Casting doubt on Indian nuclear weapon designs and yields -2

Locked
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Casting doubt on Indian nuclear weapon designs and yields -2

Post by shiv »

Previous thread HERE

-------------------------------------------------------------
satyarthi wrote:Why do people expect that there will be a great brouhaha if India tests a thermonuke now?
The brouhaha is less about India and more about "log kya kahenge" among the P5. I will explain.

Ever since 1992, the P5 have been trying to ensure that nobody else in the world tests nuclear bombs and only they, the P5 would retain nukes as long as they liked with the indefinite stated aim of denuclearizing at some distant date in the future.

Test or no test, India is still out of the exclusive club in terms of ability to obtain and trade in material and technology related to nukes - even for civilian use. So India is still under sanctions and is still a pariah and still unable to freely get what it wants and India, on its part has agreed to "voluntarily" toe the P5 line and "be a good boy" and not export technology or material related to nukes.

The meaning of that is that apart from testing and making nuclear bombs, India is meeting every other demand made by the P5, but yet India remains in the doldrums with regard to many materials and widely traded technologies- and has not been fully pulled out of its pariah status despite its pointed good behavior.

The question of exactly why India chooses to behave so well while Pakistan and Korea have behaved like international b*ench*ds is anybody's guess. I suspect it is because the Indian establishment hopes to squirm its way into the status that the exclusive P5 club have, in which they can not only make and maintain weapons, but they can freely trade, import and export and place sanctions and screw others. But the P5 have not yet given in to India's game. India remains a nuclear pariah just like Korea and Pakistan, and the signals are clear: The nuclear club s ONLY for the existing P5. India's status WILL NOT be changed whether it tests again or does not test again.

So why doesn't India test? My guesses are as follows:

1) If India tests again, India's slim chances of being lifted out of nuclear pariah status will be gone for decades, if not forever. The last time there were sanctions (eg in 1998) India was denied simple things like radiation safety monitors for medical personnel, apart from all sorts of items related to aerospace and other areas that could be accused of having "dual use"

2) If India tests again - it's status as "mature nuclear weapon power" will instantly be questioned by the P5 who will say "hey - you really are a have-not" and therefore you must remain a have not.

3) if India tests again, it will serve as a licence for other nascent nuclear states to start testing again. Despite India's seeming "fight against nuclear apartheid" India itself wants to maintain a double standard in which India should be included among the P5 but CTBT etc should be applied to all nations after that. In other words even if India is given the same status as P5 India has no intention of cheering and welcoming new members such as Pakistan, Iran. North Korea etc.

I believe India is showing a double standard here which will come a cropper earlier if it tests and might work if it does not test.

I just wonder if India has the capacity to fight the P5 and make a parallel nuclear club in which India shares material and technology with non P5 nations in a new "Nuclear non aligned club". But India does not appear to have the technological strength or the moral courage to do that. In any case Indians were themselves as derisive of the "non aligned movement" as anyone els, and I suspect a new nuclear club of nuclear have nots trading technology will be treated with similar contempt by both the P5 and Indians. That means some parties in India will oppose it just because they are opposition parties.

In any case, even if India is able to withstand sanctions most of the have-not nations of the world will have their testimonial squeezed dry by the P5 if they were to oin India is a "neo-non-aligned parallel nuclear club" for trading nuke tech and material.

JMT
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

The brouhaha is less about India and more about "log kya kahenge" among the P5
You said it.

Also known as "face saving".
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Post by amit »

p_saggu wrote:
Amit,
Very correctly you point out that most Indians only know that India has a Bomb and all is well. Suppose we enlighten them of the fact that the H-Bomb was a failure, and we risk being a second rate power in the category of the unmentionable group, I am sure many will accept the pain that will have to be borne by us in the aftermath of any breakthrough testing. India is a proud nation, and in those dark years of the 60s and the 70s, national pride was all that kept this nation going and in one piece.

JMT
Boss, as regards educating folks on the true state of affairs and the difference between an H-bomb and some of the chotas that we have – and which most folks here think works - I agree with you totally.

However, the question is who's going to bell the cat? It's not like we can have the President of India making a national televised address to the nation in which she makes a fervent plea to her fellow countrymen to bear with the short-term pain that would come from an N-test. And then we have people coming out in the streets in support of a resumption of N-testing.

It's really tragic that there's a huge disconnect between what's desirable and what's realistically achievable. Its unfortunate many folks here don't seem to realise this.

