Nuclear Thread - 4 - Printable Version +- Forums (http://india-forum.com) +-- Forum: Indian and International Forces (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=8) +--- Forum: Military Discussion (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=22) +--- Thread: Nuclear Thread - 4 (/showthread.php?tid=295) |
Nuclear Thread - 4 - gangajal - 11-16-2009 The information that the TN S1 shaft was only 120 m deep is even more worrying. This is because there was no crater in S1 while the 25 kt A bomb created a 25 m diameter crater at S2. I am assuming that the S2 was about 100 m deep. The implication is that the S1 TN yield must have been considerably less than 25 kt. I don't see why Santhanam and ARC are saying that the S1 yield was 20 kts when there was no crater and the A-frame was intact in S1. This adds to the puzzle! Nuclear Thread - 4 - ramana - 11-17-2009 <!--QuoteBegin-gangajal+Nov 16 2009, 06:21 PM-->QUOTE(gangajal @ Nov 16 2009, 06:21 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The information that the TN S1 shaft was only 120 m deep is even more worrying. This is because there was no crater in S1 while the 25 kt A bomb created a 25 m diameter crater at S2. I am assuming that the S2 was about 100 m deep. The implication is that the S1 TN yield must have been considerably less than 25 kt. I don't see why Santhanam and ARC are saying that the S1 yield was 20 kts when there was no crater and the A-frame was intact in S1. This adds to the puzzle! [right][snapback]102589[/snapback][/right] <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Is it possible for ~20 kt to produce a retarc in 120m if it was in granite "pink" or otherwise? i.e it behaved as an overburied device for that shaft and that yield? They say S2 was ~ 150m and 25kt and produced a 25m radius crater. Nuclear Thread - 4 - gangajal - 11-17-2009 <!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Nov 17 2009, 12:25 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Nov 17 2009, 12:25 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->[Is it possible for ~20 kt to produce a retarc in 120m if it was in granite "pink" or otherwise? i.e it behaved as an overburied device for that shaft and that yield? They say S2 was ~ 150m and 25kt and produced a 25m radius crater. [right][snapback]102590[/snapback][/right] <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> The 2 shafts were separated by 1 km. So even if there was a granite layer, it should affect both the S1 and the S2 device in a similar manner. In fact if the S2 device was located 150 m underground and the S1 device 120 m underground and both had same yields then I would expect roughly a larger crater for the S1 device then the S2 device. Remember that the 8 kt Pokhran 1 device buried 107 m underground created a large crater. So if the S1 device was really placed 120 m underground and it yielded 20 kts then it should have given rise to a crater with a diameter greater than 25 m. The pink granite strata should not substantially change this conclusion since it would also affect the S2 device. Nuclear Thread - 4 - ramana - 11-17-2009 So implications of above based on the non-crater means there was no TN at all? What about the boosted primary etc? Nuclear Thread - 4 - gangajal - 11-17-2009 The implication of the absence of any S1 crater is that the S1 device yield was less than the 8 kt yield of the Pokhran 1 device. So the boosted fission trigger worked to some extent. We don't know for sure of the planned yield of the boosted fission trigger. Let us assume that the boosted fission trigger was planned at a 15 kt yield, i.e., one-third of the 45 kt S1 device. So if the boosted fission trigger yielded less than 8 kts, then that would imply that the boosted trigger worked at about 50 % efficiency. If the boosted fission trigger yield was supposed to be 25 kt then the efficiency of the actual boosted trigger was only 30 %. That is not a bad first effort. The problem of using a LiD layer on top of the plutonium core is that when the whole thing is compressed, the LiD will get mixed with the plutonium. That would reduce the purity of the Plutonium and thus lower the temperature and cause less LiD to fuse. Less fusion means the fission process will be boosted less than the theoretical expectation. Nevertheless I would suggest that one could take the S1 boosted fission trigger as a reference and refine the software and get a better boosted fission device. Moreover they could over-design and use twice more Plutonium than is necessary for a particular yield. So a fairly reliable boosted fission device of about 100 kt is still possible although it will be inefficient, i.e. it will weigh more. What Santhanam is really revealing is the utter failure of the second stage which did not work at all. I noticed that BARC is working in their Indore Center on increasing their knowledge of high intensity laser-matter