German Atomic aircraft in WW2?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
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.


I'm not going to touch the Tesla stuff; that way lies insanity.

But for the other, I can't tell whether you are serious or being sarcastic. As it happens, there're two good ways to "irradiate" (to impart radiation upon; to make radioactive) something: to mix it with radioactive dust or solution and allow the radioactive stuff to mix with or lodge in the object, and secondly to expose it to neutrons and "neutron activate" it, which makes its atoms radioactive.

The first is easy, just sprinkle the dust or liquid around. It is the terror behind the dirty bomb, and of fallout. It is what made the ships in the target fleet at crossroads/baker so radioactive, as the nuke in the ocean dropped radioactive sea salt all over the ships. First scrubbing washed away half of the radioactivity, but that is the best they got. On ships they guard against this by spraying water all over before the nuke, and the radioactive sea water can't invade to leave salt behind.

Neutron activation is what made the sea salt radioactive in the first place; neutrons from the blast convert normal sodium-23 to sodium-24, which is rather violently radioactive. Fortunately for the earth, the water, atmospheric gases and silicon (a major component of the Earth) are not amenable to activation. Contaminated water can be purified by distillation. Generally, metals activate easily; other elements don't. Exceptions: chromium, platinum, titanium, iron don't, chlorine, phophorus, selenium do.

Irradiation isn't forever; no radiation phenomenon is; that sodium-24 mentioned above decays with a half-life of 15 hours, so it is reduced in intensity 1000x after 6 days. All radioactive materials decay, the more intense ones the fastest. Water can't activate, but it can dissolve, and carry that sodium around.




posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by puncheex
 


Tesla was insane.
Nice.
I do not think you are right about radioactivity ever being safe.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson
reply to post by mbkennel
 


I am not offended by your comments because I am not a Nazi ideologist, however the evidence does suggest they acquired nuclear weapons before the war ended.



No, they did not. They had no nuclear weapons.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by puncheex
 


Tesla was insane.
Nice.


That is not what I said. Hypothesizing on Tesla's amazing/over-hyped (take your pick) inventions can lead one into insanity, of the conspiracy kind.


I do not think you are right about radioactivity ever being safe.


...and, again, what did I say? Perhaps you think this is saying the same thing as "radioactivity is ever safe":


Originally posted by puncheex
 

Irradiation isn't forever; no radiation phenomenon is; that sodium-24 mentioned above decays with a half-life of 15 hours, so it is reduced in intensity 1000x after 6 days. All radioactive materials decay, the more intense ones the fastest. Water can't activate, but it can dissolve, and carry that sodium around.


Well, what do you consider safe? Do you realize that on the average every acre-foot of soil contains about 2 kg of uranium? Is that safe? Well water from Finland was measured with 220 Bq of radiation per liter due to radon. Is that safe? If it is, then decay of any radioactive source will eventually make it less radioactive than your soil, than your well water. Is that unsafe?

We grow up in a radioactive world, we are evolved for it. If it were to disappear, we'd still have cancer, we'd still have mutations. They might be 10% or so less frequent. Almost certainly we wouldn't be here, in the form we are. Mutation is basic to biology; it's what sex is all about, it's what keeps us a step ahead of the parasites.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
The questions was: German Atomic aircraft in WW2?

I call that a lie to misinform.
News paper headline and all even today we get misinformation.
And they get help which is obvious from the fooled.

Did we take the bait. Hook line and sinker.
Well we can answer that question ourselves.

What was flying in WWII and now are TeslaUFOships for the best name
that I could place on the state of the art.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by puncheex

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by puncheex
 


Tesla was insane.
Nice.


That is not what I said. Hypothesizing on Tesla's amazing/over-hyped (take your pick) inventions can lead one into insanity, of the conspiracy kind.


I do not think you are right about radioactivity ever being safe.


...and, again, what did I say? Perhaps you think this is saying the same thing as "radioactivity is ever safe":


Originally posted by puncheex
 

Irradiation isn't forever; no radiation phenomenon is; that sodium-24 mentioned above decays with a half-life of 15 hours, so it is reduced in intensity 1000x after 6 days. All radioactive materials decay, the more intense ones the fastest. Water can't activate, but it can dissolve, and carry that sodium around.


Well, what do you consider safe? Do you realize that on the average every acre-foot of soil contains about 2 kg of uranium? Is that safe? Well water from Finland was measured with 220 Bq of radiation per liter due to radon. Is that safe? If it is, then decay of any radioactive source will eventually make it less radioactive than your soil, than your well water. Is that unsafe?

We grow up in a radioactive world, we are evolved for it. If it were to disappear, we'd still have cancer, we'd still have mutations. They might be 10% or so less frequent. Almost certainly we wouldn't be here, in the form we are. Mutation is basic to biology; it's what sex is all about, it's what keeps us a step ahead of the parasites.


I am not interested in radioactivity studies.
I rejected that topic in connection with this misinformation about atomic aircraft.

Extreme sanity results for Tesla research.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
So lets get this straight.
The Atomic plane is a hoax.
There was already something better.
Thus the probable super plane was the Tesla plane.

The lies about Tesla are a hoax and the writers are probably not insane just
good writers giving insane things Tesla was supposed to do. Read actual
Tesla if you want and not the lies and continued hoax about his plane.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by SolidGoal
 


It was featured on Greyfalcon website:
Greyfalcon Mecklenberg plane

...which advises that it came from The 8th Army News, Triest, August 28, 1945, page three. This would have been an armed services newspaper for Allied occupation forces.

In my correspondence with Omar Dipasquale from Argentina the son in law to Dr Ronald Richter the nuclear powered aircraft project was resumed by Dr Kurt Tank at the Aviation Institute Cordoba. The Argentine Pulqui jet fighter was always intended to be a nuclear powered fighter jet, however British Intelligence bombed the nuclear laboratory at Cordoba forcing Richter to relocate to Nahuel Huapei.

In some sort of deal presumably to deter development of the Pulqui the UK provided Argentina with the Gloster Meteor jet fighter instead



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Wow I guess that theory I heard someone talking about on another thread was true. The theory was that somehow all conversations somehow end up talking about Hitler. There was a name for this theory I just can't remember it right now, I'm only on my first cup of coffee.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 06:13 AM
link   

sy.gunson
The Argentine Pulqui jet fighter was always intended to be a nuclear powered fighter jet,


You really do post some rubbish here, it was never designed to be a nuclear powered fighter, it was designed and built to use a Rolls-Royce Nene jet
en.wikipedia.org...

As to Argentine's "nuclear programme" under Peron,

Thus, incredible though it may seem, not only did Perón initially hire Richter and start funding his research merely on the strength of their personal connection and the single recommendation from the non-physicist Kurt Tank, but he also made his dramatic March 1951 announcement to the world of the discovery of controlled fusion based on nothing more than Richter’s say-so.

How did a country whose state and scientific institutions had been so weakened by Perón’s ferocious, decade-long assault end up building such a strong nuclear program? In part, this was the silver lining of the Richter affair: experiencing such a huge international embarrassment scared Argentina’s politicians straight. Even Perón himself gave the scientific professionals free rein in the CNEA starting in November 1952.100 This newly respectful management approach, born of the Richter fiasco,

Hymans, Jacques E. C. (2012-02-24). Achieving Nuclear Ambitions (Kindle Locations 5774-5778). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
edit on 20-2-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by sy.gunson
 


Do you have ay evidence that allied forces bombed Cordoba?



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   
There is so much overblown exaggerated disinfo on the Nazis it isn't funny. They had this they had that. Look at what they actually used during the war. The Me 262 and Me 163 were advanced designs and their V1 and V2 rockets were ahead of their time as was the Type XXI sub but the Allies were way ahead in nuclear weapons technology. A Nazi atomic plane with Mach 1+ performance is laughable and pure fantasy. lol.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   

sy.gunson
Rob Ardnt has a web page on the topic but I don't have a link to it so you will have to Google.

The atomic P.1073b is said to have reached 2000 kilometres per hour and altitudes of about 58,000 feet implying engine thrust of 30.000lb. I suspect we are talking some kind of LINAC device rather that a nuclear reactor pile.

I have found a BIOS report (British Intelligence Objectives Sub-committee) on the topic:



However all American intelligence on Nazi atomic aircraft development remains classified. In particular the Atomic engine of the Messerschmitt P.1073b appears to have been transferred to a superior airframe in the Lippisch P.13b which it is alleged in some surviving German archives reached Mach 1.6 sometime from October 1944.


In the document it says:

In the course of the interrogation it became clear that Ernest was not at all reliable!

Alleged to be powered with an atomic engine.
Fuselage of wooden construction!
Skid landing gear!!
Engine 60cm by 20cm with 2,000hp!!!
Top speed 2,000km/h ceiling 18,000m!!!!
Only one model was in existence and destroyed!!!!!

So it never existed and there was one model of it only. There you go total BS.
Sounds like a captured Nazi pulling the leg and making stuff up.
edit on 20-2-2014 by JimTSpock because: spelling



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by JimTSpock
 


Don`t forget their ufo`s as well!!



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   

JimTSpock
There is so much overblown exaggerated disinfo on the Nazis it isn't funny. They had this they had that. Look at what they actually used during the war. The Me 262 and Me 163 were advanced designs and their V1 and V2 rockets were ahead of their time as was the Type XXI sub but the Allies were way ahead in nuclear weapons technology. A Nazi atomic plane with Mach 1+ performance is laughable and pure fantasy. lol.


Some people seem to want to claim Hitler was a nice chap, who had nuclear weapons but did not want to use them, even when Germany was facing defeat....

The allies were ahead of Germany in many areas, sonar, radar, aircraft carriers (Germany built none, the British had about 35 during WW2, the Americans had about 40) code breaking, heavy bombers, generally allied aircraft were better and had better engines (eg.
DB 605 in BF109 had a capacity of 2,176 in³ with a specific power of 0.77 hp/in³ with a weight of 1,667 lb,
the Merlin 61 in the Spitfire had a capacity of 1,647 cu in³ with a specific power of 0.96 hp/cu in with a weight of 1,640 lb)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   

SoulVisions
Not nit-picking, just curious.. Why do you allude to Tesla in every single technology post?

All he has is a hammer. Therefore, everything looks like a nail to him.

UFOs = Telsa
Leprechauns = Telsa
Bigfoot = Telsa
Jesus = Telsa



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   

JimTSpock
Sounds like a captured Nazi pulling the leg and making stuff up.

A Nazi lying about something to save his own butt? I find that hard to believe.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by sy.gunson
 


So let me get this straight... They would have trouble building a nuclear powered bomber using modern technology, but somehow in WWII Germany developed this:


From the limited information Josef Ernst gave of the atomic power plant and power vs. the max. speed and ceiling do not line up at all. Basically he is claiming an engine of 24 inches long and with a 4 inch diameter that can produce 2,000 hp (?) which would enable the wooden P.1073B to attain 1,240 mph at a height of up to 59,055 ft!!!

Like almost all late war or early postwar Intel, either the Intel guys made some serious typos or Ernst did not know what he was talking about.

When Convair tested the XB-36H “Crusader” for a nuclear a/c concept the reactors alone weighed 35,000 lbs and had to have thick protective shielding for the crew.

discaircraft.greyfalcon.us...





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join