Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread: 16 Apr 2008

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

Postby John Snow » 17 Apr 2008 19:14

sraj wrote:'Landmark' deal ends U.S. stalemate with Israel over nuclear reactor

Wednesday, April 16, 2008
TEL AVIV — Israel and the United States have signed an agreement on safety at a nuclear reactor in the Negev desert.

Under the accord, the United States would help Israel monitor and enhance its nuclear reactor at Dimona.


Officials said this marked the first direct U.S. aid for operation at Dimona, which has not come under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"This is a landmark accord and was heavily influenced by the U.S. nuclear agreement with India," an official said.

The Israeli-U.S. agreement, signed by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman Dale Klein and Israel Atomic Energy Commission director Shaul Horev, would help improve safety at Dimona, established around 1962.

Egypt has repeatedly complained of radiation leakage from the plant, said to produce and maintain Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal.

Under the accord, officials said, the Israel Atomic Energy Commission would gain access to U.S. nuclear safety technology and methods. They said the United States would reserve the right to restrict data and technology.

Officials said Israel has sought such an agreement for more than a decade. But the United States rejected Israel's appeals, citing the Jewish state's refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The turning point came in 2007 when the Bush administration signed an accord with India on nuclear cooperation. India has also refused to join NTP, sparking calls in Congress for the launch of U.S. nuclear cooperation with Israel as well.


How does this square with US domestic laws and NSG rules?

What implications does this have for our recently-initialled agreement with Russia for 4 reactors at Koodankulam?



For India the SD has posted the SOP in every rest Room in US!

"To Remove (the paper cover for toilet seat from the holder) First Pull Up then Pull Down"

Which means in plain language

To Remove ([Indian deterent via 123) First Pull Up Indian PM'S ego by saying "we will make you super power", Then Pull Down by putting all Hyde restrictions.

This is also known as CRE
Last edited by John Snow on 17 Apr 2008 21:41, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49660
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 17 Apr 2008 21:22

In his book 'Samson Option' Hersh talks of an earlier US AEC inspection that was performed under US govt pressure. It was a whitewash as they were led to non-critical areas. Maybe this is a signal that Israel is quite self sufficient and can allow inspections by outsiders. And they throw in a link to Egypt in the news report. So could be a sop to assuage the Egyptians. One interesting thing is Egypt is the silent one in all this AQK nukemart. With folks like El Baradei, it would be quite unlikely that they dont have a sub rosa program.

So what we need to understand is what is the message and to whom? And what image does it reinforce and what image does it dispell?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 17 Apr 2008 21:31

John Snow wrote:

For India the SD has posted the SOP in every rest Room in US!

"To Remove (the paper cover for toilet seat from the holder) First Pull Up then Pull Down"

Which means in plain language

To Remove ([Indian deterent via 123) First Pull Up Indian PM'S ego by saying "we will make you super power", Then Pull Down by putting all Hyde restrictions.

This also known as CRE

The Indian elite fell for this trap which was very apparent. The elite started distancing themselves from the rest of Indians and Hindus.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2923
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 17 Apr 2008 21:45

Arun_S wrote:
Kanson wrote:This was your previous statement.
Arun_S wrote:BTW, POK-1 yield was ~12 kT against a design yield of 20-25 KT. This doesn't make it a huge success. So, PKI as team leader of POK-1 was not wrong here. Further, as a weapon, its size and configuration would have made it a major flop.

Arun_S wrote:
Kanson wrote:If i'm not wrong, on POK-I PKI gave the value as low as 8KT, again Raja Ramanna later claimed that the design tested was weaponised. Your claim of 20-25KT appears to me as mischievous. No offence though

1. PKI has claimed a test yield of 8 KT against a design yield of 10 KT. He has the gone on to label POK-1 as an unqualified success (see http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaSmiling.html and www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/jul102001/72.pdf). I have stated that the test yield was around 12 KT. The 20-25 KT was the design yield which differs from the test yield. This is based on GoI press release and AIR news broadcast in and around 74 to 75 where 20 to 20+kT was bandied around. Also it is a reasonable assumption that POK-1 objective was to replicate the design parameters of the Nakasaki device. Note that I am not holding either PKI or RC up as paragons of virtue and honesty! However, PKI was correct on S-1, while RC was correct on POK-1.


Thanks for making a correction from your earlier stance of PKI was right to PKI is wrong on POK-I.
To put things in perspective from the clutter, RC or offical yeild reads as 12 +or- 2KT . From the same sources you quoted, PKI first claimed 8KT and later corrected to 10KT after the radio-chem analysis of samples from the test site.

Let me try one more time unless your agenda is something else:
    PKI says that Pok-1 was flop because it yielded half the yield of 20-25kt target. He is right on that.
    RC saying the yield of Pok-1 was 12kt he is right there.
    PKI saying yield of Shakti-1/Pok2 was fizzle and seriously under performed and he is right.
Feel free to check it out with your analysis/study or from the horses mouth.