interaction by compressing matter with a commercial 10 tera watt laser . So in theory they could now design a better 2-stage device where the second stage would possibly work at least with some efficiency. However, testing would be needed to be sure about the yield of the device. Nuclear Thread - 4 - gangajal - 11-18-2009 The information that BARC placed the 45 kt S1 device at a shallow depth of 120 m while they placed the 25 kt S2 device at a deeper depth of 150 m is really puzzling. Why should BARC place the larger yield device at a depth that is shallower than the smaller yield device? Won't they be worried about venting? Nuclear Thread - 4 - ramana - 11-18-2009 We don't know if the 120m depth is right. At that depth there would be a crater for stated 20kt yield. The only way there would be no crater is if its total fizzle. And Santhanam is sure that wasn't the case. Nuclear Thread - 4 - ramana - 11-18-2009 Why is RC so adamant that there was no need to test the TN? And again was quick to say no re-test? Nuclear Thread - 4 - gangajal - 11-18-2009 Yes, that is another puzzle. Is it possible that RC is simply toeing the official government line? I think he does not really believe in his own statement. This is why he avoided talking with his mentor Iyengar. If he is so confident then why did he allow the BARC paper which claimed the yield to be 50+10 kt to be published with plots that have no units? No one would believe such a paper. Such behaviour only makes BARC look foolish. I don't believe that the S1 device was placed at the shallow depth of 120 m. No one would place a more powerful device at a shallower depth then a less powerful device. I think Chengappa was right when he said that the S1 device was placed at a depth greater than 200 meters. Nuclear Thread - 4 - ramana - 11-19-2009 <!--QuoteBegin-gangajal+Nov 18 2009, 06:14 PM-->QUOTE(gangajal @ Nov 18 2009, 06:14 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, that is another puzzle. Is it possible that RC is simply toeing the official government line? I think he does not really believe in his own statement. This is why he avoided talking with his mentor Iyengar. If he is so confident then why did he allow the BARC paper which claimed the yield to be 50+10 kt to be published with plots that have no units? No one would believe such a paper. Such behaviour only makes BARC look foolish. I don't believe that the S1 device was placed at the shallow depth of 120 m. No one would place a more powerful device at a shallower depth then a less powerful device. I think Chengappa was right when he said that the S1 device was placed at a depth greater than 200 meters. [right][snapback]102640[/snapback][/right] <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> What if the devices were emplaced in S-2 shaft already at an earlier date? We know there was water seepage in the S-1 shaft that was pumped out per Chengappa. Maybe they had to detune the device to account for shallow depth and that led to the fizzle? From most Western commentators the secy part is not the difficult one compared to the pry side. Nuclear Thread - 4 - gangajal - 11-19-2009 By detuning you mean that they took a high yield device like say a 200 kt weapon and reduced it to 45 kt. Should that cause a fizzle? I think reducing the yield of a 2-stage device is fairly easy: (a) Simply reduce the amount of LiD in the second stage. Iyengar thinks that they used 2 kgs of LiD. You could obtain a dial-a-yield weapon by simply changing the amount of the LiD in the second stage; (b) Another way and most likely way to reduce it would be to wrap the second stage by an inert blanket. One could change the blanket thickness and vary the yield. I would be surprised if either strategy would lead to a fizzle. If this is the reason for a fizzle then I would have to say that BARC has been careless. It is not difficult to estimate the effect of variation of LID amount or blanket thickness on yield There are 2 other ways that a fizzle could occur: 1. The intensity of the radiation due to the primary trigger was not sufficient to squeeze the second stage material. That would mean that the primary trigger did not work correctly. This does not seem to be highly probable since BARC has the technological understanding to build a simple A-bomb. 2. The primary trigger did generate high intensity radiation but it did not squeeze the secondary uniformly. I think this is the most likely scenario. I agree that the fabrication of the secondary is not difficult provided you know the precise shape and size of the secondary. What is difficult is to uniformly squeeze the secondary. I know that the easiest way to arrange for a uniform squeeze is to subject the secondary to fluid like pressure. How they do it is a trade secret. I think this is the difficult step. I suspect that the fizzle is not due to simple detuning because it is clear that BARC has not weaponised