Nazi Atomic weapons in 1943

Again I am in your debt, bedlam, and look forward to learning what you can tell me without getting a visit from the, um, men in black.


The schematic that I have shared in this thread was, as far as I know, given to the German investigative reporter Rainer Karlsch by the son of one of the WWII German atomic weapons designers. That is, the son of either Erich Schumann or Walter Trinks. Sorry, at the moment I don't recall which one. If you look at the diagram / schematic near the bottom of the page, there is information that 1) claims it originated in 1944, and therefore was, in fact, a wartime German a-bomb design or at least an attempt at one, and that 2) the original today resides in the German Army Archive in Freiburg, Germany. I have written to the Archive to confirm that they have the original document in their possession, and have never received a response.


An important point for clarification: Karlsch was mistaken---and great hay was made of his mistake, in public, by his enemies---about another purported WWII German atomic bomb design or schematic. There are many articles in the public domain about the second design, which almost certainly did not date from the war years (though was probably done right after the war) because although it originated in Germany, it used the term "plutonium". Plutonium is what Glenn Seaborg termed the new, artificial element with the atomic number of 94 that was produced in breeder reactors---and which made true mass production of nuclear weapons possible. The Germans, in various theoretical papers done before and during the War, usually called it either "Element 94" or "Eka Osmium". Karlsch apparently came across this second schematic before he came into possession of the Schumann-Trinks document(s), but the second schematic was published first, if that makes sense. I am speaking of "second" and "first" relative to this discussion thread, in other words, and not in the order in which they appeared in public. Again, the Schumann-Trinks design schematic appears to have been given to Karlsch AFTER the publication of "Hitler's Bombe", as far as I can tell.


Anyway, for clarification, here is a link to one story that covers the highlights of Karlsch's book, "Hitler's Bombe", and which contains the "second" or plutonium bomb schematic:


Velvet Rocket Web Article on WW2 German Atomic Bomb


Unfortunately I don't have a lot of additional documentation about the S-T device. I have attempted to find a working email address for Karlsch in order to acquire some of the sources he used in his own research---I am keenly interested in his Russian / KGB sources---but he seems to be keeping a very low profile these days. One of the real barriers to getting to the bottom of all of this is that Hitler's Bombe, to date, is available only in German. There has yet to be an English-language edition.


Much of the cutting edge research into this topic has been done by Simon Gunson, the originator of this thread. I know that he has done a partial German-to-English tranlsation of Karlsch's book, and that that is where some of his more specific information comes from. You can read Simon's web articles on these subjects by going here:


Gunson's Nazi A Bomb Site


Simon goes into some technical detail, and your comments are welcome. First, he says that the method of ignition of the S-T device was a form of boosted fission known as a "plasma pinch". The exact quote is "An important key to influencing Lithium to generate Neutrons in what is called a plasma pinch is to superheat Lithium above 800 degrees Centigrade under massive pressures circa 100,000 atmospheres.

Another important factor is the creation of a vacuum cavity which assists the propagation of a plasma to form X-rays. The Schumann / Trinks A-bomb exhibited both features. "

Second, the same design---or one very similar---turned up in a French patent office of all places in the mid-1950s. I believe this was 1954. One would assume that the French would at least have given some due diligence to their examination of the design before granting a patent, oui? Third, the United States apparently test-fired a broadly similar weapon known as the "Swan Device", also in the 1950s. There are, obviously, a number of possible routes to an atomic or thermonuclear detonation, and some of these---according to some sources---are being re-examined after being left for dead following WWII. U-233 as bomb (and reactor) fuel is one of these, and in fact, India has set off a small U-233 device in recent years and is also investing heavily in the thorium (and thus U-233) fuel cycle for its nuclear reactors. The thought-to-be-mythical "red mercury" is another. Etc.

