Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Oct 2009 22:39

http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/oct/30nuke.htm

Chidambaram
India now has the capability to design and fabricate nuclear weapons of yields ranging from 'low' to around 200 kilo tons yield, Atomic Energy Commission chairman Dr Rajgopal Chidambaram said in Bombay on Monday.
<snip>
Following the nuclear tests, rock samples were collected from the test sites at Pokhran in the desert state of Rajasthan by drilling by the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research through emplacement points and nearby areas. Scientists from BARC have estimated the yields from the seismic and radioactivity measurements, and from analysis of the data from other close-in measurements carried out at the time of tests, which have confirmed the initially declared yields of the tests.

In May 1998, tests included three sub-kilo ton devices in addition to a thermo-nuclear device and a standard fission device.

According to sources, gamma radiation logging was carried out in the bore holes drilled at each of these test sites and the declared yields were confirmed. Several seismic specialists abroad have endorsed the success of the tests.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Oct 2009 22:51

Deleted

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 14 Oct 2009 03:47

Moderation note

Off-topic discussions on literacy, neo-natal health, socio-economic issues, etc will be deleted. Continued derailment will lead to the thread being locked and/or users being warned. Please stay on topic.

thanks
Suraj

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Oct 2009 05:56

I was searching through Internet news archives to see if any new information was trawled up and was delighted to find that a figure has been quoted for the primary of S1 - at 12 kt in two of the links I found earlier. Will post more as I locate them.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Oct 2009 06:20

Some very interesting statements from 2000 - sorry for posting the same link again

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2000 ... 052523.htm

How far can India proceed without further nuclear tests? Mr. Richard Garwin, a highly regarded former consultant to Los Alamos National Laboratory in the U.S., wrote in the November-December 1997 issue of Arms Control Today that a non-nuclear-weapon state could: ``With reasonable confidence build a gun barrel-type fission weapon using uranium-235, and a first-generation implosion `weapon' with greater difficulty and less confidence using weapons grade uranium or plutonium. Somewhat greater uncertainty and difficulty would be associated with using reprocessed plutonium from commercial reactor-grade spent fuel. Increasing uncertainty would arise if more advanced implosion systems were to be produced using less fissile material that the basic solid-sphere design. Still greater uncertainty would arise if a `boosted' fission weapon was to be designed and manufactured without testing. Finally, very little confidence could be placed in the efficacy of a two-stage thermonuclear weapon that had never been tested.''

Great scepticism has attached to our scientists' claims that a thermonuclear device had been tested in Pokhran. Analysis of seismic signals endorsed beliefs that a ``boosted fission'' device had been tested and not a two-stage thermonuclear device; the Atomic Energy Commission angrily refuted this. Dr. Chidambaram is now on record stating that a ``fusion-boosting fission device'' had constituted the primary stage of this device, followed by a fusion device in the secondary stage. Only its aggregate yield viz. 45 kt was made public, but not the separate yields of the two stages for reasons, no doubt, of national security. Dr. Iyengar has calculated the yield of the secondary thermonuclear stage to be around 20 kt, which, he believes, requires the device to be improved ``to get greater efficiency and smaller size. This would require design changes in the thermonuclear device, and further tests to validate the improved design.'' Even if one does not contest the affirmation that a two-stage thermonuclear device had, indeed, been tested in Pokhran, commonsense suggests that one test of such a complex system is not enough, and more tests are essential to validate the design to the satisfaction of the military and political leadership.

Why is the need for a credible thermonuclear device imperative? To cite Mr. Garwin again, in testimony before the U.S. Congress, ``even in the yield range accessible to fission weapons, thermonuclear weapons are attractive for their economy of fissile material, their compact size, and their improved safety.'' But, ``without nuclear tests of substantial yield, it is difficult to build compact and light fission weapons, and essentially impossible to have any confidence in a large-yield two-stage thermonuclear weapon.'' The capability no doubt exists currently to deploy 15-20 kt fission weapons. The need for thermonuclear weapons, however, is unavoidable if India is to deploy a nuclear triad as envisaged by the nuclear doctrine, which is moreover not country-specific but possesses an all-azimuth character. This would be impossible unless further tests are conducted, their number would depend on the sophistication required from the nuclear arsenal. In the current state of the game, India cannot be accepted as a de jure nuclear weapon state without amending the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which is a highly improbable possibility. Its claim to be de facto nuclear weapon status would be constrained by the inadequacies of its nuclear capability, noted above, all other recognised nuclear weapon powers premise their arsenals on thermonuclear weapons.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 14 Oct 2009 06:21

Nice Links Shiv.

If 12 & 15 are for Fission trigger and device then what are 20 and 25? Are they the FBF figures? I asked because KS was mentioning 20 & 25 deployed with forces

Also in the link RC was mentioned something done to prevent the TN to go beyond 45. It means that if the trigger and device are FBF'd, the output by itself will go up from 45 to 70 (Increase from 12*2 to 25 * 2 from fission trigger and device). 200 will be additionally achieved by reflector and tamper, am I correct?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Oct 2009 06:24

For the record - PKI from 2009
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/india ... ar/523138/