Fine i will try one more time. From the link you quoted, i repeat from the link you quoted as source..I quote the following statement...
The yield of the PNE has also remained controversial. Although occasional press reports have given ranges all the way up to 20 kt, and as low as 2 kt, the official yield was set early on at 12 kt (post Operation Shakti claims have raised it to 13 kt). Outside seismic data, and analysis of the crater features indicates a lower figure. Analysts usually estimate the yield at 4 to 6 kt using conventional seismic magnitude-to-yield conversion formulas. In recent years both Homi Sethna and P.K. Iyengar have conceded that the official yield is an exaggeration. Iyengar has variously stated that the yield was actually 8-10 kt, that the device was designed to yield 10 kt, and that the yield was 8 kt 'exactly as predicted'.
again..
Subsequently nearly all reports described the yield as 12 kilotons, or 12 to 15 kilotons [Perkovich 1999, p. 181] (and occasionally as high as 15 to 20 kilotons, [Perkovich 1999, p. 522]).
The source you quoted as support for argument, state, as per PKI the design yield is 10 KT and it further adds nearly all the reports reported from 20 kt to 2 kt. There is no mention of 20-25 KT. When the design yield is of 20-25KT how no reports would have not mentioned it and not even by PKI. I dont want to have further arguments on this...

This test has been known since its public announcement as "Smiling Buddha", a name apparently given to it by Dhar, but the origin of this appellation is somewhat mysterious. The test actually had no formal code name prior to the shot (a pattern that would be repeated with the second test series 24 years later). The test was coincidentally conducted on the Buddhist festival day of Buddha Purnima, perhaps the reason that the association with the Buddha came about. Chengappa relates that the story that Sethna passed on the message to Dhar with the code phrase "The Buddha is smiling" is probably a myth [Chengappa 2000; pg. 3]. Haksar refused to confirm the story in an interview before his death, Sethna denies he used such a code phrase, and Dhar agrees that this phrase was not used, and claims he was not repsonsible for it. Ramanna claims that he had been told by Sethna that the code phrase had been used, and that the phrase was Dhar's idea. Sethna believes that Dhar made up the code name after the test.

Even on simple code "Similing Buddha", we find there were no consensus among horses, i mean those sci/eng involved. Here we are talking(?) abt or fighting over on someone's statement or try to see everything through rather limited info available.


------------------
I remember...Sunder(is it right?) or someone asked if the design tested is of 45KT then why the test pit is meant for 100KT. He concluded so the device fizzled. We know the test pit was digged or rather modified much earlier before POK-II was decided and 45 KT device was developed. Instead of trying to find fault if one can look in the positive direction, there are answers. If one doesnt have answers doesnt mean there are no answers. Similary someone argued, While GoI cared little abt the people the claim on the proximity of village as reason for limiting the yield is ludicrous. we know BARC continues the radio activity test on water bodies near the test site regularly... So what i'm saying is one can get postive answer if one wish to

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2923
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 17 Apr 2008 22:25

ldev wrote:
Kanson wrote:
ldev wrote: However, notwithstanding that, India has a proven boosted fission warhead of 150-200kt, 3 of which can be MIRVed on a Agni 3 land and sublaunched missile.

How this explains, the 12 MIRV planned for agni or 8 MIRV planned for k-15


The S1 warhead was supposedly designed and built over a 18 month period in 1995-1996 after NRao gave the authorization. It was tested in May 1998 and there is some dispute as is abundantly clear based on discussion here about its intended and actual yield, especially the yield of its second stage. If it did underperform, we can only guess as to the cause of the underperformance - one of the more common causes could be (and this is speculative) the inability of the containment shell of the primary to withhold the blast long enough for a proper trigerring of the secondary and hence a possible fizzle in the secondary stage. If from authorization to completion of the original design took 18 months, it is quite probable that within 6 months of the May 1998 tests, the team was able to redesign the primary shell. Ofcourse it has since not been re-tested.

The speculation regarding 8/12 warheads per Agni is based either on:

1. High confidence levels among the design team that the redesigned S1 warhead will perform.

or

2. The proven 200kt boosted fission warhead has been put on an efficiency diet and lost enough weight that 8 warheads can be mounted within a 1500kg payload.

But ultimately Kanson, this is all informed speculation. None of us is directly involved in these matters.

Added later: So from a conservative standpoint, at the minimum, India can mount 3 boosted fission warheads of 200kt each on a Agni 3 missile. 8 warheads is speculative at this point of time as given above.


Yes, we can talk abt things happened in 90's. We can talk why FBF was not tested seperately. We can talk abt when TN is not planned in first place, if we assume the device fizzled, first of all why they went public abt TN. We can talk if there is some discrepancy why there is they didnt went for sixth device..and also why cant they have one more TN on the secnod day. We argue continously on the limitd, outdated, rather i can say not further updated data. What is the point. Wht is imp is seeing where the industry is moving. One imp pointer in this direction is no. of warheads planned for each missile. One more info which more or less hit the final nail on this subject is the warhead yield. Anyway you had dicussion on Yield/weight. If you wonder how this 8 MIRV figure arised...from IT article on ATV...
[quote]“One submarine carries at least 12 missiles with Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles, which could mean as many as 96 warheads. When such a submarine goes out to the sea, that many missiles are removed from our own territory. The enemy’s targeting of that many sites gets neutralised,â€

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 17 Apr 2008 22:31

India's first report on civilian N-plants tabled at CNS

Mumbai (PTI): India's first report on safety of civilian nuclear power plants was presented Thursday at the Convention of Nuclear Safety (CNS) at Vienna by Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) Chairman S K Sharma.

