Earliest Atomic Power?

[Carl Schwamberger]

Reading back through Rhoades 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb' I was struck by the apparent pedestrian level of technology needed to refine the Uranium & set up a working reactor. If I am wrong here let me know the details & recommended reading. Thx.

But, continuing for the moment; one of the other items that struck me was the very low level of funding of research into 'radioactives' from the earliest days circa 1900. Which brings me to my core question; given a full court press in funding & a organization akin to Edisons invention factory, or the research labs of the new chemical industry, could the research spanning from Rutherfords work to Fermis first pile be compressed from four decades to maybe two or three? That is could atomic generation of steam power be achieved by 1935 or earlier?

[maltesefalcon]

One could make the same argument for nearly any evolutionary technological development.

Why wasn't the Me-262 available right after the Eindecker?

Why didn't the Panzer arm go from A7 to Tiger II?

In the case of atomic research it was more than just mechanical equipment needed. One needed to discover which isotopes worked best. One also needs to get the actual uranium, something that is no mean feat. And how much was needed, vs how much would create a dangerous critical mass. All these questions took time. Bear in mind large parts of the world did not even have electricity in the 1920s when much of the research would have to be completed.

If it is so simple, and the answers are out there already, why haven't more nations been able to develop nuclear technology by now?

[Carl Schwamberger]

Not making a argument you twit, I'm asking some questions.

[wm]

In fact the book says so, it was possible in 1935/36.
But at that time science wasn't industrialized like today. Basically it was done by academic lecturers in their spare time. So we need a rich country, and a compelling reason, like for example a world war for that to happen.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Not sure a war is a essential incentive for building power plants. Tho it does cause some research subjects to be focused on.

[OpanaPointer]

Not sure a war is a essential incentive for building power plants. Tho it does cause some research subjects to be focused on.

The powerplants might have been easier to build back then, politically at least, as the hazards were less well known. (Yes, I'm ignoring the fact that California allowed a nuclear power plant to be built almost directly over a fault line. )

[Carl Schwamberger]

...& Fermi put up the first pile in Chicago. According to Rhoades the SCRAM system was a grad student with a axe who could cut the rope used to raise the control rods.

[Carl Schwamberger]

...& Fermi put up the first pile in Chicago. According to Rhoades the SCRAM system was a grad student with a axe who could cut the rope used to raise the control rods.

Looks like rapid corrosion is a large problem on modern designs. Requires a lot of high temperature anti corrosive materials. Systems with less corrosive material would be preferable?

[phylo_roadking]

Not sure a war is a essential incentive for building power plants. Tho it does cause some research subjects to be focused on.

No....but a war, beginning at a certain point in the historical timeline of atomic physics, is an incentive for building a gurt big BOMB - if not purely for your own use, then before and to checkmate the Other Guy! And of course to check if the Other Guy really COULD build one at all!

And to get the Bomb...you didn't require reactors for generating power, but you DID need them for the bulk enrichment of uranium You could enrich it in the laboratory in minute amounts at a time...which was how the Germans did it, after all, and previously the Juliot-Curies in Paris - but doing it in the quantities required for a Bomb required a "bulk" enrichment and extraction. So for that you needed a reactor. Preferably several!

According to Rhoades the SCRAM system was a grad student with a axe who could cut the rope used to raise the control rods.

Don't forget what Otto Hahn's idea of a "reactor" was...chains consisting of lumps of refined uranium every few links, that were to be lowered into a hole in the ground filled with heavy water

[phylo_roadking]

...& Fermi put up the first pile in Chicago. According to Rhoades the SCRAM system was a grad student with a axe who could cut the rope used to raise the control rods.

Looks like rapid corrosion is a large problem on modern designs. Requires a lot of high temperature anti corrosive materials. Systems with less corrosive material would be preferable?

I'm not sure it's possible - Isn't the corrosion in question the highly corrosive uranium hexaflouride gas and similar uranium compounds???

[maltesefalcon]

Not making a argument you twit, I'm asking some questions.

I was using the word argument in the sense of a hypothesis. It was not meant to be taken as a personal insult, unlike your impolite reply.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Not sure a war is a essential incentive for building power plants. Tho it does cause some research subjects to be focused on.

No....but a war, beginning at a certain point in the historical timeline of atomic physics, is an incentive for building a gurt big BOMB - if not purely for your own use, then before and to checkmate the Other Guy! And of course to check if the Other Guy really COULD build one at all!

And to get the Bomb...you didn't require reactors for generating power, but you DID need them for the bulk enrichment of uranium You could enrich it in the laboratory in minute amounts at a time...which was how the Germans did it, after all, and previously the Juliot-Curies in Paris - but doing it in the quantities required for a Bomb required a "bulk" enrichment and extraction. So for that you needed a reactor. Preferably several!

According to Rhoades the SCRAM system was a grad student with a axe who could cut the rope used to raise the control rods.

Don't forget what Otto Hahn's idea of a "reactor" was...chains consisting of lumps of refined uranium every few links, that were to be lowered into a hole in the ground filled with heavy water

[Carl Schwamberger]

Not sure a war is a essential incentive for building power plants. Tho it does cause some research subjects to be focused on.

No....but a war, beginning at a certain point in the historical timeline of atomic physics, is an incentive for building a gurt big BOMB - if not purely for your own use, then before and to checkmate the Other Guy! And of course to check if the Other Guy really COULD build one at all!

And to get the Bomb...

Where in the OP is a "bomb" mentioned or implied? The question/s concern

atomic generation of steam power

I realize we all don't read OPs closely but this is already over the top. "Germany, nazis, Facists, and Axis don't even appear, which I am sure disappoints some folks.

If anyone is familiar with the literature on options for radioactive/atomic power generation I'd apprecat any sources or expert opinions.

Thanks

[phylo_roadking]

Where in the OP is a "bomb" mentioned or implied?

Not in the OP.

I wasn't replying to your OP, Carl, but to the sentence "Not sure a war is a essential incentive for building power plants" as I quoted. That's what I was answering. War doesn't provide an incentive for power plants per se, but it DOES provide an essential incentive for weapons. See under Einstein's letter to FDR...

atomic generation of steam power

I realize we all don't read OPs closely but this is already over the top. "Germany, nazis, Facists, and Axis don't even appear, which I am sure disappoints some folks.

But, continuing for the moment; one of the other items that struck me was the very low level of funding of research into 'radioactives' from the earliest days circa 1900. Which brings me to my core question; given a full court press in funding & a organization akin to Edisons invention factory, or the research labs of the new chemical industry, could the research spanning from Rutherfords work to Fermis first pile be compressed from four decades to maybe two or three? That is could atomic generation of steam power be achieved by 1935 or earlier?

Carl, don't forget the whole aspect of why anyone would fund atomic physics research to that degree just to create steam...and why they didn't Steam power = steam turbine electricity generation of course...but the utilities companies had that all sewn up, power generation wasn't that costly - but the cost of developing and building atomic power plants in that timescale would have no backers at the level needed. Look at Nikolai Tesla's revolutionary ideas for power generation etc. - that fell over due to cold feet on the part of big investors

[T. A. Gardner]

The most likely answer is yes. In the early 1930's Germany was the world leader in physics hands down. Nobody else came close.
The US by comparison was an non-contender in the field. Almost nothing of note was being published in the US at that point.

Then came Hitler and the Nazis. They saw modern physics as "Jewish" and began to systematically harass and persecute physicist's throughout Germany. Most left with their most common destination being the US.

Because of this by 1940 the US had gone from nearly dead last in the field of physics to first and Germany was now dead last. However, that gain came at the price of losing about a decade of research time due to all the physicists having to re-establish their academic presence and research facilities having lost what they had in Germany.

Fermi smartly went with what was the easiest route to a fission reactor: A graphite moderated fast fission design. That allowed him to use unenriched uranium and get a sustained reaction.
The German heavy water design was much more difficult to produce, and would have been problematic in operation, if it worked at all.