“Even if we had got a yield of 43 kilotons in the (1998) tests, the amount of fusion is still not enough. We should continue the development and test again,” Iyengar said after a ceremony in the capital that marked the release of his book Briefings on Nuclear Technologies in India.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 14 Oct 2009 07:32

shiv wrote:August 2000
http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/2 ... 10044.html
Just days ago, Iyengar created a stir by demanding a peer review of the Indian nuclear weapons programme. At the end of his lecture responding to a question by The Indian Express whether he was indicating that Pokharan-II tests were a failure, Iyengar said: "I never disagreed with the yields published by the DAE. I agree they are the best people to judge and they have done what they can. But in the intricacy that I showed, how much offusion energy came out of that, how much of fission energy came out of that, there is a complication. It has got three devices inside: a fission device, a booster device and a thermonuclear part. How you apportioned the yieldbetween these three is something has not been done absolutely correctly or has not been publicly expressed. It's not that a fusion device cannot be partially burning. I can show you American references that it can be a partial burning; it need not be a full burning. Still it produces that energy. So under those circumstances, it is my conviction and the fact that it has to be weaponised requires further testing. So we should not say we don't need any more testing. This is what I challenge. That is not correct. If we have to weaponise, if we have to progress in R&D, then we need the option to test and therefore we should not sign the CTBT."

Like the highlighted portion made by PKI similar statements are heard from K.Santhanam. Which ever way it was apportioned, the total yield comes to ~ 55 Kt even by K.Santhanam's statement. i.e. 20 - 25 kt for fission and say 60% of 45kt for S1. I guess one portion of the controversy can be fixed. i.e. the total yield. And the problem lies in apportionment of the total yield. PKI too agrees with the total yield figure which was agreed by other international seismic experts like Evernden.

BARC has access to post-shot Radiochem analysis. So it could be safer to assume that what they say could be true.

One thing very funny in all these developments is Mr. K.Santhanam talked about the limitations of the test site. The max seems to 55 - 60 kt ( from K.Santhanam's words). If 45 kt is the design yield of S1 and 25 kt for fission, is not the total yield goes to 70 kt ? That means K.Santhanam doesnt know the yield of S2 fission device before the test. If he doesnt this, is not safer to assume he might also be not aware of S1 design or S1 design yield.

As K.Santhanam stated, if the S2 device is indeed a 25 kt, can the Khetolai village able to absorb additional 10 kt without any further damage ?

What the experts here feel about the crater phenomenology for 25 kt ?

Further titbits:

Just before the Pokharan-II tests, Iyengar had told the science correspondent of The Indian Express that it could take as much as 6 to 7 years to detonate an H-bomb. He said that work began only in the 90s when he was at the helm. Since he was in the know of the state of R&D in the thermonuclear area, his statement after the tests that the Pokharan explosion could have been a boosted device sparked a debate in BARC and other scientific circles as to the exact nature of the 1998 tests. His current challenge that Chidambaram's claim that all data needed to weaponise now exists is a falsity is bound to stir the nuclear hornet's nest.

Just shows how compartmentalized BARC is. PKI doesnt know till and even after the test that the tested is a TN device.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 14 Oct 2009 07:52

FUNDAMENTALS OF EQUATIONS OF STATE

by Shalom Eliezer (SOREQ Nuclear Research Center, Israel) , Ajoy Ghatak (Indian Institute of Technology, India) , Heinrich Hora (University of New South Wales, Australia) , & foreword by Edward Teller

Shiv, this book might interest you in answering questions on EOS you raised.

Contents:

* A Summary of Thermodynamics
* Equation of State for an Ideal Gas
* Law of Equipartition of Energy and Effects of Vibrational and Rotational Motions
* Bose–Einstein Equation of State
* Fermi–Dirac Equation of State
* Ionization Equilibrium and the Saha Equation
* Debye–Hückel Equation of State
* The Thomas–Fermi and Related Models
* Grüneisen Equation of State
* An Introduction to Fluid Mechanics in Relation to Shock Waves
* Derivation of Hydrodynamics from Kinetic Theory
* Studies of the Equations of State from High Pressure Shock Waves in Solids
* Equation of State and Inertial Confinement Fusion
* Applications of Equations of State in Astrophysics
* Equations of State in Elementary Particle Physics

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Oct 2009 07:57

symontk wrote:Nice Links Shiv.

If 12 & 15 are for Fission trigger and device then what are 20 and 25? Are they the FBF figures? I asked because KS was mentioning 20 & 25 deployed with forces

Also in the link RC was mentioned something done to prevent the TN to go beyond 45. It means that if the trigger and device are FBF'd, the output by itself will go up from 45 to 70 (Increase from 12*2 to 25 * 2 from fission trigger and device). 200 will be additionally achieved by reflector and tamper, am I correct?

symontk - general reading tells me that there are many ways to skin that cat and many ways in which the cat can skin itself unintentionally. We will never know the details for India's tests or anyone else's tests for that matter.

A lot of the yield from an FBF device apparently demands that neutrons should not escape too easily but should be available to cause local fission. But as that local fission increases there is local heating and expansion and if the device disintegrates too early the yield is truncated. Now this is only for the primary in a TN.

As per Carey Sublette nuclearweapons archive in a TN device the fusion fuel gets compressed by an intense burst of X rays from the primary. But the fusion fuel should not get heated before compression. So it is protected by a blanket (called tamper or pusher) that gets pressed by the X rays and in turn presses on the fusion fuel while protecting the fuel from overheating too soon. At some point the fusion fuel must get heated as well and for this one method used is a "spark plug" -i.e a small fission bomb (Plutonium) inside the center of the fusion fuel. As that Pu gets compressed it creates a small atomic explosion of its own leading to heating of the already compressed fusion fuel around it. This causes fusion to occur in a matter of nanoseconds releasing a lot of energy and significantly one heck of a lot of neutrons.

