German Atomic aircraft in WW2?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dashdespatch
 


No but ionising Hydrogen does impel a force to it

Arcjet

Wikipedia arcjet




posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Yes. Apparently the captured Germans were utterly stunned by the news of the A-bombing of Hiroshima. They thought, very arrogantly, that Germany was substantially ahead of the US and UK (which they were in rocketry and perhaps in aircraft design), and knew how far away they were. They first thought that the news was a hoax and some psychological interrogation trick.

They couldn't believe they were beaten by so many Jews. (a goodly number of the Manhattan Project scientists had left Europe because of Nazi oppression).


mbkennel you seem so overwhelmed by your hatred of the Germans that you lack objectivity in recognising their technological prowess. My father fought the Nazis at Normandy, but he was not consumed by hatred for the rest of his life.

The fact is Operation LUSTY and ALSOS together rounded up both the scientists and 173 boxcar loads of patents which they shipped to USA as booty. Many industrial processes and technical advances after the war which catapulted USA to postwar prosperity were in fact Nazi inventions.

A simple example is the Caultrons used by the Manhattan Project were copied from a German patent sold by Seimens to General Electric just one day before Pearl Harbour.

The Bell XP-59 jet fighter of 1943 was rejected by the USAF because it's performance was so poor yet the Germans built the Me-262 with startling performance. Germany was overwhelmed by force of numbers and Allied bombing during WW2 ,,, not by Allied technology.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Heard the story of the Generals captured by the UK and bugged for information.
The problem here is even the UK didn't know what the US got for shipping top
men to New Mexico. If Tesla was way past AC from before 1900 then part
of the tech was taken to NM. The idea that celestial navigators for rocketry may
be involved when Tesla motors may have helped Sperry gyros for aircraft
and autopilots sound like a big step for engineering right there no one is
getting a postage stamp for. The Illuminati quiet is matched by the silent press.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sy.gunson
 


This statement of your's:


A simple example is the Caultrons used by the Manhattan Project were copied from a German patent

I am have a very hard time finding any document at all to back this up.
What I did find was:

A calutron is a mass spectrometer used for separating the isotopes of uranium. It was developed by Ernest O. Lawrence[1] during the Manhattan Project and was similar to the cyclotron invented by Lawrence. Its name is a concatenation of Cal. U.-tron, in tribute to the University of California, Lawrence's institution and the contractor of the Los Alamos laboratory.

en.wikipedia.org...
It was not the USAF on 1943, it was the USAAF, if I remember correctly.

Now Germany's all powerful Nuclear Program
Where did you get that information?

After seeing the German project at Haigerloch, Goudsmit wrote that: It was so obvious the whole German uranium set up was on a ludicrously small scale. Here was the central group of laboratories, and all it amounted to was a little underground cave, a wing of a small textile factory, a few rooms in an old brewery.
To be sure, the laboratories were well-equipped, but compared to what we were doing in the United States it was still small-time stuff. Sometimes we wondered if our government had not spent more money on our intelligence mission than the Germans had spent on their whole project.
In the end, the Alsos Mission contributed little to the Allied defeat of Nazi Germany, because the German nuclear and biological weapons programs that it had been formed to investigate turned out to be smaller and less threatening than had originally been feared.
In the field of nuclear weapons development at least, the underfunded and disorganized German program lagged behind the Allies' own efforts. However, in its appropriation of the accomplishments of European science, the Alsos Mission played a small part in the wartime and subsequent scientific and technological developments that characterized and transformed the postwar world

en.wikipedia.org...

All those aircraft that was supposedly captured and returned to the U. S. for study from operation LUSTY?
I gave give you a list if you're really interested, but I'm sure you'll disagree with the list, here is the source.
www.flickr.com...
and here ia another good source:www.nationalmuseum.af.mil...

This statement of your's:


The witness quoted said that three P.1073 prototypes were being flown from a base in Mecklenberg near the Baltic coast. Two were conventionally powered by jet engines but the third was flown with an "Atomic engine" Kammler's Evacuation Kommando destroyed all trace of the project in 1945.

The Atomic engine aircraft as the others mentioned was Alleged, not in actual use.
From your source: discaircraft.greyfalcon.us...
edit on 4-12-2012 by guohua because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by sy.gunson
 


Yes using the arc technique would energise the hydrogen to create thrust but that does not make it "atomic"



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
There were so called German Atomic Bomb plans in the hands of a physicist
that asked Einstein to write a letter to FDR to develop the A bomb.

So we never used those so called stolen German Atomic Bomb plans.

Give me more Illuminati stories with eyes wide shut.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson

Originally posted by mbkennel

Yes. Apparently the captured Germans were utterly stunned by the news of the A-bombing of Hiroshima. They thought, very arrogantly, that Germany was substantially ahead of the US and UK (which they were in rocketry and perhaps in aircraft design), and knew how far away they were. They first thought that the news was a hoax and some psychological interrogation trick.

