constant for DC and RMS for AC), AC arcs across bigger gaps (because the peak voltage = 1.414 X RMS). But when the arc strikes, DC does more damage because of two things. The AC Arc stops and re-strikes every cycle. Second, the ionized material moved asymetrically in DC.

The switchgear for DC needs extra protection because of this. But for high voltage/high power switchgear, I am not sure how much that adds up over the AC version of the same.

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 10 Aug 2007 11:35

I see. So even if the arc inducing field collapses every cycle (should reduce the probability of arcing), the peak voltage is much higher.

I am veering off topic. Will stop.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 10 Aug 2007 11:53

enqyoob wrote:2. The fact that the tests demonstrated validity of the computer simulation, in pushing the LOWER EDGE OF criticality for a boosted-fission / fusion weapon. This was sooooooooooo good to hear. Makes ALL the difference between a Chagai damp squib, and a hi-tech, super-efficient simulation validation.


There is more to the chootues then just knowledge. Pls see the variable yield American B61. Lowest 0.3 kt and highest 340kt. Arguably this TN weapon has lowest yield of 0.3 kt when there is no gas boosting (or just enough to stay away from falling off cliff), and progressively higher gas boosting to intermediate boosted fission at 5 kt, and then graduates to partial fusion burn and last end stop at full boosted fission to give full fusion yield.

Similarly there is another US TN weapon with lowest 0.1 kt yield and higest 150kt.

Lo and behold the chotoos are calibrated shots of 0.2 kt, 0.3 kt and 0.5 kt smack in the middle of the TN trade sweet spot.

In DOE (Design of experiments) more test are done on sensitive part of the curve and fewer on the insensitive/well understood part. The whole range of Fusion burn and ablation is only understood by actual experimentation on high energy physics. aka a range of cyclotron, accelerators & magnetic containment. When high energy physics was not understood the only other options was experimental modeling to make empirical models, the way Ruskies and Unkill did in plenty during 60's and early 70's. OTOH BARC had so many years of high energy physics experimental experience under its belt before 1994. So when time comes to test, they craft a DOE that tests:
1. fusion stage once,
2. low yield unboosted primaries 3 times and
3. boosted primary 1 time.
What does that say?

In my lingo it says that they know like the back of their hand phijiks of boosting and fusion. Only the sharp curves of small fission and engineering there of need be validated. Which they did.

Recall RC's words in the presentation that Dr Shiv attended?
[url=http://www.saag.org/papers5/paper451.html]THE MAY 1998 POKHRAN TESTS: Scientific Aspects
by R. Chidambaram[/url]

There are other thermonuclear weapons in the U.S. stockpile where the warhead yield is reported to be widely variable, while the dimensions and the weight are said to be the same. Engineering wise, this is desirable.

Why talk of specific nuance kamasutra posture if it is not by practical experience " been there, done that"? Else he might as well have talked of Marylin Monroe or virgin Mary.

As for sub kiloton he says:
Achieving a match between design yields and achieved yields for each of the three sub-kiloton tests - 0.5 kt, 0.3 kt and 0.2 kt - has confirmed, among other things, the equation of state of Plutonium used by us.

Circle is closed.
--------------
Edited later on 10-Aug-07 to correct spelling & bullet format.
Last edited by Arun_S on 10 Aug 2007 21:10, edited 3 times in total.

MN Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 393
Joined: 27 Jan 2002 12:31

Postby MN Kumar » 10 Aug 2007 14:34


vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 10 Aug 2007 14:39

Arun S sar,

Very heartening to read your analysis. Can sleep a lot easier knowing our deterrent has real teeth.

I can only wish the netas stay out of the implementation of the 123 and let the babus handle it. They're one heck of a smart, bright bunch. If the yanks win by fooling our babus (and not bribing our netas), then the yanks will have won fair and square. JMTs of course.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20148
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Postby Philip » 10 Aug 2007 14:43

What the US is aiming at in the long term with India,is to see that a trimuvirate of India,China and Russia does not materialise.For a variety of reasons,the US needs India and Indians.It has discovered India's value for the 21st century,not least because of our economic potential,consumer market and military/nuclear prowess.It however has been very wary of India's independent bent,wanting to entice India into the US camp-if not a close military ally,then at least a capitalist "fellow-traveller".Helping us to increase our nuclear civilian capability ,is the carrot.Once we bite it,it knows that a certain amount of self-restraint will take place in Indian foreign policy (for example with Iran) objectives,ensuring that on major issues,India will be on the "west bank".

Now at face value there is much that we have in common with the west and the US in particular.Democracy,the English language,regular relatively free and fair elections,judicial system,basic human rights,amenable corrupt babudom and politicos (alleged),etc. Compare India with China and the former Communist bloc and the contrast is evident.Though we are not as attractive a system as a right wing military dictatorship like that of Gen.Bandicoot and his galaxy of "crore commanders,being the second largest nation on the planet has its overwhelming weight in favour!