India's complete compliance with obligations under all the relevant articles of the Convention in a 206-page report was presented by Sharma at the IAEA, AERB Secretary Om Pal Singh told PTI here.

CNS, which began on April 14, devoted one full day to India, Singh said.

Highlights of the report included legislative regulatory framework in India and co-operation with international nuclear regulatory bodies, he said, adding the report is available for public at www.aerb.gov.in.

Sharma was accompanied by 17 top officials from Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL), Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and AERB.

The CNS was adopted in June 1994. The convention was drawn up during a series of expert-level meetings from 1992 to 1994 and was the result of considerable work by governments, national nuclear safety authorities and the International Atomic Energy Agency's Secretariat.

India signed the convention in 1994 and ratified it in 2005 becoming eligible for presenting the national report on safety of civilian nuclear plants, Singh said.

CNS' aim is to legally commit participating states operating land-based nuclear power plants to maintain a high level of safety by setting international benchmarks to which states would subscribe.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2089
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Katare » 17 Apr 2008 22:43

ShauryaT wrote:
NRao wrote:


So, is that a "No"?
It means the nuclear deal does not translate to votes either way for any party and hence, from a political view point, heavens do not have to fall.


I think the statement meant to say that either way they won't be able to sign the deal. They have no way to sign it till left comes on board without them the deal will not have leaglity (minority govt). So if UPA insists, the govt will fall and a care taker govt can't sign deal of such importance.

Death is sure but no martyrdom and no votes either

It ain't happening, I see no way!

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

Postby Arun_S » 17 Apr 2008 22:44

Am busy with some work but will respond to Khatare and Kanson within 48 Hrs.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2089
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Katare » 17 Apr 2008 22:53

ShauryaT wrote:
Katare wrote:Hyde or "an Act" is needed because we don't want back door entry, we tested ours openly and legally. We want a front door entry and legal status that is why USA would have to legalize it.
Katare: There are other options on the table. Namely to take it slow, instead of full civilian nuclear cooperation.

This entire debate is rightly upon the type of entry, India seeks and what the US and its regimes are willing/able to accomodate today. There are many things that could be done, each with possiblity and caveates, none easy but firmly within the realm of possiblities and probablities. In each one, India would have had to pay some price, but my view is that the cumulative price would not have been as steep, if the process to full civilian nuclear cooperation were taken in steps.

- No objection to non NSG sourcing of Uranium: Price?
- Allow NSG countries to trade but not the US, due to its own laws but let others do: Price?
- Convince US executive to waive dual technology ban on items: Price?
- Defacto NWS type exemption in US law: Price?


Shaurya,

I think you are right the leaders on both side failed to see the issues and existing distrusts before firing this ambitious ‘silver bullet’ which was meant to cure all of the problems. They thought this would be sorta like "Shock and Awe" opening in Indo-US relationship and with in a year we'll be talking businesses worth billions of dollars.

In hindsight I think a more phased approach/CBM type measures would have been better.
Last edited by Katare on 17 Apr 2008 23:45, edited 1 time in total.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20763
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 17 Apr 2008 23:17

US committed to nuke deal with India: White House
Washington (PTI): A senior White House official has said that the United States is still committed to the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal and working hard to get it finalised. "We're still working on it. We're still working on it, and very committed to it (nuclear deal)," Earlier, Congress party spokesman Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who is in Washington, had said that "nobody can put a time line" on the successful conclusion of the nuclear accord.


http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/00 ... 170911.htm

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2923
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 17 Apr 2008 23:31

Arun_S wrote:Am busy with some work but will respond to Khatare and Kanson within 48 Hrs.
So far i asked is the source where PKI claimed the design yield as 20-25KT. Yes you can take your time, but come with the source, credible source, i mean no VoA, AIR etc...a link to the source is enough.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2089
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Katare » 17 Apr 2008 23:44

Neshant wrote:The only thing signing this treaty will bring is energy insecurity. Its also a backdoor for pushing through other measures to cap India's nuke program. Third its a means of selling over-priced goods to India perhaps at a low-balled cost but high life cycle cost (as Enron tried).

Large hydro electric dams are the best source of power in most cases. You'll notice how the western funded NGOs make a hue and cry about it everytime one is under construction.

They want to ensure developing countries like India and China don't make any progress on that front as Energy + Electricity + Water = Development.


Having these sanction happy countries as 'partners' in anything is a big mistake. They have been trying their best to prevent India's development for decades. There is no reason to trust them now.


Neshant,

You are right hydro electricity is one of the best methods of generating energy. although hydro electric potential of India is one of the best but its severely limited. Hydroelectric power projects have longest gestation periods, have highest capital cost, need largest amount of land, have huge environmental cost, human displacement cost, they are idle half the time and loose their capacity with time. They are financially viable only when they are also used for other purposes like irrigation and flood control.

In the most optimistic scenario when all the stars are aligned in our favor and everything that can be done is done, India can hope to have 84,000 MW of energy from hydroelectric sources. We need that and we may be able to get half of it in realistic scenario in next couple of decades. Clearly it's not enough and it would only constitute a small portion of our total energy mix.

Neshant wrote:Let us build out as many hydro dams as possible while the indigenous nuke industry gets its act together. I hear that the 500 MW reactor being built will be mass produced once its initial design is perfected.


