DOCSLIB.ORG

ETSN05 -- Lecture 5 the Last Lecture Today

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ETSN05 -- Lecture 5 the Last Lecture Today 10/9/2013 ETSN05 -- Lecture 5 The last lecture Today • About final report and individual assignment • Short introduction to “problems” • Discussion about “typical problems in the course” 1 10/9/2013 Plan-Do-Study-Act Plan Act Do E.g. Bergman, Klefsjö, Quality, Study Studentliteratur, 1994. Quality Improvement Paradigm 1. Characterize 2. Set goals 3. Choose model 4. Execute Proj org EF 5. Analyze 6. Package V. Basili, G. Caldiera, D. Rombach, Experience Factory, in J.J. Marciniak (ed) Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, pp. 469-576, Wiley, 1994. (Also summarized in C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. Höst, M. C. Ohlsson, B. Regnell, A. Wesslén, "Experimentation in Software Engineering", Springer, 2012.) 2 10/9/2013 Learning organization • “A learning organisation is an organisation skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behaviour to reflect new knowledge and insights” D. A. Garvin, “Building a Learning Organization”, in Harward Business Review on Knowledge Management, pp. 47–80, Harward Business School Press, Boston, USA, 1998. • Requires: systematic problem solving, experimentation, learning from past experiences, learning from others, and transferring knowledge Postmortem analysis • IEEE Software, May/June 2002 3 10/9/2013 Postmortem analysis cont. • “Ensures that the team members recognize and remember what they learned during the project” •“Identifies improvement opportunities and provides a means to initiate sustained change” Three sections of the PFR • Historical overview of the project – Figures, tables, diagrams, etc – Comparison between actual values and estimations • Evaluation of what went well and what went not so well – Analyze reasons for problems/issues/etc • Software process improvement proposals Read PH:9.10 4 10/9/2013 In PFR include at least • Effort per phase • Start and end dates for each phase • Effort per document • Start and end dates for each document • Effort for different activities in each phase • Effort per group & week • Analysis of problem reports in phases Project Final Report Evaluation • Extent • how far does the report get in: WHAT has happened (data reporting) WHY it happened so (cause analysis) WHAT can be done to improve (Software Process Improvement) • Quality • how well are the chosen topics reported 5 10/9/2013 Individual report (max 3 pages, 10 pt times) See course homepage Monday next week, 14.10.2013 Objectives: • to stimulate reflection on large-scale software development continuously through the course, • to encourage a viewpoint on industrial practice in large-scale software development, • to build on and integrate with what you have learned from previous courses Identify relevant areas and motivate your conclusions. Analyse: • What was challenging and what was easy in your own work? • What was challenging and what was easy in your fellow project members work? • What are the similarities and differences between the controlled course situation and industrial practice? • What is realistic about the course setting, and what is not so realistic? • What role does the scale (in terms of size and complexity) play in the challenges you have had during the project? • What is easy in a small-scale project while significantly more challenging in a large-scale project? • Which problems are not more or less difficult to address when carried out in a large-scale setting compared to a smaller scale setting? 6 10/9/2013 Deadline etc • E-mail the report to me in pdf-format • [email protected] • Deadline: Monday Nov 4th, 23:59 • Max 3 pages (+ front page etc), 10 pt Times • Don’t forget to write your name on the report. Examples of real difficulties in real industrial projects 1. What is actually the best set of requirements? 2. How much uncertainty in effort estimation can we cope with? 3. At what level of detail should we document requirements? 4. How to minimize waiting time for other parts to be ready before we can start our part? 5. How to make more parts in parallel without generating confusion and unnecessary rework? 6. How to know when the product is reliable enough to be released? 7. How to incorporate changes without generating spaghetti and excessive cost of rework? 7 10/9/2013 Some examples of “problems” that probably are not very big in your project Multi-project environment Risks: - Sub-optimization - Uncoordinated -… CC BY-NC 2.0 weeta 8 10/9/2013 Elementary or advanced process? CC BY-NC 2.0 i a walsh Chasm between marketing and development CC BY-NC 2.0 Travis S. 9 10/9/2013 Living with changing requirements Requirements are invented rather than discovered Innovation capability is critical CC BY-NC 2.0 Adi Respati 10 10/9/2013 Unacceptable behavior …and an example of a problem that you maybe have seen: • It is unclear what the requirements are, and what the customer really expects… …and I promise, we have never been unclear on purpose… 11 10/9/2013 “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” 24 Getting the requirements is not trivial “You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new.” 