Top Secrets in Ludwikowice/Ludwigsdorf

[phylo_roadking]

Oh look...

This is a complete mystery as available information indicates he was only a test pilot for glider type aircraft during the war. However, Mr. Kuettner tells Mr. Cooper that he flew a two-man version of the V-1 during the war. This is recounted in the book Leap of Faith by Gordon Cooper.

This is hardly a great secret! That was the Fieseler Fi 103R-II (some sources call it was the III, and that the II was a 103-like glider for acclimatisation), used for training by the Leonidas Squadron. Their existence is well-known and documented.

HOWEVER - the existence of the Fi 103R isn't the issue - ""Jack" Kuetner's" claims were even MORE outrageous than Stellung notes; he claimed to "Coop" that he flew two operational sorties on the R-II, dropped from a carrier Ju-88 aircraft over the English Channel....and on one he dropped a bomb on London!

[paolosilv]

I read that the Soviets took 900 Nazi scientists. Could one of them have been Hans Kammler?

[stellung]

Highly doubtful. He had other work to do. OSS reports from 1944 show a steady pace in the transfer of German personnel and material to South America. The scientists the Russians took were allowed to return to Germany where they were interrogated by the CIA.

[paolosilv]

Thanks.

[LWD]

.... OSS reports from 1944 show a steady pace in the transfer of German personnel and material to South America.

Source PLS. Also what level of transfer are you talking about.

The scientists the Russians took were allowed to return to Germany where they were interrogated by the CIA.

Source please.

[verloren_aviator]

...Proactinium has to be created artificially by bombardment of Thorium 232 with X-ray neutrons.

X-ray Neutrons??? Pa -233 is indeed a decay product of Thorium 233 but "X-ray Neutrons"?

.... Protoactinium 233 decays over 27 days into pure bomb grade Uranium 233.

Of course you still have to be able to procure and purify the necessary quantitties. This hardly looks to be an efficient route to securing enough bomb grade material to make any difference.

The old definition of X-rays placed X-rays below gamma rays in the electromagnetic spectrum, but the modern definition accepts that high energy X-rays encompass neutron radiation.

Strictly speaking, the modern definition of an X-ray is that of any radiation caused artificially whereas Gamma rays are naturally occurring radiation.

.... Protoactinium 233 decays over 27 days into pure bomb grade Uranium 233.

Of course you still have to be able to procure and purify the necessary quantitties. This hardly looks to be an efficient route to securing enough bomb grade material to make any difference.

An odd comment to make... I would be grateful if LWD can explain why Uranium 233 derived from Beta decay of Protactinium 233 requires any further enrichment?

The 233U thus derived has no contamination from 232U.

Thorium ore has only one naturally occurring isotope, 232Th.* Therefore unlike Uranium, there arises no contamination by for example 238U, 236U, 235U or 234U. Thorium is the ore of choice because once converted to Protactinium there is only one possible isotope 233Pa. Thus no need for enrichment or separation.

Uranium 233 derived from spent reactor fuel is an entirely different story. Modern Uranium 233 is often deliberately contaminated with 232U to render it useless for atomic bombs.

*( I edited this post as i mistyped reference to Uranium ore, when I should have said Thorium ore.)

[verloren_aviator]

Thanks for the quotes. So it sounds like it is possible to use x-rays in the energy range mentioned to knock neutrons out of Beryllium atoms. It's not clear of those neutrons are in the range of energies needed to convert Thorium 232 to Thorium 233. Furthermore it's not clear if said conversion process if possible is at all practical. Looks very questonable to me at best. Certainly not "blindingly obvious" as some have stated.

Thorium 232 struck by a slow neutron transmutes to Protactinium 233, not into Thorium 233. The Protactinium 233 then sheds a Proton over a 27 day period to become Uranium 233. - “Fusion: the search for endless energy,” By Robin Herman, p.40

Neutron emissions are feasible in a plasma with energies below 1MeV therefore a particle accelerator as described with 15MeV energy is quite capable. In a Tokamak particle accelerator what determines the energies involved are the speed of electrons and photons. - Jarvis O.N. 1994 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion

The Nazi 15 MeV particle accelerator is described in Rolf Wideröe, 1902-1996, A Pioneer of Particle Accelerators and Radiation Therapy.” 2007 Autobiography, compiled and edited by Wedro Waloschek and it's development for the Nazi A-bomb project by “Heisenberg’s War: The Secret History of the German Bomb,” Powers, Thomas. Knopf, New York 1993

IF LWD questions the energies involved are competent perhaps he should refer us to papers backing up his reservations as they appear based largely on humbug.