We can mass produce as many reactors as we want like cars and trucks, only difference is that we can buy oil from gulf for our cars and trucks but we can't buy nuclear fuel for our mass produced reactors.

Already some 2000MW of nuclear power capacity is lying idle for want of fuel so is thousand's of MW of gas power plants. Fuel is the key not reactors or technology which can be developed in house or imported from outside. In the interview that Nrao posted (previous page) Kakodkar commented that pace of India's 3-stage program is more and less fixed you can't through more money into it to get more MW faster. The program would run with the speed of its weakest link, at any given time, it could be technology, Uranium mining issues, budget crunch or PSU/Dept inefficiencies (or any combination of these) .There is a very limited scope, if any, of changing anything radically to compress timeline of domestic program.

How is west trying to prevent India's development? I can see they are opposing our legitimate defense needs and protecting their own interests but I don't see what would/could they gain by opposing our development. If anything I see an extreme urge to benefit from humongous growth in India and China.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35617
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 18 Apr 2008 00:29

Unless India accepts shitty bitty, we have not concluded our explosive nuke tests. Voluntary moratoriums are economic shields and thus not a strategic of defence nature.

We will come back someday in the future, either in earth or in distant space (dispatched with trailing monitoring probes), that we would conduct the explosives before signing the sitting beauty.

Hence, we don't need to get over worked here on the testing, viz, signing the deal., unless the deal is all about CRE. If the decision by con-graze is extending, just blaming it on the leftie commies, they are taking the scape goat lefties for a big ride. The deal documents has pointers to CRE, is anybody's guess (on a benefit of doubt, favor the anti-CREing clout).

To me if S1 worked up to TN or BF, is a matter of deterrence that is largely for ASLV and its MIRV configurations. And, I am pretty confident that our labs will be able to conduct subcriticals and subsequent super testing, that still could use the blast chambers underground at some vindhya range.

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

Postby Arun_S » 18 Apr 2008 00:53

Kanson wrote:
Arun_S wrote:Am busy with some work but will respond to Khatare and Kanson within 48 Hrs.
So far i asked is the source where PKI claimed the design yield as 20-25KT. Yes you can take your time, but come with the source, credible source, i mean no VoA, AIR etc...a link to the source is enough.

What is it that you do not understand when I say I am busy with work and will compile replies to you and Khatare and post in 48 Hrs?

Should you get cheap and sarcastic, you should expect to be repaid in kind with compound interest, and not cry foul at that stage.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2089
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Katare » 18 Apr 2008 01:01

Arun_S wrote:
Kanson wrote:
Arun_S wrote:Am busy with some work but will respond to Khatare and Kanson within 48 Hrs.
So far i asked is the source where PKI claimed the design yield as 20-25KT. Yes you can take your time, but come with the source, credible source, i mean no VoA, AIR etc...a link to the source is enough.

What is it that you do not understand when I say I am busy with work and will compile replies to you and Khatare and post in 48 Hrs?

Should you get cheap and sarcastic, you should expect to be repaid in kind with compound interest, and not cry foul at that stage.


Arun,
Pl loose that extra 'h' It's spelled Katare, 'Khatare' sounds bit more dangerous than I really am :P

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49660
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 18 Apr 2008 01:02

SaiK I wish things are as simple as you put it. Its not matter of just testing sub-systems and being sure that the assembly would work as designed. The S2 was like that and BF is also similar. You can scale it.

TN is a different paradigm. Its like rasam and vetta koloumb. Yes they are both some sort of soup, but they are so very different !


To really understand TN one has to understand the stars- supernovas. It really is a controlled supernova and high physics and very little to do with chemistry. So it has to be demonstrated. It is high fund physics at etremely small time intervals and treats energy as matter!

One thing that nags me is why did RC and co decide on that without labs as Arun's posts indicate. If ti was matter of just showing capability then BF model was the one to test. Why they tried this is quite nagging? But then what will I do with the info! Past is past and all that.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2923
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 18 Apr 2008 02:00

Arun_S wrote:
Kanson wrote:
Arun_S wrote:Am busy with some work but will respond to Khatare and Kanson within 48 Hrs.
So far i asked is the source where PKI claimed the design yield as 20-25KT. Yes you can take your time, but come with the source, credible source, i mean no VoA, AIR etc...a link to the source is enough.

What is it that you do not understand when I say I am busy with work and will compile replies to you and Khatare and post in 48 Hrs?

Should you get cheap and sarcastic, you should expect to be repaid in kind with compound interest, and not cry foul at that stage.

Sir, you said the same thing to Katare few posts back but eventually you didnt responded. Seeing the same type of reply, I thought of saying I'm just interested in the source or just link. I dont know asking source is such a mistake to get threatened like this. If you dont have source to quote, i'm fine.
Last edited by Kanson on 18 Apr 2008 02:06, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49660
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 18 Apr 2008 02:01

I guess is PKI didint know chemistry you dont know physics! 8) Where did I say that S1 was scalable? Its the S2 that is, but to a point. And its not just lab experiments but some super fast computers are required if not tests. The stuff is whats fundamental to nature- Rayleigh _Taylor instability. And agian you will find many desis leading the research. unfortunatley not in desh!
Last edited by ramana on 18 Apr 2008 02:29, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35617
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 18 Apr 2008 02:20

:rotfl:

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 18 Apr 2008 02:38

ramana wrote:In his book 'Samson Option' Hersh talks of an earlier US AEC inspection that was performed under US govt pressure. It was a whitewash as they were led to non-critical areas.


This report has an animation showing how the Americans were "deceived" at the Pu facility.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf39qkvwOhU

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 18 Apr 2008 02:52

ramana wrote:One thing that nags me is why did RC and co decide on that without labs as Arun's posts indicate. If ti was matter of just showing capability then BF model was the one to test. Why they tried this is quite nagging?


Ramana, in a large org like DAE, teams are involved in creating such stuff. Can the collective team be so wrong in basics. My sense of this, without knowing the actual details, is that some small piece of the puzzle failed. Similar to one of the GSLV launch which failed because of bad part in one liquid engine strap-on. Design was sound but part failure caused entire shut-down. Of course, the follow up post mortem etc leaves much to be desired in the DAE case. Nevertheless, having a working system is more than having 2 in the bush so to speak.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49660
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 18 Apr 2008 03:02

yes bala. Please read about R-T intstabilities. It could be something as minor as the CNC machines that sunil used to talk about. 8)

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

Postby Arun_S » 18 Apr 2008 04:19

In this case, shock induced/related instabilities like the Richtmeyer-Meshkov instability play a far greater role by orders-of-magnitude, as compared with the Rayleigh-Taylor instability. This is especially true given the time scales involved.

Very different from CNC machine knowledge for sure. :twisted:

But super accurate machining is key to overcome these instabelities, somthing that SRDE mental makeup will always do a jugaad and then fall falt on their nose.

Wearing clean room suite after damage is done, does not help anything but befool the mind into false sense of safety, and when shakti pareekshan kee vela comes, fails the nation into capitulation.
Last edited by Arun_S on 18 Apr 2008 05:30, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49660
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 18 Apr 2008 05:00

Dont mistake my 8). It could be as simple as that!

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 18 Apr 2008 06:06

Edward Lorenz, father of chaos theory, dies
LINK
Thu Apr 17, 12:57 PM ET

NEW YORK (AFP) - Edward Lorenz, a meteorologist who became the father of the modern field of chaos theory, died Wednesday of cancer in Massachusetts aged 90, MIT announced Thursday.

A professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Lorenz was the first to identify chaotic behavior in the mathematical modeling of weather systems, in which small differences in a dynamic system, like the weather, "could trigger vast and often unsuspected results," the university said.

A committee that awarded him the 1991 Kyoto prize for basic sciences wrote that Lorenz's groundbreaking theory represented "one of the most dramatic changes in mankind's view of nature since Sir Isaac Newton."

Lorenz's research led him to develop what became known as the "butterfly effect," the idea that an infinitesimally small alteration -- like the flapping of an insect's wings -- can lead to potentially monumental consequences.

The term stemmed from his 1972 academic paper "Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly's Wings in Brazil Set off a Tornado in Texas?"

MIT said Lorenz's early work "marked the beginning of a new field of study that impacted not just the field of mathematics but virtually every branch of science -- biological, physical and social."

"Some scientists have since asserted that the 20th century will be remembered for three scientific revolutions -- relativity, quantum mechanics and chaos," the statement said.

The original experiment that lead to Lorenz's groundbreaking theory was conducted in 1961, when he was using a numerical computer model to rerun a weather prediction.

When, as a shortcut on a number in the sequence, he entered the decimal .506 instead of entering the full .506127, the result was a completely different weather scenario.

Lorenz published his findings in a 1963 paper for the New York Academy of Sciences noting that "if the theory were correct, one flap of a seagull's wings could change the course of weather forever."

Later speeches and papers by Lorenz replaced the seagull with the more poetic butterfly.

Lorenz was working as a weather forecaster for the US Army Air Corps during World War II when he decided to pursue further study in meteorology.

But he wrote once that his interests in things mathematical and meteorological dated back much earlier, to his childhood.

"As a boy, I was always interested in doing things with numbers, and was also fascinated by changes in the weather," Lorenz once wrote in an autobiographical sketch.

His daughter told the New York Times that Lorenz was active in his field to the end of his life, in addition to also being vigorous and fit.

"He was out hiking two and one-half weeks ago, Cheryl Lorenz told the daily, "and he finished a paper a week ago with a colleague."


Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 476
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Postby Sanatanan » 18 Apr 2008 13:31

Report from NDTV, quoting in full

IAEA agreement not final: Kakodkar

Pallava Bagla
Friday, April 18, 2008 (New Delhi)
Even as the Left and the UPA get set to hold another round of talks soon on the Indo-US nuclear deal, a new twist has come to light.

The Chief of the Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar has said that the India specific safeguards agreement negotiated with the world's atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency is 'not final'.

This is in sharp contrast from what Foreign Minister Pranab Mukerjee said in Washington on April 17, 2008, ''We have finalised the language of the text of the agreement for the process of signing. After that, it will be taken to the board of governors.''

He broke his silence for the first time in suggesting that the deal though satisfactory was stuck in politics.

NDTV: Is there more that needs to be achieved on that IAEA text?

Kakodkar: Well that depends what, well I think we have made very good progress there.