Those neutrons try to escape and if it so happens that the pusher/tamper (mentioned above) is also made of Uranium - the latter will undergo fission to produce literally a fourth bomb within three other bombs and provide the megaton gigaboom.

So in order to keep the yield down (deliberately) one could avoid using a tamper of Uranium - but use Lead or Tungsten instead which serve as good "blankets" but will not undergo fission when the neutrons hit them. But those neutrons produced by fission have a great deal of energy and when they hit surrounding rocks they blast the nuclei of the atoms in the rock and create weird elements that do not naturally exist in the rock. Post shot drilling samples rock for those new elements and can be used for an estimate of the number of neutrons produced by fusion.

So when you look at the figures quoted by various sources you can reach different conclusions. The double asterisks in the figures below (**) indicate my calculation from released figures. The rest are released figures verifiable from news items. Any errors in figures are mine)

Using NPA seismology community figures for total yield (10 -25 kt)

10 kt --> nothing much worked
25 kt --> fission bomb 15 kt plus 10 kt** primary of S1 (this is what Subba Rao says)

Using Santhanam's statements for total yield in 2009 - he has quoted various figures adding up to the range 40 to 50 kt**

40 kt** --> 25 kt fission bomb (as per Santhanam)+ 15 kt** S1 TN device
50 kt** --> 25 kt fission bomb (as per Santhanam) + 25 kt** S1 TN device ("underperformance of TN device")

But if you use BARC (RC and Kakodkar) figures with Santhanam's total yield estimates then you get different conclusions

Santhanam's 40 kt** --> 15 kt fission bomb + 12 kt primary of S1 + 3** kt (spark plug/fusion)
Santhanam's 50 kt** --> 15 kt fission bomb + 12 kt primary of S1 + 13** kt (spark plug/fusion)

BARC's own figures are
55-60 kt --> 12-15 kt fission bomb + 12 kt primary of S1+ 30 plus kt** (spark plug/fusion)

All this assumes one particular design of TN and we have no details about that other than that a fission weapon of 12-15 kt was tested and a fusion boosted fission device was the primary of the TN device and there was a secondary whose details will not be revealed.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Oct 2009 08:02

Bade wrote: Shiv, this book might interest you in answering questions on EOS you raised.

Thanks Bade - but you don't happen to have any links on the subject of "Equations of State for completely illiterate idiots" do you?

I mean - what the heck are "equations of state". They are probably not about the amount of money made by the Bangarappa government in Karnataka state for the Narasimha Rao government

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Oct 2009 08:07

Data point: PKI's statement
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/ ... _2893.html

12 May 1998
Former Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Chairman P.K. Iyengar says that three explosions were needed to test three different kinds of weapons: a sub-kiloton device that could be fired as an artillery shell or dropped from a combat aircraft; a fission device that could be dropped from a bomber plane; and a thermonuclear design. According to Iyengar, the thermonuclear design contained only a small portion of tritium while most of its explosive force came from a fission device. The explosion showed that the "thermonuclear technology worked" and India does not need to "go for a megaton explosion while testing an H-bomb" unless it plans "for a total destruction of the opposite side."
—Willis Witter, "New Delhi Ignores Critics, Says More Tests are Needed," Washington Times, 13 May 1998, <http://www.washtimes.com/>.

Two things of note:
1) Small portion of Tritium, mostly fission yield (one day after S1)
2) Total destruction of the other side is not planned

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Oct 2009 08:12

@symontk

If 12 & 15 are for Fission trigger and device then what are 20 and 25? Are they the FBF figures? I asked because KS was mentioning 20 & 25 deployed with forces

I don't know.

amit · Post by **amit** » 14 Oct 2009 08:16

shiv wrote:Well this is very true. There is a pining for the "high table". But that high table does not come merely from gigabooms or - either real or imagined ones on the internet as long as an Indian infants or mothers have a greater chance of dying at childbirth than those compared to any of the P5. The quality of our bombs is reflected in the quality of life of our people.

Shiv,

I wish some folks understood this point without getting apoplectic fits.

Unfortunately anyone who has so far raised the economic aspect of security has been disdainfully dismissed as being the economist types who have no clue about security and other affairs pertaining to the real world - unfortunately a part of the engineering hubris among these folks (please note I am not casting everyone with the same tar).

One needs to just look at what happened to the USSR and how it lost the cold war despite having enough giga bums to warm the cockles of the hearts of uber jingos. If security was just a function of the number and yield of bombs in your basement and the delivery systems in your backyard, then how could the US claim Cold War victory without firing a single shot? Makes one wonder, na?

On another note, thanks for compiling all those interesting links one after the other as an easy reference point.

I am beginning to veer to your point that PKI and KS may be right in their own ways. However, a case of the Blind Men of Hindoostan?

amit · Post by **amit** » 14 Oct 2009 08:18

shiv wrote:Data point: PKI's statement
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/ ... _2893.html
12 May 1998
Former Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Chairman P.K. Iyengar says... India does not need to "go for a megaton explosion while testing an H-bomb" unless it plans "for a total destruction of the opposite side."
—Willis Witter, "New Delhi Ignores Critics, Says More Tests are Needed," Washington Times, 13 May 1998, <http://www.washtimes.com/>.
Two things of note:
1) Small portion of Tritium, mostly fission yield (one day after S1)
2) Total destruction of the other side is not planned

Unfortunately there goes MAD out of the window! Sniff, sniff...

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 14 Oct 2009 08:21

shiv wrote:- but you don't happen to have any links on the subject of "Equations of State for completely illiterate idiots" do you?