25 12 10/9/2013 Eliciting and understanding is difficult because • Stakeholders often don’t know what they want from the computer system • Stakeholders naturally express requirements in their own terms and with implicit knowledge of their own work • Different stakeholders have different requirements, which they express in different ways • Political factors may influence the requirements • The economic and business environment in which the analysis takes place is dynamic requirements may change during the project Sommerville, Software Engineering, 8:th ed, Addisson-Wesley, 2007 Perspectives on a future system Different stakeholders, views, systems, etc Process Req. 13 10/9/2013 Conclusion • Large-scale development require processes, organizations and tools that can cope with increasing complexity • Most of you will work in – Large companies – Small- or medium-size companies that deliver software or systems to large companies • Your engineering skills depend also on – How you can combine technology and economics – Work in teams and with big organizations Before you start writing your PFR report conduct a brainstorming session • Identify a problem you have encountered in the course, and that we can discuss • Identify something that went well in the course, that we can discuss 14 10/9/2013 Discussion For each slide, identify/discuss - Underlying problem/issue/area - Is this a realistic/real problem? - What process improvements could be made? Old problems 15 10/9/2013 Old problems • Problem: att få testgruppen att arbeta parallellt med de andra • Koordinera ut information till grupperna • Lätt göra själv, men svårt dela ut i rätt tid • Tighta deadlines i början. Inget att göra i början men sedan mycket Old problems • Hantering av PR. De rör många dokument • Obalanserad arbetsbelastning • Skillnad i ambitionsnivåer i gruppen dålig arbetsmoral • Teknisk kompetens skiljer sig i grupperna 16 10/9/2013 Old problems • Det tar för mycket tid från projektet att reda ut missförstånd och tolka PH på rätt sätt. • The different UGs work and write the documents a bit different. It is a challenge to keep the documents consistent. • En beskrivning på Telecom utvecklingsmodell hade varit bra att ha, då det verkar vara, enligt litteraturen, det viktigaste dokumentet i kursen. • Testarna har feltolkat kravet • Inte alla grupper följer standarder OLD Feedback • ibland har det uppstått situationer där det inte har gått att jobba med någonting, tex att det inte känns bra att börja skriva på SVVI förrän SVVS är satt i baseline, helt enkelt för att man hade fått göra om för mycket arbete. 17 10/9/2013 OLD Feedback • “Jag skulle gärna ha någon diskussion kring tillgången till automatiserade verktyg för att hantera projekten. Tidsrapportering och planering känns som att det borde finnas rätt bra verktyg till.” OLD Feedback • “Det skulle även vara intressant att diskutera hur mycket som är lagom när det gäller hård koll på rapportering, rutiner o s v. Någonstans måste det ju finnas en gräns där systemet snarare är i vägen än att det hjälper. T ex kan jag tänka mig att utvecklare börjar lösa problem utan att rapportera om proceduren att rapportera är för jobbig.” 18 10/9/2013 Projects and Products that went terribly wrong Projects and Products that went terribly wrong http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2265616/Boeing-787-Dreamliner-battery-did-NOT-catch-overcharged- say-air-accident-investigators.html The polish Airline LOT is requesting about 100 000 000 PLN ( over 200 MSEK) in compensation from Boeing. 19 10/9/2013 Projects and Products that went terribly wrong Projects and Products that went terribly wrong 20 10/9/2013 Testing is far from trivial The top 20 most expesive software bugs - Mariner Bugs Out (1962) • Cost: $18.5 million •Disaster: The Mariner 1 rocket with a space probe headed for Venus diverted from its intended flight path shortly after launch. Mission Control destroyed the rocket 293 seconds after liftoff. • Cause: A programmer incorrectly transcribed a handwritten formula into computer code, missing a single superscript bar. • Without the smoothing function indicated by the bar, the software treated normal variations of velocity as if they were serious, causing faulty corrections that sent the rocket off course 21 10/9/2013 Hartford Coliseum Collapse (1978) • Cost: $70 million, plus another $20 million damage to the local economy •Disaster:Just hours after thousands of fans had left the Hartford Coliseum, the steel-latticed roof collapsed under the weight of wet snow. • Cause: The programmer of the CAD software used to design the coliseum incorrectly assumed the steel roof supports would only face pure compression. But when one of the supports unexpectedly buckled from the snow, it set off a chain reaction that brought down the other roof sections like dominoes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Title Liberation of Neutrons in the Nuclear Explosion of Uranium