A final thought, and this is from a historian's perspective: much German technology in general, and especially what they were doing in WW2, tended to be "over-engineered". That is, they often took an apparently overly complicated route to producing this or that design or this or that technology. However, and on the other hand, it must be said that in some cases, they were merely "ahead of their time", and were more guilty of over-enthusiasm in an attempt at producing a decisive technological or engineering advantage over their enemies than they were anything else. Could this apparent boosted fission approach to a bomb be in the same category? I'm suggesting, in other words, that they may well have been on an entirely different---but still at least theoretically viable---technical approach to an atomic explosion than what was pursued by the US and its allies. Please keep this in mind if you would, Bedlam, in your response to this post. And of course, a bomb of this type---provided the design was viable, and I realize you're saying it wasn't---but if so, it would eliminate the need for the same kind of massive industrial infrastructure that the Manhattan Project needed. To be sure, the Germans still would have needed considerable machinery and resources, don't get me wrong. I'm saying, they would have needed significantly less of them. The end result would have been a bomb of much smaller yield, but a bomb nonetheless---IF the S-T or another wartime design actually worked. That's what I'm trying to determine here (and elsewhere).

williamjpellas
Again I am in your debt, bedlam, and look forward to learning what you can tell me without getting a visit from the, um, men in black.


The schematic that I have shared in this thread was, as far as I know, given to the German investigative reporter Rainer Karlsch by the son of one of the WWII German atomic weapons designers. That is, the son of either Erich Schumann or Walter Trinks. Sorry, at the moment I don't recall which one. If you look at the diagram / schematic near the bottom of the page, there is information that 1) claims it originated in 1944, and therefore was, in fact, a wartime German a-bomb design or at least an attempt at one, and that 2) the original today resides in the German Army Archive in Freiburg, Germany. I have written to the Archive to confirm that they have the original document in their possession, and have never received a response.


An important point for clarification: Karlsch was mistaken---and great hay was made of his mistake, in public, by his enemies---about another purported WWII German atomic bomb design or schematic. There are many articles in the public domain about the second design, which almost certainly did not date from the war years (though was probably done right after the war) because although it originated in Germany, it used the term "plutonium". Plutonium is what Glenn Seaborg termed the new, artificial element with the atomic number of 94 that was produced in breeder reactors---and which made true mass production of nuclear weapons possible. The Germans, in various theoretical papers done before and during the War, usually called it either "Element 94" or "Eka Osmium". Karlsch apparently came across this second schematic before he came into possession of the Schumann-Trinks document(s), but the second schematic was published first, if that makes sense. I am speaking of "second" and "first" relative to this discussion thread, in other words, and not in the order in which they appeared in public. Again, the Schumann-Trinks design schematic appears to have been given to Karlsch AFTER the publication of "Hitler's Bombe", as far as I can tell.


Anyway, for clarification, here is a link to one story that covers the highlights of Karlsch's book, "Hitler's Bombe", and which contains the "second" or plutonium bomb schematic:


Velvet Rocket Web Article on WW2 German Atomic Bomb


Unfortunately I don't have a lot of additional documentation about the S-T device. I have attempted to find a working email address for Karlsch in order to acquire some of the sources he used in his own research---I am keenly interested in his Russian / KGB sources---but he seems to be keeping a very low profile these days. One of the real barriers to getting to the bottom of all of this is that Hitler's Bombe, to date, is available only in German. There has yet to be an English-language edition.


Much of the cutting edge research into this topic has been done by Simon Gunson, the originator of this thread. I know that he has done a partial German-to-English tranlsation of Karlsch's book, and that that is where some of his more specific information comes from. You can read Simon's web articles on these subjects by going here:


Gunson's Nazi A Bomb Site


Simon goes into some technical detail, and your comments are welcome. First, he says that the method of ignition of the S-T device was a form of boosted fission known as a "plasma pinch". That is, the generation of a burst of fast neutron X-rays. Second, the same design---or one very similar---turned up in a French patent office of all places in the mid-1950s. I believe this was 1954. One would assume that the French would at least have given some due diligence to their examination of the design before granting a patent, oui? Third, the United States apparently test-fired a broadly similar weapon known as the "Swan Device", also in the 1950s. There are, obviously, a number of possible routes to an atomic or thermonuclear detonation, and some of these---according to some sources---are being re-examined after being left for dead following WWII. U-233 as bomb (and reactor) fuel is one of these, and in fact, India has set off a small U-233 device in recent years and is also investing heavily in the thorium (and thus U-233) fuel cycle for its nuclear reactors. The thought-to-be-mythical "red mercury" is another. Etc.

edit on 7-4-2014 by williamjpellas because: Added more information and changed awkward wording

I love fairy Stories.