Most Indians will not be willing to go through the pain that a fresh bout of sanctions would bring upon us - not because they are any less patriotic than us but because they simply don't have an understanding of the issues involved.

And political parties, especially in the era of coalition governments, realise this. So again I reiterate IMO there's not going to be any testing in the next 10-15 year timeframe unless something very out of the ordinary happens in the geopolitical space.

I'm sure our strategic planners have factored this in. I have no technical competence on nuclear matters but from what I gleaned from this forum, maybe the way forward is one or more LIF and other such facilities.

And it could very well be that such facilities are on the cards but under wraps till such time the nuclear deal is signed.

(Please note this is not a comment on whether the N-deal is good or bad - don't want to open a can of worms here).

Off course it could very well be that the N-deal may never be signed due to the present political situation, especially after the Karnataka elections.

Again please note I'm not a technical expert but from a news flow point of view I find it very interesting on the way that missile development seems to be going on a definite chartered path with incremental improvements which suggest the ultimate objective of having a robust delivery system as the main component of a triad. Surely an establishment, which has such a definite goal, is also nurturing the flowers that would be delivered?

If we don't believe this then we'd have to look at point A of Doc Shiv’s first post and then draw a horrendous conclusion. I've yet to see a reason to do that.

JMT
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Post by amit »

satyarthi wrote: There could be some impact on IT-vity. But the scale and duration of damage should be possible to manage.

Satyarthi,

Sorry to say this boss and please don't take it personally but statements like the one above reminds me of some very common "analysis" pieces that used to appear in Indian newspapers in the mid nineties to the early 2000s.

Typically these used to be around 1,000 word articles by "experts". The first 500 words used to deal with what was wrong with India and its economy. And the next 500 words used to be a prescription, which if followed, would correct all the wrongs and make India a super duper economic power. In one phrase: Economics made simple.

Unfortunately real life - and the Indian economy - is a bit more complex than that.

I would postulate that if there were sanctions imposed due to a N-test then IT-vity would, possibly, be the sector that is least affected in the Indian economy. And I base this premise on the fact that IT is the only sector where India has the US of A and other P5 nations in a bear hug, which they would find very difficult to disengage from. No country will impose sanctions that hurt them just as much as the target country.

JMT
satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Post by satyarthi »

shiv wrote:
satyarthi wrote:Why do people expect that there will be a great brouhaha if India tests a thermonuke now?
The brouhaha is less about India and more about "log kya kahenge" among the P5. I will explain.
1. The world respects strength and the world also approves of self-imposed restraints. So china commands respect and gets invited into select clubs as a peer. While India requests approvals for entry into those clubs as a prize for its self-imposed restraints, and gets some pats on the back and many refusals.

2. Nevertheless China's gains have been substantial, while India has nothing to show for its exemplary peace mongering and self-imposed restraints.

3. Prize of self developed strength can't be taken away by others. But the prize of approvals granted by others can be granted or taken away at their convenience.

4. Nuclear fuel technology and supplies have not made their way to India in substantial numbers in the past even though India has voluntarily adhered to NPT's spirit. And it is highly unlikely that it will be any different even after India signs treaties like Indo-US nuke treaty. The way it has gone so far, India will have to fight to get tiniest benefits, at painful costs.

5. The nuke deal will not benefit India greatly. The P5 will see to it that any conceivable gains made by India through the deal get preciseley balanced by Indian concessions on other matters. The game will turn out to be a zero sum game at best, I am afraid. It was merely amusing when US politicians started advising India on its relations with other countries. But that is just a tiny fraction of what could be in store. And following Arun's arguments, this deal may actually be "Cap India's TN's deal".

6. Having verified TN ability along with A3-5 type delivery vehicles, with ATV and proven space capabilities, will put India in a league of its own. No aspiring N-power like Iran or NK could be in the same league by any stretch of the logic. And I believe when push comes to shove, the world will respect this logic and not insist on putting India in the same group as Iran etc. Only respectable options left will be either ignore or co-opt India. And with the imminent rise of China's military strength w.r.t the west will make the co-opting option much more appealing.

7. From India's viewpoint it doesn't make much of a difference if other countries test nukes or not. India's neighborhood is already brimming with nukes in hostile hands. Let others whose neighborhoods are much nicer worry about such things. So an Indian double-standard in not wanting other new countries to test nukes, is actually much more feeble than many other countries.