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Kyoto University Research Information Repository Liberation of neutrons in the nuclear explosion of uranium Title irradiated by thermal neutrons Author(s) 萩原, 篤太郎 Citation 物理化學の進歩 (1939), 13(6): 145-150 Issue Date 1939-12-31 URL http://hdl.handle.net/2433/46203 Right Type Departmental Bulletin Paper Textversion publisher Kyoto University 1 9fii~lt~mi~~ Vol. 13n No. 6 (1939) i LIBERATION OF NEUTRONS.. IN THE NUCLEAR EXPLOSION OF URANIUM IRRADIATED BY THERMAL NEUTRONS By Tolai•r:vFo IIrtlsiNaaa 1'he discovery ivas first announced by Kahn and Strassmanlir'. that uranium under neutron irradiation is split by absorbing the neuttntis into two lighter elements of roughly equal weight and charge, being accompanied h}' a:very large amount of ~energy release. This leads to~ the consic(eration that these fission fragments would contain considerable ea-cess of neutrons as compared with the corresponding heaviest stable isotopes with the same nuclear charges, assuming a division into two parts only. Apart of these exceh neutrons teas found, in fact, to be disposed of by the subsequent (~-ray transformations of the fission products;" but another possibility of reducing the neutron excess seems to be a direct i nnissioie of the neutrons, .vhich would either be emitted as apart of explosiat products. almost i;istantaneously at the moment ofthe nuclear splitting or escape from hi~hh' excited nuclei of the residual fragments. It may, Clterefore,he ex- rd pected that the explosion process mould produce even larger number of secondary neutrons than one.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Mining and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program
    Uranium Mining and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program Uranium Mining and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program By Robert Alvarez Formed over 6 billion years ago, uranium, a dense, silvery-white metal, was created “during the fiery lifetimes and explosive deaths in stars in the heavens around us,” stated Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias.1 With a radioactive half-life of about 4.5 billion years, uranium-238 is the most dominant of several unstable uranium isotopes in nature and has enabled scientists to understand how our planet was created and formed. For at least the last 2 billion years, uranium shifted from deep in the earth to the rocky shell-like mantle, and then was driven by volcanic processes further up to oceans and to the continental crusts. The Colorado Plateau at the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, where some of the nation’s largest uranium deposits exist, began to be formed some 300 million years ago, followed later by melting glaciers, and erosion which left behind exposed layers of sand, silt and mud. One of these was a canary-yellow sediment that would figure prominently in the nuclear age. From 1942 to 1971, the United States nuclear weapons program purchased about 250,000 metric tons of uranium concentrated from more than 100 million tons of ore.2 Although more than half came from other nations, the uranium industry heavily depended on Indian miners in the Colorado Plateau. Until recently,3 their importance remained overlooked by historians of the atomic age. There is little doubt their efforts were essential for the United States to amass one of the most destructive nuclear arsenals in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • DOE-OC Green Book
    SUBJECT AREA INDICATORS AND KEY WORD LIST FOR RESTRICTED DATA AND FORMERLY RESTRICTED DATA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUGUST 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Where It All Began .................................................................................................................................... 2 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RD/FRD and NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION (NSI) ......................................... 3 ACCESS TO RD AND FRD ................................................................................................................................ 4 Non-DoD Organizations: ........................................................................................................................... 4 DoD Organizations: ................................................................................................................................... 4 RECOGNIZING RD and FRD ............................................................................................................................ 5 Current Documents ................................................................................................................................... 5 Historical Documents ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 108–650 Senate Hearings Before the Committee on Appropriations
    S. HRG. 108–650 Senate Hearings Before the Committee on Appropriations Energy and Water Development Appropriations Fiscal Year 2005 108th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION H.R. 4614 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES Energy and Water Development Appropriations, 2005 (H.R. 4614) S. HRG. 108–650 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 4614 AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOP- MENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2005, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Department of Defense—Civil Department of Energy Department of the Interior Nondepartmental witnesses Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 92–143 PDF WASHINGTON : 2005 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons Summary of a United Nations Study