They couldn't believe they were beaten by so many Jews. (a goodly number of the Manhattan Project scientists had left Europe because of Nazi oppression).


mbkennel you seem so overwhelmed by your hatred of the Germans that you lack objectivity in recognising their technological prowess. My father fought the Nazis at Normandy, but he was not consumed by hatred for the rest of his life.


I think you misread me.

The Germans had plenty of technological prowess of course: their science and engineering before 1939 were unparalleled, including by the USA (though the USA and UK were reasonably close). However, the Manhattan Project was stupendously successful and far beyond what the Germans accomplished in this area. A very large amount of money, organization, and vacuuming much up of the talent from Europe was very successful. Germany couldn't beat USA+UK+everybody smart that Nazi's pissed off.



The fact is Operation LUSTY and ALSOS together rounded up both the scientists and 173 boxcar loads of patents which they shipped to USA as booty. Many industrial processes and technical advances after the war which catapulted USA to postwar prosperity were in fact Nazi inventions.


I would say German inventions: product of decades of high-quality science and engineering. Germany lead in chemical engineering---and possibly still does.

The Nazi ideology and politics ruined their capability. With no Nazis, Germany would have been the clearly leading technological power of 1955.


The Bell XP-59 jet fighter of 1943 was rejected by the USAF because it's performance was so poor yet the Germans built the Me-262 with startling performance. Germany was overwhelmed by force of numbers and Allied bombing during WW2 ,,, not by Allied technology.


Yes, overall that's generally true. If you're comparing plane vs plane, then certainly----and the Germans were obviously far ahead in jets and rocketry, and also had better tanks and submarines.

But the Allies had a qualitative technological lead in two critical areas: radar (British invented the magnetron, Germans still had older tube technology) and codebreaking. Colossus---and the math to use it---is technology. In the end, better information (radar + codes) could be more important than better hardware.
edit on 6-12-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-12-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by guohua
reply to post by sy.gunson
 


This statement of your's:


A simple example is the Caultrons used by the Manhattan Project were copied from a German patent

I am have a very hard time finding any document at all to back this up.


Donald Kerst of the General Electric Laboratory of the University of Illinois purchased the patent from Seimens a day before Pearl Harbour. This patent was the basis for the Caultron.






It was not the USAF on 1943, it was the USAAF, if I remember correctly.


If you wish to be pedantic yes it was the US Army Air Force and if I recall correctly the 412th Air Wing test evaluated the Bell XP-59A and found it unsuitable for combat.



Now Germany's all powerful Nuclear Program
Where did you get that information?


The BIOS report cited is from the Imperial War Museum collection. A friend of mine who is an authoritative author of scores of books on the WW2 Lufwaffe has also unearthed some references to actual test flights in original German archival material, but at his insistence I am not at liberty to disclose his identity. His research corroborates the BIOS report which I mentioned.





After seeing the German project at Haigerloch, Goudsmit wrote that: It was so obvious the whole German uranium set up was on a ludicrously small scale. Here was the central group of laboratories, and all it amounted to was a little underground cave, a wing of a small textile factory, a few rooms in an old brewery.....

In the end, the Alsos Mission contributed little to the Allied defeat of Nazi Germany, because the German nuclear and biological weapons programs that it had been formed to investigate turned out to be smaller and less threatening than had originally been feared...

In the field of nuclear weapons development at least, the underfunded and disorganized German program lagged behind the Allies' own efforts.



That is claptrap for postwar public consumption...

Heisenberg was briefly in 1942 head of the KWI civil nuclear research project which worked on development of heavy water, enrichment of U235 and on the issue of nuclear reactors.

Whilst the Uranverin project co-operated with military aims it was not the Nazi atomic bomb project and much of that project remains classified (reference Monsanto report: NARA file G371, Dated Nov 8 1945, part III:




“Point III. What was the state of German theory of the chain reaction? Answer (C) Generally we would say their approach was in no wise inferior to ours; in some respects it was superior.”


There were other major projects most importantly the Heereswaffenamt (HWA) project under Diebner and also the Vienna Nuclear project for the SS. After the July 1944 bomb plot against Hitler, the SS took over all three projects and their efforts remain classified except for small excerpts about Dr Ing Mario Zippermayer's work with Dr Alfred Klemm on Operation Hexenkessel.




All those aircraft that was supposedly captured and returned to the U. S. for study from operation LUSTY?


It is not disputed which German aircraft were shipped to USA from Cherbourg. What you fail to comprehend or refuse to, is that Kammler headed an organisation called the Evacuation Kommando whose task was beginning with destruction of V-2 sites and material in Holland to work it's way back through northern Germany destroying all traces of several projects. This included the mass murder of Concentration Camp workers who had participated in construction of the Atomic aircraft tested at Mecklenberg.