You need a reality check. Try this:-

www.spiegel.de...

I am familiar with the contrarian article from Der Spiegel. The article quotes a "nuclear weapons expert" named Joachim Schulze, whose dismissal of the S-T document was apparently limited to a single sentence. "...(it was) incapable of functioning". Ummm...okay. Why, exactly? Bedlam, on these boards, seems to be a bit more well-read on the subject. Even if he comes to the same conclusion, I'll take his word over the source cited by Der Spiegel.


The same article mentions the "bazooka effect" being considered by Schumann (yes, the same guy as in the Schumann - Trinks design) as potentially applicable to the detonation of some form of nuclear (or thermonclear) weapon. Gunson goes into some detail about this concept on his Nazi A Bomb website.


Der Spiegel is smugly certain about something it should not be so certain about with this passage:


More importantly, however, what Clare Werner claims to have seen could not have a detonation of the type of bomb the German informer sketched for the Red Army. That type of device would have required several kilograms of highly enriched uranium, which all experts, including Karlsch, believe Nazi Germany did not possess.


Of course, what we mean by the phrase "highly eniched uranium" can vary widely depending on the context. But Germany had built a number (probably less than 50) of centrifuges under Paul Harteck's R&D team, and had progressed at least some distance down the road to actual HEU production. How far, I do not know at this point in time. Germany also sent uranium in some form to Japan on several occasions,via U-boat, I-boat, and, probably, airplane. So obviously there was no shortage of the stuff---again, at least in some form---for the Nazis to be doing that. (Most sources say, for example, that it was U238 Oxide that was going to Japan. In other words unrefined or at best slightly refined uranium---definitely not bomb grade, but capable of being refined into HEU.)


Then again, as I posted earlier in this thread, there have been a number of articles in recent years that have called into question just what was going on in Germany during the war years in terms of a-bomb R&D. For example:


Although the war hampered their work, by the fall of the Third Reich in 1945 Nazi scientists had achieved a significant enrichment in samples of uranium.


You can view the entire article here: Many Tons of Nazi Nuclear Waste Found in Mine


What was this "waste", and by the way, I thought the whole idea of a WW2 German a-bomb was simply preposterous? Was this waste simply radioactive elements in raw form (like uranium-bearing ores), or was it enriched uranium or irradiated thorium, or radioactive chemicals, what? There certainly was a lot of it: about 126,000 barrels, according to the article. And why are some documents from the time period still classified to this day? Is that because of bureaucratic interia and simple lack of interest, or is there something more substantial still being hidden from view?

Three atomic tests in Germany. Two in Thuringia, one off the coast of Pomerania. And yet... no evidence. No radioactivity anywhere. No eyewitnesses other than the Italian (and why show him something so secret?). No technicians. No atomic piles. No theoreticians. No paper trail. No proof. And why three tests, when the Western Allies only required one?
No, this thing stinks to high heaven.

reply to post by williamjpellas


If the Nazi's had any form of nuclear device, even a crude one: Hitler was bonkers enough to have ordered it to be used against The Allies.
It wasn't used because no such device ever existed within the Nazi regime.

williamjpellas

An important point for clarification: Karlsch was mistaken---and great hay was made of his mistake, in public, by his enemies---about another purported WWII German atomic bomb design or schematic. There are many articles in the public domain about the second design, which almost certainly did not date from the war years (though was probably done right after the war) because although it originated in Germany, it used the term "plutonium"...

There are similar issues with this one. But I don't want to jump the gun...I'm dead tired and coming up on six of six 14 hour shifts on the customer equipment, and I'm basically hoping I don't cause a hangar fire falling asleep at work more than identifying issues. So I'm looking at this and other than the occasional "bull#" coming out of my mouth, it's mostly going in one eye and out the other.

I am keenly interested in his Russian / KGB sources---but he seems to be keeping a very low profile these days.

Too bad he doesn't live in the US. I have fewer resources to track someone down in Germany.

First, he says that the method of ignition of the S-T device was a form of boosted fission known as a "plasma pinch". The exact quote is "An important key to influencing Lithium to generate Neutrons in what is called a plasma pinch is to superheat Lithium above 800 degrees Centigrade under massive pressures circa 100,000 atmospheres.

Another important factor is the creation of a vacuum cavity which assists the propagation of a plasma to form X-rays...

Yeah, about that. There are maybe four major issues with just that quote. I'll get to it if I wake up enough the next few days. I get three off to recover, most of the first day is sleep. My waking free time at the moment is sort of dedicated to a problem challenge put to us by one of our TLA brethren.

Second, the same design---or one very similar---turned up in a French patent office of all places in the mid-1950s. I believe this was 1954. One would assume that the French would at least have given some due diligence to their examination of the design before granting a patent, oui?

If they're like our Patent Office, they don't look at the designs at all for operability, just whether it duplicates other work or is obvious to someone trained in the art, with a smattering of 'does this look sinister'. There are PLENTY of US patents that don't work, and a few have me on the inventor list. It's not unusual to think you have something and file a patent to stave off the competition then do the research.

Third, the United States apparently test-fired a broadly similar weapon known as the "Swan Device", also in the 1950s. There are, obviously, a number of possible routes to an atomic or thermonuclear detonation...

I'm familiar with some devices we did but don't use, mostly the topology changers like the artillery shells. Others I really didn't care about or wasn't running into so never got the training for. This would be one. I'll need to look at it. An issue that seems to be cropping up is "is this a boost system or a thermonuke approach". They look superficially similar but aren't the same intent.

, and some of these---according to some sources---are being re-examined after being left for dead following WWII. U-233 as bomb (and reactor) fuel is one of these, and in fact, India has set off a small U-233 device in recent years and is also investing heavily in the thorium (and thus U-233) fuel cycle for its nuclear reactors.

There are a number of fissiles we just don't use because they're either messy, impractical or chancy. The US did a U-233 design early on but it was not pursued.

The thought-to-be-mythical "red mercury" is another. Etc.

"Red mercury" was a code word at LANL for Li6D in times now past.

However, and on the other hand, it must be said that in some cases, they were merely "ahead of their time", and were more guilty of over-enthusiasm in an attempt at producing a decisive technological or engineering advantage over their enemies than they were anything else. Could this apparent boosted fission approach to a bomb be in the same category? I'm suggesting, in other words, that they may well have been on an entirely different---but still at least theoretically viable---technical approach to an atomic explosion than what was pursued by the US and its allies.

Sure - I'm all for other methodologies, but they have to be viable in some way, at least on the surface. It's not like I'm going to run hydrocodes to see if something close is viable or not. But my first look at that diagram and a glance through SG's site doesn't leave me filled with wonder at the innovative new approach, it's more like "no, it doesn't", "that doesn't work that way" and "that's not symmetrical...how are they dealing with it". But again, I'm a zombie at the moment.

Fair enough, Bedlam! As I say, I am just trying to get to the bottom of this one way or another, wherever it leads.


Yes, the issue of "boosted fission" vs. "H-bomb" / thermonuclear device is part of this inquiry, to be sure. When you can take a look at this in more detail, I'd like to know what you think now about what you mentioned earlier re: the "symmetry" of the interior of the S-T design. Seems to me that the U233 implosion portion of the bomb IS symmetrical; it is only the Li-6D coming in from either side in some sort of conical hollow charge explosion that might not be. But I certainly defer to your knowledge in this realm.


Re: U233, I likewise don't have time to post everything I've learned about it, but Sublette goes into some detail on its usefulness as an explosive. Yes, reactor-produced U233 is dirtier and harder to work with and there are significant stockpile issues over time. However: it is still "otherwise an excellent" bomb fuel (per Sublette). Also: it is possible to chemically eliminate most if not all of the impurities found in reactor-produced U233 if you do it fast enough. I think I have read that you must do your post-processing within a day or perhaps 30 hours? Something like that. Lastly, U233 that is produced via cyclotron or a related technology avoids the problem of impurities altogether. So it can very definitely be used as bomb fuel.


The US set some off as part of the Operation TEACUP shots in the mid-1950s. To my knowledge only India has ever done the same. This was the "Shakti V" device a few years ago.

reply to post by williamjpellas


Like I say, you can even deal with it being nasty, but there's a strong "why bother" aspect to it since we've got enough plutonium at Pantex to pave Los Angeles.

There might be a way to make U233 ... very pure. I can't comment. Further, deponent sayeth not.

I'll fire you off an email tonight, just spent four hours shopping and washing clothes. Even the MIC has to cook and clean.

williamjpellas
... it is only the Li-6D coming in from either side in some sort of conical hollow charge explosion that might not be.

Well, that's certainly not, is it? And wasn't the statement that the Li6D was supposed to do this if it struck together, only in this case it's not going to hit at all. Not that that is true anyway. But what you DO have is an asymmetrical impactor from outside - why? There's other freaky aspects to the drawing.

I leave this for you for a bit while I throw a nice toot tonight and do some programming whilst intoxicated, the best way AFAIK to do C#, when did "plasma pinch" become a term? And when did "zeta" become an abbreviation for it? And was that term or symbology in use in WW2? (ahem...no). Also...at what temperature does Li6D become a plasma? Would 800C suffice? (no). What temperature does Li6D have to be to produce x-rays as the thermal radiation? Would 800C suffice? (no)

Also, what IS plasma pinch? What does it require that you don't in any way have here? There's just a TON of crap that's wrong.

Bedlam
Also, what IS plasma pinch? What does it require that you don't in any way have here? There's just a TON of crap that's wrong.

edit on 10-4-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry to be so cynical, but I do note that ever since Bedlam started commenting on this thread (and displaying real knowledge of what's involved here) the OP has stopped commenting on his own thread. I wonder why?

I would imagine that the OP will be around in the near future. Although Bedlam's knowledge of nuclear weapons physics is obviously the real deal, I'm not yet convinced that Mr. Gunson's thesis can be discarded. There are many reasons for this, but I'm too tired to summarize all of them in another post. I'll just refer any interested parties back to his and my posts and to the sources and documents cited therein.


Bedlam, you bring up an interesting point---actually a couple of points---where U-233 is concerned. Again, for the purpose of this inquiry, I am proceeding with the assumption (for now) that at least some part of WWII German nuclear science investigated and probably did considerable R&D down a thorium-to-U233 path to an atomic bomb. To my mind, Rainer Karlsch's unearthing of a previously unknown-in-the-West KGB document in which it is reported that Werner Heisenberg sketched out a thorium-to-U233 atomic bomb is probably his most important contribution to WWII historiography. I say "probably" because I have yet to view many of his sources, and want to do so before I draw any firm conclusions. If reliable--and I am almost certain that it is--this document not only establishes a heretofore largely ignored research topic, but also does considerable damage to the notion of "Heisenberg as passive resistance leader", a stance I never really agreed with anyway. Ambivalent, I don't doubt that he was. Committed to passive resistance against the Nazi regime? Nope. He was somewhere in the middle of those two common characterizations.


Back to U233. I find it interesting that you apparently are NDA'd from discussing it, at least as it could be produced in a much purer form than in breeder reactors. As for why anyone would bother with it, the answer is simple: there is 3 to 4 times as much thorium in the earth's crust than there is uranium. Thus the initial acquisition cost of fissile material / bomb or reactor fuel is much lower, generally speaking. Of course from there you get into refining and development / production costs. But it is a viable substance that can be developed into nuclear and thermonuclear weapons. U233 is also much more similar in its properties as an explosive to plutonium-239 than it is to uranium-235, including a far smaller nominal or natural critical mass than is required for a uranium-235 weapon. Again, you see where I am going with this: in U233 you have a substance that is viable for the purpose of producing a nuclear weapon, and also one that requires a lot less fissile material than the US had to produce in order to field the Little Boy bomb. Which, in turn, means an atomic bomb of some form and configuration that was fueled by U233 might have required a smaller R&D infrastructure than was used in the Manhattan Project---thus another reason why this line of inquiry is at least valid from an investigator's or scholar's standpoint, though where it leads I don't know just yet.


Thanks again for your information re: S-T. If what you are saying is true and comprehensively accurate, it would seem that what we are looking at is perhaps a "best scientific guess" by a WWII German nuclear weapons R&D team beginning to feel the desperation produced by the Allied advance, but one that is not far enough developed and not accurately engineered enough to have worked. Would that be an accurate summary in your opinion? Thanks. One note, however: lithium fission begins at about 800 degrees celsius. However, the S-T design would have used heat by way of hollow charge explosives that was far, FAR greater than that. On the order of thousands of degrees celsius. Would that make a difference?


Introduction to Uranium 233 From Wikipedia


Carey Sublette's summary: "Despite the gamma and neutron emission drawbacks, U-233 is otherwise an excellent primary fissile material. It has a much smaller critical mass than U-235, and its nuclear characteristics are similar to plutonium. The U.S. conducted its first test of a U-233 bomb core in Teapot MET in 1957 and has conducted quite a number of bomb tests using this isotope, although the purpose of these tests is not clear. India is believed to have produced U-233 as part of its weapons research and development, and officially includes U-233 breeding as part of its nuclear power program."


Sublette's complete article, "Nuclear Materials", from the Federation of American Scientists website:

Nuclear Materials by Carey Sublette

williamjpellas
Back to U233. I find it interesting that you apparently are NDA'd from discussing it, at least as it could be produced in a much purer form than in breeder reactors.

The technique is applicable to other fissiles.

One note, however: lithium fission begins at about 800 degrees celsius. However, the S-T design would have used heat by way of hollow charge explosives that was far, FAR greater than that. On the order of thousands of degrees celsius. Would that make a difference?

Why do you think heating lithium to 800C causes it to fission? Or to any degree, short of that which would cause direct photodissociation? My comment was referring to the OP's statement that 800C (not even red hot) and "hundreds of thousands of atmospheres" would cause production of neutrons.

Applying heat to something isn't going to get the job done in terms of inducing fission. It's of help in fusion, if you get it hot enough, due to the average particle speed. You need enough kinetic energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier, that translates to heat and pressure. But that won't cause fission. At least not until you get that sucker hot enough that the lithium's radiating hard gamma rays.

We are still facing the issue of the total lack of evidence for any of this. No other witnesses for these so-called atomic tests, no former technicians who worked on the bombs, absolutely no physical evidence for any of the explosions. And why, again, have three tests? None of this makes any sense. I'd also like to point out that the OP claims that the Nazi bombs were in the possession of the SS. Why did Himmler not mention them when he was negotiating with the West via Sweden?

AngryCymraeg
We are still facing the issue of the total lack of evidence for any of this. No other witnesses for these so-called atomic tests, no former technicians who worked on the bombs, absolutely no physical evidence for any of the explosions. And why, again, have three tests? None of this makes any sense. I'd also like to point out that the OP claims that the Nazi bombs were in the possession of the SS.

The bigger question is why were they not used.... so Hitler had this weapon that dwarfed any other weapon at the time, and even after he started to lose big time he still did not use them..... on either the Soviets or the British....

Bedlam

The thought-to-be-mythical "red mercury" is another. Etc.

"Red mercury" was a code word at LANL for Li6D in times now past.

Is that a bit of sloppy code wording, given that lithium was isotopically separated using an environmentally dangerous amount of mercury?

Or maybe on the diagrams of the isotopic separation system the 6 was on the 'red' (warm?) side and the 7 was on the 'blue' side?

mbkennel

Is that a bit of sloppy code wording...

Not sure, but it was hilarious for a long time when the "red mercury" thing went around a few years back.

Bedlam, it was my understanding coming into this discussion that Li-6D would begin to fission neutrons simply when exposed to high heat. You mention gamma rays in connection with Li-6D and some sort of fusion weapon or reaction, and this of course is one of the issues with the S-T design: are we talking about a boosted fission bomb (or an attempt at such) or is it really more like an H-bomb? Apparently the heat caused by the detonation of hollow charge explosives would be on the order of that required to produce the gamma rays you speak of. At least, that's my understanding of Gunson's summary / explanation of how this device would have worked, assuming it was viable to begin with.


If I am incorrect in my understanding that Li-6D will "hemorrhage" large numbers of neutrons when it is exposed to sudden, enormous heat, by all means please correct me. Again, I am an investigator - historian and not a physicist, obviously.


Cymraeg, there were a number of eyewitnesses, and their names and the documents (and/or video interviews) in which they appeared have already been given in this thread. To state that there were no witnesses is simply false. I don't know if you're just not reading everything that Simon and I have posted, or if you're just being contrary for its own sake, or what. You're certainly free to disagree with where this thread is heading, but 1) I myself am not making any definitive claims here---yet---but rather am trying to get to the bottom of some very interesting documentation and eyewitness testimony that certainly appears to be at odds with the more or less "conventional" history of WWII, and 2) documentation and eyewitness testimony has been posted in this thread. Have you not read nor seen any of it?

williamjpellas
Cymraeg, there were a number of eyewitnesses, and their names and the documents (and/or video interviews) in which they appeared have already been given in this thread. To state that there were no witnesses is simply false. I don't know if you're just not reading everything that Simon and I have posted, or if you're just being contrary for its own sake, or what. You're certainly free to disagree with where this thread is heading, but 1) I myself am not making any definitive claims here---yet---but rather am trying to get to the bottom of some very interesting documentation and eyewitness testimony that certainly appears to be at odds with the more or less "conventional" history of WWII, and 2) documentation and eyewitness testimony has been posted in this thread. Have you not read nor seen any of it?

edit on 12-4-2014 by williamjpellas because: (no reason given)

The number of witnesses is pitifully small - far too small. Three atomic tests, two of which were in Thuringia, should have meant plenty of witnesses. Instead we have a bare handful. Indeed, as the Spiegel article says: His witnesses either lack credibility or have no first-hand knowledge of the events described in the book. What Karlsch insists are key documents can, in truth, be interpreted in various ways, some of which contradict his theory. Finally, the soil sample readings taken thus far at the detonation sites provide "no indication of the explosion of an atomic bomb," says Gerald Kirchner of Germany's Federal Office for Radiation Protection.
There's just no proof. And besides - three tests? Why three? The Allies only needed one. Why have these tests staggered over 1944-45? The documentation is dubious, the witnesses - well, the Spiegel article says it all.
Every atomic bomb programme generated a huge paper footprint. Every atomic bomb test alone generates the same thing. But there's no comparable footprint for working Nazi atomic bombs. I am deeply, deeply suspicious of the whole thing.

williamjpellas
Bedlam, it was my understanding coming into this discussion that Li-6D would begin to fission neutrons simply when exposed to high heat.

That's what the whole S-T lore as given by the OP and implied by that diagram you sent. But it's patently untrue.

No. Nein. Nyet. Li6D only emits neutrons under one specific circumstance, and that's in the middle of a properly managed thermonuclear explosion. It's what I've been telling you.

Heat of the sort you get from a chemical explosion isn't going to fission *anything*. 800C isn't even red hot. You can heat Li6D to pretty much any temperature you can manage, and what you're going to get is hot Li6D.

Things don't emit neutrons just because they're hot, until you get up into the sort of 'hot' you get in a star. The only time you see that sort of thing is when you get to the sorts of temperatures where the mass is emitting a really hard gamma flux, and you start getting photofission or nuclear photodissociation. In terms of thermal gamma rays, this is the sort of thing you see going on in novae. But not in shaped charges. To get Li6 to emit neutrons that way, you'd need to heat it to several billion degrees.

The way you get Li6D to emit neutrons in a bomb requires multiple steps, as I've said before. You have to hit the lithium with a neutron to get it to transmute into tritium. Only after you turn the lithium into tritium and helium, and the tritium and deuterium start fusing, do you get fast neutron production.

This doesn't happen from just heating Li6D with a chemical explosion.

And it's a reason why you don't use Li6D as a boost source anyway - it takes a neutron to get the tritium, then you get one back when the tritium and deuterium fuse, so not only does it take too long, it isn't a net gain anyway. What the Li6D fusion gives you is a #-heap of energy, mostly in terms of very energetic neutrons. In a typical US weapon, the highly energetic neutrons hit U238 and fission it for even more of an energy gain.

If you look at the diagram of the Swan device, you'll see they don't use Li6D, it's D-T. THAT gives you a net neutron gain. But Li6D won't.

You mention gamma rays in connection with Li-6D and some sort of fusion weapon or reaction, and this of course is one of the issues with the S-T design: are we talking about a boosted fission bomb (or an attempt at such) or is it really more like an H-bomb?

It's hard to say looking at it what they had in mind. It looks like someone came up with it as a joke, frankly. The role of Li6D is to take a lot of slower neutrons and, in the right circumstances, produce very highly energetic neutrons that you can use to fission other elements, usually U238, to increase the weapon yield. But getting those circumstances is technically quite difficult. You can't just splat Li6D onto the outside of a fission bomb.

We do it by compressing the Li6D by radiative ablation of a wrapper of U238, with a stick of plutonium up the middle. Once the thing compresses enough, the plutonium detonates as a secondary small fission weapon in the middle of the Li6D. That's to add in even more neutrons and heat the thing up to the temperature required to get fusion to go - several tens of millions of degrees. You need to heat the Li6D to millions of degrees, and swamp it with neutrons to get it to start. And *then* you've got to keep it together in an isothermal lump for long enough to get enough fusion to get the effect you want. You can't just squirt Li6D on the outside of a fireball and get much - remember the fusion reaction has to stay at several million degrees C to go, but hot objects radiate their energy away as the fourth power of the temperature difference. That's why any Li6D fusion rig you see involves the mass being in the center of something massive, hot, and preferably isothermal that's not going anywhere for a few milliseconds.

For T-U weapons like the ones you mostly see, that's because you've got one nuclear explosion squeezing a massive U238 tamper onto the thing from the outside, and a nuclear explosion going on up the middle. The Li6D is caught between them.

The Russians used a design they called a "layer cake" which is sort of the spherical equivalent of the T-U design.

But just hosing it on from the outside won't do.

Apparently the heat caused by the detonation of hollow charge explosives would be on the order of that required to produce the gamma rays you speak of. At least, that's my understanding of Gunson's summary / explanation of how this device would have worked, assuming it was viable to begin with.

Yeah, I know, but it's totally bogus. It doesn't work that way.

If I am incorrect in my understanding that Li-6D will "hemorrhage" large numbers of neutrons when it is exposed to sudden, enormous heat, by all means please correct me. Again, I am an investigator - historian and not a physicist, obviously.

800C is hot to put your hand on. It's not hot at all in terms of what's going on inside a nuke for the first few milliseconds.

So, in a nutshell, no, it does not do that. The temperature of chemical explosives and shaped charges isn't anywhere near "hot" in terms of the temperatures and pressures you need to make Li6D transform into D-T and fuse.

Thanks for the very detailed reply, Bedlam. So, even thousands of degrees C heat would not help the Li-6D to detonate the U-233 fissile core in this design. Correct? But lithium deuteride would (or might)? The S-T design also listed lithium deuteride as a coating on the U-233 fissile core. Again, just trying to get to the bottom of all this, if possible, and I appreciate your patience.


Returning to an earlier question: what, then, IS the S-T schematic? If the design is, in fact, unworkable / would not detonate, then what are we looking at? 'Twould seem to me that what it probably is, is a "scientific best guess" by one of the WWII German atomic R&D teams as they took their best shot at throwing something together on the chance it might work. Would that be an accurate characterization in your opinion?