    INIS-mf —13106 DISARMAMENT Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons Summary of a United Nations Study -^^~ XpJ United Nations Preface The cover reproduces the emblem of the United Nations and the emblem of the World Disarmament Campaign, a global information programme on disarmament and international security launched by the General Assembly in 1982 at its second special session devoted to disarmament. The programme has three primary purposes: to inform, to educate and to generate public understanding of and support for the objectives of the United Nations in the field of arms limitation and disarmament. In order to achieve those goals, the programme is carried out in all regions of the world in a balanced, factual and objective manner. As part of the programme's activities, the Department for Disarmament Affairs provides information materials on arms limitation and disarmament issues to the non-specialized reader. Such materials cover, in an easily accessible style, issues which may be of particular interest to a broad public. This is one such publication. It is published in the official languages of the United Nations and intended for worldwide dissemination free of charge. The reproduction of the information materials in other languages is encouraged, provided that no changes are made in their content and that the Department for Disarmament Affairs in New York is advised by the reproducing organization and given credit as being the source of the material. Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons Summary of a United Nations Study Background In December 1988, by resolution 43/75 N, the United Nations General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to carry out a comprehensive update of a 1980 study on nuclear weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 10 Instrumentation and Control Prepared by Dr
    1 CHAPTER 10 Instrumentation and Control prepared by Dr. G. Alan Hepburn Independent contractor (AECL Retired) Summary: This chapter describes the role of instrumentation and control (I&C) in nuclear power plants, using the CANDU 6 design as an example. It is not a text on the general design of instrumenta- tion and control algorithms, a subject which is well covered by many textbooks on the subject. Rather, it describes the architectural design of these systems in nuclear power plants, where the requirements for both safety and production reliability are quite demanding. The manner in which the instrumentation and control components of the various major subsystems co-operate to achieve control of the overall nuclear plant is described. The sensors and actuators which are unique to the nuclear application are also described, and some of the challenges facing design- ers of a future new build CANDU I&C system are indicated. Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Learning Outcomes ......................................................................................................... 5 2 Nuclear Safety and Production Requirements for I&C Systems ............................................. 5 2.1 Requirements for the Special Safety Systems................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Can Nuclear Weapons Fallout Mark the Beginning of the Anthropocene
    Feature Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 2015, Vol. 71(3) 46–57 ! The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: Can nuclear weapons fallout sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0096340215581357 mark the beginning of the http://thebulletin.sagepub.com Anthropocene Epoch? Colin N. Waters, James P. M. Syvitski, Agnieszka Gałuszka, Gary J. Hancock, Jan Zalasiewicz, Alejandro Cearreta, Jacques Grinevald, Catherine Jeandel, J. R. McNeill, Colin Summerhayes, and Anthony Barnosky Abstract Many scientists are making the case that humanity is living in a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene, but there is no agreement yet as to when this epoch began. The start might be defined by a historical event, such as the beginning of the fossil-fueled Industrial Revolution or the first nuclear explosion in 1945. Standard strati- graphic practice, however, requires a more significant, globally widespread, and abrupt signature, and the fallout from nuclear weapons testing appears most suitable. The appearance of plutonium 239 (used in post- 1945 above-ground nuclear weapons tests) makes a good marker: This isotope is rare in nature but a significant component of fallout. It has other features to recommend it as a stable marker in layers of sedimentary rock and soil, including: long half-life, low solubility, and high particle reactivity. It may be used in conjunction with other radioactive isotopes, such as americium 241 and carbon 14, to categorize distinct fallout signatures in sediments and ice caps. On a global scale, the first appearance of plutonium 239 in sedimentary sequences corresponds to the early 1950s. While plutonium is easily detectable over the entire Earth using modern meas- urement techniques, a site to define the Anthropocene (known as a Ògolden spikeÓ) would ideally be located between 30 and 60 degrees north of the equator, where fallout is maximal, within undisturbed marine or lake environments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Nuclear Weapons on Human Health
