First atomic bomb was German !?!

Discussions on the equipment used by the Axis forces, apart from the things covered in the other sections. Hosted by Juha Tompuri
M.Rausch
Member
Posts: 268
Joined: 28 May 2005 05:15
Location: Kaiserslautern, Germany

Post by M.Rausch » 18 Aug 2005 10:53

Heavy water played no role for the process used in Germany in WW2 to produce fissionable Uranium. Reactors were not used in Germany but instead the well known method of isotope separation with centrifuges. One of the types used is still on the area of the TU Berlin today. It was an ineffective method to produce fissionable Uranium, but it worked without any Heavy Water.

In winter 1942/43 a test with an Uranium bomb was done in the Erzgebirge, but it failed. This was no surprise, since the critical mass was calculated as only 10% of the mass really needed. After the war Heisenberg claimed the calculation error was done purposely as part of his white-wash campaign. But it is more probably that Otto Hahn did one of his calculation errors, he was famous for.

The formulas found the German scientists are leading to a working A-bomb, they are part of what is teached in universities today.

But even if there had been no calculation error, there had been only enough fissionable Uranium produced for one bomb. For a production of more bombs the Russian Uranium deposits had been needed. The ore gathered in Norway, Belgium and Germany had a too low quality to produce sufficient material with the used centrifugal method.

ohrdruf
Member
Posts: 862
Joined: 15 May 2004 22:02
Location: south america

Post by ohrdruf » 20 Aug 2005 18:43

Redcoat

U-234 berthed at Portsmouth New Hampshire on 19 May 1945. Within a few days of his interrogation, Dr Schlicke was invited to join Alvarez team. The declassified US documents are quite clear that Alvarez was assisted by Schlicke, and the help given by him was freely admitted. The development of the implosion fuse made the Trinity Test possible in early July 1945.

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 20 Aug 2005 19:36

Hi,
M.Rausch wrote:Heavy water played no role for the process used in Germany in WW2 to produce fissionable Uranium.
True.
M.Rausch wrote:Reactors were not used in Germany but instead the well known method of isotope separation with centrifuges. One of the types used is still on the area of the TU Berlin today.
Germans studied and developed the centrifuge method farther than Americans during WW2, but were very far from producing ANYTHING.
M.Rausch wrote:It was an ineffective method to produce fissionable Uranium,
On the contrary. Centrifuge method of enriching U is the less energy intensive and easily scalable method by far. Absolutely the best method for energy deprived, highly industrialized country like Germany to enrich Uranium, although even with full scale attack with all resources of Reich dedicated to task - it would had been long shot.

Just understand that Germans were on stage that they developed the enriching methods. They didn't PRODUCE anything.
M.Rausch wrote:but it worked without any Heavy Water.
Heavy water has nothing to do with Uranium enrichment anyway...
M.Rausch wrote:In winter 1942/43 a test with an Uranium bomb was done in the Erzgebirge, but it failed. This was no surprise, since the critical mass was calculated as only 10% of the mass really needed. After the war Heisenberg claimed the calculation error was done purposely as part of his white-wash campaign. But it is more probably that Otto Hahn did one of his calculation errors, he was famous for.
Germans screwed up. I agree.
M.Rausch wrote:But even if there had been no calculation error, there had been only enough fissionable Uranium produced for one bomb.
There was not enriched Uranium available.

On the other hand Germans had enough Uranium ore (the U they had on stock, without any mining effort) for several (half dozen) Pu boms, if they had been capable of making an workable thermal Pu breeding reactor.
M.Rausch wrote:For a production of more bombs the Russian Uranium deposits had been needed.
Russia (USSR) didn't had ANY available Uranium sources at that time. USSR produced NADA, ZERO amount of Uranium until information about US Manhattan program forced them to amass huge amounts of resources for development of Uranium mining industry. It took decades to develope such industry and find resources.

FYI: USSR nuclear arsenal was fueled for the first 20 years of Cold War by GERMAN Uranium... You know, the German soil actually have/had Uranium deposits that were well known even before WW2 (Germany is one of the largest Uranium producers EVER). Those deposits just weren't needed during WW2 because Germany had plenty of U on stocks, and had far better things to do for thousands of experienced mine workers...
M.Rausch wrote:The ore gathered in Norway, Belgium and Germany had a
too low quality to produce sufficient material with the used centrifugal method.
The ore Germans got in Belgium was the best Congolese U ore imaginable. The best in world ever. TENS of times more richer than ore routinely extracted from hundreds of mines all over world with effort of countless billions of dollars for the last 60 years.




If you have further questions or opinions about matter in subject, feel free to post them here.


Regards, Mark V
Last edited by Mark V on 20 Aug 2005 20:09, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
S_haule
Member
Posts: 414
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 11:32
Location: Rouen, France

About the link

Post by S_haule » 20 Aug 2005 20:07

The next link :
"Here is the link to download that book for free.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/VirusHouse/"
is from David Hirving's website. He is well know for his "negationism" and he is considered to be in the border of "World War II specialist". So be carrefull when you give such link.

Sebastien

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 20 Aug 2005 20:31

M.RauschThe ore gathered in Norway, Belgium and Germany had a
too low quality to produce sufficient material with the used centrifugal method.

BTW. The ore quality has NOTHING to do with raw-materials ability to be used in centrifuge U enrichment method. Quality of ore is an matter if we are discussing the amount of U that could be extracted from ton of ore, or the engineering of plant producing "yellow cake" from the ore.

It is not U ore that is put to centrtifuge for U enrichment, but Uranium hexafluoride gas.



Regards, Mark V

M.Rausch
Member
Posts: 268
Joined: 28 May 2005 05:15
Location: Kaiserslautern, Germany

Post by M.Rausch » 25 Aug 2005 14:00

Germans studied and developed the centrifuge method farther than Americans during WW2, but were very far from producing ANYTHING.
Wrong. It was the only way fissionable Uranium was produced in Germany and you can see with your own eyes the type used at the TU Berlin.
On the contrary. Centrifuge method of enriching U is the less energy intensive and easily scalable method by far.
Regarding the needed resources, enriching the Uranium in a reactor and then separating the isotopes would have been an effcient way. Without enrichment in a reactor it was not efficient.
Just understand that Germans were on stage that they developed the enriching methods. They didn't PRODUCE anything.
Only if you limit the term "PRODUCE" on the creation of new Uranium isotopes. I use it as description, that fissionable Uranium isotopes were filtered out of Uranium ore.
Heavy water has nothing to do with Uranium enrichment anyway...
Perhaps it is a problem that English is not my native language, but for an enrichment in a reactor, you need Heavy water.
Germans screwed up. I agree.
A very "stylish" comment helping to hold the discussion on a rational level :roll:
But not a surprise.
There was not enriched Uranium available.
Repeating the same wrong statement several times makes it not less false. There was enriched Uranium produced and available, but not even close to the critical mass needed.
Quality of ore is an matter if we are discussing the amount of U that could be extracted from ton of ore, or the engineering of plant producing "yellow cake" from the ore. .
I think there is some misunderstanding about what we talk. The Uranium ore we talk about holds more Uranium, but less of fissionable Uranium isotopes you needed in Germany to have a base for isotope separation using a centrifuge. If Germany had the technique to enrich the Uranium extracted from ore before separating the isotopes, then the ore on hand would have been the best.

But since Germany depended on filtering out the natural existing fissionable isotopes, for them it was not the best choice.

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 25 Aug 2005 19:20

Hi,
M.Rausch wrote:
Regarding the needed resources, enriching the Uranium in a reactor and then separating the isotopes would have been an effcient way. Without enrichment in a reactor it was not efficient.
M.Rausch wrote:Perhaps it is a problem that English is not my native language, but for an enrichment in a reactor, you need Heavy water.
It is not an enrichment you are talking about, nor collecting fissionable Uranium isotopes - but transformation of U238 to Plutonium (Pu), which is entirely different, fissionable natural element. That is accomplished in reactor by subjecting natural-U metal or oxide to neutron bombardment. It is the easiest way to nuclear weapon, and the path that Germans might have been able to follow, if resources had been allocated, and if they hadn't made serious mistakes (screw ups) in seeking suitable moderator. Germans didn't measure cross-section of graphite correctly and thought it was unusable. They knew that heavy water could be used, but as they never had enough of it to design proper reactor they were forced to rely on somewhat weird natural-U and heavy water experiments, that were very far from true nuclear weapon. Uranium Germans had enough for Pu based weapon program.
M.Rausch wrote:Only if you limit the term "PRODUCE" on the creation of new Uranium isotopes. I use it as description, that fissionable Uranium isotopes were filtered out of Uranium ore.
When Uranium metal is produced from Uranium ore (basic metallurgy) you have an fissionable material. In properly designed heavy-water or graphite moderated reactor the amount of fissionable isotopes (by thermal neutrons) in natural-U is enough to produce an sustained chain reaction.

Germans produced natural Uranium metal. USA on the contrary produced tens of kilograms of highly enriched Uranium - where the content of U-235 is elevated to around 90% from its natural 0.7%. The manufacturing costs are astronomical because basic metallurgical properties of different U isotopes are identical. Highly enriched uranium readily fissions when critical mass is assembled in a weapon.
There was not enriched Uranium available.
M.Rausch wrote:Repeating the same wrong statement several times makes it not less false. There was enriched Uranium produced and available, but not even close to the critical mass needed.
And how my above post is wrong ?? And please, don't answer to this post by claiming that producing Uranium metal from ore is enriching uranium. Language barrier is not an excuse.
Quality of ore is an matter if we are discussing the amount of U that could be extracted from ton of ore, or the engineering of plant producing "yellow cake" from the ore. .
M.Rausch wrote:I think there is some misunderstanding about what we talk. The Uranium ore we talk about holds more Uranium, but less of fissionable Uranium isotopes you needed in Germany to have a base for isotope separation using a centrifuge. If Germany had the technique to enrich the Uranium extracted from ore before separating the isotopes, then the ore on hand would have been the best.
Thery richness of U ore varies = the amount of U in given amount of ore.

The ratio of fissionable isotopes in natural-U metal is fixed (actually it is not, but the exception is irrelevant here).

Germans never separated the fissionable isotopes from natural U metal = enriching Uranium.


Regards, Mark V

M.Rausch
Member
Posts: 268
Joined: 28 May 2005 05:15
Location: Kaiserslautern, Germany

Post by M.Rausch » 26 Aug 2005 13:29

Germans never separated the fissionable isotopes from natural U metal = enriching Uranium.
And here is your fundamental error. During WW2 Germany separated fissionable Uranium isotopes from non-fissionable using centrifuges. Isotope separation was already found before WW2 and it is the way how you separate fissionable from non-fissionable isotopes today.

A reactor for transforming non-fissionable isotopes to fissionable isotopes is only increasing the amount of fissionable isotopes. The separation process stays the same. If you don't have the methods for such a transformation, you can still extract the naturally existing fissionable isotopes, but the rate of yield is much worse.

The claim that in Germany Uranium was not enriched using the isotope separation method with a centrifuge is simply wrong. Correct is, that without the use of a reactor there was no way to produce enough enriched Uranium in Germany needed for a fission bomb.

witcher
Financial supporter
Posts: 95
Joined: 18 Aug 2005 01:16
Location: North Houston

d20

Post by witcher » 27 Aug 2005 18:22

i have studied this subject for many years, the best source of information is not in popular books but rather Physics Review etc peer reviewed journals..


Remember the first time you saw the V2 photos,? did not it seem strange to put so much RM into a tiny payload?

I believe that after 42-43, the target was a 'dirty bomb'. The revised post public 1995 reactor information seems to confirm this.

The d20 was interesting not for fission but rather fusion research. (von Ardenne designer of the Russion fusion bomb)


Remember the lie is different at every level.

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 27 Aug 2005 18:25

Hi M.Rauch,
M.Rauch wrote:And here is your fundamental error. During WW2 Germany separated fissionable Uranium isotopes from non-fissionable using centrifuges.
No. Germans developed centrifuge enrichment (they were not alone), but never produced anything meaningfull. I am not sure was their prototype centrifuges ever "hot" loaded during development. Maybe. But that does not make any difference, because you can hardly call an few grams of Uranium enriched few percentage (few percentages of 0.7%) as an production of anything - when the goal is 90% enrichment of matter. You need hundreds or thousands stages of centrifuges for quantity production, and Germans were at laboratory stage of developing the centrifuge prototypes.

Please prove that i am wrong. I don't have to prove that Germans didn't produce enriched U - you have to prove that they did. There is no evidence of such in literature, and as you made such claim - the burden of evidence is in your part. The party that have made an claim that is against everything that is accepted by majority of researchers.

Ofcourse i can prove, if asked, that US program produced what i have claimed.

I am waiting the information of the German centrifuge U enrichment plant (i assume i will be waiting an loooonnnngg time).
M.Rauch wrote:Isotope separation was already found before WW2 and it is the way how you separate fissionable from non-fissionable isotopes today.
Yes and Yes, among other processes - so what ??
M.Rauch wrote:A reactor for transforming non-fissionable isotopes to fissionable isotopes is only increasing the amount of fissionable isotopes.
That is an simplification.

Theoretically, if you could extract all the U235 from natural uranium, you would had much more bomb material per given amount of Uranium compared to typically hurried Pu program (200 MWD/t).

You have completely missed the point that Pu based program. It is the chemical difference of Pu in irradiated reactor-fuel, compared to other natural elements in used fuel, which make the separation simple, even if the Pu itself is extremely dangerous.

U based programmes are always primary burdened with cost considerations. It is much faster and cheaper to use lower enrichment (lower number of stages) and accept higher tails, than produce an yet huger plant for seeking maximum possible extraction of U235 from feed (assuming adequate U supply is there).

M.Rauch wrote:The separation process stays the same.
You claim that U enrichment and Pu extraction from reactor fuel is same process ??

Centifuges are used in both processes (atleast in some Pu purification methods), but otherways your statement is laughable. Other is separation of isotope, other is separation of different natural elements. They are not the same.

M.Rauch wrote:If you don't have the methods for such a transformation, you can still extract the naturally existing fissionable isotopes, but the rate of yield is much worse.
In practise yes - considering the costs.


I understand that you have very limited basic understanding about these matters, and you can continue this bickering with me till eternity and make an ass of yourselve.

BTW. Where are your claims now ??:
- ineffeciency of centrifuge method - last time you didn't disregard it anymore
- where is the claim that nonexistant Russian Uranium resources available at that time were essential to German nuclear program ??
- or the claim of poor quality ore that Germans got from Belgium, when the ore was the best that is ever found in earths soil ??
- or the claim that Germans had U for one bomb only ??
- or the total lack of knowledge of that Germany had Uranium available from their own soil (and you claim to be German) ?? !!
- i guess that you have by now learned the existence of Plutonium, or do you ??
- or the claim that for successfull operation of natural Uranium fueled reactor you need heavy water moderator ?? I guess you forgot the dozens of graphite moderated Pu production reactors - or what is more propable, didn't had any knowledge of them...

:roll:

It would be nice that in discussion, if you are wrong, to admit it, not just forget the statement you had made previously. I don't throw things as facts here lightly, and expect others to do the same. Opinions are different matter, but they must be made clear to be just opinions.

You have added nothing informative to this discussion, just blatantly ignorant statements, total lack of basic knowledge of matter, and tendency to conveniently "forgot" the claims you have made when you have been corrected.

Sorry, i am not that harsh normally - but as i am sharing my knowledge, i expect some recognition, not small time bickering. I am not nuclear scientist, but have studied the matter for years.