8. I don't think India needs to have other countries in its bandwagon of non-aligned nuclear club. The situation at present doesn't demand that. India is so much above other possible names in terms of capability etc that this club will only be a millstone around India's neck. Although what happens in few decades down the line who knows. Regarding India propping up such a grouping as China has done with TSP and NK, I think is highly unlikely, given India's national character and past behavior.
achy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 76
Joined: 26 Jan 2008 00:36

Post by achy »

Shiv,

Indeed a very nice post. But, I still feel that India must retain the " unfettered" option of testing in future. Here's my 2 cents ,

1. When India tested in 98, India pretty much did'nt have any significant stake in world economy neither geo-politics. Similarly, Rest of the world had very little leverage on India. That is the reason, India escaped the sanction unscathed. The test was done on the strength of splendid isolation

2. India must create once again that position of strength to test. But this time it should be on the strength of engagement with the rest of world(basically P5). A ~3 trillion dollar economy with ~1 trillion dollar of external trade and a carrot of ~200 million real consuming class will provide that strength. P-5 will have no option but to squirm and look other way. Till that time we must remain unecumbered. JMTs.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

satyarthi wrote:7. From India's viewpoint it doesn't make much of a difference if other countries test nukes or not. India's neighborhood is already brimming with nukes in hostile hands. Let others whose neighborhoods are much nicer worry about such things. So an Indian double-standard in not wanting other new countries to test nukes, is actually much more feeble than many other countries.
Excellent observation(s).
derkonig
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 08 Nov 2007 00:51
Location: Jeering sekular forces bhile Furiously malishing my mijjile @ Led Lips Mijjile Malish Palish Parloul

Post by derkonig »

p_saggu wrote:There is a message being conveyed here. What is the first thing that comes to one's mind?
Ebhen we SDRE cowering in narrow dark place yindoos ken hape tall, firm & erekt mijjiles..
see, ebhen SFTA Pootie poot ij all sharam sharam aphter seeing it, while the yevil yindoo chankian scientists are obviously gloating..

Sorry folks, couldn't resist this, guess I down with BENISitis:)
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Is it okay at this point to say that the debate has firmly moved away from the casting doubt part? The doubt has been cast with merit?

Given that we are discussing
1) Minimum for deterrence?
2) When to test?

There would be no reason to discuss the above if there was no doubt as per generally understood stand that GoI has?
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

p_saggu wrote:Now on to serious stuff:
Very interesting that this was written...
Arun_S wrote:(Unless the design came from somewhere else, a possibility that we can discount for this argument).
It would be considered unpatriotic to discuss the above, however if india is not testing and correcting its rather minimum and as yet uncredible deterrant, why not.
That statement was carefully thought & not un-intentional. Yes, will keep that discussion off plate unless need be.
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4513
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Post by Tanaji »

Is it okay at this point to say that the debate has firmly moved away from the casting doubt part? The doubt has been cast with merit?

Given that we are discussing
1) Minimum for deterrence?
2) When to test?
I agree. I think realistically speaking even #2 is out of the window. No government either UPA or NDA has the guts or wherewithal to test. Not in the current economic situation with rising food and oil prices and the sub prime melt down. So it boils down to:

The last round of tests did not generate data that is sufficient to develop a weapon that can be said to work repeatedly with high confidence margins. Note that I am not saying whether the tests failed or not, but given the past experience of P5 in this matter, it is not illogical nor a great leap to assume that for a reliable weapon that the end user can have confidence in, more tests are necessary. Given that others have done hundreds of tests, the above follows.

Having said that, we surely have confidence in a fission based weapon that generates x amount of yield. The question to ask is:
  • Is x amount of yield with a fission base enough
  • Do we have enough fissile material for x amount of yield with y amount of bombs
  • Do we have delivery mechanisms for the above.
If answers to all the above are yes, then I think, further discussion is moot.
Raja Ram
BRFite
Posts: 587
Joined: 30 Mar 1999 12:31
Location: Chennai

Post by Raja Ram »

I dont think there is any convincing argument has been made that the yield and design of S1 is false. That debate will never be concluded as there is not enough information available openly that can help either side (doubters and believers if you may) make it conclusive. The jury verdict on that one is "To believe or not to believe, is a choice best left to the individual."

What the discussion is now veered towards is
First Question
Should we test again in any case, for both technical and geopolitical reasons? Answer is a consensus - Yes we need to test

Next question - Will the deal prohibit us from testing again? - Consensus Answer is - it is still debatable, cant say yes it will prohibit but neither can we say no it will not. At best the answer could be "technically speaking no it will not prohibit testing but it will have consequences, may be these consequences are not acceptable to India. " Again a debatable point.

The big question
Given the context, is it worth signing the deal as it stands? - Consensus answer is No.

Can this deal be signed if we have adequate counter measures such as doing a further round of tests, setting up structural changes in DAE as suggested by missile guru, passing legislation to counter effect of Hyde Act etc? - Consensus answer is even then a maybe.

This would be a resonable summing up of discussions in my view.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Post by amit »

Raja Ram,

There is one other point that needs to be in your summation - something that IMO receives less attention that it deserves – that is the economic cost of testing in the short to medium term.

And this is irrespective of whether India signs the N-deal or not.

The pain will be considerable irrespective of the deal. That is the nature of the beast that the Indian economy is circa 2008 and not circa 1998 thanks to the effects of globalisation and the economy's massive growth.

I think the pain will increase in the medium term, again deal or no deal, before tapering off once India is, say a US$3 trillion economy.

The idea that we will escape relatively unscathed with a test if we don't sign the deal and will be severely affected the moment we sign the deal is too simplistic an assessment purely from an economic point of view. IMHO.

(Please note this is not an endorsement for or against the N-deal).

However, bottomline remains we have to test. The question is when and how?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

amit wrote: The pain will be considerable irrespective of the deal. That is the nature of the beast that the Indian economy is circa 2008 and not circa 1998 thanks to the effects of globalisation and the economy's massive growth.
Hmm; I dont think this is a given; last time around what were the "economic" implications of the test?

Even if you extrapolate the same today w.r.t. forgein trade vis a vis GDP we should have some reasonable expectations of the bang.

What kinds of sanctions are expected after tests? All economic activity would be blockaded? Some? None?

Given that cost of blockading us also goes up today; if in 98-99 the West did not impose a "economic" blockade when it could have done so with no cost to the west; why should it do it today?

Oh yes; I expect the GE 404 IN to go off the radar; ISRO to be not able to sell any Sat launches etc but what more?

I don't know what basis are we claiming doom and gloom -- so far the only statements have been "oh it will be bad".

Why exactly please? Also whats golden about the $ 3 Trillion mark? Why 3? Why not 4? Why not 3.3, 2.9, 3.141 etc etc?

(Note this is not the same as a War situation in Parakram; where the relationship of war on economy is clearly understood)

The question of when we can test can be answered only when we have really understood the answers to the above.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Post by amit »

Sanku wrote: Why exactly please? Also whats golden about the $ 3 Trillion mark? Why 3? Why not 4? Why not 3.3, 2.9, 3.141 etc etc?
Sanku,

I suggest that you look at Suraj's post and some of my earlier posts to other posters here.

If it's still not clear why $3 trillion as a benchmark, then I will have to ask you to excuse me. I dont find posts with 3.3, 2.9, 3.141 and all manner of decimals very amusing.

Off course in the meanwhile you are free to disagree to whatever I've written.

My last post to you.

All the Best and Cheers!
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Shiv: I am another idiot, who is willing to learn. Your post was intriguing. I wanted to find, the current configuration of US warheads and its fission to fusion yield ratios, to understand your post.

This is my current understanding of these warheads and what they may yield without tritium. I translate the below to mean that if the burn of tritium is less than effective, it has a major impact on overall yield.
tritium is believed to be a component of most nuclear
weapons currently in the stockpile of all nuclear weapons states. Its primary purpose is to increase ("boost") the explosive yield of a given amount of fissionable material. The use of tritium in nuclear weapons, therefore, means a vertical proliferation process from first generation fission devices to more sophisticated boosted or thermonuclear weapons
The crucial question is whether the primary without tritium would still yield enough energy to trigger the fusion stage. If not, all thermonuclear devices would yield no more than an unboosted fission primary -around- 1 kiloton or even as low as 0.4 kilotons in the case of miniaturized primaries. This is highly probable and, therefore, it will be no underestimation to assume that the yield of thermonuclear weapons could go down by a factor of 100 if tritium is eliminated and designs are not changed to compensate.
Apologies for not formatting the below, the table is there in the appendix of the paper below.

Table A.1: Total yield af operational U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile under different
assumptions.
-
Warhead Weapon Number in Nominal Total Yield/ Total Yield/ Total Yield/
Type System Stockpileo Yield/Kt (103 Kt) (103 Kt) (103 Kt)
Rangeb Upper Lower Without
Bound Bound Tritium
(rough
estimate)
653-1 Strat. Bomb (SO) 9.000 (4SO) (450) (0.5)
861 Strat. Bomb 750 10-300 225 8 2.3
861 Tact. Bomb 600 10-175 105 6 1.1
W62 Minuteman III (610) 170 (104) (104) (1.0)
W76 Trident I C4 3.000 100 300 300 3.0
W78 Minuteman III (920) 335 (308) (308) (3.1)
W80 ALCM. SLCM 1.750 5 and 150 263 9 2.6
883/B83-1 Strat. Bomb 650 low-1200 780 7 6.5
W87 MX 525 300 158 158 1.6
W88 Trident II D5 400 475 190 190 1.9
W89 SRAM II (0) 200 (0) (0) (0)
International Control of Tritium to Prevent Horizontal Proliferation and to Foster Nuclear Disarmament
[url]
[/quote]
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

Deterrence derives its power from Doctrine
Doctrine is dictated by the leaderships vision
Vision is about the core values, Beliefs and self esteem (izzat) of the Mulk (country).

We have pegged all of the above to "Minimal Credible"
so our leadership is personification of Minimum vision and Minimum crediblity, so we will never have a need for proven, robust, reliable and assured response to any agression be it conventional or Nooklear.

So we are in pretty good shape as it is. If it so happens that a second strike is required, a second strike to our enemy that is, we can count on unkils and aunties of the world to do the job as we have Dharma on our side why need Thermos?
vsunder
BRFite
Posts: 1353
Joined: 06 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Ulan Bator, Mongolia

Post by vsunder »

I humbly disagree, there is a huge amount that is known open source about various aspects of POK since 1974 and upto 2007. Some of it can be obtained click-click-click but a lot cannot be obtained click-click-click
and are in journals. Some can be obtained click-click-click but maybe your IT company only subscribes to Playboy and Penthouse and not to serious research journals, so when you arrive click-click-click Cambridge Press may not let you in.

Here is a posible analysis. Suppose lets say BARC publishes a paper on Campa-Cola and in that paper they demonstrate certain types of competence. Now what is needed for business is Pepsi. So serious people will think. Okay so they will use the same method to understand Pepsi.
But the method they are using to understand Campa-Cola will it work for Pepsi or does it have pitfalls. OK suppose it does work for Pepsi. Then
this method was used circa 1970 and will only take BARC upto level x
in the understanding. On the other hand the paper is published because
nobody did analyse Campa Cola so far so the study is new.
It also goes both ways. Suppose Los Alamos writes a paper on Dr. Pepper
and publishes experimental data. Then BARC uses its simulation code and says our simulation code ( Thomas-Fermi-Dirac theory numerical package is an example, a notororiously inexact theory for the purposes of doing business :wink: ) can find the eqn. of state in this particular regime of Dr. Pepper
and it agrees with the experimental data obtained by Akella, Thirunanasambandam and Manikavachagam Pillai and Roger Bisplinghoff in 1960(the date is an actual example. A 1982 paper from BARC on eqn. of state of Thorium uses data from a 1960 paper) from Los Alamos.
BARC is not a vacuum, they publish write review articles every decade
summarizing equipment they have like Chidambaram did in 1992.
He talks of the gas gun and how much pressure it generates etc and reviews high pressure Physics since 1972 in BARC. So now one goes,
how many gigapascals pressure, does this gas gun generate. Is it enough
to get data in so and so range? Can this data be used to get the full
shock Hugoniot etc etc. Also nobody will write this analysis up either for open click-click-click viewing. Like Confucius say, That I know that you know, that you know, that I know... Here is what ABV said or did not say post test:


Vajpayee's statement

Also why do even need a TN, just try to minitaurize the BF ones. I am writing this from a technical standpoint.
Last edited by vsunder on 27 May 2008 19:50, edited 6 times in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

vsunder; no doubt I am an idiot; but the previous post was a little mysterious and not for easy digestion.

Will you please translate what you are saying in relatively simple English?
achy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 76
Joined: 26 Jan 2008 00:36

Post by achy »

~3T GDP is a notional figure to convey a reality of inflexion point as is in reference to where PRC is today. If PRC tests today, Log kuch kuch bolenge but kuch bhi nahin karenge. Similar will apply to India when it reaches ~3T.
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

Sanku wrote:vsunder; no doubt I am an idiot; but the previous post was a little mysterious and not for easy digestion.

Will you please translate what you are saying in relatively simple English?

Ok Since I am a confirmed idiot, I venture to answer on behalf of Sunder garu.

In nut shell what sunder garu is saying is
comparisons are odious
Just because I am idiot and you are also claiming to be one does not mean we are equal idiots, there could be a degree of difference between the two! no? :wink:
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Vsunder, Ably summed up as usual. Thanks, ramana

Sanku think a little he has said a lot in that one post.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

ShauryaT - here is a link for dummies that says that 50% of energy of a "Hydrogen bomb" comes from fission. Rest from fusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boosted_fission_weapon

What does a dummy like me believe that Tritium does in a fission/fusion bomb?

In a boosted fission bomb either deuterium or Tritium can be used to generate neutrons to make the fidssion more complete so that 75% of the fissile material is not blasted away when the bum explodes.

But why Tritium and not Deuterium? The latter is apparently easier to get.

No clear idea except that Deu fuses better with Tritium than Deuterium itself. Also releases a convenient neutron.

But it is also true that both Deu and Trit are gases. The advantage is that they can be stored in a separate bottle and injected just when they are needed. But Lithium Deuteride appears to be a convenient via media. it is a solid, and when exposed to neutrons - Tritium is generated within Li Deuteride and that gives BOTH Deuterium and Tritium for fusion.
satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Post by satyarthi »

Deciphering vsnder sutra:

1. BARC regularly publishes in peer reviewed journals, but the journals publish only those results that are considered new. So if BARC publishes new results about A, means BARC has competence with A. If B requires similar kind of competence then it is suggestive that BARC may also have competence with B. But since B's results were published decades ago by other countries, BARC can't republish those. Hence the public domain knowledge of BARC's competence with B is suggestive but not definitive.

2. BARC published new results about Thorium eqn of state, because others have not published those. It suggests BARC may have competence in determining other equations of state for other materials too, but since that research is not new, BARC doesn't publish them and again the competence with other materials is again likely but unsubstantiated in public domain.

3. BARC's numerical design package which may have demonstrated competence with Thorium may have competence with other materials too.

4. A gas gun fires cool projectiles at very high speeds at a target. By knowing the exact properties of the projectile, the amount of deposited energy in the target can be exactly estimated, from which temperature-pressure and thermodynamic behavior of the material can be studied in various extreme regimes, giving a fairly reliable equation of state. So BARC's competence with reliable equations of state may not be limited to only Thorium.

5. Miniaturizing boosted-fission is critical in making a light TN work, and to make it fit in the nose cone of a warhead.

Conclusion: BARC probably has reliable competence in the TN arena. Although the question remains why it wasn't conclusively demonstrated in 1998.
KannanM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 2
Joined: 09 Nov 2007 21:18

Post by KannanM »

Thanks Dr.Shiv, I appreciate your detail post. my untrained eyes thought to look geopolitics makeover confined to our neighbors, so it took enormous amount of energy to look beyond habitual thinking. yes, we are grownup now and our political moves does have global impact. that’s said, i am convinced beyond doubt that we do have credible nuclear deterrence capability to deter anybody in the region, however I would love to see that we complete our nuclear triad soon. Thanks again.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

I am afraid you need to read the post all over again. You have taken the opposite of what he ment.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

shiv, for the 50% to happen the fusion has to happen pucca.
satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Post by satyarthi »

Ramana,

Without knowing what the peer reviewed papers actually wrote it is hard to conclude just from that post. If vsunder or you could post the relevant bibliography then it will be easier.

Are you and vsunder saying that BARC doesn't have reliable TN capability? That the numerical simulations and experimental methods (e.g. gas gun) don't cover the required thermodynamic regime?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Boss, I am not being clever. I just dont have the time. What does my view count for in this wikifying or googling times.

Let me tell you a Russian folk tale. A peasant (muejik) enquired of his landlowner what would the price of a lump of gold as big as one's head? The land owner invited him to his house and wined (maybe vodkafied) and dined the peasant and after the huge repast asked him to fetch the lump of gold for valuation. The peasant said "I dont have any lump of gold or coal! I just wanted to know the price of such things".

So just because one hears of capability in "A" it does not mean the same in "B".

Geo-politics is a female dog.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Thanks John Snow, Satyarathi and Ramana for variously helping clear and further confuse the poor ol me. :wink:

I think I see a little better but only very little still no doubt the churning will shortly throw up the Amrut.
Last edited by Sanku on 27 May 2008 22:15, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

achy wrote:~3T GDP is a notional figure to convey a reality of inflexion point as is in reference to where PRC is today. If PRC tests today, Log kuch kuch bolenge but kuch bhi nahin karenge. Similar will apply to India when it reaches ~3T.
THanks achy I have two quibbles (or not very quibbles)

Notional numbers are all fine; the real problem is in converting it to real usable numbers. So things will be fine at x but is X == 3? Thats the female dog here

Second -- PRC has been throwing around all manners of weight including nuclear ones much before the 3 figure? What then is the sanctity of 3 figure?

Too many variables for any usable prediction around 3 figure (of course I think ANY figure cant really stand rigorous scrutiny)
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

--- ooohhh sorry guys the forum software is not kind to me these days ----
Last edited by Sanku on 27 May 2008 22:16, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

--duplicate post self deleted ---
satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Post by satyarthi »

So, I guess a laser ignition set up is needed to master the thermodynamics reliably and to create reliable simulations.

PS:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0305-4608/12/4/008
Shock Hugoniot equation of state of thorium

B K Godwal et al 1982 J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 12 655-660

B K Godwal and S K Sikka
Neutron Phys. Div., Bhabha Atomic Res. Centre, Bombay, India

Abstract. The shock Hugoniot equation of state for thorium has been computed, using the pseudopotential methods. The nuclear Gruneisen parameters ( gamma ), used in evaluating the ionic vibration contributions have been derived from phonon frequencies. The electronic thermal contribution is obtained using Thomas-Fermi-Dirac (TFD) theory, as the electronic Gruneisen parameter varied with temperature in accordance with TFD theory. The computed P-V curves is in agreement with the data of McQueen and Marsh (1960) although the Hugoniot temperatures at high compressions are different from those derived by them.

Print publication: Issue 4 (April 1982)
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

shiv wrote:ShauryaT - here is a link for dummies that says that 50% of energy of a "Hydrogen bomb" comes from fission. Rest from fusion.
I do not think, I was challenging the component from fission or the ideal ratio. PKI has indicated the failure of the tritium to burn fully, and hence the assumed partial failure of the fusion. IOW: In my view, PKI is challenging the 1:1 fission:fusion ratio, claimed by RC. He is not challenging the ideality of the ratio itself. He is challenging the view that if, as claimed, the fusion gave about 20KT, then the LiD material needed to achieve that is only about 500 cc, which in his view is extremely small and the amount of maal in the fusion core was higher.

The key challenge from PKI is, the tritium produced, failed to burn fully.

Another thought going through in my mind is, if what PKI says is true then it is also possible that the claimed yield of 43KT for S1 is also not true and the true figure is more close to what external observers claimed to be the yield from all three tests. Another thought is the actual design of S1, was more closer to the demands of what the military seems to have indicated, of 200-250KT. IOW: in S1 only the BF primary worked. It also matches, RC's claims of India being able to produce a 200KT weapon. If he was confident of S1, the claim should have been, India can produce an MT level weapon. Comments?
Last edited by ShauryaT on 28 May 2008 02:34, edited 1 time in total.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Post by Suraj »

I think I am being misquoted here, and perhaps people are putting too much emphasis on the numbers in my earlier post. It is not about the numbers.

I spoke specifically about fostering certain forms of economic ties with countries whose actions may affect us economically, by encouraging them to invest within our shores. A US with $100 billion of FDI invested in India would necessarily be circumspect about economic sanctions, because indiscriminate sanctioning would amount to pointing a gun at their toes and pulling the trigger.

Also, my earlier post refuted the notion that we could grow through some 'self sufficient' mechanism. I'm afraid that is a delusional mindset. I am *not* referring to ITvity folks doing a Op Parakram again. That is relatively small potatoes. In terms of sheer economic engagement with the world, India today bears little relation to how things were even at the turn of this century.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

ShauryaT wrote:
shiv wrote:ShauryaT - here is a link for dummies that says that 50% of energy of a "Hydrogen bomb" comes from fission. Rest from fusion.
I do not think, I was challenging the component from fission or the ideal ratio. PKI has indicated the failure of the tritium to burn fully, and hence the assumed partial failure of the fusion. IOW: In my view, PKI is challenging the 1:1 fission:fusion ratio, claimed by RC. He is not challenging the ideality of the ratio itself. He is challenging the view that if, as claimed, the fusion gave about 20KT, then the LiD material needed to achieve that is only about 500 cc, which in his view is extremely small and the amount of maal in the fusion core was higher.