    ESTIMATED CASUALTIES AND DESTRUCTION CAUSED BY THE ATOMIC BOMBS DROPPED ON THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI IN 1945 WEAPONS ON HUMAN On 6 August 1945 a 13 kiloton atomic bomb exploded over Hiroshima, Japan. This was followed on 9 August by the explosion of a 21 kiloton bomb over Nagasaki. To date, these have been the only times a nuclear weapon has been used in armed conflict. The following figures reflect the scale of the casualties and damage that resulted from the explosions. HEALTH INFORMATION NOTE NO. 1 Deaths: Hiroshima: 100,000 – 140,000 killed* Nagasaki: 60,000 – 70,000 killed* THE IMMEDIATE AND THE EFFECTS AND Total area destroyed by heat, blast and fire: Hiroshima: 13 sq km (including 4 sq km completely destroyed by a firestorm) LONG-TERM HEALTH CASUALTIES OF THE HEAT Nagasaki: 6.7 sq km CONSEQUENCES OF AND BLAST WAVES NUCLEAR WEAPONS Impact on medical services in Hiroshima: Heat casualties: The earth below the 270 out of 300 doctors killed or injured The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and epicentre of the blast would be heated to 1,654 out of 1,780 nurses killed or injured Nagasaki in 1945 and medical studies a temperature of approximately 7000°C, 112 out of 140 pharmacists killed or injured conducted since that time have shown the which would vaporize all living things National Nuclear Security Administration / Nuclear SecurityNational Administration Office Site Nevada type of immediate and long-term health in that area. Tens of thousands of those * Number of deaths attributable to the atomic bombs by the end of 1945.
    [Show full text]
  • Radioactive Carbon from Nuclear Explosions and Nonthreshold Biological Effectso
    Science & Global Security, 1990, Volume I, pp.175-187 Photocopying pennitted by license only Reprints available directly from the publisher C>1990 Gordon and Breach Science Publishers S.A. Printed in the United States of America Radioactive Carbon from Nuclear Explosions and Nonthreshold Biological EffectsO I Andrei D. Sakharov I In this article, which appearedin the June 1958 issue of the Soviet journal, Atomic Energy, Sakharov estimatedthat about 10,000people would ultimately suffer cancers,genetic disorders, and other ill effectsfrom the radioactivity produced by a I-megaton nuclear explosionin the atmosphere.According to this estimate,the 1961 Soviettest of a 58-megatonnuclear explosive-,an explosionthat by itselfaccounts for about 10 percentto the total yield of all atmosphericnuclear explosionsin history--will, in the long term, injure or kill about half a million people. Sakharovtook his argumentsagainst testing all the wayto Khrushchev,but, accordingto his account,Khrushchev brusquelyinformed him that the responsibilityof scientistswas limited to designingthe weapons.It was the responsibilityof the governmentalleaders to decidewhat to do with them: Thus endedSakharov's faith in going through channels. Even though the Soviet journal in which this article appeared was being translated and published in English and independentUS scientists-notablyLinus Pauling-were making similar estimates,the Sakharovpaper receivedalmost no public noticein the West. How has Sakharov's estimate stood the test of time? In a brief appendix, I comparethe
    [Show full text]
  • History's Worst Software Bugs Page 1 of 3
    History's Worst Software Bugs Page 1 of 3 << Back to Article History's Worst Software Bugs Simson Garfinkel 11.08.05 Last month automaker Toyota announced a recall of 160,000 of its Prius hybrid vehicles following reports of vehicle warning lights illuminating for no reason, and cars' gasoline engines stalling unexpectedly. But unlike the large-scale auto recalls of years past, the root of the Prius issue wasn't a hardware problem -- it was a programming error in the smart car's embedded code. The Prius had a software bug. With that recall, the Prius joined the ranks of the buggy computer -- a club that began in 1945 when engineers found a moth in Panel F, Relay #70 of the Harvard Mark II system.The computer was running a test of its multiplier and adder when the engineers noticed something was wrong. The moth was trapped, removed and taped into the computer's logbook with the words: "first actual case of a bug being found." Sixty years later, computer bugs are still with us, and show no sign of going extinct. As the line between software and hardware blurs, coding errors are increasingly playing tricks on our daily lives. Bugs don't just inhabit our operating systems and applications -- today they lurk within our cell phones and our pacemakers, our power plants and medical equipment. And now, in our cars. But which are the worst? It's all too easy to come up with a list of bugs that have wreaked havoc. It's harder to rate their severity.