NDTV: But not clinched?

Kakodkar: Nothing is final till everything is final!

NDTV: When can we expect that?

Kakodkar: I won't be in a position to answer that question.

NDTV: What is happening on the Indo-Us civil nuclear deal?

Kakodkar: You know it as much you do. We only hope that things work out sooner than later. Let us see. In any case the domestic efforts are on and we hope to meet the domestic program needs on the basis of domestic strengths. If external inputs are available so much the better.

NDTV: Is it not affecting our domestic program at all?

Kakodkar: The fact is the domestic program was 10,000 MW the question is what rate I will be able to produce it and how fast. If we get inputs from outside we can do that much faster.
{Contrary to the rhetoric usually spouted by the Chiefs up to now, I think this may be a first-time admission, as a justification for the deal, that even indigenous nuclear power programme (with Indian NatU) requires foreign inputs.}


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 18 Apr 2008 16:55

Contrary to the rhetoric usually spouted by the Chiefs up to now, I think this may be a first-time admission, as a justification for the deal, that even indigenous nuclear power programme (with Indian NatU) requires foreign inputs


No it does not need foreign input.

As AK states:

how fast. If we get inputs from outside we can do that much faster.


The issue is "fast".....or quickly can India get to the finish line.

Besides that he is very specific - in THIS instance - to frame that "fast" by "10,000 MW".

I have never done the math, but I suspect this is what India can rely on outsiders to provide and not impact the three-stage.

WRT PranbDa, well "His Master's Voice" - HMV. Master has to hear/listen to the right tunes at times and that is what he sang. Master said in DC....he went to DC.

The AK-IAEA relationship is the most mature among ALL these relationships. I am more than sure that IAEA understands what AK wants and needs.....perhaps they do not agree with AK. On the flip side, AK knows the workings of the IAEA very, very well. IF at all he slides it will be because of the GoI, perhaps because of pressure from HMV.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 18 Apr 2008 16:59

I read this interview + the one by Singhvi(sp?) as the exit strategy of MMS. For Bush to get his deal he will have to make further compromises ASAP. The wheels - I think - have come off.

I think it will be wise for the US to compromise a lot more - make this a true civilian deal and keep the crap of strategic nonsense out of THIS deal. Everyone can circle back and talk about strategic assets l8r in the true strategic game.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35617
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 18 Apr 2008 19:13

why do you guys miss the important conjunction "if" stipulation.

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 396
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Postby Prabu » 19 Apr 2008 00:37

John Snow wrote:
Calling duly elected Prime Minster of India.....


What duly elected? If you mean duly selected by Sonia G, then you are absolutely right, but unfortunately he lives on the gratis of Left, :), Na sonia ka na china ka.

Let him elected from his strongest constituency, shall we say Bastar in Uttarchal, we will bow to him.


duly elected ???? :rotfl: :rotfl:

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 19 Apr 2008 03:40


svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 19 Apr 2008 04:06

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh-T ... nstability
This process is evident not only in many terrestrial examples, from salt domes to weather inversions, but also in astrophysics and electrohydrodynamics. RT fingers are especially obvious in the Crab Nebula, in which the expanding pulsar wind nebula powered by the Crab pulsar is sweeping up ejected material from the supernova explosion 1000 years ago.

Image
Hydrodynamics simulation of the Rayleigh-Taylor instability[1]


* Richtmyer-Meshkov instability
* Kelvin-Helmholtz instability
* Mushroom cloud
* Plateau-Rayleigh instability
* Salt fingering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richtmyer- ... nstability

During the implosion of an inertial confinement fusion target, the hot shell material surrounding the cold D-T fuel layer is shock-accelerated. Mixing of the shell material and fuel is not desired and efforts are made to minimize any tiny imperfections or irregularities(CNC Machines) which will be magnified by RMI.

Image

A three stage transition from a shock-accelerated layer with deterministic vortex-dominated growth, followed by a regime featuring both deterministic and stochastic growth of small-scale features, and ending with turbulent mixing of the layer with surrounding air.

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

Postby John Snow » 19 Apr 2008 05:42

Remember the finish requirements of Microwave guides for Radar and Sat communications is pretty demanding in surface (with respect to contour)finish of wave guide (metalic) tubes, which requires special manufacturing capabilities other wise signal atteunation is high and the power out put may suffer.

India for a long time used to import wave guides because of manufacturing limitations

Compared to this imagine the needs of a fusion device fitted with lens to focus the waves....

(hence the need for high precession CNC machines...)

Incidentally wave guides are also designed using the Rayleigh Taylor so are advanced Internal combustion engine designs.
Last edited by John Snow on 19 Apr 2008 07:57, edited 1 time in total.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 19 Apr 2008 07:16

John Snow,

This lovefest reminds me of Isaiah 11: 6-9. Look it up. :rotfl:

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

Postby John Snow » 19 Apr 2008 08:06

ldev wrote:John Snow,

This lovefest reminds me of Isaiah 11: 6-9. Look it up. :rotfl:


Interesting I did read, unlike you I did not grow up with Isaiah, but did grow up with Narasiah as clasmate ! :wink:

But I do believe one day Isaiah will come true. Read this we are in that direction of bear grazing with cow...

http://www.foodrevolution.org/grassfedbeef.htm

Just a snippet as move towards your refered Isaiah...