The key challenge from PKI is, the tritium produced, failed to burn fully.

Another thought going through in my mind is, if what PKI says is true then it is also possible that the claimed yield of 43KT for S1 is also not true and the true figure is more close to what external observers claimed to be the yield from all three tests. Another thought is the actual design of S1, was more closer to the demands of what the military seems to have indicated, of 200-250KT. IOW: in S1 only the BF primary worked. It also matched, RC's claims of India able to produce a 200KT weapon. If were confident of S1, the claim should have been, India can produce an MT level weapon. Comments?
Bingo. You have come to the conclusion on your own by removng the maya. My only comment is that what they said was the results.

BTW I am not blaming the scientists. They were very bold in their test plans. I do admire their boldness and courage.
All testing especially a breakout has political overtones which are more than the scientific ones. It should have been a politico-scientific decision on what to test. I would be perfectly happy with the BF 200kt for it gives a clear signal of breakout.

BTW, I am curious as to what was the sixth test all about? The one that wasnt set -off.
satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Post by satyarthi »

For determining thermodynamic properties, Laser based shock experiments seem to work in more extreme ranges than gas-gun based ones.

Could someone summarize BARC's capabilities in this arena.

http://militzer.gl.ciw.edu/diss/node53.html
Shock Hugoniot

Recent Nova laser shock wave experiments on pre-compressed liquid deuterium (Da Silva, 1997; Collins et al., 1998) provided the first direct measurements of the high temperature equation of state of deuterium for pressures up to 330 GPa. It was found that deuterium has a significantly higher compressibility than predicted by the semi-empirical equation of state based on plasma many-body theory and lower pressure shock data (see SESAME model by Kerley (1983)). In an earlier series of experiments using the two-stage gas gun (Nellis et al., 1983; Holmes et al., 1995), pressures of up to 23 GPa were reached.
{Admin Note: This is bleeding tech and a very sensitive one. Asking these things on public forum will get others into trouble. There will be no more discussion on this front. Thank you. -Arun_S, A big Admin hat on. }
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Lets start from fundamentals:

What is the purpose of nukes for India?

1) Deterrence
2) Retaliation
3) War termination
4) Deter BCW usage
5) What else?
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

shiv wrote:ShauryaT - here is a link for dummies that says that 50% of energy of a "Hydrogen bomb" comes from fission. Rest from fusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boosted_fission_weapon

What does a dummy like me believe that Tritium does in a fission/fusion bomb?

In a boosted fission bomb either deuterium or Tritium can be used to generate neutrons to make the fidssion more complete so that 75% of the fissile material is not blasted away when the bum explodes.

But why Tritium and not Deuterium? The latter is apparently easier to get.

No clear idea except that Deu fuses better with Tritium than Deuterium itself. Also releases a convenient neutron.

But it is also true that both Deu and Trit are gases. The advantage is that they can be stored in a separate bottle and injected just when they are needed. But Lithium Deuteride appears to be a convenient via media. it is a solid, and when exposed to neutrons - Tritium is generated within Li Deuteride and that gives BOTH Deuterium and Tritium for fusion.
Not correct to use Apple data to value Orange. That article is about Boosted weapons and mentions TN as a side note.

TN come in largely 2 flavor:
1.) pure 2 stage (that is is extinct species now).

2) 3 stage (I.e. 2+ stage) weapon that come in 2 sub-varieties
  • A). Cheap 3 stage TN, that use Natural U as the 3rd stage material (Recall that U238 that is 99.5% abundant in Nat-U, is fissile only when it is bombarded with very high energy neturons)

    B.) High performance 3 stage TN, with highest possible yield/mass ratio, that use conventional fissile material.
The typical yield output ratios for the the 3 stages for above types (similar to Indian wpn context) are:

1.) pure 2 stage:
15kt / 20kT / 0kt

2) 3 stage (I.e. 2+ stage) weapon that come in 2 sub-varieties,
  • A). Cheap 3 stage TN, that use Natural U as the 3rd stage material.
    15kt / 20kT / 80kt

    B.) High performance 3 stage TN, with highest possible yield/mass ratio, that use conventional fissile material.
    15kt / 20kT / 160kt
You can see how the fusion (second stage) to fission (sum of first & third stage) ratio change for the diff configns.
Locked