    [Show full text]
  • Point Kinetic Model of the Early Phase of a Spherically Symmetric Nuclear Explosion
    Point kinetic model of the early phase of a spherically symmetric nuclear explosion Andreas Walter Aste Department of Physics, University of Basel, 4056 Basel, Switzerland June 6, 2016 Abstract A concise point kinetic model of the explosion of a prompt supercritical sphere driven by a nu- clear fission chain reaction is presented. The findings are in good agreement with the data available for Trinity, the first detonation of a nuclear weapon conducted by the United States Army as part of the Manhattan project. Results are presented for an implosion device containing pure plutonium- 239, although the model can be easily applied to, e.g., uranium-235. The fizzle probability and cor- responding yield of a fission bomb containing plutonium recovered from reactor fuel and therefore containing significant amounts of spontaneously fissioning plutonium-240 which can induce a pre- detonation of the device is illustrated by adding a corresponding source term in the presented model. Related questions whether a bomb could be made by developing countries or terrorist organizations can be tackled this way. Although the information needed to answer such questions is in the public domain, it is difficult to extract a consistent picture of the subject for members of organizations who are concerned about the proliferation of nuclear explosives. Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (2010). 28.20.-v Neutron physics; 25.85.Ec Neutron-induced fission; 28.70.+y Nuclear explosions. 1 Introduction Despite the terrifying fact that numerous operational fission or even thermonuclear bombs exist on our planet, there is a great interest in the basic principles and physics underlying the concept of nuclear weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Testing
    Battlefi eld of the Cold War The Nevada Test Site Volume I Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Testing 1951 - 1963 United States Department of Energy Of related interest: Origins of the Nevada Test Site by Terrence R. Fehner and F. G. Gosling The Manhattan Project: Making the Atomic Bomb * by F. G. Gosling The United States Department of Energy: A Summary History, 1977 – 1994 * by Terrence R. Fehner and Jack M. Holl * Copies available from the U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave. S.W., Washington, DC 20585 Attention: Offi ce of History and Heritage Resources Telephone: 301-903-5431 DOE/MA-0003 Terrence R. Fehner & F. G. Gosling Offi ce of History and Heritage Resources Executive Secretariat Offi ce of Management Department of Energy September 2006 Battlefi eld of the Cold War The Nevada Test Site Volume I Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Testing 1951-1963 Volume II Underground Nuclear Weapons Testing 1957-1992 (projected) These volumes are a joint project of the Offi ce of History and Heritage Resources and the National Nuclear Security Administration. Acknowledgements Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Testing, Volume I of Battlefi eld of the Cold War: The Nevada Test Site, was written in conjunction with the opening of the Atomic Testing Museum in Las Vegas, Nevada. The museum with its state-of-the-art facility is the culmination of a unique cooperative effort among cross-governmental, community, and private sector partners. The initial impetus was provided by the Nevada Test Site Historical Foundation, a group primarily consisting of former U.S. Department of Energy and Nevada Test Site federal and contractor employees.
    [Show full text]