Regards, Mark V

M.Rausch
Member
Posts: 268
Joined: 28 May 2005 05:15
Location: Kaiserslautern, Germany

Post by M.Rausch » 29 Aug 2005 10:53

make an ass of yourselve
Well, it is more what you already presented us what you are.
or the claim that Germans had U for one bomb only ??
I already corrected myself posting "Correct is, that without the use of a reactor there was no way to produce enough enriched Uranium in Germany needed for a fission bomb."
i guess that you have by now learned the existence of Plutonium, or do you ??
I don't thing there is much to learn from you except acting with a lack of manners.
or the total lack of knowledge of that Germany had Uranium available from their own soil (and you claim to be German) ?? !!
I posted "The ore gathered in Norway, Belgium and Germany...". It seems you are not really willing or capable to read and understand what other posters write. Instead you seem to prefer to replace real arguments with insults and falsifications of the content of my postings.

Hence I consider you not as someone worth to communicate with. The answers to your claims are more than your behaviour deserves. Claim that you studied the topic for years, you should have spent your time better to learn some basic manners.

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 29 Aug 2005 19:44

M.Rausch wrote: I already corrected myself posting "Correct is, that without the use of a reactor there was no way to produce enough enriched Uranium in Germany needed for a fission bomb."
And that is an correction ?? What it needs that you understand that reactors don't produce enriched Uranium ??
M.Rausch wrote: I posted "The ore gathered in Norway, Belgium and Germany...". It seems you are not really willing or capable to read and understand what other posters write. Instead you seem to prefer to replace real arguments with insults and falsifications of the content of my postings.
During WW2 Germany did not pursue to exploit Uranium sources in its own soil. I have never claimed that they did, but you did just now - and made yet another mistake.

Germany did had very significant U sources in its own soil - i posted information about that to invalidate your claim that Russian (nonexistant) U was needed by Germans. They just hadn't immediate need for that U.

There migh have been some Uranium gained as an by-product of mining in Jáchymov, Czechoslovakia. I don't have knowledge of any Norwegian U.

M.Rausch wrote:The answers to your claims are more than your behaviour deserves.
I haven't posted any claims in this thread. You have.

M.Rausch wrote:Hence I consider you not as someone worth to communicate with.
Nor do i have any intent to communicate with you in the future.

Himmelssäule
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 14 Aug 2005 17:54
Location: Germany

Post by Himmelssäule » 30 Aug 2005 16:38

For who are interested in the truth - and I do not know what the truth in this case is - but I want to search and hope all of you want to search:

What for an order gave the US Army to Siemens & Halske AG in may 1945 after the end of the war ?

What did Mr. von Weizäcker and Werner von Braun between the 16. and the 18. March 1945 in the Jonastal ???

What is about the book of

Arthur O. Naujoks & Lee Nelson: The last great secret of the third reich, Council Press, Springville, Utah, 2002, p. 75 ff.


Greetings

Himmelssäule
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 14 Aug 2005 17:54
Location: Germany

Post by Himmelssäule » 30 Aug 2005 18:36

For all the experts in physical development of "the bomb":

The Germans had no problems to built a A-Bomb - for technical backround read this:

Friedwardt Winterberg, "The Physical Principles Of Thermonuclear Explosive Devices", University of Nevada, Fusion Energy Foundation Frontiers of Science Series, Fusion Energy Foundation, p. 28 ff.


Friedwardt Winterberg studied under Heisenberg and Diebner !



Greetings

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 30 Aug 2005 20:29

There was a letter to the editor from a physics professor in Germany in the FAZ, the most hihg-brow German daily, in the third week of August. Can't tell you the date I am afraid, or anymore detail, since it got lost when I cleaned up my beach chair. But those seriously interested may want to try and track it down.

Anyway, in it the writer states that he, as a grad student in the 1960s, worked with a former colleague of Diebner who told him the following (this is the condenses version) after Diebner's death:

1) Diebner was closer than anyone to making a German nuclear bomb
2) Diebner was extremely far away from making a nuclear bomb, including a dirty one.

Take it for what its worth.

All the best

Andreas

Return to “Other Equipment”