Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread: 16 Apr 2008

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 19 Apr 2008 17:36

I don't know whether Arun is right or wrong but he is stating his arguments in straight forward objective manner. While I cannot help but note that Kanson is spending lot of energy raising retorts, questions and pettingfogging without clearly enunciating his own stand & the logic as also references behind them. Nit picking his easy, so I think we should call upon him to draw his own pictures rather than suggesting vague corrections

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 19 Apr 2008 17:40

On side note "Weapons of peace" made reference to Pu core of 3 to 8 kg. So what this 8 kg core was for?

Kalantak
BRFite
Posts: 110
Joined: 24 Feb 2008 12:01

Postby Kalantak » 19 Apr 2008 18:24

India ready to provide home for n-fuel bank: Menon

Apr 19 2008
New Delhi

Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon on Saturday said India would be glad to provide a home for a nuclear fuel bank, which would supply 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," Menon said in an interactive session at the India Global Forum in New Delhi.

He also pointed out that discussions on the issue of setting up a nuclear fuel bank "were a long way away."

The concept of establishing an international nuclear fuel bank was put forth by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohammad ElBaradei last year.

It also seeks to set up an international uranium enrichment facility from where countries can source their nuclear fuel requirements to run atomic power plants.

When asked about the civil nuclear agreement with the US, Menon said: "We hope to bring the deal to "fruition" soon."

"We hope civil nuclear cooperation with the US and other countries will become possible soon ... we hope to bring it to fruition soon," he added.

Answering a question on the Iran issue, Menon said it was not in India's interest to have another nuclear weapons state in its neighbourhood, but added that Tehran had the right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy, subject to it meeting its international obligations.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 19 Apr 2008 18:24

The headline is deceptive!
U.S. Ends Effort to Ban Sale Of Enrichment Technology
By NEIL KING JR. (in the Wall Street Journal)
April 19, 2008; Page A9

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has given up its push for an international ban on sales of uranium-enrichment technology to nonnuclear states, a move that will complicate its nuclear diplomacy toward both Iran and India, and could open the way for a wave of new entrants into the enrichment club.

The concession was made under heavy pressure from Canada, which wants the right to build uranium-enrichment plants to export the lucrative enriched fuel for nuclear-power plants. It marks an about-face for President Bush, who called in February 2004 for a ban on new countries becoming enrichment powers. The U.S. then persuaded Canada and other reluctant members of the Group of Eight top industrialized countries to agree to a nuclear-sales moratorium, a ban the group has renewed every year since.

The policy shift within the administration comes after lengthy debate between the White House and the State Department over how to accommodate Canada's quest to become an enrichment state. Canada produces, and then exports in raw form, more than a quarter of the world's uranium.

An administration official said that by backing the new rules, the U.S. is "leading an effort at the NSG to establish tough criteria to restrict" permanently the transfer of sensitive technologies. "This is just another way of achieving what the president called for" when he proposed a ban in 2004, the official said.

Critics said the move, by basically endorsing the idea of new enrichment countries, will further complicate international efforts to stop Iran from mastering the uranium-enrichment process. The U.S. is also trying to keep alive its long-running quest to cut a nuclear-cooperation deal with India that must first win approval from the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The U.S.-backed rules would prohibit India from acquiring enrichment technologies because it isn't a signatory to a key nonproliferation treaty. India is seeking an exemption from NSG restrictions.

The decision to drop the moratorium effort foreshadows what many see as the coming rebirth of civilian nuclear power. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been championing nuclear-power projects around the world, and many countries are reluctant to spend billions on a nuclear-power station without having some homegrown ability to make their own fuel.

In the last year, about a dozen Middle East countries have announced an interest in pursuing nuclear power, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Libya.

But word of the Bush administration's policy shift has raised alarms in nonproliferation circles over the potential that a flock of new uranium-enrichment countries will raise the risk of nuclear materials falling into the wrong hands.

"It is hard to see how this would deal with the problem that there are already too many people enriching and reprocessing nuclear fuel," said John Wolf, a former top nonproliferation official at the State Department, who left the administration in 2004.

Mr. Bush launched his push for a sales moratorium at a time of spiking alarm over Iran's nuclear ambitions and revelations that A.Q. Khan, father of the Pakistani nuclear program, had illicitly sold nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group, created in 1975, has never had firm rules to regulate the international sales of nuclear technologies, relying instead on commitments that all members exercise "restraint." So the new set of U.S.-backed criteria, if agreed to by all, would mark a tightening of standards.

The new rules would bar transfers to countries that are not members of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or that don't allow full international oversight and inspections. The administration is pushing for at least two rules that could raise hackles among other NSG members. One is that any purchasers would have to agree to particularly stringent and wide-ranging United Nations-led oversight and inspections of their nuclear facilities. The other is a requirement that all technologies sold would have to be immune from duplication.

U.S. government officials said that the Canadian government, which declined to comment, has objected to the second provision, saying it wants the right to develop, and possibly sell, its own enrichment technology.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 19 Apr 2008 18:28

Arun_S wrote: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:
    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 (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......
This 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 !!

Arun, it is not unusual to make conjectures and draw assumptions. Rather than giving facts what you shown is your assumptions drawn on figure 6 kg. You further went on to claim RC and team has access to Nagasaki lit and the assumption is POK-I could be based on Nagasaki design. I like to bring it your attention the venn diagram shown by RC on the sharing of tech among N powers, where India stood seperate. How that explains your assumption that POK-I is based on Nagasaki design.

2. PKI who broke ranks and claimed the yield as 8 KT, didnt claimed 20-25kt as design yield. As per the source you quoted, it is 10KT. I think he was Team leader at that time. Do you think the Team leader doesnt know the design yield ?

