# New evidence of a german nuclear weapon project?



## delcyros (Mar 16, 2005)

The historican R. Karlsch has recently published a new book (R. Karlsch, Hitlers Bombe. Die geheime Geschichte der deutschen Kernwaffenversuch, (Hrsg.) DVA (Munich 2005). It is not yet avaiable in english. He prove in his book that the german research was more than the Uranverein led by Heisenberg (who´s nuclear project at Haigerloch did not became critical). There are three points of highest interest in his book, which justify to discuss it here: 
A) He tries to prove that a group led by Diebner sucesfully build a nucler reactor at Gottow, which became critical (an analysis of the Bundesprüfamt confirmed that) at a proir unknown experiment.
B) He found evidence that a group of scientist worked on a fission bomb (a pure fissionbomb without a nuke for ignition). They come close to a solution. (debatable) 
And, I think the following is most important:
C) He found out, that the germans did suceed in testing at least two nuclear weapons (one at 12th of october ´44 at Bug/Baltic Sea and another at 21:20, 3rd of march ´45 at Ohrdruf/central Germany). Both nukes were undercritical but they did suceed in a nuclear chainreaction (with the freeing of huge amounts of energy, comparable with a tactical nuclear weapon but much smaller than the US nukes). He found physical and chemical evidence for both tests (especially at Ohrdruf). 
I suggest to read the book and discuss it here. Opinions by german critics and historicans are splitted and official investigations are running.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 16, 2005)

I read an article about it this morning as well. It sounds interesting, but I will have to wait for the English version.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 16, 2005)

I am not sure. There is not that much evidence in his argumentation. But he digged deep, no question. I´m looking forward to read the reports of the official investigations.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 16, 2005)

I assume in part B you mean "fusion", since "fission" makes no sense. ???

I don't believe even today we have found a way to make a fussion bomb w/o a fission trigger. There is the rumor of "red mercury", now over a decade old, but it seems this is pure fiction as the science does not back it up and none has ever been proven to exist.

Dirty bombs do not generate the kind of yeilds to classify them as anything close to a actual fission bomb. It is known the Germans did some experiments with such dirty bombs, mostly involving relatively unenriched uranium oxide powder and TNT (or RDX). These would certainly have been nasty if they'd have been used, killing thousands of people. But they would have virtually ensured the utter anihilation of the German people - by 1945 Britain had enough anthrax to wipe out almost every German city, and anthrax cakes which would have spread futher infection througout the rural areas - not to mention mustard gas and other nasty concoctions in huge supply, along with the means to deliver it.

Any idiot can make a dirty bomb - all you need is the mildly enriched Uranium and an explosive to do it. While nasty, it is not a "devastating" weapon. Only within a small area of the blast are people sufficiently exposed to cause short term fatalities, mostly it causes long term health problems. Not very good as a weapon of war (but for terrorism - that's a different story).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Mar 16, 2005)

As far as I understood, it was no dirty bomb. There is pretty much evidence for a nuclear chainreaction (they found traces of Plutonium 239, Uranium 235, Uranium 238, Cäsium 137 and Kobalt 60). And a blast effect of around 300 meters in diameter (area of total destruction by heat and blast effects). That is the interesting point. There is no Plutonium at an explosion of an low enriched Uranium 235/238 bomb as long as it stays a dirty bomb (without chainreaction). However, investigations are running. B) is fusion, right. (technicly they wanted to use Li-3 D-reactions in a high compressed procedure by means of (Hohlladungstechnik)). I agree that there was no mitlitary use for these bombs as long as missile technique was as unreliable as it was in 1945. Anthrax is interesting, but more dangerous was Botulinum, sure.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 16, 2005)

Well, all the other evidence contradicts this info. The evidence I've seen indicates the Germans had no means of enriching enough U235, and no concept of Plutonium's existance at all.

It will be interesting find out what this "historian's" evidence is. Do you have a link or a name I can search on?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 16, 2005)

Having done a little searching, it appears this is w.r.t. a simple dirty bomb, no chain reaction being involved at all.

http://www.recorder.ca/cp/World/050314/w031463A.html

As far as I know, the Germans had succeeded in estabishing a very short lived Atomic pile sometime in 1945, just before the war ended. Other than that they had no reactors, and no enrichment facilities, so the idea of a Nazi bomb other than a dirty bomb seems just silly.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Mar 17, 2005)

I read the following article on Tampa Bay online:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GERMANY_HITLERS_BOMB?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Alot of circumstantial evidence. Not sure where this will lead, but I am sure that it will be debated for a long time.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 17, 2005)

As long as official investigations at Ohrdruf are not completed, I don´t want to take a position. But a few things are interesting.
1.) They had quite good knowledge of Plutonium.
The first to discover Plutonium were two US physician, Mc Millian and Abelson in spring of 1940. They published their discovering! (it was not until june, 15th. that the US kept it secret)
Beside this v. Weizsäcker made in early 1940 a 5 paged report of the energysource Uranium 238. He (theoreticly) proofed that U-238 would change in a reactor to a new element, which he called "Eka Rhe 239" (Neptunium). Mc Millian and Abelson proofed (theoreticly) that Neptunium would change to Plutonium (published in second june edition of "Physical Review"). v. Weizsäcker read this review in mid 1940! He confirmed that Plutonium was the best element to be used (he wrote reports to Heisenberg, Wirtz and Diebner (!)). Heisenberg was the only one who don´t believed. (and that´s why everyone thinks that the germans had no knowledge of Plutonium, you can trace it back to the Farm Hall protokolls, where Heisenberg refused the possibility of Plutonium in the US bomb)
2.) The germans had a Betatron (enrichment facility).
The company C.H.F. Müller finished the first european Betatron (15 MeV) at Hamburg under Dr. Rolf Wderöe. Other Betatrons were completed by v. Ardenne (the author found remains of one at Bad Saarow, will check it out this weekend). The capabilities of these facilities were not very impressive, but Ardenne believed, that he could enrichen 1,5 g Uranium 235 up to 15% in an hour with his Betatron. 
3.) the germans had one working nuclear reactor (and thus they theoreticly had the possibility to get Plutonium).
Heisenberg and Diebner had two independent reactor projects. Diebner was technicly much ahead of his time (global shape of Uranium cubes and multistage reactor) but Heisenberg had more fame as well as more sources. The previoulsy unknown project Gottow IV of Diebner at 1944/45? worked for at least 8 hours and became critical. After finishing the test it was taken out of the cooling water and the reactor got out of controll. (thats why we know about this project, the site was investigated and they found enough Plutonium and other traces to reconstruct a critical working condition for at least 8 hours. A Xenon 135 poisoning ended the reactor. After all Diebner did probably not succeed in getting the Plutonium he wanted. What about the construction of the bomb? R. Karlsch does not give a clear statement. It was surely no nuclear weapon like Hiroshima. But the physical institutes of both, TH Braunschweig and Bundeswehr confirmed that a "limited nuclear chainreaction with massive energyoutput" (quote Prof. Reinhardt Brandt) did happen at Ohrdruf. Prof. Keyser confirmed the mesurements. I think we have to wait for the official investigation...


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 17, 2005)

If there is no critical mass, there is no "tremendous explosion". A similar weight of TNT (which is of course much larger in volume) will generate a significantly larger blast.

As far as production goes, 15% enriched (i.e. "pure U235") is not nearly enough. To make a bomb capable of a critical reaction takes about 70% enrichment, minimum, and that requires a physically huge amount of material. The lower the level of enrichment, the more difficult it is to establish the necessary cascade reaction, and the more material required to do so. The reactor you describe might create 1.5 grams of U235 at 80% enrichment every week, probably every several weeks or even months if it coud do it at all (the higher you enrich the harder it is to enrich more). A reasonable bomb in WWII required about 40kg of over 75% enriched U235, meaning that even if the facility you describe had been able to produce 1.5 grams of enriched uranium per day_ it would still take 73 years to produce enough material for a single bomb_!