***
What About Grass-fed Beef?

Feeding grain to cattle has got to be one of the dumbest ideas in the history of western civilization.

Cows, sheep, and other grazing animals are endowed with the ability to convert grasses, which those of us who possess only one stomach cannot digest, into food that we can digest. They can do this because they are ruminants, which is to say that they possess a rumen, a 45 or so gallon (in the case of cows) fermentation tank in which resident bacteria convert cellulose into protein and fats.

Traditionally, all beef was grass-fed beef, but in the United States today what is commercially available is almost all feedlot beef. The reason? It's faster, and so more profitable. Seventy-five years ago, steers were 4 or 5 years old at slaughter. Today, they are 14 or 16 months. You can't take a beef calf from a birth weight of 80 pounds to 1,200 pounds in a little more than a year on grass. It takes enormous quantities of corn, protein supplements, antibiotics and other drugs, including growth hormones.

Switching a cow from grass to grain is so disturbing to the animal's digestive system that it can kill the animal if not done gradually and if the animal is not continually fed antibiotics. These animals are designed to forage, but we make them eat grain, primarily corn, in order to make them as fat as possible as fast as possible.

Author and small-scale cattleman Michael Pollan wrote recently in the New York Times about what happens to cows when they are taken off of pastures and put into feedlots and fed grain:

"Perhaps the most serious thing that can go wrong with a ruminant on corn is feedlot bloat. The rumen is always producing copious amounts of gas, which is normally expelled by belching during rumination. But when the diet contains too much starch and too little roughage, rumination all but stops, and a layer of foamy slime that can trap gas forms in the rumen. The rumen inflates like a balloon, pressing against the animal's lungs. Unless action is promptly taken to relieve the pressure (usually by forcing a hose down the animal's esophagus), the cow suffocates.

A corn diet can also give a cow acidosis. Unlike that in our own highly acidic stomachs, the normal pH of a rumen is neutral. Corn makes it unnaturally acidic, however, causing a kind of bovine heartburn, which in some cases can kill the animal but usually just makes it sick. Acidotic animals go off their feed, pant and salivate excessively, paw at their bellies and eat dirt. The condition can lead to diarrhea, ulcers, bloat, liver disease and a general weakening of the immune system that leaves the animal vulnerable to everything from pneumonia to feedlot polio."

All this is not only unnatural and dangerous for the cows. It also has profound consequences for us...... read at the cited site!
********

Oh by the way thanks for introducing Isaiah to me and into nuke thread and thats some fusion :D

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 19 Apr 2008 08:11

John Snow wrote:Oh by the way thanks for introducing Isaiah to me and into nuke thread and thats some fusion :D


You are most welcome! most welcome indeed!!. Any sort of fusion is also most welcome. But I was curious as to who is the lion and who is the lamb? :lol: :wink:

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 19 Apr 2008 11:51

Nuclear deal a 'problem of politics': Kakodkar


No Sir it is not a political problem alone it is also a problem of honesty and integrity at the highest level of leadership and scientific community

New Delhi (PTI): Noting that the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal is "more of a problem of politics", Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar on Friday hoped that differences on the issue would be sorted out soon.


The reason why the nuke deal is getting blocked may be political but the that the blockage has happened is the only saving grace of our democratic set up . The country owes the left a big lot of thanks for taking the stand they have taken whatever may be the reason

"It is more a problem of politics. I won't be in a position to answer that question," he said in reply to a query on when he expects to clinch the deal.


Please sir don't answer the question because if you do then we will also ask so many lies being propagated to day by the party in power to pass the deal through -starting from when the first of the imported reactors is expected ,about what kind of technology we expect to get from the deal,about limitation of fissile material inventory,about the private sector involvement in importing the reactors from US ,about why the top nuclear scientists in India is turning a blind eye to strategic implications of the deal etc etc .We may also ask why those initially strongly objected to the deal suddenly turned around and strted supporting the deal.

Asked if more needs to be achieved on the safeguards with the global nuclear watchdog IAEA, Kakodkar told NDTV, "nothing is final till everything is final and everything is obviously not final."

The top nuclear scientist said he "only hoped that things (related to the nuclear deal) work out sooner than later."

Kakodkar said he would be able to accelerate the domestic programme to produce nuclear power if he got "inputs from outside."

"In any case, the domestic efforts are on and we hope to meet the domestic programme needs on the basis of domestic strengths. If external inputs are available so much the better," he said.