3. For your claim of 20-25kt you quoted GOI reports, where is that ?

4. Here we are not engaging in the assesment of desgin yield. When we were discussing over facts on POK-I you made a claim of 20-25 KT. When asked abt the source/fact you at best came with assumptions.

If you insist in asking me is that mischievous ? My answer is Yes.
Last edited by Kanson on 19 Apr 2008 20:43, edited 1 time in total.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 19 Apr 2008 18:30

Raj Malhotra wrote:I don't know whether Arun is right or wrong but he is stating his arguments in straight forward objective manner. While I cannot help but note that Kanson is spending lot of energy raising retorts, questions and pettingfogging without clearly enunciating his own stand & the logic as also references behind them. Nit picking his easy, so I think we should call upon him to draw his own pictures rather than suggesting vague corrections

:) Becoz the vlaues are vague, information is limited and opinions are scattered. I dont see any value in clearing other claims you made. And I stand with reality. If you want to make any worthful contribution you are welcome.

Alright, few posts back, Ramana claimed S1 is not scalable. RC said upto 200KT and Arun is saying 200-300KT. Which one you recommend me to take ? on what basis ?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 19 Apr 2008 21:42

As a random thought, seeing discussions on this page, I recalled an article I picked up while on holiday in Goa in 1999. I post here FWIW. Sorry about the OCR formatting that I have not corrected.

Atomic War and its holocaust - by Prakash Morasker
Goa Herald 5 th May 1999
An atomic bomb causes explosion by
either splitting (Fission) or by the join
ing (fusion)of the Atomic Nuclei. The
energy is supplied by the isotopes of Uranium,
Plutonium or Hydrogen, and is released when
the nucleus of the atom undergoes fission or
fusion. The yield of energy from thermonuclear
reaction is vastly greater than that from TNT
(Trinitrotoluene) explosions. Complete fis-
sion of 500gms of Uranium of Plutoniurn would
release approximately as much energy as an
explosion of 9000 tons of TNT, Fusion of all the
nuclei in 500 gms of Deuterium would yield the
energy of 36000 tonnes of TNT. TNT explosion
destroys by shock only, whereas a nuclear war-
head causes damage by intensive heat, releasing
lethal radiation and lasting poisonous contami-.
nation. The atomic bomb which was dropped on
Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 consisted of
Uranium, and the one which was dropped on
Nagasaki on August 9, 1945 consisted of Plu-
tonium. The Hydrogen bomb is a
fusion device. A vast amount of energy is released
when common hydrogen isotopes like
Deutenum or Tritium are fused
at extremely high temperatures (millions of de-
grees) These reactions are know n as Therrno-
nuclear or heat induced reactions hence the
weapon is known as a Thermonuclear bomb to serve as
a trigger The atom bomb produces neutrons and -
the heat that is needed to ignite the hydrogen
bomb. The yield or total energy released by a
Hydrogen bomb is expressed in rnegatons. About
500 gms of 'Hydrogen can yield power equivalent
to about 29 kilotons of TNT needed to
produce an explosion of the same intensity.
A fission device, which proves the capability
to build a quick and crude bomb (already proved
in 1974); a low-yield device which can be
weaponised as warhead for the Prithvi missiles,
and a thermonuclear device of superpower cat-
egory which can be converted into bombs of
hundreds of kilotons.
At present, India has leapfrogged into a po
tential megaton superpower from mere nuclear
capability. India's thermonuclear device was
actually a technological breakthrough achieved
by the BARC scientists in extracting Tritium
from heavy water available in the country's
atomic power reactors. India had chosen heavy
water as moderator in its reactors long ago.
Heavy water has a high content of highly radio-
active isotopes of Hydrogen. BARC scientists,
in order to avoid the exposure of the reactor
workers for the radiation levels, first attempted
to extract the Tritium through water distillation,
but they were failed in this process. so they
thought of chemical exchange process, followed
cryogenic distillation. In this method, Tritium
exists in liquid form only during the chemical
exchange process. Through cryogenic distillation,
it IS converted into a gas which can be stored
in reinforced containers. The Tritium thus ob-
tained is 90 percent enriched which incidentallv
is the requirement for the thermonuclear device.
incidentally, another Hydrogen isotope Deute-
rium can also be used for the thermonuclear
weapon design and this is why thermonuclear
bombs are popularly called Hydrogen bombs.
Tritium has a half life of 12.3 years, in other words,
the stockpile will be reduced to 50 percent in this
period and the vanished half would have con-
verted into Helium-3.
Nuclear weapons that are not pure fission
weapons use fusion, the reaction that produces
energy in the sun, to enhance their destructive
effects. But these weapons require a fission bomb
to provide the energy to initiate the fusion reac-
tions. In these weapons, a few kilograms of a
Deuterium or Tritium gas mixture is included in the
centre of the fissionable core. When the bomb core
undergoes enough fission, it becomes hot enough
to ignite the D-T fusion reaction, which proceeds
swiftly. It turns out that I kg of Plutonium
suffices. The D-T fusion reaction produces an
intense burst or high energy neutrons that causes
a correspondingly intense burst of fissions rate in
the core. This accelerates the fission rate in the
core, and allows a higher percentage of the material
in the core to fission before it blows apart. The
efficiency of the weapon can be further increased
by having a Uranium-238 blanket around the
central assembly, because the neutrons produced
in the D~T reaction have the right energy to split
the U-238 nuclei. However, an interesting method
exists that obviates this by the use of a solid fuel
in the form of Lithium Deuteride (LiD). When a
neutron from an initial fissile trigger strikes LID,
it produes Tritium and Helium. The D and T then
fuse to produce a lot of energy and lots of neutrons.
The device exploded on May 11 last year, had in fact
used LiD, but its energy yield was kept down
by using a mantle made up of non-fissile material
and reducing the amount of D and T.
Right in the' beginning the Uranium is mined
and milled. India's Uranium mill is in Bihar. Here,
the ore js milled and then sent for purification to
plants in Hyderabad and Trombay and fabricated
into Uranium oxide fuel bundles at Hyderabad' s
nuclear fuels complex. Following this, the ura-
nium bundles are sent to the Dhruva reactor in'
Trombay. Here the Uranium fuel bundles are
irradiated to create the kind Plutonium needed
for nuclear weapons. Plutonium -239 is' chemi-
cally extracted from irradiated fuel, and pressed
into a coconut-sized spherical cores. This job is
done usually at three main Plutoniom process'ing
plants at Trombay , Tarapur and Kalapakkam. One
spherical core is weighing around 8 kg which is
the core of the nuclear weapon . After this a
nuclear device is ready for a test explosion.

