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!
<!--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.
<!--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.
So implications of above based on the non-crater means there was no TN at all? What about the boosted primary etc?
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.
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?
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.
Why is RC so adamant that there was no need to test the TN? And again was quick to say no re-test?
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.
<!--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.
11-19-2009, 12:41 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-19-2009, 12:47 AM by gangajal.)
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.
11-20-2009, 04:14 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-20-2009, 04:28 PM by Husky.)
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/con...11060.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.)
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.
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.
11-21-2009, 07:17 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-21-2009, 09:48 AM by agnivayu.)
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.
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?
11-24-2009, 11:58 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-24-2009, 12:01 PM by Arun_S.)
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.
[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.
International power companies from Russia, France, the UK, the US and Canada are flocking to India seeking opportunities to help one of the worldââ¬â¢s fastest-growing economies meet its energy demands. The contribution of nuclear energy in India is forecast to rise from 4,000MW to as much as 470,000MW over the next 40 years.
The Russian deal follows a civil nuclear agreement with the US at the end of last year that helped clear the way for India to buy atomic power plants, technology and fuel from the nuclear club of nations.
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 Power Corporation of India is confident of completing the land acquisition process for its five coastal-based plants in the next 18 months, said Mr S.K. Jain, Chairman and Managing Director, on Thursday. He was speaking to reporters on the occasion of the visit of the 5th US Commercial Nuclear Delegation.
Mr Jain said NPCIL planned to create nuclear parks of up to 10,000 MW at each site. ââ¬ÅWe have put a target of 18 months for acquiring the land, pre-project activity and creating basic infrastructure at the site,ââ¬Â he said.
ââ¬ÅWe hope that with the active support from the State governments. It should be possible to achieve the target. Specific clearances from the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board and from the Ministry of Environment and Forest are also being fast-tracked,ââ¬Â Mr Jain said.
Each park would have minimum of six reactors of 1,000 or 1,650 MW totalling about 10,000 MW. The Centre has given clearances to create the parks at Andhra Pradesh (Kowada), Gujarat (Chhayamithi Virdi), Maharashtra (Jaitapur), West Bengal (Haripur) and Tamil Nadu (Koodankulam). Mr Jain said that in the last four years NPCIL had effectively negotiated with vendors such as GE Hitachi and Westinghouse for the supply of reactors, ââ¬ÅA fairly good amount of understanding has been reached in term of technological knowledge of the US companies and competitiveness of India industry and how they could be married together,ââ¬Â he said.
Mr Daniel Roderick, Senior Vice-President, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, said the company has been associated with the Indian nuclear industry for the last 45 years.
It will bring the most updated technology for the reactors, he said.
He added that given the sheer number of highly technical and skilled manufacturers in India, GE Hitachi would be able to service the global supply chain from here.
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
S. Shanker
Rahul Wadke
Mumbai, Dec. 5
The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) has raised civil nuclear power generation to 30,000 MW by 2020 against the earlier target of 20,000 MW, said Dr S. Banerjee, Secretary, DAE, and Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission.
Dr Banerjee told Business Line that the growth plan for atomic energy has been worked out through a senior-level consultative process. This would come through indigenous development and imported reactors.
As of now, the indigenous programme would total up to 15,000 MW, though it was not 100 per cent domestic as it included the two foreign reactors for Koodangulam ( 2 X 1000 MW). Plans are also on to import more reactors before 2022. It could be a composition of 13 indigenous reactors and imported ones to total 30,000 MW-plus.
Negotiations were on with several countries such as France, the US and Russia and the growth would come through light-water reactors. In addition, there were reactors that work on the boiling water concept, which the department was also interested in.
Heavy water reactors
Dr Banerjee said the indigenous programme involves the development of the pressurised heavy water reactors. Recently, one was commissioned at Rajasthan (220 MW) and another (220 MW) would be commissioned soon at the same site. Both the reactors would use imported fuel. Another reactor would be commissioned at Kaiga (220 MW) that would use indigenous fuel to be made available in three months.
DAE's next step was to develop four reactors of 700 MW capacities for which government clearance had been obtained. More 700 MW reactors would come, but that it would depend on the fuel linkage. ââ¬ÅAs and when we can expand our fuel base based on indigenous fuel we will add new reactors,ââ¬Â he said, adding that the 500 MW fast breeder reactor being built at Kalpakkam was on schedule and would be online in 2011.
Energy parks
The Department was in the process of creating energy parks, essentially the concept is to have more reactors on the same site and share the exclusion zone. Otherwise, every reactor should have an exclusion zone. Each of the parks could have a 6 X 1000 MW or even a 6 X 1650 MW which would total to about 10,000 MW. The Government plans to create energy parks in Andhra Pradesh (Kowada), Gujarat (Chhayamithi Virdi), Maharashtra (Jaitapur) and West Bengal (Haripur).
Mr Banerjee said power generation from these parks would total 40,000 - 45,000 MW, but it would not come on stream in a day. Internationally, the supply of some of the equipment needed to build the reactors would take time. It is for this purpose that the Nuclear Power Corporation had entered into a joint venture with Larsen & Toubro to make large forgings. By harnessing domestic capabilities the country would be in a position to build lightwater reactors too.
The energy parks are expected to come up after 2020 as the projects face problems such as land acquisition. The parks would not have a mix of indigenous and imported reactors.
|