I have corresponded with the son of one camp inmate who escaped execution at a Heavy water production plant near Bremen. Surviving witnesses were the exception, not the rule.



This statement of your's:


The witness quoted said that three P.1073 prototypes were being flown from a base in Mecklenberg near the Baltic coast. Two were conventionally powered by jet engines but the third was flown with an "Atomic engine"


The Atomic engine aircraft as the others mentioned was Alleged, not in actual use.
From your source: discaircraft.greyfalcon.us...


I am not the author of greyfalcon website and do not own that IP address. Their comments are most likely the opinion of Rob Ardnt. I have a source with access to German archives who advises me there is evidence of successful German supersonic flights.

www.networksolutions.com...


edit on 9-12-2012 by sy.gunson because: trying to adjust quote enclosures

edit on 9-12-2012 by sy.gunson because: adding web domain link for IP to Greyfalcon



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by dashdespatch
reply to post by sy.gunson
 


Yes using the arc technique would energise the hydrogen to create thrust but that does not make it "atomic"


You are a pedantic hair splitter ... it uses a nuclear reaction to generate thrust.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson
If you look up ARCJET you will find a design for an atomic engine which is nothing more than an adaptation of an electric arc furnace to accelerate Hydrogen or Ammonia. It produces 30,000lb thrust.

Thus with simple cyclotron technology you can build an atomic powered aircraft.



Not really. That jump between the two paragraphs is what we call a "non sequitur". Electric arc heating of a working fluid has nothing to do with a cyclotron.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson

Donald Kerst of the General Electric Laboratory of the University of Illinois purchased the patent from Seimens a day before Pearl Harbour. This patent was the basis for the Caultron.



The calutron was a large, crude mass spectrometer. Not seeing this reference anywhere to purchasing a patent the day before PH. On the other hand, I do see Kerst associated with the betatron, which the Calutron is not.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson

Originally posted by dashdespatch
reply to post by sy.gunson
 


Yes using the arc technique would energise the hydrogen to create thrust but that does not make it "atomic"


You are a pedantic hair splitter ... it uses a nuclear reaction to generate thrust.


If you're referring to an arcjet, you are very much incorrect. It's not a nuclear reaction. At all.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Yes, they were Jews....But they were German Jews, educated in German schools and institutions.
.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Exactly star to you



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Secret German aircrafts which were tested in Peenemünde:



No signs of an atomic aircraft though



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by sy.gunson
 


Short of a UCAS, which I don't believe existed in the mid-20th century, can someone explain to me how it would be possible to operate an atomic aircraft without irradiating the crew?



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson
reply to post by dashdespatch
 


The Germans had artificial neutron sources, for example cyclotrons up to 9.5 MeV, they had a 5 MeV vandergraff accelerator at Berlin in the Dahlem bunker and four 18 MeV Tokamak (type) particle accelerators. At Bissingen there was also work on a 31 MeV particle accelerator developed by Dallenbach which was captured by ALSOS.

If you look up ARCJET you will find a design for an atomic engine which is nothing more than an adaptation of an electric arc furnace to accelerate Hydrogen or Ammonia. It produces 30,000lb thrust.

Thus with simple cyclotron technology you can build an atomic powered aircraft.


I have to agree with the poster just above me here. Particle accelerators can certainly accelerate particles, and they can generate thrust, but all rockets and jets do that. The question is, where do they get their power? All these accelerators you speak of get it from an electrical grid. A reactor gets it in gob lots from fission (and hopefully, eventually, from fusion), at millions of eVs per atom split/fused. Without fission/fusion, there are no other known ways of tapping the nucleus binding energy. No reactors or bombs, no "atomic propulsion".



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllenBishop
reply to post by sy.gunson
 


Short of a UCAS, which I don't believe existed in the mid-20th century, can someone explain to me how it would be possible to operate an atomic aircraft without irradiating the crew?


Right, once you get irradiated you stay irradiated or radio active.
Yes everything holding the radiation becomes radioactive as US subs use water
to circulate heat to keep the radioactivity down from other parts in the circulation.

That is why the so called atomic plane was a Tesla craft in power plant and would
go his estimated 300 miles per second as he said in 1915 but was unable to carry
ordinary weapons, sorry Hitler, but the propulsion waves would explode weapons
as the Foo tried on the B17s.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Nazi technology was way ahead of the Allies, leading many to believe conspiracy theories that they were getting help from off-world sources.

If the Nazi's hadn't of forced many of their most talented physicists and scientists into exile through their treatment of the Jews, they probably would have won the war.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
GREAT line in the movie "The Right Stuff"

"But the Russians couldn't have beaten us into orbit. Our Germans are better than their Germans".





top topics
 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join