So Sir let me ask you some very basic questions on the deal through this forum

- why did you initially object to the deal and later on supported it all the way
- what will be cost of the light water reactors we will get through this deal and what is the cost of the cost of pressurized water reactors we make today
-what will be the cost of power generated from our reactors viz a viz imported reactor and imported uranium
-how you plan to make the reactor grade plutonium availability to our weapons programme when 70% of the reactors come under safeguard
- why the private sector players like reliance and tata so much interersted in the nuclear deal along with ofcourse companies like general electric and Bachtel

- when do you expect the first of the imported reactors start producing
and when do you expect the our very own AHWR to start producing .According to information I have the demo AHWR at BARC is getting ready for start up .According to APJ it is seven year to commercial generation of power from AHWR so sir why do we need these old outdated light water reactors from US

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 19 Apr 2008 11:55

T
able 1
Major design parameters of AHWR.
Reactor power
Core configuration
Fuel cluster: 52 pins 750 MW (Thermal)
Vertical, Pressure tube type design
(Th-Pu)O2 : 20 pins
(Th-U233)O2 : 32 pins
Active fuel length
Linear heat rating of fuel
Fuel burn up
Moderator 3500 mm
350 Watts/cm
20 GWd/TeHM
Heavy water and amorphous carbon material
Reflector material
Reflector thickness Heavy Water
Radial direction
Axial direction 300 mm : Heavy Water
Top
Bottom 600 mm : Heavy Water
750 mm : Heavy Water
Coolant Boiling light water under natural circulation
Total core flow rate
Core inlet temperature
Feed water temperature
Average steam quality
Steam produced
Steam pressure and temperature
PHT loop height to maintain natural circulation 2576 kg/s (nominal)
271oC (nominal)
165oC
14%
362 kg/s
70 bar & 285oC
39 m.
Calandria diameter
Calandria height
Number of coolant channels
Lattice pitch
Pressure tube ID
Primary shut down system
Secondary shut down system 8600 mm
5000 mm
432
294 mm : square pitch
120 mm
36 of shut off rods having B4C
Lithium Pentaborate solution injected in 32 poison tubes
Number of adjuster rods
Number of regulating rods Four
Four

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

Postby Arun_S » 19 Apr 2008 13:34

Kanson states:
"If i'm not wrong, on POK-I PKI gave the value as low as 8KT, again Raja Ramanna later claimed that the design tested was weaponised. Your claim of 20-25KT appears to me as mischievous. No offence though"

1) First, the basis for stating a design yield of 20-25 KT is outlined by providing references for the amount of fuel used.

Two separate sources:
    A) "How Nuclear Weapons Spread: Nuclear-weapon Proliferation in the 1990s" by Frank Barnaby, see page 73:
    Google book link
There is another source (Sublette): http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/Ind ... iling.html that also states a similar figure. Sublette's reference is not utilized in this argument because, therein it is stated that the Pu came from PURNIMA, when in fact it was sourced from CIRUS (PURNIMA was incapable of generating Pu). In all probability this is a typo. Still, to avoid diluting this retort, this reference is not used.

Thus, Barnaby's book and Wikipedia are used as references for the fuel to be ~ 6 kg. Pu. In any case, solid core devices typically require WGpu in the range of 5-6 Kgs.

2. Since this was the first Indian test, it would be a rational/common sense decision to mimic the design of the Nagasaki device! This conjuncture has been backed up by Frank Barnaby, and other literature.

3. The design yield for the Nagasaki device (Circa 1945) was 20-23 KT using 6.2 Kgs. WGPu.

4. Given the amount of Pu fuel from Barnaby's book and Wikipedia, and, the fact that lenses, reflectors, and knowledge of containment had improved considerably since 1945, a 20-25 KT design yield is reasonable. Further, the BARC team of PKI and RC had sufficient access to literature on the Nagasaki device and 30 years of additional experience and an accumulated knowledge base to improve over the Nagasaki design.

5. Despite the fact that India (BARC) was world class in theoretical nuclear physics in 1950's and early 60's under Bhabha, all that knowledge bank was squandered away, and never translated into any experimental results worthy of this immense knowledge base (thanks in no small part to PKI, RC and crew). Sarabhai too was world class, but was queasy about weaponization. However it must be stated that he was a top notch physicist who made fundamental contributions in cosmic ray physics, and a good and honest man.

Also note that Bhabha is quoted in book that is considered The Bible on radiation physics: "The Quantum Theory of Radiation" by W. Heitler. All persons who are quoted therein contributed much to the progress of modern physics!

6. Given the above arguments, a 10 KT design yield using ~ 6 Kg. WGPu is ludicrous, to say the least!

7. I said on 12 Apr 2008 10:30 pm
BTW, POK-1 yield was ~12 kT against a design yield of 20-25 KT......
The stated lower bound on the yield (~ 12 KT) is because the onset of Radiation Hydrodynamics (RHD) was observed. RHD is a phenomenon which occurs when radiation acquires a fluid-like behavior, which reflected in the post-shot debris. RHD cannot/does not occur in tests having a yield of 8 KT, so RC's statement on this count is more accurate. This is possibly what made PKI change his "estimate" of the POK-1 test yield to about 10 KT!

8. Summarizing, RC was correct on the test yield of POK-1, while PKI was accurate about certain critical aspects of the failure of S-1 as a TN test!!!


Kanson should now enlighten us with an explanation of his use of the term mischievous, to describe the assessment of the POK-1 design yield as 20-25 KT !!
------------------
Edited later: Fixed the long url length. and couple of small corrections.
Last edited by Arun_S on 20 Apr 2008 03:32, edited 2 times in total.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 19 Apr 2008 17:20

India happy to participate in providing home to nuclear fuel bank
India on Saturday said it would be happy to participate in providing a home to a nuclear fuel bank for supplying fuel to nations interested in renewing their atomic energy programmes.

"We run a full nuclear fuel cycle of our own and we would be happy to participate in providing a home for a nuclear fuel bank," Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon said in an interactive session at the India Global Forum here.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest