Talk:German nuclear energy project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] How far was Nazi Germany from creating "the Bomb"?

If events were held reasonably constant from say 41, when would the first nuclear weapon be expected... 46?

-G

[edit] Plutonium step may be skipped

Article (... for creating plutonium, needed for nuclear weapons) Removed by Fastfission "However plutonium step was not necessary, as it is only a cost saving measure, since an nuclear weapon can be made from highly enrichted uranium, as in U.S. "Little Boy". Why was this reverted, is this false, A-Bomb, can't be made from uranium only ? AlV 11:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

While it is true that atomic weapons can be made from enriched uranium, in the context of where it was put in article, it was misleading. Putting it after the ALSOS assessment makes it sound like you are trying to say that the line implies their assessment was not correct, but it is unrelated to that particular assessment. The Germans did not have any infrastructure for enriching uranium, but they did have the very beginnings of an infrastructure to develop plutonium. Additionally, the line implies that plutonium is just a "cost saving measure" which is not true. In the context of the German program, the development of plutonium was a "necessary step". --Fastfission 11:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can Anyone?

Can anyone confirm the veracity of these links?: Luft-46 Article on German A-bomb Luft-46 Article on German Nuclear Reactor I have never heard any mention of what is on these pages, and was a little surprised to read about it. I know that there are many loony-bin websites when it comes to the Nazis and WWII, but Luft-46 is in general a reputable source. If the information does indeed hold some merit, it would certainly be candidate for inclusion in the article. mhunter 01:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In short: looks like a lot of nonsense mixed in with a poor understanding of a few secondhand facts. The Germans did have a reactor, a "Uranium Machine" even, and at least one of the groups produced a patent for a bomb design. However the author of that article seems to reach far beyond any facts, has a poor set of sources (the fact that he uses a Reader's Digest article as one of his primary insights is troubling enough), and a poor sense of the science involved. However to his credit he makes it pretty clear that he is just making things up for the most part. I would be loathe to use it as a source when there are so many reliable ones out there (i.e. the Walker book). --Fastfission 01:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page name

I thought for awhile before naming this page. I wanted it to be "nuclear energy project" primarily because there is some debate over the purpose of the project (i.e. I didn't want it to be "atomic bomb project" any more than "nuclear reactor project"). As for the pick between "German" and "Nazi".. I just picked the geographical one (in part because many of those on it were not members of the Party) in an attempt to avoid too much sensationalism. If anyone has any objections or arguments for something else (there is no easy name for it that I know of, unlike Manhattan Project or Force de frappe), I'm game for discussing it. --Fastfission 01:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed image

I removed the putative "German atomic bomb" image (Image:Bomgermnzi454.jpg) from the article for three reasons:

  1. I don't think it is likely "free" and I'm not sure it counts as fair use at all (no criteria was given).
  2. I don't think it adds anything to the article. The article does not discuss it.
  3. The research is a bit too new to be realiable. I have it on pretty good authority that it is going to be discovered to be historically worthless eventually anyway.

--Fastfission 03:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Needs work!

This article tells NOTHING about the actual project. 80% of the text is on why it failed and the discussion on the extent of their success. Nothing about what they did, where the project was based, that sort of thing. I came here looking for where the project was based, and couldn't find a THING about the most basic things people would want to know about this.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Effectiveness and implications

I think the paragraph with this heading has several instances of incorrect information.

1) The Manhattan project was not under Oppenheimer, but Maj. Gen. Leslie Groves. Openheimer was important because he was head of the Los Alamos Laboratory, the place were the final phase of the project was completed (and the first plutonium bomb tested).

2) Hahn and Strassman discovered barium products in Uranium bombarded by neutrons, but did not realize fully the implications, until the work of Meitner and Frisch. Hahn received a well deserved Nobel Prize for this. Meitner was nominated, but the Nobel Comitee did not give her a prize (in a decision that is seen as controversial by some).

3)The german effort under Heissenberg, did not have a critical (i.e. fully functional) reactor (as Fermi did in 1942 in Chicago) when they were captured in 1945 by the Alsos mission.

I would like to correct this, but would like feedback from other contributors before doing it.

Luzu 15:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


I have now made the proposed changes Luzu 14:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walker and Karlsch

Can you give the reference to Walker's article in Physics Today? I only found a Walker-Karlsh article in Physics World. Jclerman 13:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmm. Maybe it was Physics World, and not Physics Today. --Fastfission 14:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Farrell

His book is now available online.

Octopus-Hands 00:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It's the work of a raving conspiracy nut—Nazis, atomic bombs, Majestic-12, aliens, the whole bit. I don't think it has any value for this topic and certainly doesn't count as a reliable source. Why do you think it should be included in this article amongst respectable, academic sources? --Fastfission 01:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello FF, wiki civility applies to third-parties as well as wiki-editors, no personal attacks, please be cordial. If someone believes the Bible is full of untruths should a link to it be deleted? The author has obviously put a lot of time and effort into his book including the use of citations qualifying it as a reliable source. The book will stand or fall on its own merits, we should let each reader decide. In addition, I note that you have deleted a portion of my post to the discussion page without consulting me first, in future please do not do that. My best regards. Octopus-Hands 22:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It depends on what the page is for. In a page about the Big Bang Theory, for example, a link to the Bible explaining its theory about God making the Earth will clearly be inappropriate. However, the Bible may be put in for example the page for Creationism or the Evolution-Creationism controversy page. Furthermore, citations by themselves do not make a book reliable. A citation is but a line of text. You can make a citation that cites a non-existent source. From what I can skim, Farrell cites extensively from similarly fringe sources (such as Stevens, underground newspapers ... etc) and thus it does not increase the reliability of his statements. A better place for citing him might be in the "etheric physics" page (do we have one?) Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IEEE Magazine Letter

IEEE in the late 90's (around 1998-1999 I think) ran an article peripherally related to this topic in the IEEE magazine (or it might have been the computer science organization magazine - I had a subscription to both at the time). They received a letter (and published it in a later issue) from a German scientist who was an associate involved in this research in Nazi Germany in this time frame. He gave specific reasons and examples why and how they intentionally failed certain experiments. If this issue of the magazine could be found by someone, this might add some meat to this article. 139.169.218.182 00:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some references

I believe Irving was discredited as a historian during his Holocaust Denial trial. Should he be referenced from this article? -- Heptor talk 01:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No
Not one of [Irving's] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. ... (Professor Richard J. Evans General Conclusion)
--Philip Baird Shearer 12:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading format

What do folks think about listing the authors last-name first? The first entery, for example, would read "Bernstein, Jeremy and Cassidy, David. Hitler's Uranium Club: The Secret Recordings at Farm Hall. (2001)." I ask because this seems to be the format of the reference given, but more because I *think* that this is the more common format (as the books will be indexed in a library by author's last name, so their last name is listed first). I've also put the book title in italics, which is another change I propose. --Badger151 19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Oops - I see that the book titles are already in italics, which of course didn't carry over in my cut-and-paste. --Badger151 19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing a very important fact

A very important fact seems to be missing. I believe Walter Bothe determined whether a chain reaction using natural uranium and graphite as moderator would work or not, and he came to the conclusion that it would not. But the graphite that he was using was crucially impure and the Germans did not realise this. But because of this result, they decided to switch to heavy water as moderator which had extremely significant consequences for the German atomic bomb project. Needless to say, if they had realised the problem and obtained pure graphite (as Leo Szilard did in the US), the German program could perhaps have progressed substantially. --Ashujo 22.27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strasbourg Hotel Moulin Rouge conference?

Wasn't there a major conference of German nuclear scientists at the Hotel Moulin Rouge in Strasbourg, France in 1942 or 1943? I don't see any reference to the event in this article. There are several references to a meeting on 6 July 1942, but not to its location or not a very complete explanation. Could sombody expand on the meeting and if -- it was the major conference with major decisions made -- that I seem to remember reading about, could it be more emphasized and included in the article. --TGC55 (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)