Beryllium for example emits 4 neutrons for every neutron which it is struck by, therefore introduces a multiplication factor similar to a nuclear reactor. Once neutrons are emitted any which strike Thorium targets will be absorbed in an elastic collision.

After this all that remains to be performed is the straight forward chemical separation of Protactinium 233 from Thorium 232. Dr Heinz Ewald produced papers in 1942 describing a process for generating neutron emissions in a ring plasma field which replicates the description suggested by SS Lt Gen Sporrenberg referred to by Igor Witkowski.

[LWD]

X-ray Neutrons??? Pa -233 is indeed a decay product of Thorium 233 but "X-ray Neutrons"?
....

The old definition of X-rays placed X-rays below gamma rays in the electromagnetic spectrum, but the modern definition accepts that high energy X-rays encompass neutron radiation.

Strictly speaking, the modern definition of an X-ray is that of any radiation caused artificially whereas Gamma rays are naturally occurring radiation.

Since when? Care to document that? I just checked a bunch of web sites and the majority directly refer to x-rays as being electromagnetic raidation of photons. None of them refer to it as being particulate radiation such as a neutron. Furthermore none make the distinction between naturally occuring and artificial that you seem to.

.... Protoactinium 233 decays over 27 days into pure bomb grade Uranium 233.

Of course you still have to be able to procure and purify the necessary quantitties. This hardly looks to be an efficient route to securing enough bomb grade material to make any difference.

An odd comment to make... I would be grateful if LWD can explain why Uranium 233 derived from Beta decay of Protactinium 233 requires any further enrichment?

The 233U thus derived has no contamination from 232U.

Thorium has only one naturally occurring isotope, 232Th. Therefore unlike Uranium ore, there arises no contamination by for example 238U, 236U, 235U or 234U. Thorium is the ore of choice because once converted to Protactinium there is only one possible isotope 233Pa. Thus no need for enrichment or separation.

I suggest you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle.

[LWD]

Thanks for the quotes. So it sounds like it is possible to use x-rays in the energy range mentioned to knock neutrons out of Beryllium atoms. It's not clear of those neutrons are in the range of energies needed to convert Thorium 232 to Thorium 233. Furthermore it's not clear if said conversion process if possible is at all practical. Looks very questonable to me at best. Certainly not "blindingly obvious" as some have stated.

Thorium 232 struck by a slow neutron transmutes to Protactinium 233, not into Thorium 233.

Not what it says in the reference above indeed it exlicitly states:

when 232
Th captures a neutron (whether in a fast reactor or thermal reactor) to become 233
Th.

Indeed if you are famliar with the topic at all you will no that adding a neutron to the nucleaous of an element does not change the element.

The Protactinium 233 then sheds a Proton over a 27 day period to become Uranium 233. - “Fusion: the search for endless energy,” By Robin Herman, p.40

There's a misprint somewhere here becuase if an elment with an atomic weight of 233 looses a proton it's atomic weight drops to 232 and of course it becomes a different element.

IF LWD questions the energies involved are competent perhaps he should refer us to papers backing up his reservations as they appear based largely on humbug.

Not how it works on this board. You are the proponent I've questioned your statement it's up to you to back it up.

Beryllium for example emits 4 neutrons for every neutron which it is struck by, therefore introduces a multiplication factor similar to a nuclear reactor. Once neutrons are emitted any which strike Thorium targets will be absorbed in an elastic collision.

I'm going to need a source for that. As stated it's rather counter intuitive as well so you may wish to clarify your statement a bit.