The above image shows the Okridge refinery. This plant, called Y-12, was producing 90 grams of ~80% enriched uranium per day by the end of 1944. When it was built, there was no way of knowing if the plant would even work - and it didn't! It had to be completely redesigned in mid 1944.

Even at that rate it takes about 15 months to produce enough uranium for a single bomb. So a second enrichment plant, called K-25, shown below, was brought online.






Try to grasp the size of these plants and the fact that it was all a gamble to a produce a weapon which might not even be possible.

As for plutonium, even if they knew it was theoretically possible, they had failed to produce even one gram of testable plutonium. Without this, they had no way of knowing that the spontanous fission rate of plutonium was so much higher than that of U235, far too high for a gun-type design (it is impossible to drive the bullet into the donut fast enough to avoid a pre-critical mass explosion). Until this knolwege was gained, no work on an implosion bomb would have even been dreamed of, since the gun-type weapon is so much more obvious.

So, in the end, I find it silly to consider that the Germans might have produced more than a few minor sub-critical dirty bomb type weapons.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Mar 18, 2005)

You are completely right, Lunatic, there was nothing in the world to compare with Oak Ridge, hands down. But enrichment via betatrons was not the only way to get Plutonium (known as "Element 94" by the germans since 1940). They wanted to get it via nuclear rector. That was no silly idea, they had enough uranium to run a reactor (they actually did, even with it´s failure in mind). But Karlsch has to prove it. He found and published in the archives of Jörg Diebner (the son of Dr. Diebner) a very interesting document (R. Karlsch, Hitlers Bombe, (Hrsg.) DVA (Munich 2005), page 325ff.) ( another one found in the newly opened Moscow archives). It dates back to february 1942. Its topic is the comprehensive analysis of nuclear research by Diebner for the HWA (144 pages). He underlines, that the construction of a heavy water reactor in the next years is technically possible and this would give acces to Plutonium for weapon use (he calculates the critical mass for a nuke quite corrctly to 10-100 Kg Plutonium). Further information are given for the dimension and use of nuclear powerplants (at this time he had no idea of his later multistage reactor, so he is close to Heisenbergs opinion) And back to the nuclear (?) test at Ohrdruf:
It seems possible that it was:
A) A dirty bomb, as you say.
B) A reactor bomb
C) A fission bomb
D) A fusion bomb
E) A mixture of C) and D)
The most important point is the critical mass. So I regard (B), (C) and (D) unprobable. It definitly had not the critical mass, agreed (otherwise the destruction would have been bigger). Against (A) speaks a very important point: A normal dirty bomb would have no chainreaction and therefor you would not find any Plutonium (if the bomb was of low enriched Uranium). You would also expect to find Strontium or Radium or other highly radiated materials (it lies in the nature of dirty bombs). No Radium and Strontium was found, but there is evidence of Plutonium! Kobalt 60 indicates a heavy neutron output (most likely at a chain reaction), it needs a heavy neutron output and steel or nickel to "make" Kobalt 60. That together with Cäsium 130 speaks for a nuclear event with chain reaktion. The group of Diebner cooperated with Strinks and Schuhmann, a Kriegsmarine research group which tried to build a fusion bomb. While Schuhmann and Trinks did not succed (they found out that they could increase pressure and heat to Lithium to about 2.000.000 atm. and a few million degrees C. but even that was far away for a fusion) they shared their results with Diebner. Diebner found it interesting to build an implosionbomb for undercritical masses of low enriched Uranium. So there is the possibility (if we follow R. Karlsch and the physiscian of the university of Braunschweig) that this construction could provide enough temperature and pressure for a limited nuclear chain reaction. It would make sense with the mesurements. This chainreaction would stop closely after its begin -time is relative for these procedures- (because it could only temporarly provide the needed circumstances for fission and chainreaction, we would say it temporarly "lifted" the Uranium up to the critical point) and therefor would not result in a Hiroshima scale explosion. It is very close to the soviet nuclear tactical shells for heavy guns in the early 80´s. They also have undercritical plutonium masses (and they are not regarded as "dirty" bombs or aren´t they?). But I miss the last proof in Karlsch´s argumentation: That´s only a "what if" (-all techniques could be put together)!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2005)

hmmm very very interesting. I am looking foward to hearing what comes out of this. I too doubt that too much would have come out of this. There just was simply not eneogh time to build a real nuke by Germany.

Here is some things I have found on the subject:

This is an actual artical on this from a German magazine called the Spiegel, they have an international online webpage.



> How Close Was Hitler to the A-Bomb?
> 
> By Klaus Wiegrefe
> 
> ...





> The German researchers came to the conclusion that building an atomic bomb, while possible, would be extremely costly, and time consuming - and it didn't look like Germany had the time or resources for the program.... but suddenly, in late 1944, a number of odd events occurred.
> 
> German aircraft designers were told to tender designs for a bomber capable of flying to New York and back, without refueling. The bomb load was to be 4000 Kilograms; surprisingly light for an attack that could have any real effect. The Horton firm was given the assignment, with the beautiful Ho XVIII flying wing bomber being the only design that could achieve the required specifications. They were told to begin construction as soon as possible.
> Work was restarted on a submarine towed pod, code named 'Test stand XII", to transport and launch the V-2 (A-4) missile. Up to three of these could be towed by a Type XXI submarine. The work was given high priority, and one of the pods, minus its internal equipment, was finished by the war's end.
> ...



This here below would pretty much just suggest a dirty bomb.



> Dr. Samuel Goudsmit was the head of the US intelligence mission to Europe codenamed ALSOS, whos objective was to discover to what extent the Nazis had been working on an atomic weapon. In his book "ALSOS - The Failure in German Science" (New York, 1947), there appears a sketch of the zenith of German scientists' achievement in the field. The same diagram appears in the book authoured by Lt. Leslie Groves, military chief of the Manhattan Project. Both Goudsmit and Groves stated that the diagram and photos represent "the German atom bomb".
> 
> The bomb was an aluminium sphere, about the size of a medicine ball, and had a tall chimney. The latter enabled the radium-beryllium radio-active source to be introduced into the core of the reaction. Within the sphere was layered alternately natural uranium powder (551 kilos) and paraffin wax.
> 
> ...



This sort of shows that something was up. 



> "...I have seen enough of their designs and production plans to realize that if they had managed to prolong the war some months longer, we would have been confronted with a set of entirely new and deadly developments in air warface." - Sir Roy Feddon, chief of the technical mission to Germany for the Ministry for Aircraft Production in 1945 from "The Daily Telegraph", October 1, 1945.
> 
> "The Germans were preparing rocket surprises for the whole world in general and England in particular which would have, it is believed, changed the course of the war if the invasion had been postponed for so short a time as half a year." - Lt. Col. Donald Leander Putt, Dep. Cmmd. Gen., AAF Intelligence, Air Technical Services Command.
> 
> ...



This may confirm that something was up in Ordruf but what?



> Next we have to consider the form such a base might have taken. At the end of the war the United States gave anything concerning Ohrdruf a top secret classification for 100 years upwards. The fact that there had been substantial underground workings there, and that Ohrdruf was the location of the last Redoubt, was concealed absolutely. Fortunately for researchers, in 1962 the DDR had taken sworn depositions from all local residents during an investigation into wartime Ohrdruf, and upon the reunification of the two Germanys in 1989, these documents became available to all and sundry at Arnstadt municipal archive.
> 
> From the Arnstadt documents it is clear that the charite anlage unit operated in a three-story underground bunker with floors 70 by 20 metres. When working, the device emitted some kind of energy field which shut down all electrical equipment and non-diesel engines within a range of about eight miles. For this reason, even though Ohrdruf was crawling with SS, it was never photographed from the air nor bombed. Declassified USAF documents dated early 1945 admit the existence of an unknown energy field over Frankfurt/Main "and other locations" which "fantastic though it may appear" were able to "interfere with our aircraft engines at 30,000 feet."
> http://www.robsacc.nl/ottens/mysteries_reich-antarctica.html


----------



## delcyros (Mar 18, 2005)

Thanks for helping with the translation, Adler! Highly intersting. Just discuss the book. I have not read yet the staements of other physiscian but I´ll keep on to inform. As I indicated, there is much missing in R. Karlsch´s book, he opens a possibility (but he has to proof). The russian document is not of that bad quality (readable even with my basic language knowledge of russian), but he quotes very well, it should be possible to verify (L.D. Rjabev (Hrsg.), Atomnij projekti CCCP (Das sowjetische Atomprojekt 1938-1945), vol. 2 (Moscow 2002), page 260f.). Official investigation will have to verify the samples of Ohrdruf. That is the keypoint.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2005)

Is the Bundeswehr or the government investigating it now. I might have to make a trip up to Ohrdruf. I think it would be interesting to see the area. Where I live is not to far from Eastern Germany and I might be able to check it out.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 19, 2005)

Delcros,

From what I've been able to find, at about the time you reference, the Germans did establish a critical pile - it exploded about 6-8 hours after being established. This would create some plutonium and other such elements.

In the one other nuclear site (location not specifically given but it was in the balkins or south west russia I think) there were no fission byproducts.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this. I suspect it will be de-bunked.

As for plutonium creation, sure realtively small amounts can be created by putting U-238 in a reactor. But Germany didn't have a working reactor until the very last month or so of the war. A reactor that explodes does not really count do you think?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Mar 19, 2005)

I agree with you, Lunatic, this briefly working reactor cannot be credited with Plutonium production, in general. I was just underlining its (theoretically) importance. 
I did not found any hints in the book for a south west russian nuclear reactor. It sounds interesting. The other test, which could have became critical would have been Heisenbergs try at Haigerloch. A large "what if". His construction could work if he could acces more Uranium cubes (he used some 3,5 to. of it but he needed 5 to. (additional 5 to. were storaged at Stadtilm, but Heisenberg had no acces to it, thanks to the SS) So his reactor did not became critical (Heisenberg had none of the two possibilities: 1.) take more Uranium (not accesable) 2.) change the geometry from cylindrical shape to Diebners global shape (no time left)). I think this was his luck, he had no emergancy solutions if the reactor get out of controll. Dieners briefly working reactor was found by soviet ground forces and transferred to laboratory No. 2/Moscow. I was searching in the news for statements.
I tried to find the source of the NKVD statment, but I found a book (see above) which is -surprise- translated by R. Karlsch, himself. It´s suspect. I will try to get the russian original via national library in Berlin. In the news,
G. Kirchner found himself to be misunderstood: He said "Im Augenblick liegen uns keine Informationen über eine Nuklearexplosion bei Ohrdruf vor" and later "Untersuchungen werden in den nächsten Wochen beginnen". The translation should be "We do not have any informations regarding a nuclear explosion at Ohrdrud, in the moment." and "Investigations will start in within the next weeks." And Spiegel translated him with a clear statement: "No atomic explosion at Ohrdruf." As it looks, opinions are divided. In general, I agree with Lunatic. There was simply a lack of Plutonium to build a Hiroshima-scale nuke. But if he is correct (and that is not proofed in the moment!), some scientists were on the right way to build one. And that is indeed something new.
I do not know if Bundeswehr is still invetigating, they have been present at Ohrdruf for evaluation and they coworked with physiscian of Braunschweig, Darmstadt. I will have to ask a friend. 
And if you have access to this site, Adler, than I suggest you should visit it , of course! I will go for Bad Saarow this weekend (I do know the area since my childhood).


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 19, 2005)

delcyros said:


> I agree with you, Lunatic, this briefly working reactor cannot be credited with Plutonium production, in general. I was just underlining its (theoretically) importance.
> I did not found any hints in the book for a south west russian nuclear reactor. It sounds interesting. The other test, which could have became critical would have been Heisenbergs try at Haigerloch. A large "what if". His construction could work if he could acces more Uranium cubes (he used some 3,5 to. of it but he needed 5 to. (additional 5 to. were storaged at Stadtilm, but Heisenberg had no acces to it, thanks to the SS) So his reactor did not became critical (Heisenberg had none of the two possibilities: 1.) take more Uranium (not accesable) 2.) change the geometry from cylindrical shape to Diebners global shape (no time left)). I think this was his luck, he had no emergancy solutions if the reactor get out of controll. Dieners briefly working reactor was found by soviet ground forces and transferred to laboratory No. 2/Moscow. I was searching in the news for statements.
> I tried to find the source of the NKVD statment, but I found a book (see above) which is -surprise- translated by R. Karlsch, himself. It´s suspect. I will try to get the russian original via national library in Berlin. In the news,
> G. Kirchner found himself to be misunderstood: He said "Im Augenblick liegen uns keine Informationen über eine Nuklearexplosion bei Ohrdruf vor" and later "Untersuchungen werden in den nächsten Wochen beginnen". The translation should be "We do not have any informations regarding a nuclear explosion at Ohrdrud, in the moment." and "Investigations will start in within the next weeks." And Spiegel translated him with a clear statement: "No atomic explosion at Ohrdruf." As it looks, opinions are divided. In general, I agree with Lunatic. There was simply a lack of Plutonium to build a Hiroshima-scale nuke. But if he is correct (and that is not proofed in the moment!), some scientists were on the right way to build one. And that is indeed something new.
> ...



I don't think it was a reactor test in SW russia (or maybe eastern Rumania?) - I think it was a small dirty bomb test.

In general, I'd say the Germans never got as far as the Manhatten project by the end of 1942. Yes they had some research that was headed in the right general direction, but they also had research headed in the wrong direction. And it is questionable even with what was headed in the right direction wether they would not have taken a wrong turn or two. The Manhatten project took several wrong turns, but had the depth and resources to overcome this, the German effort clearly lacked such depth and certainly resources. The way they were going, a nuclear bomb by the end of 1949 would have been quite phenominal.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2005)

I will agree with all of that. It is deffinatly going to be interesting to see what comes of this.


----------



## westminster (Mar 19, 2005)

Evidently, The Germans did build an atomic bomb, likely more than one. Those in the U.S. may wish to contact the National Archives for this document:

A.P.W./U (Ninth Air Force) 96/1945, 373.2 of 19 August 1945, Investigation, Research, Developments and Practical Use of the German Atomic Bomb, Pkts Nos 47 to 53, published by COMNAVEU, 1946.

Also see the book, Critical Mass by Carter Plymton Hydrick. The author shows that the Manhatten Project would not have had enough uranium for the planned drop date of the bombing of Japan, or a working fuze. It contains many supporting documents and indicates the needed uranium came from U-234 which surrendered to the U.S. There is also a reproduction of an article from the New York Times, dated August 26, 1945, which states, in part, "Besides an atomic bomb, on which, as has been made known, the Germans had made considerable progress..." I don't think I need to place any emphasis here. The source of the information was the Office of War Information, based on CIOS (Combined Intelligence Objectives Subcommittee) reports as Intelligence teams swept into Germany and German held territory.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

I am extremely skeptical of this for the following reasons:

1) If such a document existed, it would be publically available under the FIA. I cannot find even a hint of this document anywhere on the web - including the USN site which would be obliged to make it available. Certainly if this had been true, authors and news organizations would have presented this info in detail over a decade ago. There is no way such info could be considered relevant to national security, and to get something that old protected requires senate review.

2) How much U235 was produced where is well documented. There was enough for the test bomb, the Hiroshima bomb, and at least one more U235 bomb available by the end of July 1945, out of Oakridge, with enough for one more bomb comming out of the Y-12 and K-25 facilities every 10-12 weeks or so. Supplies of high grade uranium Ore were available, so there was no need for raw ore from Germany.

3) There is absolutely no evidence that Germany had any facilities capable of refining U235 sufficiently to make a bomb. It would be impossible to cover up the existance of such a facility, espeically one that would be as badly polluted as it would have to be.

I think most likely, any report in the NYT was simply propoganda to smooth over the horror that we'd droped this terrible weapon on Japan. The report you refer to is, most likely, mythical. I don't suppose you can locate it somehow? Where did you hear about this?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

westminster said:


> Evidently, The Germans did build an atomic bomb, likely more than one. Those in the U.S. may wish to contact the National Archives for this document:
> 
> A.P.W./U (Ninth Air Force) 96/1945, 373.2 of 19 August 1945, Investigation, Research, Developments and Practical Use of the German Atomic Bomb, Pkts Nos 47 to 53, published by COMNAVEU, 1946.
> 
> Also see the book, Critical Mass by Carter Plymton Hydrick. The author shows that the Manhatten Project would not have had enough uranium for the planned drop date of the bombing of Japan, or a working fuze. It contains many supporting documents and indicates the needed uranium came from U-234 which surrendered to the U.S. There is also a reproduction of an article from the New York Times, dated August 26, 1945, which states, in part, "Besides an atomic bomb, on which, as has been made known, the Germans had made considerable progress..." I don't think I need to place any emphasis here. The source of the information was the Office of War Information, based on CIOS (Combined Intelligence Objectives Subcommittee) reports as Intelligence teams swept into Germany and German held territory.



I have read up on this and yes the Germans did build some kind of atomic bomb device but it did not have eneogh explosive power. A nuclear bomb is considered anything over the equivelent of 500 tons of TNT. The German devices had about 475kg which would make it know more then a dirty bomb. There were several of them found in near my hometown near Stuttgart.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 20, 2005)

Okey, I am back from Bad Saarow. The structure can be found in 150 m distance to the north part of the hospital. There is no acces into it but you can easily go around. I would find it difficult to make any statements without excavation. The structure seems to be circular, as Karlsch mentioned, but that´s all. I found pretty much Baccalit, early plastics, and I´m sure that Baccalit was used in post war times. I will have to look if it was used in the mid 40´s, too. (..I doubt...) The soviet forces have stationed in the mid 80´s some nuclear middle range missiles there, that could explain the Uranium-traces, which Karlsch says to have found here. 
The pictures, Adler, seems to belong to an early nuclear reactor project, maybe G IIIa or L IV. A dirty bomb of that type is pure fiction because that geometry (Uranium in plates) was used by Heisenberg for his reactor tries, only. The drawing of such a bomb was widely published in post war times (because all concentrate to the group of Heisenberg, who never intended to build a nuke). Diebner´s group focussed (in caese, Karlsch is correct) on implosion bombs. But he need Plutonium (of which probably none was produced) or enriched Uranium. With the Betatrons of v. Ardenne or the other 10 Betatrons constructed by Wideröe and Gerlach / Hachmann, he could have acces to some Kg of low enriched Uranium (debatable). To think that the US bombs was build from german nuclear material is silly. They had non need for the material, since they had Oak Ridge. Another point is the construction of the fuse, even in april 45 the construction of a working fuse for the US bomb was far away from beeing ready. Alsos was ordered to investigate the german fuse program and they inprisoned Dr. Rohnert. His informations and some infrared fuses were bought back to Washington. Other fuses were found in U-234. Dr. H. Schlicke, a fuse expert, was invited for a colloqium of navy scientists in early june 1945. His informatins proved to be valid. However, we simply don´t know if these informations contributed in any way to the fuse construction of the US bombs, because the documents are still classified. In the end I would disagree with Lunatic that a working nuclear bomb with critical mass could be build as soon as 1949. With the reactors in mind, they could build a nuke quite earlier. (v. Ardenne proved that for the soviets)


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

To me, the real questions are:

1) Would the device go super-critical? If not, its a dirty bomb not a real atom-bomb.

2) How much fissionable material was involved and how enriched was it? Less than about 40 kg of 80% enriched uranium implies a dirty bomb.

3) If it was a dirty bomb, did it utilize a sub-critical reaction to dispense the radioactive material, or did it simply use conventional explosives to do so? The former kind of dirty bomb is much nastier than the later (which I believe was what the Germans did have).

4) Is there any evidence of any plutonium based German bombs?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

I think the Germans only were able to get dirty bombs but they were working toward a real nuke as we all know.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

delcyros said:


> Okey, I am back from Bad Saarow. The structure can be found in 150 m distance to the north part of the hospital. There is no acces into it but you can easily go around. I would find it difficult to make any statements without excavation. The structure seems to be circular, as Karlsch mentioned, but that´s all. I found pretty much Baccalit, early plastics, and I´m sure that Baccalit was used in post war times. I will have to look if it was used in the mid 40´s, too. (..I doubt...)



Bakelite plastic was around since the turn of the century, maybe earlier. In fact, a byproduct of bakalite plastic production which was dumped into rivers and the sea in large quantities has been linked to a form of Parkinson's disease (it's not really Parkinson's, but for a long time people were diagnosised as having Parkinsons when really it was exposure to this by-product).

Bakelite plastic was the primary resin used in Russian aircraft construction. It has nasty burning properties.




delcyros said:


> The soviet forces have stationed in the mid 80´s some nuclear middle range missiles there, that could explain the Uranium-traces, which Karlsch says to have found here.



It sure would!



delcyros said:


> The pictures, Adler, seems to belong to an early nuclear reactor project, maybe G IIIa or L IV. A dirty bomb of that type is pure fiction because that geometry (Uranium in plates) was used by Heisenberg for his reactor tries, only. The drawing of such a bomb was widely published in post war times (because all concentrate to the group of Heisenberg, who never intended to build a nuke).



This claim of Heisneburg's having never intended to build a nuke has been pretty thoroughly debunked. He made some errors in his math and thought it probably was not possible without much more uranium than was really necessary, but private letters he wrote clearly show he was doing his best to build such a weapon. This was self-serving propoganda put forth by Heisenburg after the war, nothing else.



delcyros said:


> Diebner´s group focussed (in caese, Karlsch is correct) on implosion bombs. But he need Plutonium (of which probably none was produced) or enriched Uranium.



Implosion bombs require plutonium. It would require at least 50-100 times the compressive force needed for a plutonium bomb to have even a chance of imploding uranium. It may well be much higher than this, as it could quite likely be a geometric relationship rather than a linear one w.r.t. the rate of fission of the material (since we are talking about a solid form).



delcyros said:


> With the Betatrons of v. Ardenne or the other 10 Betatrons constructed by Wideröe and Gerlach / Hachmann, he could have acces to some Kg of low enriched Uranium (debatable). To think that the US bombs was build from german nuclear material is silly. They had non need for the material, since they had Oak Ridge. Another point is the construction of the fuse, even in april 45 the construction of a working fuse for the US bomb was far away from beeing ready. Alsos was ordered to investigate the german fuse program and they inprisoned Dr. Rohnert. His informations and some infrared fuses were bought back to Washington. Other fuses were found in U-234. Dr. H. Schlicke, a fuse expert, was invited for a colloqium of navy scientists in early june 1945. His informatins proved to be valid. However, we simply don´t know if these informations contributed in any way to the fuse construction of the US bombs, because the documents are still classified. In the end I would disagree with Lunatic that a working nuclear bomb with critical mass could be build as soon as 1949. With the reactors in mind, they could build a nuke quite earlier. (v. Ardenne proved that for the soviets)



The Russian's had several advantages over the Germans in building their nuclear bomb:

1) They knew it could be done. This is a huge advantage - it allows virtually unlimited investment.

2) They had a huge war economy to turn to the task.

3) They had spies in the US who gave them key information.

As for the fuse issue, the little-boy fuse design was frozen back in June or so, before any German research was available. That design worked. The implosion fuse involves timed shaped charges, and there is no evidence I know of that any German information was used in that construction either, or even that they were working on such a fuse - it makes no sense without experiance with actual plutonium in the lab, without that experiance their was no way to know anything about the fission rate of the material. Without that knowlege, there is no sense in thinking about implosion, which is much tricker than a bullet/donut type U235 design.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

All interesting points. This really is an interesting discussion.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 20, 2005)

Good questions, Lunatic.

1.) Still unclear (as long as official investigations are running). The mass of the Ohrdruf bomb was undercritical. It´s construction, on the other hand, would allow a temporable critical chain reaction. (if Karlsch is correct) 
2.) Unclear. The only information we have is the NKVD-spie, who informed Stalin. His report implies that U-235 and Paraffin was used. While this information can be true, it is possible that this case is untrue (the group of Schuhmann and Trinks developed dozens of plans). It remains unknown.
I personally regard 40 Kg high enriched material as unprobable.

3.) The mesurements would indicate a temporable critical chain reaction (traces of Plutonium, Kobalt 60, Cäsium 135). Sub critical?

4.) No. Only on the papers, they probably never left the drawing board.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

Okay but as you are saying that bakelite plastic was found which was used in Soviet Aircraft construction and Soviet missles were stationed there, that probably is going to disprove the theory that a bomb was actually tested there.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 20, 2005)

Good post. 

Yes it would require, lets say around 1.500.000-2.000.000 atmospheres pressure for a Uranium based implosion bomb. But all what is known indicates that Schuhmann and Trinks succed to a rate of 1.000.000 atmospheres with hollow charges and global shape. They were working on a elliptical shape for even higher pressures in 1944. It cannot be excluded that Diebner took this knowledge for such a bomb. However, it is unprobable.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

And that I will agree also.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 20, 2005)

Well, Bad Saarow was no testing or construction site for the bomb (as seen by Karlsch). It was a possible UZ-IIIb site, a cyclotron or enrichement facility. The interesting point is that it is located at a Reichspost site. Ohnesorge, the Reichspostminister, build up that site (the russians did overtake it and some parts, as the hospital, are even in use today). There is a very close connection between Ohnesorge and v. Ardenne. V. Ardenne made construction plans for several enrichment facilities. They were very powerful, thanks to the "Ardenne-source". One was realized, as far we know. Karlsch believed that Bad Saarow was another realized site. But I don´t see a proof for that claim. It has to be excavated first. Bakelit was extensivly used in post war times by GDR, but it was invented much earlier, as shown by Lunatic. The Uranium traces can be explained by nuclear soviet missiles, too. 
Back to Heisenberg. I generally agree that he and other later tries to turn public opinio in favour to him by delcaring himself beeing uninterested for a nuke. But he never miscalculated the critical mass. He misestimated the critical mass, but that is something different (the first time he calculated was in Farm Hall and he did succeed). Diebner estimated the critical mass correctly in 1940/41. Heisenberg and Diebner worked against each other. And Heisenberg had no concrete plans for a nuke, there are no sources for it. He talked with N. Bohr in 1942 with the intention that no scientist should develop the solution for a nuke (Bohr misunderstood him). However he played some dangerous game with the HWA, where he told that a nuke is possible (and he made the misestimation of the critical mass) but not realizable in this war. I think he was just given a few informations in order to continoue his work on the basics of a reactor.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

All possible.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 20, 2005)

The fuses remain interesting. If Little Boy had time controlled fuses, I would denie that there is a germen influence in this matter. 
Not all sources are avaiable, esspecially on the Manhatten project. There is still pretty much evidence that Alsos was more interested in german fuse experts than in germen nuclear scientists. The Schuhmann / Trinks group did succed in a solution for a fusion bomb fuse. There is also evidence, that the pressure needed for Li-6-D fusion could not provided with conventional explosives or hollow charges, so they stopped their tries in late 1944. 
And yes, the soviets had it easier, since they had as soon as late 1944 at least two scientists in alamo as spies...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

I dont know too much about the Soviet attempts.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

Well, they had a huge huge advantage in simply knowing that it could be done.

Also, they did have spies in the US project. Documents have shown beyond any doubt the Rosen's were in fact guilty, along with several others, one of which was far more guilty but was never prosecuted.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2005)

I always thought they were.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 21, 2005)

I don't suppose you saw the documentary on the Rosenbergs. It's kinda sad, it starts with the grandson trying to prove his grandparent's innocence, and ends with is acceptance they were in fact guilty.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Mar 21, 2005)

Rosenbergs tragic. The german nuclear project helped the soviets more than the US, since the soviets did not had enough Uranium to really think about atom bombs earlier that VE-day. Kurchatov gives a very important statement to this issue (compare: L. D. Rjabev, Atomnij Projektij CCCP, Vol. II (Moscow 2002), page 310f., doc.no. 353.) "...until may 1945 we had no hope to build a Uranium-graphit reactor, since we had only 7 to. Uranium (238?235?) and not the needed 100 (so probably U-238), which would become avaible in 1948..." and after they discovered the german material he said to Stalin:"..all in all we send 7 transports with 380 wagons back in the USSR, including 39 german scientists, ingeneuors and 61 members of their families. We have discovered at different german sites 250-300 tonnes of Uranium (probably Uraniumoxyd) and 7 tonnes of metallic Uranium (U-235 and U 238)..." I had made a mistake above. The spie doesn´t belong to NKVD(political spie network), he belongs to GRU (military spie network). 
I have read that Claire Werner faded away last week, she was the key eyewitness of the Ohrdruf test. She stayed in the last interview by ZDF to her statements.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 21, 2005)

delcyros said:


> Rosenbergs tragic. The german nuclear project helped the soviets more than the US, since the soviets did not had enough Uranium to really think about atom bombs earlier that VE-day. Kurchatov gives a very important statement to this issue (compare: L. D. Rjabev, Atomnij Projektij CCCP, Vol. II (Moscow 2002), page 310f., doc.no. 353.) "...until may 1945 we had no hope to build a Uranium-graphit reactor, since we had only 7 to. Uranium (238?235?) and not the needed 100 (so probably U-238), which would become avaible in 1948..." and after they discovered the german material he said to Stalin:"..all in all we send 7 transports with 380 wagons back in the USSR, including 39 german scientists, ingeneuors and 61 members of their families. We have discovered at different german sites 250-300 tonnes of Uranium (probably Uraniumoxyd) and 7 tonnes of metallic Uranium (U-235 and U 238)..." I had made a mistake above. The spie doesn´t belong to NKVD(political spie network), he belongs to GRU (military spie network).
> I have read that Claire Werner faded away last week, she was the key eyewitness of the Ohrdruf test. She stayed in the last interview by ZDF to her statements.



Umm, I'm sure they mean "uranium". Uranium ore contains mostly U238 with some U235. I believe some deposites are a little richer in U235 than others. Enrichment is the process of extracting the U235 from the uranium ore (ie, from the U238). 80% enriched means 80% U235, 20% U238.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## westminster (Mar 21, 2005)

I would hardly refer to a dated New York Times article concerning Germany's progress in developing a bomb mythical. You fail to cite sources in your rebuttal.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 21, 2005)

westminster said:


> I would hardly refer to a dated New York Times article concerning Germany's progress in developing a bomb mythical. You fail to cite sources in your rebuttal.



I did not mean that the article was mythical, rather that its contents were. But, try as I might, I was able to find no references to said article. Without seeing the article and somehow being able to evaluate its source I cannot evaluate its contents. They certainly don't fit with anything I've ever read about the A-bomb projects - and I've studied most of the A-bomb projects for most nations as best I could over the years - Its nice to have a feel for just how hard it is to build one of those things.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> I don't suppose you saw the documentary on the Rosenbergs. It's kinda sad, it starts with the grandson trying to prove his grandparent's innocence, and ends with is acceptance they were in fact guilty.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



Yeah they made us watch in Basic Training as part of our espionage brief adn threat con stuff.



RG_Lunatic said:


> They certainly don't fit with anything I've ever read about the A-bomb projects - and I've studied most of the A-bomb projects for most nations as best I could over the years



Though I believe that you are correct in this, history has proven that over time many things are proven wrong and new facts are found.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 22, 2005)

We are actually meaning the same, Lun.
Kurchatov did name all as U-235 which was better than 1:135. (U235:U238) That is usually U238 =1:150 and U235= 1:135 = low enriched (10%) (see above, page 28-32.). I found the values of Uranium for the Jordanov mines in 1944: U-235 =0,06 %, U238=99,2%+traces. The actual Die Zeit article covering Karlsch´s book also did not see any vital proof for a german nuke, however it underlines his new sources as beeing important and they think he was doing agood recherche but he made wrong conclusions. 
The earth samples of Ohrdruf are taken to the Karlsruhe research reactor and to Bern. Complete Analysis is not expected prior to December 2005. All samples indicate a nuclear event on that site. Tchernobyl has to be excluded, since there are different traces found. No soviet nuclear tests in eastern germany are known. That´s the actual disskussion.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 22, 2005)

My point is just that it may well have simply been a failed reactor experiment. We know the German's suffered at least one such disaster, I believe near Liepzig.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Mar 22, 2005)

I would think a reactor accident is well possible, also. It doesn´t fit to the statements by the eyewitnesses, but, yes, I regard them as possible, too. G IV happened at Gottow/near Kummerdorf, that is almost 30 miles north east of Berlin. The area is closed for public (it was a military training area). We don´t know much about that disaster, but I think it was both, a succes for Diebner and a disaster. One of Diebners coworker, Willi Henning was probably radiated on that special day (he died at 12th of september 1946 by some kind of radiation). But it was a succes, too. He wrote to Hahn: "unser Reaktor ist gelaufen" ("our reactor did run")and the samples indicate that the accident did happen outside the concrete structure for the reactor. That seems to indicate that the accident happend after all mesurements were taken. (Karlsch found in Moscow a document of Diebner, who was telling Heisenberg that the mesurements of the reactor have been almost completed, just a few mesurements in the outer stage are not that good, the inner stage runs good, see in Karlsch, page 332, document number IV) In a procedure at which the reactor should cool down. (it was unknown in 1945 that the outer stage continues to work after 8 additional hours if not cooled efficiently. The process is called Xenon 135 poisoning).


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 23, 2005)

Well, it's not much of a "success". A reactor failure of that nature is the result of improper moderation. This means flawed calculations with respect to the rates of fission, and implies a faulty understanding of the underlying nuclear physics. It is clear with the Hiesenburg group that they had a flawed understanding of the topic - their focus on heavy water as a moderator was almost totally based on wrong physics. My guess is this other reactor also tried to use heavy water as a moderator, so of course it went out of control.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

I dont know eneough about the workings of a nuclear reactor but it all sounds interesting.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 23, 2005)

I disagree in this. The focus on heavy water sounds silly, but it is quite enough for the task. (Diebner wanted a reactor with a moderator of normal water, he calculated that at least 10 % enrichment is necessary. That is correct) G IV did worked. (it has to be underlined that the accident did happen after the experiment (the moderator worked fine during), so there is no way to suggest a bad understanding of the physics) As far as we know Heisenberg calculated that a heavy water reactor will run safely after it reached a working temperature. Diebner´s G IV confirmed that. Xenon 135 poisoning was not known before G IV, this will excuse the accident. The accident was mainly because Diebner had not time for refitting a emergancy shut down device. That device is missing by Heisenberg, too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

Why did they not have time though? If you are going to build a reactor it should be a given.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 23, 2005)

As I pointed out above, Heisenberg and Diebner worked against each other. Heisenberg wanted to get acces to all Uranium and heavy water for his reactor program at Haigerloch. Gerlach officially confirmed that but he still gave Diebner enough material to keep on working (Diebners reactor experiments had far better results in neutron output than Heisenbergs experiments at Leipzig and Berlin). That´s why Diebner was under pressure. He had all support by SS and HWA but he needed results. Heisenberg on the other hand started his reactor experiment in late march (with insufficiant Uranium) at Haigerloch/Hechingen. There was no possibility for both to delay their experiments for a refitting. Really new is that Karlsch´s documents prove that G IV was the first try to build a breed reactor (that probably was Diebner´s motivation). Could be an expleantion why they kept it secret (it wouldn´t fit the postwar self view of some german scientists, who said to refuse even thinking of nuclear weapons), but now we have recently opened documents from Moscow and physical evidence to proof G IV.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

So pretty much they were in compitition with one another?


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 24, 2005)

delcyros said:


> I disagree in this. The focus on heavy water sounds silly, but it is quite enough for the task. (Diebner wanted a reactor with a moderator of normal water, he calculated that at least 10 % enrichment is necessary. That is correct) G IV did worked. (it has to be underlined that the accident did happen after the experiment (the moderator worked fine during), so there is no way to suggest a bad understanding of the physics) As far as we know Heisenberg calculated that a heavy water reactor will run safely after it reached a working temperature. Diebner´s G IV confirmed that. Xenon 135 poisoning was not known before G IV, this will excuse the accident. The accident was mainly because Diebner had not time for refitting a emergancy shut down device. That device is missing by Heisenberg, too.



The problem is that "heavy water" was not needed, it is hard to extract (espeically back then), and it is less efficient than other moderators (cadnium and graphite for instance). Tying up the whole project for want of a rare compound that was easily repleaced with more common compounds was a "mistake".

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 24, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I dont know eneough about the workings of a nuclear reactor but it all sounds interesting.



Well, basically a reactor is simply a pile of nuclear material (much less enriched than weapons grade) which undergoes fission in a chain reaction. In order to regulate the fission, so that you don't get a critical reaction that gets out of hand, you have to use a moderator. Typically graphite, beryllium, boron, cadinum, or deuterium oxide (heavy water) can be used as moderators, depending on the reactor design and its intended purpose.

For most nuclear power producing reactors (which are designed for heat production rather than radioactive beams used for research reactors or nuclear materials production for breeder reactors), rods of graphite/boron/cadnium(?) are used to moderate the reaction. Inserting the rods into the nuclear pile absorbs free neutrons reducing the rate of fission (chain-reaction). Removing all the rods = meltdown.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

Cool thanks.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 25, 2005)

It is a good question why they focussed on heavy water. Could be because of Heisenbergs early experiments at Virushaus (Berlin). As far as I know, there were a few analysis of graphite for use as moderator in a pile. (Bothe and Jensen in april 1940) They suggested to build an experimental pile with "Präperat 38 (code for Uranium) and pure coal (graphite)". While Diebner confirmed their results, Heisenberg refused to use graphite as moderator. In a later experiment Bothe got another charge of Graphite, but the mesurements were not that positive (he did not knew that Siemens provided material in bad quality/pureness), so Bothe concluded that deuterium would be a better moderator. Another experiment from Georg Joos and Wilhelm Hanle in late 1940 proved that pure graphite was excellent in the use as moderator. Bothe and Joos did had a discussion about their different results with raphite at the KWI in march 1941. Heisenberg voted together with Bothe for deuterium...The main problem with deuterium was, as you say, the acces. Diebner suggested in 1940 to build large industrial complexes for it´s production (in order to be independent of Norsk Hydro), as it was later decided (late 1943). But again, Heisenberg did not wanted that, he stays in basic research, while Diebner, Gerlach, Bothe and others wanted to get experimental.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 25, 2005)

I really think the problems were with the basic mathematics. As I understand it, if you are astute enough in nuclear physics, it is an easy mistake to conclude that heavy water is the much superior choice as a moderator. The best physicists in Germany had all fled, the next tier down could only almost do the math.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Mar 26, 2005)

Hmm, the most famous physician, Albert Einstein, left Gemany, agreed. Oppenheimer and others did follow him, agreed. But I see no way, you can say that there were only scientists avaiable, who were unable to do the job. This is a claim which has to be proved. for physician I can clearly disagree, since aerodynamical and high pressure research (and others) shows that there is no lack in excellent physician scientists in germany. Even for nuclear physician (I´m sure you mean this) Heisenberg and Hahn were excellent in theoretical research, v. Ardenne, Bothe, Diebner and Bagge (as well as others) were excellent experimental scientists. What about the maths? I traced this back to Goudsmit 1947, who wanted to disprove all scientific advances in nazi germany (even his compare of democratic scientists and NS-scientists is laughable, or isn´t?), Heisenberg first. The next important step is David Irving, who intended to place a race between germany and the USA in nuclear physics. Really important for our understanding of the german nuclear weapon project is Mark Walker, who took his conclusions of the analysis of the "german reports". He finishes with the point that the germans were unable (however they intended) to build a nuke. Thomas Powers on the other side disagrees in this point, he comes to the conclusion that Heisenberg intentionally led the german project into a trap. The "Farm Hall" reports are the last key factor for this question. (to name only the most important english written) Beside of Goudsmit and Mark Walker there is no one telling that they were unable to do the maths. On the discussion regarding deuterium/graphite I believe there was miscommunication. I agree that you can come to such conclusions if you concentrate on Heisenberg, only (and even here we have much uncertainities, who knows about his intentions?).
The news are going to be divided about Karlsch, again. Some article mistrusting the samples and others disagrees in the opinion that the construction of the bomb could ensure a chain reaction.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 26, 2005)

Heisenburg made many mathematical and theoretical errors, and these were not caught by his associates. When such errors were made during the Manhatten project, they were caught. The very best theoretical and nuclear physicists in Germany had all fled, leaving the 2nd tier and prentenders behind.

Heisenburg's intentions were clearly to build an A-bomb for Hitler. When he was in captivity after the war he was secretly recorded, and these comments, plus examination of letters he sent to colleages just before the end of the war, make it clear he did his best to give Hitler the bomb. His post-war claims of not really trying to do so are just an attempt to cover his shame over having collaborated with the Nazi's.

When Hiesenburg first read of the Hiroshima bomb while in captiviity, he is quoted as having burst out and said to his fellow prisoners that it was a sham, that someone had perpetuated a huge fraud, and that it was not possible the Americans had actually built a deployable A-bomb.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

Wasn't the program in Norway using Heavy Water.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 28, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Wasn't the program in Norway using Heavy Water.



The program in Norway was extracting the heavy water for use by the German nuclear bomb researchers. Mountain water supplies in Norway are particularly rich in heavy water.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

Why is that. Are we talking about normal old Heavy Water or Soft Water?


----------



## delcyros (Mar 28, 2005)

Norsk Hydro produced heavy water, chemical known as D2O. It was a moderator for the Uranium projects. 
I disagree that Heisenberg was involved in the later part of the nazi nuclear weapon program. He was the keyperson for the Uranmaschienenprogram (ractor project) but surely not involved in the later parts of the weapon project. He excluded himself at the nuclear research symposium at 26th of february 1942, when he was asked by Erhard Milch if he could succesfully build a nuclear weapon ("a weapon of decisive effect on this war"). He answered: "no". From that moment on the HWA cutted the money for the nuclear weapon project, Heisenberg worked for the KWI only (in order to build a Wärmekraftmaschiene=nuclear power plant). Gerlach and Diebner kept on to work on a nuke later (and they excluded Heisenberg because of many reasons) even with the help of the SS. Heisenberg made mistestimations, yes. Gerlach and Diebner on the other side went after the Ohrdruf test to Berlin by plane (they informed Goebbels and Hitler), at a time at which even generals had to go by foot (thanks to general fuel shortness). Farm Hall is interesting, but look at the protokolls: Diebner refused any comments on the Hieroshima nuke. Hahn asked Heisenberg why he is saying that you need tons of Plutonium and why Heisenberg sooner in the war told him that you anly need 10-50 Kg! This indicates that Heisenberg has changed his math in Farm Hall. Ther was no miscalculation in Heisenbergs maths! Heisenbergs letters are also very misreadable. But there is no hint in them for a coworking with the HWA, with Diebner (maybe except for reactor related questions), with v. Ardenne or with Schuhmann and Trinks or Bagge. There are only very general aspects of a nuke (like the use of Element 94=Plutonium for a bomb). I see no proof for a claim that Heisenberg was the keyperson of the nuclear WEAPON-project.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

Okay that is what I thought, I did not actually think we were talking about Heavy and Soft water.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 28, 2005)

The main question belongs to the fissionable material. How much was produced by the MSA Auer-Gesellschaft? I will try to find as much material as is known. Maybe we can get a number of tons Uranium. How many tons were avaiable for Heisenberg, how many could be gone to Diebner? I will start with the soviet sources: They have taken around 7 tons of metallic (in plates or cubic) Uranium into the SU. At Stadtilm were another 3.5 tons storaged (and brought to bavaria/austria in the colsing weeks of ww2). Heisenberg had 3-4 tons of metallic Uranium for his reactor try at Haigerloch. I don´t know how much was taken by the french, US and british, but it can be found.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

I will see what I can find, but for now it is bed time.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 4, 2005)

Anything found? I can add some 0,4 tons of 10 % enriched Uranium and 3,5 tons of Uranium ore, found by the french in mid 1945 at different sites at the Saar valley. I would really like to see what was found by the british and US troops.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2005)

To be honest I forgot to even check. Will have to get back to that.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 2, 2005)

Interesting article from the BBC about the German nuke program:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4598955.stm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

I am trying to see what I can find out about the stuff found in Stuttgart. I dont think any radioactive stuff was found but there was deffinatly a project going on there.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 11, 2005)

Would be fine to know.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

Well from what I have found is that south of Stuttgart there was some program that was discovered by the French when they occupied the city and its surrounding areas.



> At the end of the war two of the prototype bomb spheres MAY HAVE been found, south of Stuttgart, also found there was the uranium cauldron that I mentioned earlier. The two prototype bombs were supposedly found submerged in water by forces of the French Army, who supposedly destroyed them, along with the lab they were in, by explosives. The fact that they were being stored under water makes it sound like they may well have been ready for testing, and it would be interesting to know if the supposed site is still contaminated.
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/599452/posts



The area south of Stuttgart they are talking about is Haigerloch and Hechingen. The first one in a cave under a church and the second in a Textile Mill. I am going to see if I can find some more info on this particular site and see if it still exists today.


----------



## Kiwikid (Oct 25, 2006)

Anonymous wrote previously:



> Well, all the other evidence contradicts this info. The evidence I've seen indicates the Germans had no means of enriching enough U235, and no concept of Plutonium's existance at all.



I have done considerable research on the nazi nuclear projects of which there were three or possibly four if you count two related ones as separate.

The Nazis did know of Plutonium as far back as 1939 when Professor Josef Schintlemeister advocated making an A-bomb from Plutonium. The germans however called it Eka Rhenium (super Rhenium), because it most closely resembled the properties of Rhenium.

Dr Fritz Houtermanns persuaded hitler to fund a project to develop the Plutonium A-bomb but this was dependant upon Heisenberg's efforts to create a sustained chain reaction (nuclear breeder reactor) from which to harvest Plutonium.

Houtermanns figured out the six step process of precipitation and hydration to chemically separated Plutonium from uranium waste during the war.

After the war considerable Uranium, Thorium, and Cobolt was dug up from Nazi caches in Bavaria and traded on the black market. 

In 1939 Nazis were the world leaders in nuclear physics and in fact the Manhatten Project would not have succeeded without recruiting German Jewish scientists.


----------



## Kiwikid (Oct 25, 2006)

> The area south of Stuttgart they are talking about is Haigerloch and Hechingen. The first one in a cave under a church and the second in a Textile Mill. I am going to see if I can find some more info on this particular site and see if it still exists today.



The site is a public museum today. It was carefully dismantled and not destroyed. One reactor was called the Leipzig IV experiment and this overheated causing a massive steam explosion.

(NOTE: I am citing from memory only and it may have been the Gattow III or IV reactor which exploded - sorry)

Actually this exposes Heisenberg's denial that he was involved with an A-bomb project as a lie. The Heereswaffenamt team working on the nazi A-bomb was based at Dahlem which I gather is a suburb of Leipzig.

Heisenberg was trying to create a fast breeder to provide Plutonium for work at Leipzig on the Plutonium A-bomb.


----------



## Kiwikid (Oct 25, 2006)

The supply of heavy water from the Norsk Hydro plant at Vermork, Norway was not the only source of Heavy water to germany through the war. There was also a large stockpile of heavy water available from the beck plant in Germany.

The development of a successful nuclear reactor for Germany in WW2 was not limited as far as I can tell by limited supply of either heavy water, nor uranium. 

Germany was exporting tons of uranium-oxide by U-boat to Japan in 1944 on boats like U-219, U195, U-180 and some of the UIT boats. Some Japanese I-boats collected Czech uranium from Lorient and sailed back to Japan too, like I-30. I-52 which was sunk before reaching Lorient was expecting to collect 800kg of Uranium oxide for Japan.

What limited developing nuclear reactors was a failure of thinking. It is truely a shame for Germany that the Jewish scientists were so despised and rejected. 

Fermi was of course the man who solved it for USA. 

Reactors were the road to a Plutonium A-bomb. Uranium enrichment was the route to a Uranium A-bomb. 

My belief is that Nazi Germany could have enriched sufficient Uranium by March 1945 for an -bomb but by that time all was in ruins from bombing.

Also the British had various spies in Norway, Denmark, Germany and france leaking information to project Epsilon in Stockholm. The British knew where the uranium enrichment facilities were located and bombed them before any significant U235 production. 

They had massive banks of centrifuges at some locations and scale was not the problem by late 1944... Allied bombing was.

Uranium enrichment under Harteck was known by the codename Volmer's Furniture factory at Freiberg and the Angora farm at Kitzbuhel ( think it was) in Austria. There was an early laboratory at Hamburg and after that was bombed there was a Uranium enrichment facility at Kummersdorf too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 26, 2006)

Kiwikid said:


> The site is a public museum today.




The one near Stuttgart is not a museum. I am from Stuttgart and it is not on public display.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 26, 2006)

..but it has a promoting shield if You drive the Autobahn (Haigerloch)...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2006)

Hmm I have not seen it. But then again I have not actually lived in Stuttgart for many many years. I only go to Stuttgart every few weeks to visit and then my time is filled with visiting relatives that I dont go and see anything.


----------



## sebastiandarre (Jan 26, 2010)

hello guys,new here! and new with the posting thing.

I wonna ask each one of you one question:
u have the bomb,in its two samples "canon gun" and "implosion"
trinity was after german surrender, teh guy of the book "winderwaffe"states and the electronic necesary to detonate all tnt at the same time was retrieved from the german with the U234 sub. was invented by some Von Ardene.
ok trinity worked,fine u can justify millions spent on the project.
and now u will drop a state of the art weapon with so million spent on it witjout testing?"remember there were no "canon style test" into an enemy city with scientists able to reverse all mechanism and with good aknowledge about atomic science? u could dropped fat man first for sure,will work, but little boy? why u r so sure it will work.
before saying what everybodys states here "was simple maths" they were quite sure" REMEMBER AT THAT TIME NOTHING WAS 100% SURE THATS WHY TRINITY EXISTED.
IT COULD BE A LIE ABOUT THE GERMAN TESTINGS BUT THERE IS A VERY STRANGE THING WITH ALL THIS.
CHEARS!


----------



## Propellorhead (May 10, 2010)

It's often claimed that because Heisenberg did not understand the critical mass required for nuclear explosion that therefore the Germans could not build the bomb however Dutch Nuclear Physicist Dr Fritz Houtermanns who worked on the nazi atomic Bomb project did in fact publish the crittical mass required in a German scientific paper in 1941. He proposed developing a pile for breeding Plutonium. 



> Sources:
> 
> Houtermanns’s August 1944 paper “Zur Frage der Auslösung von Kernhettenreaktionen” (found in Oak Ridge file box G-267)
> Jentschke and Lintner’s paper: Schnelle Neutronen in Uran (found in Oak Ridge file box G-227 )
> ...



A plutonium bomb not only required a successful nuclear pile but also three years operation and two years to cool the spent fuel before Plutonium could be used so it meant 5-6 years of delay to achieve the bomb.

Othe Nazi scientists Dr Paul Harteck and Prof Kurt Diebner in conjunction with Dr Wilhem Groth and Dr erich Bagge followed a far simpler path to the bomb of enriching Uranium hexafluoride to 90% U235. 



> Sources:
> 
> Diebner’s report “Experiments on the Initiation of Nuclear Reactions by Means of Exploding Substances.” ALSOS files
> Herrmann, Hartwig, Rackwitz, Trinks and Schaub, report entitled:
> ...



Indeed a Kiel firm Anschütz Co built ten mark III-B ultracentrifuges at a factory in Freiberg before it was bombed on 27 Novemeber 1944. Groth had calculated in december 1941 that the output of one centrifuge was such that one centrifuge working alone could enrich enough U235 for a bomb in 9 months, however ten ultracentrifuges working in unison could enrich the same material to HEU in less than a month. 

By October 1944 nuclear scientist Dr Wilhelm Groth advised Goering's private secretary in a preface to a report that the technical issues of enriching Uranium were overcome and production of U235 was in hand. 



> Sources:
> 
> Dr Wilhelm Groth’s laboratory reports based on diary notes for December 1941 (Oak Ridge file G-82)
> Postwar monograph Verlag Chemie GMBH, 1949: Über Gaszentrifugen written by Beyerle,
> ...



Thus what you can take from this is that by November 1944 Germany had the material and the means to build at least 3-4 Uranium A-bombs without the need for a working nuclear reactor or Plutonium.

Next big question is why didn't they?


----------

