posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 01:39 PM
reply to post by JimTSpock
Spock, yes, I just read your article, sorry for the delay. The reason I posted the quote from Walker that was included in the article is that I
didn't realize until reading it that he appeared to be describing something very similar to the ideas found in the S-T schematic. I have seen and
read other quotes from Walker but never saw anything that seemed to match S-T so closely. In other words, it appears that his conclusion is that the
Diebner / Ohrdurf test detonation was at least trying to produce an explosion utilizing the same kind of blended, fusion-fission approach that is
suggested by the S-T design. Thus I found Walker's comments to be significant.
Re: the annotations mentioned by Bedlam. Obviously the text mentioning Rainer Karlsch by name and that mentions the date of 1944 was added later. My
understanding at this point in time is that the son of one of the German atomic scientists / weapons designers who was working on the S-T design gave
the original schematic to Karlsch a few years ago. As I posted previously, the original document is now apparently in the possession of the German
Army Archives in Freiburg, Germany. I wrote to the Archives asking about the S-T document and never received a reply.
Re: the apparent gun-type design mentioned by Spock, that is another document dug up by Karlsch, but it is probably not as significant as the S-T
schematic. That's because the other design mentions the word "plutonium", which the Germans of that era DID NOT USE. The term "plutonium" was coined
by Glenn Seaborg in the United States as his name for the artificially produced 94th element in the periodic table. The Germans were aware of it and
knew that it could be produced by what they called "a uranium machine" (read: a breeder reactor) but they termed it either "element 94" or "eka
osmium", NOT "plutonium". A small possibility exists, I suppose, that the term "plutonium" might have been added immediately after the war by someone
who decided to use the American term. But that is unlikely. Note, also, that a plutonium gun-type weapon of that configuration would probably not
work, anyway, because of the plutonium-240 contamination typically found in breeder reactor - produced plutonium. Putting that much plutonium so
close to another sub-critical mass of it would almost certainly result in a spontaneous partial detonation---a "fizzle". Unless we were talking about
extremely if not perfectly pure plutonium, and it is virtually impossible for any WWII combatant nation to have produced enough of that with the
technology of the time to enable a bomb.
edit on 15-4-2014 by williamjpellas because: (no reason given)