What still makes us wary though are the undercurrents of various US administrations that determine its foreign policy and in its perpetual desire of global domination,especially manipulation of foreign regimes,ostracising democracies whom it detests,Venezuela,Hamas,Cuba,etc. and the press-ganging of its allies into wars of its choosing-Iraq,Afghanistan,Iran-on-the-anvil,etc. The control of the world's most valuable economic resources by US companies is part of the agenda.For those nations' leaders willing to unashamedly play second fiddle to the US's diktat,even at the detriment of their own people,nothing could be more wonderful.All the spoils of office are theirs for the picking.For those to whom national interests come first,they sit on the horns of a dilemna,wondering whether it is worth sacrificing one's sovereignity for thiry pieces of uranium.This nuclear deal is the line between the two sides.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 10 Aug 2007 18:24

Arun S sar,

Very heartening to read your analysis.


Arun: My cousin's (thrice removed) brother-in-law's cousin(thrice removed) is an experimental research type, and he tells me that this revelation from Chidambaram, and ur confirmation of the gist of it, are simply delightful. Shows the superb thinking and planning in BARC and DAE, and that India's Strategic Deterrent is far, far, more advanced than any of these "WE HAVE TO TEST ALL OUR NUKES!" worthy EBs can ever understand.

Dr. C's other statement is the even more stunning sixer, where he coolly tells us that this is also related and indicative of India's computational simulation capability - and how they announced the yield before any of the various entities monitoring the blasts could do their calculations. As my cousin's BIL's BIL's cousin (CBIL^2C) explained, this means that there was a computational prediction that clearly related what would be observed at the sensors, to what the yield was.

Those who don't have this, have to solve an integral equation - you get the EFFECT measured at various discrete points, and you have to solve for the kernel of the integral equation. All from transient events, mind you, and the attendant errors due to reflections, etc etc. This is a monstrous task, and it takes a long time to do. CBIL^2C could not remember if this was a "Fredholm" type of integral equation, or a something-else kind, but both are extremely difficult when you are working with experimental data around the periphery.

This is why the fact that they could announce the yield right away, and that from such controlled, muted explosions, is sooo significant.

That was computational simulation capability in 1998, under severe sanctions etc., BEFORE the explosions, with the only other data being available being from 1974, when there were barely any computers in India that could do very large calculations, and those ran on card decks. IBM370, IIRC.

Today, 9 years later, with all those blasts, plus recordings of the Paki blasts (obviously they would have instrumented along the border to capture the expected Paki response), do the EB's STILL want to maintain that without hundreds more tests, they cannot believe India's ability to build nukes that will work on demand?

So, one final point. Dr. BC gave away a LOT in that statement. But he, like everyone else in the nuclear establishment, is under the Three Monkeys Rule (Signal no secrets, write no secrets, speak no secrets). Shows that there are vastly more impressive things done since then, if these things could be put in an announcement from him.

Requesting Permission from BRadmins to do the usual kind and gentle treatment on any EBs coming here with the "Sell-Out! WE MUST TEST NOW! OUR WEAPONS DON'T WORK!" garbage. I'll give Prof. BK the pass because he's a valued part of our psyOps.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 10 Aug 2007 18:56

OTOH BARC had so many years of high energy physics experimental experience under its belt before 1994. So when time comes to test, they test fusion stage once and low yield unboosted primaries 3 times and boosted primary 1 time. What does that say?

In my lingo it says that they know like the back of their hand phijiks of boosting and fusion. Only the sharp curves of small fission and engineering there of need be validated. Which they did.


And some time back somebody was asking WHY TIFR was under safeguards?

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 10 Aug 2007 19:00

Oh I have been itching to write this :)

My Summary of the "deal" is that it is not a "deal" at all but a door open for future deals. A modalities for future interaction.

But doors have been opened that much is sure. What will come in through the open door is a very different question though.

That is it; and depending upon how you view it; it is either apocalypse (though you have to be pretty paranoid and complexed to think that) or Manna from heaven (which again means you need to go back to BRF kindergarten)

The whole "problem" and the "strength" of the deal is its open ended nature.
For those on either spectrum of; civil onlee nukes to we need many bums thought; the ones with an issue with the deal are those who are uncomfortable with the uncertainties and those who wanted some tangibles to be clearly outlined in the deal. Which the deal does not do.

I for those have cared to remember been one of the first advocates of dancing with the devil (even before the deal was on the horizon); so the open ended nature of the deal bothers me but hell; truly speaking all geo-politics is anyway open ended and deals just delude you into thinking that it is not so; so perhaps just as well.

However I must say that for those of us who heard the J18 speech at the Purana Qila (even if on TV) and believed that this was it; a clear open interaction between US and India where not only would doors be open but the next 10 years worth of goodies also dispatched in a armada guarded by the USN/IN joint fleet down the Suez; are surely disappointed.

So when NRao says the deal is not bad but 123 != J18 that much is very true.

It may just be that 123 == J18 and some parts are crouched in mists; but as far as I can see; that is not so.

So for those who were in it for J18 are justifiably disappointed and no amount of good coming from deal or N^3 lumping us with EBs is likely to change that.

Is it good; it can be made good it has the potential; is it what we were hoping for? NO!! Hyde act the reference to it ensure the NO.

But perhaps J18 was the dream and this is the reality. :-?


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests