A
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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
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
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.
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:I dont know eneough about the workings of a nuclear reactor but it all sounds interesting.
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:Wasn't the program in Norway using Heavy Water.