After this all that remains to be performed is the straight forward chemical separation of Protactinium 233 from Thorium 232. Dr Heinz Ewald produced papers in 1942 describing a process for generating neutron emissions in a ring plasma field which replicates the description suggested by SS Lt Gen Sporrenberg referred to by Igor Witkowski.

And when do you perform this chemical seperation? Note that various isotopes of Protactinium are formed during the process and chemical seperation won't get rid of them.

[verloren_aviator]

Since when? Care to document that? I just checked a bunch of web sites and the majority directly refer to x-rays as being electromagnetic raidation of photons. None of them refer to it as being particulate radiation such as a neutron.

Happy to educate you,,,

Clearly you have little grasp of nuclear physics otherwise you would be aware that Gamma radiation concerns the emission of neutrons. However overlooking your ignorance of this fact and for the benefit of others I will respond.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hard+X-ray

{from the free dictionary /Hard+X-ray - by Farlex)
X-ray, x-ray
n
1. (Physics / General Physics)
a. electromagnetic radiation emitted when matter is bombarded with fast electrons. X-rays have wavelengths shorter than that of ultraviolet radiation, that is less than about 1 ✕ 10-8 metres. They extend to indefinitely short wavelengths, but below about 1 ✕ 10-11 metres they are often called gamma radiation
b. (as modifier) X-ray astronomy

2. (Medicine) (Miscellaneous Technologies / Photography) a picture produced by exposing photographic film to X-rays: used in medicine as a diagnostic aid as parts of the body, such as bones, absorb X-rays and so appear as opaque areas on the picture

3. (Electronics & Computer Science / Telecommunications) (usually capital) Communications a code word for the letter x
vb (tr)
1. (Medicine) (Miscellaneous Technologies / Photography) to photograph (part of the body, etc.) using X-rays
2. (Medicine) to treat or examine by means of X-rays
[partial translation of German X-Strahlen (from Strahl ray), coined in 1895 by W. K. Röntgen (1845-1923), German physicist]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

Gamma radiation arises from the emission of neutrons
Beta radiation arises from the emission of protons
Alpha radiation arises from the emission of electrons

Gamma radiation has the shortest and most dangerous wavelength. The spectra of X-ray wavelengths covers all the above wavelengths inclusively.

Unfortunately LWD you quote selectively to suit your own purpose. As you yourself pointed out:

....and the majority directly refer to x-rays as being electromagnetic radiation of photons

The majority of references relate to medical X-rays which are soft X-rays. You have confounded the debate by only referring to that which suits your purpose. Rather misleading practice. Rather immature approach too.

Furthermore none make the distinction between naturally occurring and artificial that you seem to.

From the above quoted text. Rather self explanatory for most people:

...electromagnetic radiation emitted when matter is bombarded with fast electrons.

Whereas naturally occurring radiation arises from the decay of unstable actinide elements.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio ... ioactivity

artificial radioactivity
n.
The radioactivity of isotopes that have been artificially produced through the bombardment of naturally occurring isotopes by subatomic particles or by high levels of x-rays or gamma rays. Also called induced radioactivity.

Fortunately LWD the benchmark of knowledge is not limited merely to the breadth of your understanding.

.... Protoactinium 233 decays over 27 days into pure bomb grade Uranium 233.

Of course you still have to be able to procure and purify the necessary quantitties.

Nazi Germany’s Thorium was mined from Wüstegiersdorf in Silesia, now known as Gluszyca not far from Wenceslas Mine. The Wenceslas mine of course being next to the hamlet of present day Ludwickowice. Procurement of Thorium was therefore not a problem LWD.

This hardly looks to be an efficient route to securing enough bomb grade material to make any difference.

Based on what source or information LWD?
Is this nothing more than your personal opinion. Sources please?
The rules of this forum require that you qualify that statement with a source.

An odd comment to make... I would be grateful if LWD can explain why Uranium 233 derived from Beta decay of Protactinium 233 requires any further enrichment?

The 233U thus derived has no contamination from 232U.

Thorium ore has only one naturally occurring isotope, 232Th. Therefore unlike Uranium, there arises no contamination by for example 238U, 236U, 235U or 234U. Thorium is the ore of choice because once converted to Protactinium there is only one possible isotope 233Pa. Thus no need for enrichment or separation.

I suggest you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle.[/quote][/quote]

Until you explain the point which you are trying, yet failing to make LWD, I can't reply to this vague scatter-gun comment. You provide a link to the Thorium fuel cycle. What a reactor fuel cycle has to do with the isotope states of natural ores is something perhaps so obscure that you need to explain it to us more specifically?

I suspect you miss the point entirely that Thorium existing in it's natural ore state has only one isotope (232Th)

[verloren_aviator]

Thanks for the quotes. So it sounds like it is possible to use x-rays in the energy range mentioned to knock neutrons out of Beryllium atoms. It's not clear of those neutrons are in the range of energies needed to convert Thorium 232 to Thorium 233. Furthermore it's not clear if said conversion process if possible is at all practical. Looks very questonable to me at best. Certainly not "blindingly obvious" as some have stated.

Thorium 232 struck by a slow neutron transmutes to Protactinium 233, not into Thorium 233.

Not what it says in the reference above indeed it exlicitly states:

when 232
Th captures a neutron (whether in a fast reactor or thermal reactor) to become 233
Th.

I defy you to separate an element that exists with a half life of only 22 minutes. After which it Beta decays into Protactinium 233 with a half life of 27 days.

Indeed if you are famliar with the topic at all you will no that adding a neutron to the nucleaous of an element does not change the element.

Yes the addition or ejection of a neutron changes the isotopic state. The addition or emission of a proton changes the element.

IF LWD questions the energies involved are competent perhaps he should refer us to papers backing up his reservations as they appear based largely on humbug.

Not how it works on this board. You are the proponent I've questioned your statement it's up to you to back it up.

n + 232Th = 233Th - ß = 233Pa - ß = 233U


The chain which you demand evidence of is already in the Thorium fuel cycle link at Wikipedia which you have already referred us all to above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

Actually in this case you make the assertion that it can't possibly be so therefore I require you to justify it with something more substantial LWD that your usual humbug. Of course as we all know, the real truth is you can't back up your dismissal.

I'm going to need a source for that. As stated it's rather counter intuitive as well so you may wish to clarify your statement a bit.

Do I wish to clarify?
Not really. If you can't keep up then that's your problem.

LWD wrote:X-ray Neutrons??? Pa -233 is indeed a decay product of Thorium 233 but "X-ray Neutrons"?

Neutrons can be released from Beryllium atoms by treatment with hard X-Rays, I'm sure this is meant here.

Original article: Auslösung von Neutronen aus Beryllium durch harte Röntgenstrahlen. Erzeugung radioaktiver Elemente

A. Brasch, F. Lange, A. Waly, T. E. Banks, T. A. Chalmers, L. Szilard, F. L. Hopwood, Naturwissenschaften, 1934,Volume 22, Number 50, p. 839

Selective memory loss LWD ?

Beryllium cannot sustain a reaction but when bombarded with neutrons it emits far more than received. That's self explanatory. Why do you think Beryllium is used in H-bombs as a neutron reflector?
Why Beryllium and not some other element?

[verloren_aviator]

LWD has carefully avoided enlightening us any further on his previous comment that Uranium 233 obtained from the natural Beta decay of Protactinium 233 requires any further "enrichment"

This is a positive assertion that Uranium 233 needs further enrichment therefore i repeat my previous two requests that LWD provide us with a source to back his claim?

[verloren_aviator]

Thanks for the quotes. So it sounds like it is possible to use x-rays in the energy range mentioned to knock neutrons out of Beryllium atoms. It's not clear of those neutrons are in the range of energies needed to convert Thorium 232 to Thorium 233. Furthermore it's not clear if said conversion process if possible is at all practical. Looks very questonable to me at best. Certainly not "blindingly obvious" as some have stated.

Neutron emissions (gamma radiation) can be stimulated at very low energies.

Abstract. Evidence of x-ray and neutron emission from an ultraminiature pinch plasma focus is presented. The stored energy in the device is less than 1J per shot and can be operated at tens of Hz of repetition rate. The main features of this device, repetitive Nanofocus, are 5nF of capacity, 5nH of inductance, 5-10kV charging voltage, 60-250mJ stored energy, 5-10kA current peak, per shot. The device has been operated at 20Hz in hydrogen and deuterium. X-ray radiographs of materials of different thickness were obtained. Neutrons were detected using a system based upon 3He proportional counter in current mode...