I mean - what the heck are "equations of state". They are probably not about the amount of money made by the Bangarappa government in Karnataka state for the Narasimha Rao government

Well, one way to view it is as an explanation in the spirit of 'spherical cow' approximation

used by theoretical physicists regularly, in apparently explaining away things they do not know about in great details. EOS is one such venture, where our simplistic ideal gas law(pv=nRT) formulation is getting extended to more complicated situations. That is the extent of my knowledge in the subject beyond the ideal case.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Oct 2009 08:22

The following article from Expressbuzz was probably linked earier. PKI makes some very goo arguments from both sides of the debate but indicates that a spark plug may or may not be needed. He assumes the presence of a spark plug.

http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/prin ... zlnrpN6go=

A typical thermonuclear device has two parts: a ‘boosted-fission’ trigger, and the actual thermonuclear part, comprising LiD fuel. The fission trigger is an atom bomb that produces enough radiation pressure to make the ‘hydrogen bomb’ ignite. In addition, one can use a spark-plug; this spark-plug is just some fissile material like plutonium (Pu) placed around the fusion core which, when it fissions, heats the core and aids the fusion process. The first hydrogen explosion, Mike, carried out by the US in 1952, had a spark-plug. It is very likely that the thermonuclear device of 1998 also had a spark-plug.

Therefore, the total yield of the thermonuclear device is the sum of the fission yield from the boosted-fission, the fission yield from the spark-plug, and the actual fusion yield from the LiD. The latter proceeds by the Li first being converted to tritium by absorbing a neutron arising from the fissions, and this tritium then fusing with the deuterium (D) to form helium (He).

Now, if one goes by the number for the total nuclear yield put out by the Department of Atomic Energy following the 1998 nuclear tests, the thermonuclear device alone was around 50 kilotons. To know how successful the fusion was, we must know how much of this came from the boosted-fission and spark-plug, which are fission reactions, and how much from the actual fusion of tritium to form helium. In earlier designs the booster has been designed for as much as 45 kt yield, so if we take the booster yield as even 30 kt, a reasonable assumption, then the fusion yield must have been 20 kt. One can then calculate that the amount of LiD that must have burnt to achieve this yield would be 400 grams or only around 500 ml. This is small volume, and typically one puts in a lot more of the fusion material in the core — in kilograms. Therefore, if only 400 gm burnt, then the fraction the total fuel that burnt must have been small — perhaps as little as 20 per cent. Clearly, this is not a very efficient thermonuclear device. Now, the unburned LiD fuel would still have been converted to tritium by the capture of neutrons. If most of this tritium did not ‘burn’, i.e. fuse to form helium, then a lot of tritium should have been detected in the soil samples from the test site. This is what seems to have happened, even though it is not confirmed.

The new revelation by Dr. Santhanam is that the actual total yield of the thermonuclear device (i.e. the boosted-fission part plus the fusion part) was only 60 per cent of the design value (of 50 kt), i.e., around 30 kt. This is also consistent with the yield values obtained from seismic data according to international sources. If we accept Dr. Santhanam’s number, coming as it does from one of the core members of the Pokhran-II tests, then the situation is even more serious. This suggests that the thermonuclear burn may have been marginal or may not even have occurred at all. This has very serious implications for our weaponisation programme and deterrence philosophy, and certainly invites much closer, detailed, technical scrutiny. Of course, none of these numbers are very accurate, but 10 kt more or less, in one direction or the other, will not materially alter these conclusions.

It is true that the subsequent drilling operations and radioactive measurements have shown the presence of fission fragments and isotopes produced by fast neutrons. But these fast neutrons could have come from, the fission as well as the fusion. Further, the booster itself has tritium which would have contributed to the activity generated by fast neutrons. Therefore presence of these isotopes cannot unequivocally confirm that the fusion secondary has really worked. Attempts have also been made to derive the fusion yield from a radiochemical analysis of the isotopes.

However, the methodology employed in the radiochemical analysis, is complex. Approximations made in integrating the flux distribution, extent of the cavity, and a statistical variation in the samples taken by drilling, introduce large error. Nobody can vouch for the geometry of the cavity or their debris. BARC scientists have themselves indicated an error of 40 per cent on their number of 50 kt. Under this circumstance, this radiochemical method is not absolute proof for the yield of the explosion.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Oct 2009 08:42

http://www.tribuneindia.com/1998/98jul28/nation.htm#5

Before dawn on May 11, a seismograph in a research institute outside Washington DC recorded a disturbance deep in the earth on the other side of the world. Over the next few minutes, dozens of other seismographs all over the planet recorded the same event and transmitted their data automatically to the institute — The Prototype International Data Center (PIDC).
A computer analysed the signals and gave its interpretation, an event of magnitude 5.0 on the Richter scale under Rajasthan in India.
Later that morning, seismologists at the PIDC studied the signals and recognised the event as a nuclear test.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Oct 2009 09:01

OK folks - I have been harping on the point that _NOBODY_ has revealed the exact design of the S1 device. That is because there are descriptions of at least 3 designs of "Hydrogen bombs" available from public sources.

One is the "Layer Cake/Sloika dsign - which can be rejected as not haveing been used in S1 because Chidambaram's words confirm that

The second design is the one we talk about the most - and the one I have described in a post above (Teller-Ulam)

But there is a third design which is called as a transitional or hybrid between FBF and Thermonuclear. In this design the secondary is also a fission bomb - albeit a fusion boosted fission bomb. This was tested in the US as the "Zombie" device in the "Castle Nectar" test.

