Nazi Atomic weapons in 1943

page: 21
17
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by JimTSpock
 



Union College History Professor Mark Walker---universally acknowledged as one of the world's best current experts on WWII Nazi science and technology---clearly believes that the R&D effort under Kurt Diebner tested some kind of nuclear device at Ohrdurf in 1945. Per the Nova article posted earlier by "Jim T Spock" (heh!):


"By the very end of the war, the Germans had progressed from horizontal and spherical layer designs to three-dimensional lattices of uranium cubes immersed in heavy water. They had also developed a nuclear reactor design that almost, but not quite, achieved a controlled and sustained nuclear fission chain reaction. During the last months of the war, a small group of scientists working in secret under Diebner and with the strong support of the physicist Walther Gerlach, who was by that time head of the uranium project, built and tested a nuclear device.

At best this would have been far less destructive than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Rather it is an example of scientists trying to make any sort of weapon they could in order to help stave off defeat. No one knows the exact form of the device tested. But apparently the German scientists had designed it to use chemical high explosives configured in a hollow shell in order to provoke both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion reactions. It is not clear whether this test generated nuclear reactions, but it does appear as if this is what the scientists had intended to occur."



That certainly sounds at minimum, like the same kind of design concept indicated by the Schumann - Trinks schematic, doesn't it? It is because of assessments like this, and because of the consistency in those assessments, as well as because of various documentary and eyewitness testimony such as has been posted in various places in this thread, that I am not ready to discard Simon's thesis. There is too much evidence pointing in another direction, one that is heading away from the more or less "established" or "conventional" history of the War. Exactly how far away, I don't know. But there is certainly more than enough smoke for me to look to see what sort of fire might be producing it.
edit on 14-4-2014 by williamjpellas because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-4-2014 by williamjpellas because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by williamjpellas
 


Correcting a typo in my last post on the previous page. I meant to say "but some other light nuclei element or compound like tritium would"? I tried to find the specific references just now, but couldn't, but I know that the U-233 in the S-T schematic was coated with some sort of light, hydrogen-based element or compound.


Anyway, I think it's probably time to re-set this thread. When I have more time I will try to post a reasonable summary so we can all focus on answering the most crucial questions first, and then perhaps we can go back to probing the technical specifics. Or so I am suggesting. Many thanks to all here for the excellent input and information and for honestly considering what the MAGIC intercept and other documentation and testimony might mean.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   

williamjpellas
Thanks for the very detailed reply, Bedlam. So, even thousands of degrees C heat would not help the Li-6D to detonate the U-233 fissile core in this design. Correct? But lithium deuteride would (or might)? The S-T design also listed lithium deuteride as a coating on the U-233 fissile core. Again, just trying to get to the bottom of all this, if possible, and I appreciate your patience.


Returning to an earlier question: what, then, IS the S-T schematic? If the design is, in fact, unworkable / would not detonate, then what are we looking at? 'Twould seem to me that what it probably is, is a "scientific best guess" by one of the WWII German atomic R&D teams as they took their best shot at throwing something together on the chance it might work. Would that be an accurate characterization in your opinion?


I really REALLY hate ATS' posting system at times. Occasionally, the forum logs you out at random, and if you're posting at the time, your post goes down the rabbit hole and all you get is a little spinny arrow wheel. Bye, post!

To reply to you AGAIN, hopefully this time not eaten by the bad design monster, thousands of degrees will not help. Impact will not help. Li6D is a part of your complete nuclear breakfast, but not squirted on the outside during detonation.

Li6D IS lithium deuteride. It's just lithium deuteride that's had the Li7 removed. Natural lithium deuteride is 7.5% Li6, for the most part.You generally want Li6D for your fusion fuel, but you can sure use 50/50 mix, it's just less predictable.

As far as 'what is this drawing', are you sure of the provenance of this? Because it looks fake. Would you say the annotations on the drawing are supposed to have been there from the beginning, or were they added on as some sort of explanation later?



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by williamjpellas
 


If the guy thinks the Germans had not achieved a functional reactor, why does he think they could make a nuke?

Reactors are pretty simple, comparatively, if you don't care about anything but getting a reaction going.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by williamjpellas
 


I posted the article. I know what it says. It took you that long to read it?

Walker says they tried to make a weapon but he does not know if it achieved any nuclear reactions. And his description sounds like the S-T design.

And obviously as Bedlam has pointed out on numerous occasions a high explosive device would not be able to trigger a nuclear fission explosion. Other historians have said it was probably a dirty bomb, which was in another article I linked to.

In the Walker article there is another schematic which does not resemble the S-T device and I think it looks like a gun type assembly weapon but where that came from I don't know. And that is a design which we know works...

It seems very clear to me that the S-T design would not work and the Nazi scientists were a long way from having the required knowledge of nuclear physics to design and construct a working nuclear weapon. Given more time and research they might have been able to, but in my opinion I don't think they got there. I don't think you will be able to get a definitive conclusion and will have to make up your own mind about what you think is the most likely scenario. I think if they did test anything it was probably a dirty bomb with a lot of high explosives, and maybe it didn't work the way they thought or intended.
edit on 14-4-2014 by JimTSpock because: spelling



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
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)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:33 PM
link   

williamjpellas


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.


A pity. It would be interesting to see the original.





top topics
 
17
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join