Nuclear device test-explosion is carried out by
two different systems; first is the actual test
explosion at the test site. And, second is by means
of simulated test-explosion with the help of a
supercomputer.
Initially, the Plutonium cores and the triggers are
carried to the test site separately, and there they are
assembled. A nuclear bomb explodes when electri
cal switches on each segment of the conventional
explosive 'lens' are charged. The explosive implodes
simultaneously and symmetrically onto the
fissile core and sets off the nuclear chain reaction.
With the development of Param- 10,000 by C-
DAC (Centre for Development of Advanced Corn-
puting) at Pune. Lndia is confident of testing a
nuclear device. The 100-gigaftops Param-10,000
has been designed using sun's latest 1 60ultrasparc -
II processors. 100-gigaflops means, it can do
lOO;000,000,0OO floating point operations per sec
ond; a flop is the addition of two large decimal
numbers. It works on a principle that if a single
computer takes 'X' amount of time to perform a
function, 100 computers should take x/l00! Of the
same time to perform the same function. A bunch
of microprocessors split the task and do "Parallel
processing" at lightning speed. It can stimulate
nuclear-explosions; help miniaturisation of N-weap-
ons and solve storage problems. Besides it can
simulatemissile launch , cutting missile
development cycles programme by the order of a
decade. C-DAC's 'Sabre' software can simulate war
games, troop and infrastructure movements ctc.
Invariably computer simulation and modelling
are meant to reduce the cost of any manufacturing
programme. In the nuclear case, it involves the
weaponising programme, the design, production,
testing and certification of nuclear weapons. Since
the weapons are expected to vary, so too will the
modelling and computational capabilities. Once a
weapon enters a stockpile, opportunities for direct
inspection and testing are limited and expensive.
Maintaining such high levels of product reliability
and safety without direct testing requires computa-
tion and modelling at every stage. Still, there are
several handicaps behind the com puter simulations
of N-explosions. Computer simulations cannot
substitute live testing. Any nuclear physicist will
vouch that data from nuclear tests arc far more
crucial for developing and maintaining an arsenal
than the availability of high power computing. No
computer in the world, however powerful, can
execute nuclear weapons design codes based only
on fundamental physics. Extremely physical condi-
tions produced in a nuclear explosion, temperatures.
pressures, densities, and the very brief time over
which it occurs, one-millionth of a second or less,
make accurate and detailed physical measurements
of a nuclear explosion difftcult and expensive.
Modern theononuclear weapons are typically
around a metre in length and consist of two stages.
These are structurally distinct and produce different
effects in terms of temperature, pressure etc. and
the numbers of photons and neutrons produced and
their energies . During the explosion,energy in the
form of Gamma rays ,and neutrons flows from the
first stage (primary) to compress and ignite the
second stage (secondary) which typically produces
95 per cent or more of the total weapon yield.


svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 19 Apr 2008 22:26

Kanson wrote:

Alright, few posts back, Ramana claimed S1 is not scalable. RC said upto 200KT and Arun is saying 200-300KT. Which one you recommend me to take ? on what basis ?

BR is not a place for fishing information. You take out what info is avialable and let it go

Keshav
BRFite
Posts: 633
Joined: 20 Sep 2007 08:53
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby Keshav » 19 Apr 2008 22:34

Should their be a penalty for not truncating long URL's?

www.tinyurl.com

Use it to make your links shorter and help the formatting of the page stay normal.

vsunder
BRFite
Posts: 691
Joined: 06 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Ulan Bator, Mongolia

Postby vsunder » 20 Apr 2008 01:04

The first tests of all powers who tested in the 60's were huge tests.
China's first test(1964) was 25kt. France tested for the first time (1960)in the Maghreb and their first test was a whopping 60-70kt. So why is it that these countries tried to test at such high levels.? The answer is that a high yield first test allows you to have a bonafide primary for the fusion device.
"Low yield" fission devices just may not provide a succesful primer for a fusion device. Witness the fact that China took only 32 months after their successful first test of a fission device to explode a fusion device. This can be traced to a highly successful primary fission device. Note too that in S-1 the primary was 25 kt this is open source info. Thus it was in India's interest to test in the 25kt range in POK-1 and if succesful it means that now one also has a succesful primary for a fusion device if need be. If not then one needs to work harder. I had mentioned Rayleigh-Taylor problems a long time ago in this forum but nobody paid notice now I notice it has become a hot topic.

By the way John Snow, dont Bessel functions also a play a role in cavity resonators? Should be, the magnetic field drives the electric field which in turn drives the magnetic field and so on each playing an infinite ringo ringo roses and lo and behold you get an infinite series that a small calculation tells me is Bessel function of order zero. Now choose the resonator radius exactly at the first zero of the Bessel function and voila you have a very efficient cavity resonator. That is what my little back of the enevelope calculation tells me. Am I wrong?


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

Postby NRao » 20 Apr 2008 03:29


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50412
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 20 Apr 2008 05:55

Folks I know Sarakar is mai baap . But only for roti, kapda, aur makan. When it comes to surakhasa all bets are off. Otherwise J.L. Nehru cannot be criticized for the 1962 China debacle. Those who say UPA and MMS should not be criticized for not being forthcoming should also not criticize JLN for 1962. All our ancestors fought the Brits to get this freedom and no one has a monopoly by virtue of holding office or accident of birth. Hope everyone understands.

Thanks, ramana

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

Postby John Snow » 20 Apr 2008 08:40

vsunder guruvu garu>> brings back my old days when I was proud to be an engineer, now Udar poshanardham (ardham is as you know is, 'meaning' as well as 'money') I am DOO that is desi pracle operator!

In any case you are dot on with your observation about bessel functions applicability with regard to electro magnetic wave propagation in cylindrical wave guide, heat transfer in cylinders, diffusion in lattice etc.

I recently ran into a young relative of mine IIT M (B Tech) alumni 1999 , MS In computational Fluid Dynamics from Uinversity of Md worked on projects for NASA through school in Computaional Fluid Dynamics experiments, is alas in Citi Bank as Associte VP doing commodity pricing & trading optimization using RT and Bessel functions...

Gave me some sadistic consolation that I was not the only to desert engg to DOO...

Raju

Postby Raju » 20 Apr 2008 09:36

NUCLEAR CALENDAR

The U.S. Congress will go in to a Recess in August 2008.

The Nuclear Deal is currently ready for approval by the IAEA. The International Atomic Energy Agency is waiting for the Government of India to sign the India Specific Safegaurds Agreement.

The Manmohan Government is delaying Signing the IAEA Agreement for tactical reasons.

The Communists will Topple the Government the moment the Government moves the Deal from the IAEA to the Nuclear Suppliers Group of 45 nations.

The NSG will within a Fortnight of receiving the INDIA-IAEA Agreement approve it with the Rider that it must be approved by the US Congress.

President Bush and Secretary Condoleeza Rice have spoken personally to each of the 45 Nations in the NSG and have received their compliance to approve the IAEA-India Agreement the moment it is received.

The Indian Government will take the India-U.S. Nuclear Deal from the IAEA to the NSG so that the US Congress will approve it before the August Recess!

The India-U.S. Nuclear Deal will be successfully concluded in August 2008.


TAILPIECE

Congress President Sonia is committed to the Nuclear Deal and will ensure its success.

If the Communists Topple the Government in September then Elections will be held to the Lok Sabha in March 2008.
Almost close to the scheduled Polls in May 2009
!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50412
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 20 Apr 2008 09:58

There is something odd in the news reports of MKN worried about TSP loose nukes, US wanting more access to TSP nukes, the recent Gilani visiting the TSP NCA charade. All these point to something is not right. As GD says my spider sense says there could be forward deployment of the Pakistani stuff and Gilani visit is to present a facade of civilian accountability for TSP command structure. All I can say is that Indian NFU comes with the Godfather clause- if even lightning strikes and sets of anything in India it will TSP and its supporters (up the supply chain and command) who will get the response and retaliation.

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

Postby Arun_S » 20 Apr 2008 13:01

Kanson states:
You further went on to claim RC and team has access to Nagasaki lit and the assumption is POK-I could be based on Nagasaki design.

1. The Nagasaki design was almost entirely in literature available to the BARC well before 1974. Further it is not unreasonable to assume that India had even more access through Operation Ploughshare. As I have stated in point 2 of my previous retort, Barnaby has stated the almost certain fact that the Nagasaki design was the basis for the POK-1 design, in his book which is cited in my previous retort. This is supported/augmented/boosted by the very reasonable argument that since this was the first Indian test, it would be a rational/common sense decision to mimic the design of the Nagasaki device to gain some experience!

Finally, there are two points that need to be noted in this regard:

a.) on pg. 56 of his book "The Armageddon Factor", Dr.Sanjay Badri Maharaj has this to say about the WGPu in POK-1
"It is not known exactly how much plutonium was was used for the test, but, some informed Indian guesstimates indicated that it was about 10kg - about one year's output from Cirus reactor (ref 34: Albright & Hibbs 'India's Silent Bomb' BoAS Sept 92. p29)). This figure includes some Plutonium lost during the machining of the core of the bomb. This leaves about 6-8 kg in the device itself."
b.) R. Chengappa on pg. 111 in his book "Weapons of Peace" makes an oblique reference to a Nagasaki type device in his statement
" Most researchers on the subject overlook this fundamental requirements while trying to understand why India had to weight till 1974 to do a test. For by 1967, though the plutonium reprocessing plant had been supposedly functioning for 2 years, its output was only a trickle. The promised eight to ten Kilogram annual production of weapon grade plutonium -- enough for a Nagasaki type of bomb --- was proving to be a mirage with the plant functioning only in fits and starts."


Kanson states:
I like to bring it your attention the Venn diagram shown by RC on the sharing of tech among N powers, where India stood separate. How that explains your assumption that POK-I is based on Nagasaki design.

1. I know of RC's "famous" Venn diagram!

2. Throughout his talk at the IISc, he showed no hard evidence that would stand up to rigorous review. It had stuff that was cooked up by him and his team highlighting India's sophistication in NW(Nuclear Weapon) design, with regards to the Shakti tests, and the S-1 "TN device (sic!)".

3. RC's Venn diagram shows the historical sharing of NW knowledge indicating the self-reliance of the Indian NW development program. There's no mention whatsoever of any specific Indian NW test, let alone device! In fact, it (the Venn diagram) isn't even his own, but borrowed from the article:

Christopher E. Paine and Matthew G. McKinzie, Does the U.S. Science - Based Stockpile Stewardship Program Pose a Proliferation Threat ?, Science and Global Security, Vol. 7, pp. 151 - 193 (1998).

RC's publication citing the source of the "famous" Venn diagram may be obtained at:

http://www.saag.org/papers5/paper451.html

4. India used the CIRUS reactor to obtain the Pu for POK-1, and scaled the model up for the Dhruva, the Purex solvent extraction method in its Pu reprocessing plants, Uhde technology to build heavy water plants, virtually duplicated the CANDU reactors, etc.......... All these were used by India in developing NW's, and QUITE RIGHTLY SO! Technology has always spread, and then contributed to different uses and ends. I'm not stating that what India did was wrong. In fact, I wish it had gotten its hands on MORE stuff.

But the notion that India developed everything by itself is a bit hokey! But it does not put India in the same class as Pakistan, because there were always some modifications, and the technology was obtained LEGALLY and kept under tight watch by the Indians. Drawing analogies to the above cases, using details of the Nagasaki device that were available to India well before 1974, it was quite logical to base POK-1 on a design derived from the Nagasaki device!

5. In summary, the Venn diagram was meant for reporters, journalists, and kids, and, means *nothing* in terms of hard technical data or physically acceptable/credible logic, and sound hypothesis/conjecture/argument/theory! The famous Venn diagram might, however, fly over the heads of most Indian politicians, and in all probability persons possessing "outstanding caliber", crowing at some unmentionable blog for wayward vagrants!

6. Even assuming RC's Venn diagram represents an encapsulation of all the detailed technical knowledge of NW's extant and a Gift from God, it does not treat the POK-1 test or any specific Indian NW test for that matter!

Kanson states:
"2. PKI who broke ranks and claimed the yield as 8 KT, didnt claimed 20-25kt as design yield. As per the source you quoted, it is 10KT. I think he was Team leader at that time."

1. PKI started off by claiming a test yield of 8 KT for a design yield of 10 KT (see http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaSmiling.html , "..............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' "., and, www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/jul102001/72.pdf). Note that here it is explicitly stated that PKI implied a 10 KT design yield and a 8 KT test yield!

There's a difference between the two - test yields and design yields! Test yields are always significantly lower than design yields. The level of degradation depends upon the quality of the designers.
The very close proximity of the test yield and the design yield in itself is suspicious. Then, he (PKI) upgraded the test yield to 10 KT, which was the figure earlier attributed to the design yield. This is a feat for which PKI should have been awarded the Nobel Prize, or more, if such an honor exists! Nuclear Weapons possessing test yields coinciding with design yields exit the realm of physics and enter into the exciting realm of magic!

Two facts need to be stated herein:

a.) Apart from domestic political compulsions, POK-1 was driven by the nuclearization of China. It is reasonable to believe that India would try to equal or beat the Chinese in its first Nuclear Weapon test (Reference: K. Subramanyam "Indian Nuclear Policy -1964-98 (A personal recollection) Page 39-44, in the book "Nuclear India" by Air Commodore Jasjit Singh (Ed.), (1998)).
The result was abysmal ( a maximum test yield of 12 KT).

b.) To assume that PKI, RC, Sikka, AK consciously designed the test for the abysmal maximum reported 12 KT test yield, despite all the knowledge and resources that they had at their disposal, makes attributing the adjectives of pathetic and incompetent to them, seem like a generous tribute. These worthies have time and again shown themselves to be "petty dwarfs" when compared with "giants" like Bhabha and Sarabhai.

My concern is about Indian interests, not the thriving and multiplication of number of dubious vested interests, or, a government that is divorced from Indian Interests.

Kanson states:
For your claim of 20-25kt you quoted GOI reports, where is that

1. Where in my retort have I quoted GoI reports?

2. In a nutshell, I have stated that if the Nagasaki device used 6.2 Kgs. WGPu to obtain a design yield of 20-23 KT in 1945, then after 30 years, improvements in components and a substantially better understanding of the concerned physics, ~ 6 Kgs of WGPu (see Barnaby's book and the Wikipedia article for open literature sources) should have corresponded to a design yield ~ 20-25 KT! I further add here in this retort, especially given the "wizards" involved with the design of POK-1, that even a test yield of ~ 12 KT is quite a bit low!

Kanson, you appear to have either a reading problem, or a thinking problem, or personal integrity problem, or, a combination there of! This has been obvious from the beginning. I am tired of humoring you, and wasting my time. If you have any further useless questions/objections, take a strong purgative and clear your head!
------------
Edited to fix typo/grammer on RC's publication citing the source of the "famous" Venn diagram.
Last edited by Arun_S on 22 Apr 2008 02:19, edited 1 time in total.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6975
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby JE Menon » 20 Apr 2008 13:12

Just to inject a point of clarity. It is not RC's Venn Diagram and he has never claimed it as his. It is referenced to the correct people in his article in SAAG. It is we on BR and others who simply associated it with him....

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

Postby Arun_S » 20 Apr 2008 13:14

ramana wrote:There is something odd in the news reports of MKN worried about TSP loose nukes, US wanting more access to TSP nukes, the recent Gilani visiting the TSP NCA charade. All these point to something is not right. As GD says my spider sense says there could be forward deployment of the Pakistani stuff and Gilani visit is to present a facade of civilian accountability for TSP command structure. All I can say is that Indian NFU comes with the Godfather clause- if even lightning strikes and sets of anything in India it will TSP and its supporters (up the supply chain and command) who will get the response and retaliation.

Pakistan might already have had a few nuclear weapons in India brought in by terrorists. The above "God-Father clause" should be unambigiously clear to TSP and its supporters (up the supply chain and command, across 360 degree azimuth) of assured response and retaliation.

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

Postby Arun_S » 20 Apr 2008 14:27

Raj Malhotra wrote:On side note "Weapons of peace" made reference to Pu core of 3 to 8 kg. So what this 8 kg core was for?

Boss you got the bull by its balls. Develop it further and you can see the truth to S1's design yield.

WOP Changappa saying fissile core for the Shakti test weighed from 2 to 8 kg.

The 8 kg clearly corresponds to the TN weapon, and that is the strongest evidence that the TN was a full 200kt configuration with fissile (not inert, nor fertile U238) tertiary stage.

A well designed TN almost completely consumes the fissile (Pu/U235) material in Tertiary & push primary efficiency well above 50% mark, apart from generating yield from fast fission of natural Uranium bomb case material.

It is public knowledge that fission of 1 kg of fissile or fertile material generates ~21 kT yield.

The said 8 Kg fissile material went to make the core for Primary (~2 Kg) and the rest ~6Kg was spark plug and tertiary stage. This would generate ~140kT fission fuel yield. The yield from fusion stage expected at ~40kT. The Fusion stage generates fast neutrons that can be shown capable of generating additional 30-160 kt fast fission yield (depending on case material thickness of Natural Uranium)

The 8Kg fissile core material used in Shakti series, clearly shows S1 was a full yield weapon of ~200 kt yield.

What does now one make of R.Chidambram's claim of S1 success ?

Now here is the sordid stinky implication. If that fusion stage fizzled, the resultant yield will be largely Primary (~17-20 Kt), the spark plug AND the 6 Kg tertiary tamper crashing on the Fusion fuel compressing it hard to lite it up, irrespective of Fusion fuel when spark plug neutrons hit the imploding highly compressed tertiary, its fission chain reaction starts, accounting largely to the rest of the claimed 45 kT yield. Now how much left for fusion in that calculation?

And now you can see the implication of PKI's public statement that S1 fusion stage only burnt partially, perhaps 10%. (10% of 40 kt yield is a pathetic 4 kT. God knows how much of that 4 kT was due to Tritium spiked fusion?, that makes the LiD fusion yield percentage slide down even further)

I hope you understand why I am so strident in insisting that India must not close the option to TN weapon proof test, in fact it should exercise TN weapon test as soon as possible to provide credible deterrence across 360 degree azimuth. Something that is impossible to do with the heavy Fusion Boosted Fission weapons, and only a light weight high yield TN can provide that credible deterrence. Else we are close to precip of deterrence breakdown without knowing what hit us and why.

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

Postby Gerard » 20 Apr 2008 18:13

In summary, the Venn diagram was meant for reporters, journalists, and kids


Indeed. The Mckinzie Venn diagram, along with the CIA Jeremiah news conference remarks is quite useful for psy-ops purposes.

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

Postby Gerard » 20 Apr 2008 18:19

Raj Chengappa....
The half happy formula
If the Manmohan Singh Government defies the Left and sacrifices its political stability for the deal, there is no guarantee that the NSG would give its clearance without any harmful caveats and that the US Congress would ratify the 123 Agreement in its current form.
The way out is what I call the ‘Half Happy Formula’. The Left has indicated that it has no objections to India entering into civilian nuclear trade with Russia and France. To do that, India still has to sign the IAEA safeguards agreement and get the NSG clearance.

So the Government could seek clearance to go ahead with the IAEA safeguards with an assurance that it will not sign the Indo-US deal till the Left’s conditions are met. Once India signs the IAEA safeguards the onus is on the George Bush administration to push the deal through the NSG and the US Congress.

The US could do so by putting a caveat in the NSG that its members cannot have civilian nuclear trade with India till it signs the 123 Agreement with it :eek: .

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Postby Tilak » 20 Apr 2008 18:33

Israel and U.S. sign nuclear cooperation agreement
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent
14/04/2008

Israel and the United States signed an agreement several days ago to step up cooperation in the field of nuclear safety.

The new agreement broadens and upgrades previous accords between the two countries in this field, which were signed over the past two decades. It will enable the Israel Atomic Energy Commission to access most of the latest nuclear safety data, procedures and technology available in the U.S. :roll:

The agreement was signed by the director of the Atomic Energy Commission, Dr. Shaul Horev, and the chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Dr. Dale Klein.

Horev also met in the U.S. with his American counterpart, Thomas D'Agostino, who is the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Even though the agreement is essentially technical in nature, it has much greater significance, as many countries, including the U.S., are inclined {inclined?? :lol: }not to cooperate with Israel on any aspects related to the nuclear field, because Israel is not a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However, the U.S. has agreements on nuclear safety with Israel. Moreover, Israel also has an agreement for limited cooperation on matters of nuclear safety with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and has adopted the stringent standards and safety procedures of the Vienna-based organization.

In recent years Israel has tried to improve and broaden its ties in the nuclear field with as many countries and organizations as possible. This was done in an effort to breach its isolation in this field, but also because of the need for foreign assistance to help ensure safety at the nuclear research compound in Dimona, as well as monitor nuclear waste at the site.

The Dimona reactor - which foreign reports say is used by Israel to develop nuclear arms - was established nearly five decades ago, and is considered relatively old. Experts in the field have expressed concern that safety mishaps could occur there, since it is not under international supervision, due to the classified activities there.

However, Israel has argued that the reactor has been upgraded in recent years and that safety there meets the highest international standards.

The Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) stressed that old reactors in the U.S. underwent similar upgrades and were issued licenses to continue operations for decades more. The IAEC is responsible for operating the Dimona reactor and also for monitoring safety there. The monitoring is done in cooperation with an inter-ministerial body, the Committee for Nuclear Safety.

In recent years, some of the senior members of the IAEC have called for a nuclear reactor here to produce electricity, thus limiting the dependence on imported petroleum and preparing for the forecast shortage in oil reserves.

However, Israel is expected to meet with opposition from abroad to an electricity-producing reactor because of its refusal to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. One of the options raised was to seek an agreement with the U.S. that will allow the transfer of technology for the construction of such a reactor. {Oh.. Poor Yindoos had to jump through all the hoops.. amending "internal laws" which prohibit transfers, Hyde acts.. IAEA, NSG clearances and Congressional clearances and nuke nudity.. not knowing Amrika bahadur treats it like a toilet paper.. :roll: }The U.S. was on the verge of recently signing a similar agreement with India, a country also not a signatory of the NPT, but due to domestic political opposition, an agreement faltered.


LOL at all the people who were saying "America can't legally do it..internal laws... and NPT obligations... you see.." As usual KS, MMS, RM the "Strategic Thinker" clique will skip this .. and return to "time is running out, on the best thing humanity has ever had".. :twisted: :evil:

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

Postby Gerard » 20 Apr 2008 19:44


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

Postby Gerard » 20 Apr 2008 19:46


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

Postby Gerard » 20 Apr 2008 20:00

India, Canada to bolster business ties[quote]Canada was the first nation to impose a nuclear embargo against India in 1976 as, according to Ottawa, India’s 1974 nuclear test device allegedly used plutonium produced in the Canadian-supplied CIRUS reactor.
Canada refused to buy India’s explanation that the 1974 test was a “peaceful nuclear implosion.â€

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

Postby Gerard » 20 Apr 2008 20:12

Did we notice this Oct 2007 report?

India Gets an Offer For Thorium Reactor
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2 ... 42_739.pdf

The Indian Atomic Energy Commission received an offer in September of a novel type of thorium breeder reactor from the California-based Dauvergne Brothers, Inc.
It is likely that New Delhi will ignore the offer, because it would undermine India’s already developed plutonium- triggered thorium-reactor program, and it is thought to have been floated primarily to curb India’s ongoing plutonium-extraction process. It is also suspected in New Delhi that the offer has the backing of the Bush Administration, which wants India to stop its production of plutonium.
But DBI makes clear that India no longer has any reason to breed plutonium, based on DBI’s version of the thorium-fuelled reactor. In justifying its offer to India, DBI stated: “international agreements between India and uranium-source nations to use proliferation-resistant fuels in the DBI Reactor subject to IAEA [International Atomic Energy monitoring, could sever the link between civilian and military nuclear programs in India
Last edited by Gerard on 20 Apr 2008 20:30, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby NRao » 20 Apr 2008 20:29

The issue or problem arises because people think that the US, IAEA and NSG are all independent bodies.

I feel that we have to wait a wee bit to get deep/er into the Isreali "deal".

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

Postby John Snow » 20 Apr 2008 20:36

The US Israel co operation agreement is to be closely watched as I feel it is like castle move in chess game so as to eliminate any adverse interpretation (to Israel) of any new NSG restrictions and enriched U restrictions that are swirling in SD Tank Tops :wink: to be imposed to effect Iran India etc...

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Postby Tilak » 20 Apr 2008 20:48

John Snow wrote:The US Israel co operation agreement is to be closely watched as I feel it is like castle move in chess game so as to eliminate any adverse interpretation (to Israel) of any new NSG restrictions and enriched U restrictions that are swirling in SD Tank Tops :wink: to be imposed to effect Iran India etc...


Nailed it.. And the GOI was peddling the "without the IAEA and NSG" we cannot sign the deal with Russia and France, line. :roll:

X-Posted:

Proposed defence pact with US raises eyebrows
20 Apr 2008, 0321 hrs IST,TNN

NEW DELHI: Even as a former US top military official suggested that New Delhi should sign the End Use Monitoring Agreement with Washington soon, Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta on Saturday said the country could not accept "intrusiveness" into its system.

"There are certain things we can’t agree to. As a sovereign nation, we can’t accept intrusiveness into our system, so there is some fundamental difficulty," Admiral Mehta, who is also the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, said on the sidelines of a conference here.

Mehta, who is incidentally scheduled to leave for the US on Sunday, said it could be that US had "this kind of (End User) agreement with everyone. I don’t believe in that. We pay for something, we get some technology. What I do with it, is my thing."

His comments were sought after former US Pacific Command chief Admiral Dennis Blair said Indo-US military relationship had "slowed down" because New Delhi had not signed three "very basic and routine" :rotfl: :rotfl: agreements {wonder what entails a "comprehensive" agreement wrt. above}— Logistic Support Agreement, Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement CISMOA) and the End Use Monitoring Agreement (EUVA).



"Because they are not signed, the Indian-American military relationship is slow and there are extra expenses involved for India," Blair said.

Earlier, addressing the IISS-Citi India Global Forum, the Navy chief said India’s naval plans were "driven by the desire to contribute to create and consolidate a stable, peaceful and prosperous region...where every nation, big or small, is treated as equal".

The entire controversy had started in the wake of the US demand that India should ink two defence pacts — Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) and End-Use Verification Agreement (EUVA) of US-sold defence equipment — as soon as possible. But India has some reservations about them. The main objection in EUVA, for instance, relates to the ‘on-site inspection’ by American personnel of weapon systems and platforms bought from US.

"It might be mandatory under US law (the Golden Sentry monitoring programme to verify whether US defence equipment is being utilised in accordance with its conditions) but we are uncomfortable with it," a defence ministry official said.

"The two sides, however, are trying to work out a solution. We have sent a counter-draft to US saying we can give guarantees and access to records, instead of allowing actual on-site inspection. The US is prepared to meet us more than halfway," he added.

All these came in the back-drop of the CAG report criticising the UPA government for buying the 37-year-old USS Trenton in a ‘hasty manner’ without ‘proper physical assessment’ and technical evaluation of its sea-worthiness.


ISS = The "International" Institute of Strategic Studies (+ Citibank ??) + India "Global" forum

The above is the official site, and has all the relevant documents..

India as a Rising Great Power:
Challenges and Opportunities
New Delhi, 18–20 April 2008

The First Annual IISS–Citi India Global Forum on ‘India as a Rising Great Power: Challenges and Opportunities’ will be held in New Delhi on 18–20 April 2008.

At a time when India’s economic growth drives greater engagement and influence in the world, the IISS–Citi India Global Forum will provide a comprehensive strategic assessment of India’s rise as a great power. The Forum will discuss the key issues where economics, business, politics and security converge, including India’s search for energy security and stability, trans­national security challenges, and India’s relations with the great powers.

The Forum consists of plenary sessions and break-out groups. The plenary sessions offer a public platform for ministers, corporate leaders and global experts to focus on India’s emerging role. The break-out groups provide an opportunity for the invited officials and experts to explore the key issues more deeply and to analyse current and future policy trends in a private and strictly off-the-record environment.

This exclusive conference will bring together 200 leaders of government, business, academia, policy, media and the armed forces from India and the world. The Forum will discuss India’s new status and responsibilities as a rising great power, the liabilities that India would have to accept to perform such a role, and its wider impact on regional and global stability.

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

Postby Gerard » 20 Apr 2008 21:17

The Forum will discuss India’s new status and responsibilities as a rising great power, the liabilities that India would have to accept to perform such a role


peddling gobar as jalebi....

India needs to play greater role in global issues
India needs to play a greater role in international issues like rebuilding Iraq and tackling of global terrorism even at the cost of criticism at home, if it were to realise its claim for a permanent seat in UNSC, said Lord Powell,
India needs to be "more muscular" in helping the international community to sort out world problems, Powell said, adding, it should increase its role in reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan and join the global efforts to inhibit spread of missile technology and other sophisticated weapons.
India should also take proactive steps to break "the impasse in the Doha Round and negotiate a successor to the Kyoto treaty."


Strange how China didn't have to do anything like this to be 'admitted' to sit at the 'high table'.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 20 Apr 2008 21:30

Gerard wrote:

Strange how China didn't have to do anything like this to be 'admitted' to sit at the 'high table'.

That is because of geo-political luck. Right place at the right time.

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

Postby Gerard » 20 Apr 2008 21:48

Not just luck... China presented the rest of the world with facts on the ground... the world had to deal with it.

India tested a PNE in 1974 but did not weaponize until years later... far less develop a TN capability... how is it that 30+ years after an Indian nuke blast, there is still hope amongst ayatollahs (and others) that Indian capability can be capped, rolled back, and eliminated? How is it that a US general had to give his imprimatur to the Agni-III test before it flew? That Indian netas and babus are terrified of the very word ICBM?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 20 Apr 2008 21:51

Gerard wrote: how is it that 30+ years after an Indian nuke blast, there is still hope amongst ayatollahs (and others) that Indian capability can be capped, rolled back, and eliminated?

Indian political leadership gives them confidence

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

Postby Arun_S » 20 Apr 2008 21:51

vsunder wrote:The first tests of all powers who tested in the 60's were huge tests.
China's first test(1964) was 25kt. France tested for the first time (1960)in the Maghreb and their first test was a whopping 60-70kt. So why is it that these countries tried to test at such high levels.? The answer is that a high yield first test allows you to have a bonafide primary for the fusion device.
"Low yield" fission devices just may not provide a succesful primer for a fusion device. Witness the fact that China took only 32 months after their successful first test of a fission device to explode a fusion device. This can be traced to a highly successful primary fission device. Note too that in S-1 the primary was 25 kt this is open source info. Thus it was in India's interest to test in the 25kt range in POK-1 and if succesful it means that now one also has a succesful primary for a fusion device if need be. If not then one needs to work harder. I had mentioned Rayleigh-Taylor problems a long time ago in this forum but nobody paid notice now I notice it has become a hot topic.

By the way John Snow, dont Bessel functions also a play a role in cavity resonators? Should be, the magnetic field drives the electric field which in turn drives the magnetic field and so on each playing an infinite ringo ringo roses and lo and behold you get an infinite series that a small calculation tells me is Bessel function of order zero. Now choose the resonator radius exactly at the first zero of the Bessel function and voila you have a very efficient cavity resonator. That is what my little back of the enevelope calculation tells me. Am I wrong?

vsunder: Thank you for that post. That perfectly supplement's my last night's rebuttal to Kenson's post.

The high design yield objective is especially important because the POK-1 was authorized and developed whose business end was meant for Communist China, that had shell shocked India with with Nuclear test in 1964. It was a double whammy after the debacle of 1962 followed in quick succession with startling Chinese Nuke test with a big yield. Further made worse by phenomenally short development and testing of 2 stage TN Hydrogen bomb on its forth/fifith test in an exceptionally short period of ~2 year. (that I suspect was TN design help given as token to prove seriousness of strategic friendship overtures that US paid to Communist China. But that is another discussion).

So India did require big yield from its first N test, and to think India planned a 10kt test is ludicrous.

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

Postby Arun_S » 20 Apr 2008 22:00

Shankar wrote:
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

A good one Shankar.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 20 Apr 2008 22:36

Some layman queries:-

Can the use of 8kg core for 10kt yield be aimed at reducing the amount of explosive lenses to make the bomb lighter (in POK-1?)


Also what would be the reason for 10-12kt yield for fission bomb in POK-2 rather than 25kt device?


Could the POK-1 device be a conservative design not aimed towards eventual TN hence only 10-12kt?

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

Postby Gerard » 20 Apr 2008 23:13

[url=http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/indias-energy-security-at-risk-if-no-nuclear-deal-sweden_10040141.html]India’s energy security at “riskâ€

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

Postby NRao » 20 Apr 2008 23:42

[quote="Gerard"][url=http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/indias-energy-security-at-risk-if-no-nuclear-deal-sweden_10040141.html]India’s energy security at “riskâ€

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

Postby Gerard » 21 Apr 2008 00:22

What is gained by the likes of Carl Bildt touting the nukular deal? Those apprehensive of US designs on Indian nuclear weapons capability can hardly be reassured that CRE advocates like Bildt are supporters... especially when he mentions CTBT in same breath... the NSG meeting will be interesting...


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest