Image Credits: Lenta.ru

Originally posted by: Yury @ BRF

A point by point response to the major doubts raised on the Pokhran – II tests as given by Dr. Chidambaram is given below.

Doubt -1

“If one goes by the numbers for the total nuclear yield put out by the Department of Atomic Energy, which I see no reason to dispute, the yield of the thermonuclear device detonated on May 11, 1998, was around 40 kilotons… In my opinion that ratio ( of fission energy to fusion energy) must have been around 1:1… Therefore, by my estimate, the fusion yield could not have been more than 20kt… This suggests that the fusion core burnt only partially, perhaps less than 10 per cent..” (P.K. Iyengar, August 2000, repeated recently )

Response- 1

The important point is that Dr. P.K. Iyengar does not dispute the yield of the thermonuclear test. We do not understand, however, how, without knowledge of the design and, therefore, without knowledge of the fusion-fission breakup ad the quantity of thermonuclear material in the device and its isotopic composition, he has tried to calculate the efficiency of fusion burn.

Doubt- 2

“The fission bomb yield from DRDO’s seismic instrumentation was 25 kiloton…” ( K Santhanam & Ashok Parthasarathi, The Hindu, 17 September, 2009)

Response – 2

The BARC estimate of the yield for the fission device is 15 kiloton ( not 25 kiloton) and for the thermonuclear device 45 kiloton. One of the methods used for the estimation of the device yield was close-in acceleration measurement, for which both DRDO and BARC had set up instrumentation. It soon became apparent that after discussion among the two groups of specialists that the DRDO data had anomalies and had to be rejected and that the BARC data, which had the expected waveforms, would be accepted.

Doubt -3

“..The fission bomb left a crater 25 metres in diameter. If the TN device had really worked with a yield of 50 kiloton, it should have left a crater almost 70 metres in diameter…” ( K. Santhanam & Ashok Parthasarathi, The Hindu, 17 September, 2009)

Response- 3

The surface feature produced at Ground Zero depends on the depth of burial and the rock medium around the shot point and the rock medium between the shot point and the ground. These were all different for the two device tests. The fission device was emplaced in rhyolite medium. The medium for the Pokhran-I test was shale and sandstone. The geology in the Pokhran region is inhomogenous. The propagation of the shock wave is affected by every nterface. 3 – D simulation calculations of the rock mechanical effects done by BARC scientists, after considering all these factors, accounted for the observed effects in the thermonuclear test.

Incidentally, dimensions in rock mechanics scale by the power ( 1/3.4) for underground nuclear explosions- for chemical explosions, they scale by the power ( 1/3) or as cube root; the difference comes from the latent heat absorbed in the former case for vaporizing and melting the rocks around the point of detonation.

Doubt- 4

“Dr. P.K. Iyengar…. Informed me that trace levels of these same ( radio) isotopes ( sodium-22 and manganese-54) were detected in Apsara, a pure fission reactor …..” ( K. Santhanam & Ashok Parthasarathi, The Hindu, 17 September, 2009)

Response – 4

The tail of the fission neutron spectrum extends to beyond the excitation energy of these reactions. But the fusion neutrons are of 14 MeV. That is why isotopes like Mn-54 and Na-22 are found in significant ( not trace) quantities in the rock samples from the thermonuclear device site rock samples. If one sees the gamma-ray spectrum of a typical rock sample of the thermonuclear test site, published in refereed journals by BARC scientists, sharp peaks for these radioisotopes are seen, not just bumps in the background! In the Mn-54/Ce-144 ratios from the samples of the two test sites, reproduced by R. Ramachandran in his Frontline article of 25th September, 2009, this ratio for the thermonuclear test samples is seen as a high multiple of the ratio for the fission test samples”

Interview of Russia’s ambassador to India.

‘More upgrades will hike the Gorshkov’s price’

A consummate Russian diplomat, Vyacheslav Trubnikov is returning home this week after having served as serving as Russia’s ambassador to India for nearly five years. The period has seen several highs and lows in the bilateral relationship, including the building of the first civil nuclear power plants by Russia and nagging problems over defence spares and equipment. Edited excerpts from an interview with Jyoti Malhotra.

So we take each other for granted?

——- snip ———

I watched the launch of India’s first nuclear submarine at Vishakapatnam on July 26, and do you know about the design of this submarine? It is the Akula (the Russian submarine).

ATV to be named INS Arihant

A little LiveFist tribute to the erstwhile ATV, an obscure acronym we can now finally lay to rest. India Today Associate Editor Sandeep Unnithan has uncovered the official name of India’s first indigenous nuclear submarine — INS Arihant, a splendid choice of name — it means “killer of enemies” in Sanskrit. Sandeep has also confirmed that the Prime Minister’s wife Mrs Gursharan Kaur will inaugurate the submarine’s launch ceremony at Visakhapatnam on July 26.

Boeing’s P-8A Poseidon Makes First Flight

The US Navy’s first Boeing P-8A Poseidon aircraft T-1, completed a 3 hour 31 min maiden flight from Renton, Wash., on Apr 25., and later landed at Boeing Field. The second test aircraft T-2, is meanwhile being prepared for flight at Renton and is undergoing ground calibration and fuel system work according to Boeing sources.

Video from the first flight:

Boeing P-8A – first flight video

Pictures from the first flight:

#1

#2

Cross post from BRF

First prototype of P-8A for USN.

A quick snap of the starboard side of the P-8A.

The first P-8A Poseidon – N541BA – back out on the flightline at Renton seen here preparing for engine runs

US allows GE to work on Indian warship

India’s new stealth warship, the INS Shivalik, is back on track. On March 12, 2009, the US government gave General Electric (GE) the green signal for resuming work on the two LM 2500 gas turbines that power the Shivalik. On March 6, 2009, Business Standard had reported that the stealth frigate was being delayed by “stop all work” instructions to GE from the US State Department.

Vice-Admiral HS Malhi, the chairman and managing director of Mazagon Dock Ltd (MDL), which is building the INS Shivalik, has confirmed to Business Standard: “The issue has been resolved. GE has communicated to us that they have been given permission to go ahead. Earlier, GE had indicted that the permission could take 3-4 months in coming; but now (the US State Department) has cleared it.

— More details at the link —