the S1 device. So the problem is more serious than a simple detuning. There is a lack of understanding on how to generate a uniform squeeze. The 1998 Sakti tests have been extremely useful in enhancing BARC's understanding of the boosted fission device. I am sure they have been able to trouble shoot the S1 boosted trigger and get a fairly reliable although inefficient code for making a boosted fission device. BARC's boosted fission device would work but would weigh much more than say a similar device made in the US. I don't think BARC has a good understanding of the 2-stage TN device. This is the reason why they have not weaponised it. Nuclear Thread - 4 - Husky - 11-20-2009 Good to read in full. Should we be worried? Or can we go back to sleep now. - http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2009/11/dis...scientists.html <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>disaster: bulletin of atomic scientists on india's and pakistan's and china's stockpiles</b> 18th nov 2009 on the anniversary of the last stand of 13th kumaon in chushul, ladakh, in 1962, here comes grim news. india's arsenal is smaller than pakistan's, and the latter is growing its exponentially. the bulletin of atomic scientists (the guys with the doomsday clock) is pretty respected and not very biased. (hat tip to brahma chellaney on twitter) not only is india defenseless against a plausible chinese first strike (not having any missiles capable of reaching beijing or shanghai), it is increasingly going to be the case that pakisan can afford a first strike and knock out delhi, mumbai and bangalore without worrying too much about the consequences in return. there is no teeth in india's potential second strike. this is where india's wise leaders, in their wisdom, have got us, the much-ballyhooed nuclear deal of course will further cap even this capability. kevin rudd swore he won't give india uranium without NPT, for instance. and the not-so-subtle pressure to sign NPT, CTBT, FMCT, etc. continue apace. india has no deterrence. it is fair to say <b>india is screwed.</b> what india really needs is twice china's arsenal, ie about 700 warheads, as we have to face, as it were, two chinas (one beyond tibet and the other west of PoK). and we badly need ICBMs to deliver them. we need the 2x because unless we can cause 100 million han casualties, china wouldn't even notice. 100 million would cause them to lose face. it is pretty clear now that india's hydrogen bomb claims were exaggerated, and by abjuring further testing, we will never be able to get better weaponry. pakistan doesn't need to test, as they get tested chinese components that they just need to assemble. it is very clear that china *is* the enemy. pakistan would fold if china were deterred. and let's not expect any help from the US. they stood by and twiddled their thumbs when china gave pak 2 full bombs in 1982, with the apparent approval of the CIA. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/12/AR2009111211060.html) Chellaney Study by Norris & Kristensen shows India, with Asia's oldest nuclear program, has the world's smallest nuclear arsenal: http://ow.ly/DiR9 Chellaney What the study shows is that Pakistan has overtaken India, even as the latter doesn't have a single Beijing-reachable missile in deployment. Chellaney To read how Pakistan is frenetically expanding its nuclear-weapon capabilities across the board, see http://ow.ly/DiYZ by the same authors http://ow.ly/DiR9 Posted by nizhal yoddha at 11/18/2009 08:39:00 AM 1 comments Links to this post <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1 comments: asd123 said...   I believe that the report underestimates China's capability. India is in no way comparable to China. It is a shame, India is a laughing stock. Pakistan and bangladesh should not even exist, what did India really expect?   Of course pak, bangladesh would go against india. Now Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan as well as maoist separatists have joined in on the fun.   11/18/2009 2:39 PM<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh well. What's the worst that can happen? We'll all be nuclear-fried to a crisp together. Could be worse, right? Hmmm. (Thinks deeply. For 5 whole seconds. Falls asleep.) Nuclear Thread - 4 - ramana - 11-20-2009 Its the politicised scientific elite that got India into the mess. Their faults are: - Thinking nukes are political weapons and having notional capability is adequate. Yes its adequate if you are in an alliance sytem otherwise its suicidal. All the p5 are in alliances with either US or UK and hence have marginal arsenals. Thinking that India can have the same shows inadeqate mental capablity. - Convinvicing the politicians with the logic that nukes are political weapons - When a realist poltician came and asked them to test they failed in the Tn. To cover their butts they should have tested the boosted fission weapon. they didnt. So India is stuck at a marginal yield status. Same as TSP. hence the equal eqau. I put the onus for this situation at scientists door. - Covering up their failure and persisting with earlier logic even after 1962 Chinese aggression, Chinese transfer of wepaons to TSP and Kargil after the tests. Any peabrain can figure out Kargil happened because the tests failed. Otherwise its unheard of that a nuke power has tis territory encroached by a neighbor surviving on borrowed money(form US) and nuke weapons (from PRC). - Terrorist attack on Lok Sabha was an attack on Indian state and that too was not used to recitfy the lapses. - Rushing to sing a foolish doeal that limits Indian ability to test. the deal is with US but the pressure is from PRC. So its a tango. Nuclear Thread - 4 - gangajal - 11-21-2009 A comparison between the number of nukes does not tell the whole story. One has to compare also the yield distribution of the nukes fielded by a country. The current Indo-US nuke deal is a restraining factor only for a few decades. It will not restrain Indian nuke policy forever. Nuclear Thread - 4 - agnivayu - 11-21-2009 With the civilian nuclear deal signed, it should free up India's domestic supplies of Uranium for weapons. India needs atleast 1000 nuclear warheads. Bush was a great ally of India. The civilian nuclear deal really irritated China because they knew it would allow India to build more nuclear weapons. The democrats (including prior Clinton regime and current Obama regime) are more pro China than Bush and the republicans. Hence you see joint statements made with China against India. They (Democrats) believe in keeping parity between India, China and Pakistan. Infact many of them are scared of China (but not of India) and feel they must appease China. The republicans believe the Chinese regime is stealthy and cunning and will be a rival to the U.S. and West in the future. The Obama regime is not happy about Bush's deal with India for civilian power. Regardless, France and Russia have jumped in as they are greedy and eager to make money. India should leverage this and not worry about if the present U.S. government cooperates more on Nuclear power. The most difficult thing which was getting an exception for India with the Nuclear Suppliers Group was done last year by Bush, a truly great achievement. Nuclear Thread - 4 - ramana - 11-23-2009 When the real question is the veracity of the Indian TN tested in POKII, people want to explore that the superpowers are moving away from 3 megatonne weapons. So what? Its the Indian TN that has the cerdibility problem. The new designs are lighter and provide more efficient coverage due to accuracy. The 3Mt are heavy and dont go far or need heavy lift launch vehicles which were transformed to satellite launchers after becoming redundant. Go to New Mexico musem to see what is the size? Nuclear Thread - 4 - Arun_S - 11-24-2009 Now previously successfully tested Agni-2, now show repeated failure. And R.Chidambram had APJ Kalam believe the single S2 pure fission bum will always fission and the fabled S1 fizzle TN will miraculesously sizzle when used in anger next time around. What brains that suck to such idiotic RC story telling. Agni-2 is a wasted vehicle platform with no useful reliability (thus) no credibility. The only way it can restore back some credibility is if they now test 5 successful tests in a row. Nuclear Thread - 4 - Guest - 12-09-2009 [url="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/89c98624-e352-11de-8d36-00144feab49a.html"]Russia to supply India with nuclear reactors[/url] Quote:Russia became the latest country to strike a civil nuclear deal with energy-hungry India on Monday when it agreed to supply reactors to Asiaââ¬â¢s third largest economy. Nuclear Thread - 4 - Arun_S - 12-11-2009 Pls note that GE sells Hitachi's reactors. And Hitachi's backlog with current booking itself is abysmal. [url="http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/12/11/stories/2009121151330300.htm"]Nuclear Power Corpn hopes to buy land for projects in 18 months[/url] Quote:Mumbai, Dec. 10 Nuclear Thread - 4 - Arun_S - 12-11-2009 This is myth making. The initial target of installing 20 GWatt by 2020 was impossible given limited time of 11 years, and limited worldwide capacity to make reactors. This projection of 30 GWatt is even more impractical. As I see it, they will announce launching of these projects by 2020, and leave the building for later, as delayed installation of power plants is an accepted de-jure fact. Most of the corruption money however will be made in the run up to awarding contracts to build power plants and secure enriched fuel supply contracts. JMT [url="http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/12/06/stories/2009120652730300.htm"]DAE powers up nuclear generation target by 10,000 MW, to 30GW by 2020[/url] Quote:Date:06/12/2009 |