....The Thermonuclear Plasma Department of the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission (DPTN-CCHEN) has in the last years worked in the miniaturization of neutron generators based on plasma focus (PF) physics as non radioactive sources of neutrons [1, 2]. Devices to produce pinch PF discharges from deuterium, driven by generators with stored energies lower than one kilojoule have been designed and constructed a) at hundreds of joules (PF- 400J, 880 nF, 20-35 kV, 176-539 J, ␣300 ns time to peak current) [3] and b) at tens of joules (PF-50J, 160 nF capacitor bank, 20-35 kV, 32-100 J, ␣150 ns time to peak current) [4-7]. These very small devices produce pinch plasmas, neutrons and X-rays pulses.

Source
APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS VOLUME 83, NUMBER 16 20 OCTOBER 2003
- Neutron emission from a fast plasma focus of 400 Joules

Patricio Silva, Jose ́ Moreno, Leopoldo Soto,a) Lipo Birstein, Roberto E. Mayer,b) and Walter Kiesc) Comisio ́n Chilena de Energ ́ıa Nuclear, Casilla 188 D, Santiago, Chile

[LWD]

Since when? Care to document that? I just checked a bunch of web sites and the majority directly refer to x-rays as being electromagnetic raidation of photons. None of them refer to it as being particulate radiation such as a neutron.

Happy to educate you,,,

That will be the day.

Clearly you have little grasp of nuclear physics otherwise you would be aware that Gamma radiation concerns the emission of neutrons.

I may not have a phd in physics but I've clearly a much better understanding of it than you do.

However overlooking your ignorance of this fact and for the benefit of others I will respond.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hard+X-ray

{from the free dictionary /Hard+X-ray - by Farlex)
X-ray, x-ray
n
1. (Physics / General Physics)
a. electromagnetic radiation emitted when matter is bombarded with fast electrons. X-rays have wavelengths shorter than that of ultraviolet radiation, that is less than about 1 ✕ 10-8 metres. They extend to indefinitely short wavelengths, but below about 1 ✕ 10-11 metres they are often called gamma radiation
...

Let 's see electromagnetic radiation, that conforms with what I said. Nothing abut neutrons here.

Gamma radiation arises from the emission of neutrons
Beta radiation arises from the emission of protons
Alpha radiation arises from the emission of electrons

That varry's from sort of accurate to totally off the wall. Gama radiation is a form of electromagnetic radiation and can arise from a number of different types of events. It often accompanies the emision of a neutron from a nuclei but that's far from the only source of gama rays.
Like wise beta radiation may arise from a proton emision but again there are other sources since beat radiation is simply an electron moving fast.
Alpha radiation on the other hand has very little to do with the emission of electrons. It's a Helium nuclei typically ejected from an atomic nuclei although again there are other possibilityes.

Gamma radiation has the shortest and most dangerous wavelength. The spectra of X-ray wavelengths covers all the above wavelengths inclusively.

Typically one doesn't talk about the wavelenght of particulate radiation (beta and alpha rays). In any case neither alpha or beta are x-rays or considered to be "covered" by X-ray spectra. Again X-rays are electromagentic radiation which means even if you are considering photons as particles they are massless as opposed to beta and alpha particles which have the mass of the particles with which they are associated. You are also wrong about gamma radiation being the "most dangerous" and implying that shorter wavelength means greater danger. How dangerous each of the above is depends on a number of factors other than just radiation type and in the case of em radiation wavelength.

Unfortunately LWD you quote selectively to suit your own purpose. As you yourself pointed out:

....and the majority directly refer to x-rays as being electromagnetic radiation of photons

The majority of references relate to medical X-rays which are soft X-rays. You have confounded the debate by only referring to that which suits your purpose. Rather misleading practice. Rather immature approach too.

Trying to insult me doesn't make you correct. The point is they refered to x-rays as electromagnetic radiation. In no case did they refer to alpha, beta, or other mateiral particles in the definition. You are the one who is apparently trying to confound things.