Link

A possible variation on the staged radiation implosion design is one in which a second fission stage is imploded instead of a thermonuclear one. This was actually the initial concept developed by Stanislaw Ulam before he realized its possible application to thermnuclear weapons. The advantage of this approach is that radiation implosion speeds are hundreds of times higher, and maximum densities tens of times greater, than those achievable through high explosives. This allows achieving higher yields than is practical with high explosive driven fission weapons, and the use of lower grades of fissile material. If some fusion fuel is included in this second fission stage to boost yield, a sort of hybrid two-stage boosted weapon design results that blurs the distinction between two-stage fission and classic Teller-Ulam thermonuclear weapons. The TX-15 "Zombie" developed by the U.S. was originally planned to be a two stage pure fission device, but later evolved into this sort of hybrid boosted system. The Zombie was tested in the Castle Nectar shot (13 May 1954 GMT; Bikini Atoll; 1.69 Mt), and was fielded as the Mk-15.

Castle Nectar/Zombie
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Castle.html

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 14 Oct 2009 09:08

Bade wrote:
shiv wrote:- but you don't happen to have any links on the subject of "Equations of State for completely illiterate idiots" do you?

I mean - what the heck are "equations of state". They are probably not about the amount of money made by the Bangarappa government in Karnataka state for the Narasimha Rao government
Well, one way to view it is as an explanation in the spirit of 'spherical cow' approximation used by theoretical physicists regularly, in apparently explaining away things they do not know about in great details. EOS is one such venture, where our simplistic ideal gas law(pv=nRT) formulation is getting extended to more complicated situations. That is the extent of my knowledge in the subject beyond the ideal case.

Bade sir, i guess, the difference is the "shock- compression", where the material behaves like plasma, similar to the way the anti-tank KE projectiles behave when it hits the tank. But what Shiv sir, is asking is how to adapt the EOS to the intiation of fusion reaction by conventional explosives, realm of future generation Nuclear weapons.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Oct 2009 09:16

Here are various statements regarding the issue of "weaponization" which give some insight into the thought process:

http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/2 ... 21024.html

Pointing out the difference between a weapon and a weaponisable configuration, Chidambaram said a host of other parameters, including the reaction of the device with the environment, has to be taken into account before a weaponisable configuration is converted into a weapon.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2000 ... 052523.htm

``The 15 kiloton device was a weapon, which had been in the stockpile for several years. Others were weaponisable configurations''. The difference between a weapon and a ``weaponisable configuration'' lies in the fact that a host of other parameters, including the reaction of the device with the environment, has to be taken into account before a ``weaponisable configuration'' can be converted into a weapon. In other words, a ``weaponisable'' device could be designed or made into a weapon. The question now arises whether more tests are required to convert these ``weaponisable configurations'' into weapons.

The Joint Statement issued by the AEC Chairman and the Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister shortly after the nuclear tests had stated that: ``The three tests conducted on May 11, 1998, were with a fission device with a yield of about 12 kt, a thermonuclear device with a yield of about 43 kt and a sub-kilo tonne device. On May 13, 1998, two more sub-kilo tonne nuclear tests were carried out.'' It further informed that: ``The tests... have provided critical data for the validation of our capability in the design of nuclear weapons of different yields for different delivery systems. These tests have significantly enhanced our capability in computer simulation of new designs and taken us to the stage of sub-critical experiments in the future, if considered necessary.'' This carefully-worded phraseology does not clarify whether more field tests would be required to fashion the devices tested at Pokhran, with reasonable confidence, into deliverable nuclear weapons.

PKI said in 2000 that TN was not weaponized

http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/2 ... 10044.html

So under those circumstances, it is my conviction and the fact that it has to be weaponised requires further testing. So we should not say we don't need any more testing. This is what I challenge. That is not correct. If we have to weaponise, if we have to progress in R&D, then we need the option to test and therefore we should not sign the CTBT."

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Oct 2009 09:36

The question that has nagged me for some time is whether the S1 device tested was neither Layer Cake design nor Teller Ulam design, but could have been a transitional/hybrid device of the Castle Nectar/Zombie type in which the primary is fission/FBF and secondary is FBF. The yields can be in hundreds of kt - but mainly from fission and the conditions for success are relaxed compared to Teller Ulam

That would fit in perfectly with what PKI and Santhanam have said

PKI said

Just before the Pokharan-II tests, Iyengar had told the science correspondent of The Indian Express that it could take as much as 6 to 7 years to detonate an H-bomb. He said that work began only in the 90s when he was at the helm. Since he was in the know of the state of R&D in the thermonuclear area, his statement after the tests that the Pokharan explosion could have been a boosted device sparked a debate in BARC and other scientific circles as to the exact nature of the 1998 tests.

Santhanam has expressed doubts that any TN device worked at all.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Oct 2009 09:49

Kanson wrote:
Bade sir, i guess, the difference is the "shock- compression", where the material behaves like plasma, similar to the way the anti-tank KE projectiles behave when it hits the tank. But what Shiv sir, is asking is how to adapt the EOS to the intiation of fusion reaction by conventional explosives, realm of future generation Nuclear weapons.

Kanson I mentioned the fact that some fusion has occurred with conventional explosive merely to point out that it appears (to me) that if you compress and heat Tritium in a conventional bomb a few atoms here and there may actually fuse - but to get a bang the conditions have to be relatively precise.

But even "precise conditions" for fusion might mean a variation of a small amount in the region of a few million deg C this way and that way and a few dozen MPa pressure this way and that within a few nanoseconds here and there - with a range of fusion being obtained within those limits.

If you get fusion within that range you have achieved one point out of several thousand points in that range. Unless I am mistaken the way to get more info is either to do several thousand tests for several thousand data points or use simulation for EOS based on a few known data points. This is way out of my area of expertise and I am wondering if anyone can throw light.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Oct 2009 13:09

@ Shiv, et al.

Thanks you for taking the effort at excellent revisitation of available information. Some how the S1 test was taken to mean (over next few year) that we had a deployed TN deterrence (most probably because of the statements of "yes we can" from various parties)

This re visitation does make it amply clear that at the time of Pok II S1 was as PNE like device in many ways (an experimental data gathering, proof of concept etc rig)

I do have a minor nitpick however

shiv wrote:
The explosion showed that the "thermonuclear technology worked" and India does not need to "go for a megaton explosion while testing an H-bomb" unless it plans "for a total destruction of the opposite side."
2) Total destruction of the other side is not planned

It does not say the above, it only says we need a big weapon test IF we plan to achieve total destruction.

The DRAFT doctrine called for unacceptable destruction which was later enhanced to massive destruction.

Now massive and unacceptable destruction is in many and actually most cases (as argued in deterrence thread) total destruction.

So my point is PKI is also saying that we need such tests, which we dont have now -- that will be my interpretation.

---------

@amit, you have been asking me the exactly same questions for a very long time now, and I have been giving same answers worded differently in the hope that I may get across.

. As far as I see I have answered your questions in broad scope with lot of data points. In my view the answers are already obvious and glaring. If yet there lack of satisfaction on your part on what the answers should be, I am afraid that this is all that I am willing to do.

As I said before I here speak only for myself and if it others find it interesting and useful great otherwise its no skin off my nose.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 14 Oct 2009 13:22

Can we focus on the facts and not emotions?

amit · Post by **amit** » 14 Oct 2009 14:10

Sanku wrote:@amit, you have been asking me the exactly same questions for a very long time now, and I have been giving same answers worded differently in the hope that I may get across.

Sanku,

I’m merely pointing out what appears (to me) as inconsistencies in your statements.

Let me explain:

1) You have held the articles by Adm Arun Prakash and General Malik as prime evidence of ex-Services officers saying that our nuclear set-up is screwed and not working properly due to “incompetence”, excessive secrecy or worse.
I agree they are eminently qualified to make such a judgment. The presumption is that they know what they are talking about and have a thorough insiders’ knowledge.
However, when I pointed out that these same two gentlemen have mentioned bomb sizes which are certainly pretty impressive – 500kt and 1mt – you say they are “waffling” and don’t know what they are talking about. And these are the people who would have been mentally and operationally prepared to make the necessary arrangements to deliver our nuclear weapons if there had been a N-war during their watch. Gen Malik very nearly came to that during Kargil if you remember.
Do you see the contradiction?
On the one had they have enough knowledge to know that things are not right in the nuclear command structure, yet on the other hand they have no idea of what they are talking about when they make comments about bomb sizes.

2) The other point is even more interesting. On the one hand you want the GoI to give a clear unambiguous statement, saying to the effect that we have adequate deterrence and we have bombs from the range of Xkt to Zmt (or whatever) and we have missiles to deliver them to all our enemies.

Yet when the same GoI, plus the main Opposition party say that POK2 TN worked, you say that GoI’s word is not sacrosanct and there’s not reason to believe them. And also since they are ones claiming TN-based deterrence the burden of proof rests on them (that is GoI through RC etc). You will have to pardon folks if they find that rather confusing.

Anyway, let’s just agree to disagree on this. You are perfectly entitled to your PoV like anyone else on BRF including myself. However, I do reserve the right to interject when I want to make my PoV known. You also, of course have the same right and I would in fact welcome it. I think we've proved we can debate with each other without loosing our cool.

Cheers!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Oct 2009 15:12

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote:@amit, you have been asking me the exactly same questions for a very long time now, and I have been giving same answers worded differently in the hope that I may get across.
Sanku,

I’m merely pointing out what appears (to me) as inconsistencies in your statements.

Do you see the contradiction?
On the one had they have enough knowledge to know that things are not right in the nuclear command structure, yet on the other hand they have no idea of what they are talking about when they make comments about bomb sizes.

Actually Amit, I did reply to this (apparently that answer was not good enough) but let me see if I can do better.

I DO NOT see the contradiction.

In one line, I think the chiefs themselves attach disclaimers to one part and not the other and hence we should be careful about that part. IMVHO of course.

In detail--

The first set of statements are about the structure etc -- about which we agree that they are knowledgeable and they agree that they are knowledgeable -- so we take their word for it.

So far so good.

They then come to yields etc. Here they themselves claim that they are not knowledgeable of all aspects, plus the open source information is very unclear as well.

So that tells me that they are quoting figures which are either promised to them (clarified further below) or they expect that would be needed (and in some cases they clearly mention that it is their expectation that such weapons be available as in the case of Gen Malik) Further these are only one line passing reference in a 500 line+ article/interview.

So what does that tell me --
1) They may be talking about weapons that are in the state that the fission bomb was between 74 and 98.
2) These weapons are themselves of different tech types hence different chiefs speak about different weapons based on their personal confidence in them (500 KT and 1 MT)
3) These figures should be taken as indicative at the moment, since the chiefs themselves attach disclaimers of sorts.

That is my understanding and hence no contradiction in my mind.

Yet when the same GoI, plus the main Opposition party say that POK2 TN worked, you say that GoI’s word is not sacrosanct and there’s not reason to believe them. And also since they are ones claiming TN-based deterrence the burden of proof rests on them (that is GoI through RC etc). You will have to pardon folks if they find that rather confusing.

Yes certainly, it is my position that GoIs voice is not either 0 or 1 in credibility. It makes some statements that are credible and some other which are less so (all the time and not particularly about this situation)

In that case it helps if the GoI speaks in one voice.

If GoI continues to speak in multitude of voices through its current and retired functionaries -- the credibility of those statements go for a toss.

This can be addressed by GoI making a clear cut statement on the floor of parliament (although we know that even that credibility has been diluted substantially in recent past due to many antics) -- followed by a support of that statement from all its other channel in a clear consistent manner.

That would be the right approach (sizzile for fizzile notwithstanding)

PS> I find your last bit of comments very likable, we can certainly discuss without loosing our cools and interjecting and what not.

In the past I have been guilty myself of loosing my cool and resorting to sarcasm, however I realize now that it is to the detriment of the point I wish to make alone and none else.

amit · Post by **amit** » 14 Oct 2009 15:41

Please pardon me for saying so Sanku but your post above is too complicated for me to understand. You totally lost me with your reasoning. Choro, let's move on.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Oct 2009 15:45

amit wrote:Please pardon me for saying so Sanku but your post above is too complicated for me to understand. You totally lost me with your reasoning. Choro, let's move on.

Well I didnt think it was that complicated, but what to do, anyway good idea -- choro!!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Oct 2009 16:09

Kanson wrote:
Just before the Pokharan-II tests, Iyengar had told the science correspondent of The Indian Express that it could take as much as 6 to 7 years to detonate an H-bomb. He said that work began only in the 90s when he was at the helm. Since he was in the know of the state of R&D in the thermonuclear area, his statement after the tests that the Pokharan explosion could have been a boosted device sparked a debate in BARC and other scientific circles as to the exact nature of the 1998 tests. His current challenge that Chidambaram's claim that all data needed to weaponise now exists is a falsity is bound to stir the nuclear hornet's nest.
Just shows how compartmentalized BARC is. PKI doesnt know till and even after the test that the tested is a TN device.

Well there seem to be other little hidden bits of info.

PKI - in his expressbuzz article admits to having some knowledge of TN design. He says:

http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/prin ... zlnrpN6go=

In earlier designs the booster has been designed for as much as 45 kt yield, so if we take the booster yield as even 30 kt, a reasonable assumption, then the fusion yield must have been 20 kt.

By 'in earlier designs" I am presuming PKI means designs that he was involved with - because he gives such precise figures. And I think he is using the term "booster" for the primary. He also calls it "trigger" But then he estimates that the Primary of S1 must (reasonably) have been 30 kt.

Here PKI's estimate is in conflict with what was published in May 1998 a week after the test
http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pI ... 50634.html

Chidambaram also pointed out that the thermonuclear device or the hydrogen bomb used an advanced fission device to trigger the thermonuclear core.The fission trigger produced about 12 kilotonnes to activate the thermonuclear core to ultimately yield 45 kilotonnes.

There is a big gap between PKI's estimate of what the booster trigger might reasonably have been (30 kt) and what R Chidambaram stated that it was a week after he tests (12 kt)

Incidentally Carey Sublette gives a figure of about 12 or 13 kt fission as a possible yield of a TN trigger/primary.

Perhaps a 45 kt primary is for a megaton yield device?

According to Carey Sublette the fusion in a "boosted fission" bomb provides a very small yield - I need to recheck that ref - either he says 0.2 kt or 2%. I recall the figure 2 there.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 14 Oct 2009 19:02

^^^ Shiv Sir

1. I too think PKI referred to TN device; in his opinion it might have taken another 7 more years to furtification which he said just before POK-II. He express this in another article to say, the lower performance (in his view) of TN device is whether the design team in the urgency to test in the available window of time might have skiped or fixed arbitarily certain parameters in their way. So it is TN in everyway as we infer. Since he feels TN could have taken 7 more years to test, he refers to the tested device must be "boosted" device(FBF).

2. Regarding boosting, there is no limit to boosting(for a boosted US warhead, its yield ranges from 0.5 kt to 300kt). It practically depends upon the design, afaik. It is reasonably believed that Indian primary fission tigger yield is ~ 0.3 kt without boosting. Some US experts commented on that as Indian device is quite advance. So whatever Carey refers to, i'm not aware of.

3. One of the main problem (you may aware of the recent US N warhead scare) is how to keep the primary "powder dry" to get enough energy for imploding the secondary. Apart from "theoretical" necessary yield there is a safety margin where the primary yield is hiked to that level to make sure the secondary does implode even if primary looses certain "oomp" over time. How one calculate this again depends. It may vary from test device to fielded weapon. So various inference we may get from PKI reference to 45kt yield for boosting.

a. Either they want to put a "safer margin" of 45kt for the practical weaponised configuration.

b. Or, the weaponised configuration needed such a primary yield of 45 kt.

c. As tested device is only a test device, the later design team headed by RC would have kept the bare minimum necessary.

e. It could be that at that time when PKI was at helm, the "boosting" he refers could be simple primary fission device so they went straight at 45 kt whereas the later team headed by RC must have modified that to FBF where the yield can be raised or lowered to whichever way needed adding fexlibility to design. In that sense, it is better to revist the statement made by RC where he says, "India has "the capability to design and fabricate a range of nuclear weapons from sub-kiloton yield to 100 kilotons."

I shared what i know. I dont want myself to be seen as 'Nuclear expert'.