Furthermore none make the distinction between naturally occurring and artificial that you seem to.

From the above quoted text. Rather self explanatory for most people:

...electromagnetic radiation emitted when matter is bombarded with fast electrons.

That's one sample. No where in the defintion did it state that x-rays were not naturally occuring. Are you a native English speaker? Oh well here's a reference any way for your education, not that I expect it to help much.
http://physics.info/x-ray/

... x‑rays are produced whenever fast moving electrons are decelerated, not just in x‑ray tubes. Nearly all the naturally occurring x‑ray sources are extraterrestrial. (No, that doesn't mean produced by alien creatures from outer space. It just means "beyond the earth".) x‑rays are produced when the solar wind is trapped by the earth's magnetic field in the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Black holes are significant sources of x‑rays in the universe...

Whereas naturally occurring radiation arises from the decay of unstable actinide elements.

If one believes that the logical conclusion is that the electromagnetic energy generated by the sun is not naturally occuring.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio ... ioactivity

artificial radioactivity
n.
The radioactivity of isotopes that have been artificially produced through the bombardment of naturally occurring isotopes by subatomic particles or by high levels of x-rays or gamma rays. Also called induced radioactivity.

Which says nothing about your contention that gama rays are natural and x-rays are not.

Fortunately LWD the benchmark of knowledge is not limited merely to the breadth of your understanding.

I won't dispute that one.

Of course you still have to be able to procure and purify the necessary quantitties.

Nazi Germany’s Thorium was mined from Wüstegiersdorf in Silesia, now known as Gluszyca not far from Wenceslas Mine. The Wenceslas mine of course being next to the hamlet of present day Ludwickowice. Procurement of Thorium was therefore not a problem LWD.

That addresses part of the problem.

This hardly looks to be an efficient route to securing enough bomb grade material to make any difference.

Based on what source or information LWD?
Is this nothing more than your personal opinion. Sources please?
The rules of this forum require that you qualify that statement with a source.

Actually it only requires it once I've become the proponent of an idea. At this point I'd argue that I'm still in the stage of questioning your concepts. However several of the links I've posted previously indicate some of the problems associated with this route especially in the 40s

An odd comment to make... I would be grateful if LWD can explain why Uranium 233 derived from Beta decay of Protactinium 233 requires any further enrichment?

The 233U thus derived has no contamination from 232U.

Thorium ore has only one naturally occurring isotope, 232Th. Therefore unlike Uranium, there arises no contamination by for example 238U, 236U, 235U or 234U. Thorium is the ore of choice because once converted to Protactinium there is only one possible isotope 233Pa. Thus no need for enrichment or separation.

I suggest you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle.

Until you explain the point which you are trying, yet failing to make LWD, I can't reply to this vague scatter-gun comment. You provide a link to the Thorium fuel cycle. What a reactor fuel cycle has to do with the isotope states of natural ores is something perhaps so obscure that you need to explain it to us more specifically?

I suspect you miss the point entirely that Thorium existing in it's natural ore state has only one isotope (232Th)

[/quote][/quote]
Well among other things if you are bombarding Thorium 232 with neutrons U 232 is on of the products in some of the interactions. So even if you have absolutly pure Thorium 232 to start with once you start hitting it with neutrons you have a mix of several isotopes of Thorium, Protactinim, Uranium and other elements. Furthermore this is a constantly evolving mix. So purification is indeed a problem. I thought that was obvious but then I guess I forgot what I was dealing with.

[LWD]

LWD has carefully avoided enlightening us any further on his previous comment that Uranium 233 obtained from the natural Beta decay of Protactinium 233 requires any further "enrichment"

This is a positive assertion that Uranium 233 needs further enrichment therefore i repeat my previous two requests that LWD provide us with a source to back his claim?

It should be obvious to anyone at all familiar whith this process that if you start with a "pure" chunk of a radioacctive metal you end up in a short time with a chunk of material composed of a number of different elements and isotopes. Depending on what one is going to use them for some further processing is going to be required. When the starting material has a relativly short half life this is even more relevant.