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 14 Oct 2009 19:19

Uncle gave a kaccha design of H bum with the condition not to test since it was ready to go design.

But people at the helm of affairs thought when asked to test it is the easy way out (and also helps us to know the bum design is good or bad).

In the mode of Shiv Shankars story telling 'Its like mera beta getting a leaked question paper for IIT therfore he will only practice those questions but when he went to examination hall he found different question paper, so he lost his pants even though he could have passed on his own preparation'

SO when the exploded the kaccha design did not work and uncle knew it would not hence the immidiate questioning of yields and our curve fitting by by data to fit facts.

This is the Ghar Ghar ki Khani, Anushakthi Durghatan.

http://www.idsa.in/publications/strateg ... %20Sub.pdf red this to get pointer that the H bum gurus were not ready when asked to do it.

Rest is all acrimony here and expulsions..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Oct 2009 20:25

Kanson it appears to me that PKI is assuming a particular design without knowing what design was tested. Of course all of us will be in the dark because we only know of designs shown on internet. I would not know Beryllium from my neighbor's daughter even if she rammed her car through my compound wall.

He is assigning a value to the yield of the primary when RC quoted 12 kt for primary and up to 45 kt for secondary.

PKI is saying

1) OK I accept BARC yield = 50 kt and I award 30 kt to primary and 20 kt to fusion
2) But if I take Santhanam's value of 30 kt I can only award 30 kt for primary and nothing for fusion

But RC had said on May 17th 1998 that the primary was 12 kt. This was picked up by Subba Rao and quoted ( in a link I have posted earlier)

So if PKI had taken 12 as Primary and takes Santhanam's 30 kt total value, you still get 12 kt primary and 18 kt of fusion plus spark plug (if any) Assuming spark plug was 10% of total yield you get fusion of about 13000 tons of TNT. It may be small for a fusion bomb - but it is still 40% of expected value which is not a fizzle if you look at Oppenheimer's definition of fizzle.

Note that Santhanam has diagnosed a fizzle by quoting fission bomb (S2) as 25 kt (instead of 15 kt) and rest of yield from S1. PKi is quoting 30 kt for primary instead of 12 kt in his diagnosis of fizzle.

The interesting part for me is how a close look at the yield values being quoted by both PKI and Santhanam actually go against the low values detected by the NPA/CTBT seismologists and are closer to the BARC values. But the nitpicking is the distribution of that yield among devices tested simultaneously.

ROTFL stuff

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Oct 2009 21:45

I am wondering if applying madrassa math could help us get out of this yield estimation business!??!

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 14 Oct 2009 22:03

shiv wrote: Thanks Bade - but you don't happen to have any links on the subject of "Equations of State for completely illiterate idiots" do you?

t

Shivji - FWIW, one book "Mr. Tompkins Explores the atom" By G. Gamaow, if you do not have it please get it. I think you will enjoy it. There is fission/fusion , KE theory of gases, High Energy Physics etc.. one of the best popular science book IMO.. (I think it's in paperback "Mr Tomkins in paper back - which combines Einstein relativity - High Energy physics, Nuclear physics, all in one book. Of course Prof Gamow's other books (eg One two three infinity and many serious text books are good too)
(BTW It famously calculates the probability of all the oxygen molecules will gather in kitchen and leave a person in living room with no oxygen - Or the probability that your car will "tunnel" through solid brick garage - Even diffraction pattern of tigers wave function ( and how to raise Hamiltonion to be a successful tiger shikhari) along with explaining other mundane things like fundamental math behind big bangs and giga booms ...

BTW you talked about fusion in TNT etc... Our own PKI is is known as Father of Indian Cold Fusion research.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 14 Oct 2009 22:20

Shiv wrt your Sloika post. Here is something in the web on Sloika

Someone versed in Russian will need to translate this diagram. I will be happy to make an english diagram.
The page is in russian, the babelfish translated version is here:
Sloika

Russian URL

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 14 Oct 2009 22:25

Another site, which has the same sloika design, but also talks of the use of lasers for ignition:
Translation of Russian site

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Oct 2009 05:36

Amber G. wrote:
shiv wrote: Thanks Bade - but you don't happen to have any links on the subject of "Equations of State for completely illiterate idiots" do you?

t
Shivji - FWIW, one book "Mr. Tompkins Explores the atom" By G. Gamaow, if you do not have it please get it. I think you will enjoy it. There is fission/fusion , KE theory of gases, High Energy Physics etc.. one of the best popular science book IMO.. (I think it's in paperback "Mr Tomkins in paper back - which combines Einstein relativity - High Energy physics, Nuclear physics, all in one book. Of course Prof Gamow's other books (eg One two three infinity and many serious text books are good too)
(BTW It famously calculates the probability of all the oxygen molecules will gather in kitchen and leave a person in living room with no oxygen - Or the probability that your car will "tunnel" through solid brick garage - Even diffraction pattern of tigers wave function ( and how to raise Hamiltonion to be a successful tiger shikhari) along with explaining other mundane things like fundamental math behind big bangs and giga booms ...

BTW you talked about fusion in TNT etc... Our own PKI is is known as Father of Indian Cold Fusion research.

Thanks. George Gamow of course fathered several generations of interest in physics and hardly anyone of my generation failed to develop some liking for the subject until being battered back by the math involved.

I am guessing that book would be a collectors item. Need to get it though.

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 15 Oct 2009 05:53

You can read better about the genius of George Gamow in the book

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Oct 2009 06:36

I am guessing that book would be a collectors item. Need to get it though.

Paperback for $2.61 on Amazon! Used.