German Bomber modified for A Bomb Delivery

[stellung]

To HenryS,


I suggest you look into the work done by Manfred von Ardenne for the Russians after the war.

Next, a study group was formed in Austria in 2009 to look into German-Austrian atomic research during the war.

Finally, an Austrian nuclear physicist, Willibald Jentschke, was brought to Wright Field in 1947 under Operation Paperclip.

[phylo_roadking]

Finally, an Austrian nuclear physicist, Willibald Jentschke, was brought to Wright Field in 1947 under Operation Paperclip.

....but didnt actually DO very much for the Americans

Jentschke emigrated to the United States under Operation Paperclip, where he worked at the Air Force Materiel Command (today, the Air Force Logistics Command after merger with the Air Force Systems Command in 1992), at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, from 1947 to 1948. On his way to the United States, Jentschke wrote to Walther Bothe that his reasons for going there was to do real scientific work, which then not possible in Austria and Germany.

In 1950, Jentschke became a resident assistant professor, and in 1955 resident professor, in the Department of Physics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In 1951, he became director of the Cyclotron Laboratory there.

(from Wiki)

The rest of his working career - until 1980 - was spent in CIVILIAN atomic physics.

[HenryS]

Whether madeup cobblers or simply misguided actually doesn't matter in this case - it's entirely superceded by the Federal Government's PTB Report of 15th February 2006.

Tell me what you think

Honestly?

I don't think the rules of AHF permit me to do so. Suffice it to say a "scientific report" is ONLY as good as the reputation and identity of the "scientist"/organisation compiling the report. If he/she or YOU can't...or won't...put a name to it - it has absolutely no provenance or credibility whatsoever. It could for instance have been written by a university student then misused - like another famous report on weapons of mass destruction ....

As a P.S. - strange how the Rugen "report" doesn't include much location data by which we could ALL view those "craters" on Google Earth...

So, does this mean you have nothing substantive to say? If it is so easily discredited, please do so.

[phylo_roadking]

Honestly?

I don't think the rules of AHF permit me to do so.

So, does this mean you have nothing substantive to say?

Er....no, that's no what I mean... I meant there are parts of the AHF Forum Rules that prevent me fully expressing what I REALLY think of it...

Under these circumstances, in my opinion the best policy is to provide as many facts on the issue as possible, allow the contributors to state their point of view in a civil manner...

Moving on...

If it is so easily discredited, please do so.

It discredits ITSELF - if claimed to be a "scientific report" but offered with NO verifiable scientific career or checkable academic qualifications on the part of the supposed scientist writing it...it's exactly and only so much toilet paper.

The fact that you can't, won't or daren't give the name of the scientist supposedly involved speaks volumes for the material. If carried put according to established procedures and standards in his field ANY scientist who has carried out his investigation/sampling/testing correctly would have NO QUALMS AT ALL about putting his/her name to published material.

Someone, someone I could never name, gave me this report:

YOU have therefore destroyed the credibility of this "report"! It COULD have been written by an Albert Einstein....or it COULD have been written by your local paperboy! The problem is - IF IT WAS GENUINE - Mr. Einstein would have been happy to append his name to it.

It's contents are COMPLETELY overturned by the PTB Report anyway...which IS fully open to peer review and process-checking on contacting the PTB for a copy of the FULL February 2009 report. AND it's free IIRC...

As a P.S. - strange how the Rugen "report" doesn't include much location data by which we could ALL view those "craters" on Google Earth...

It's funny NOONE ELSE can see these craters.

[phylo_roadking]

Talking of seeing things....

3. Referenzen und Dokumentation von messdaten, Berechnungen und Bildmaterial.

Where's the pictorial material???

You'll find the facilities for posting pictures on the Forum is quite straightforward.

[phylo_roadking]

Moving on...

2.3 Tstflaeche Bug/Ruegen

Feststellbar waren ein trichterfoermiger Krater mit ca. 30 m Durchmesser (Tiefe 4 m) und die optischen Eindruecke sowei muendlichen Mitteilungen ueber einen eingeebneten Krater mit etwa 200 m Druchmesser, aber unbekannter Tiefe.
Wegen der losen, kuenstlich veraenderten bodenstruktur (Kieselsteine und Sand) auf der Kraterflache waren repraesentative Probennahmen nur am noch erkennbaren Kraterrand und in groesserer Entfernung (ca 800 m, bei der ehemaligen Postation) sinnvoll (tab. 2.3). Der Kraterrand zeigt, im Vergleich zur umgebenden Flaeche, Bedenveraenderungen bezueglich Farbe und Koernung.
Dier Ortsdosisleistungen schwankten im Bereich von 50-100 nSv?h

Hmm, a 30 metre-wide crater...AND on stony/pebbly ground AND "Der Kraterrand zeigt, im Vergleich zur umgebenden Flaeche, Bedenveraenderungen bezueglich Farbe und Koernung" - with a colour difference between the crater and the surrounding area...

Not to mention a 200-metre crater as well....

I'm sure you can provide a location on Rugen where we can ALL see a THIRTY-METRE CRATER on Google Earth? AND one accentuated by colour gradation? I can see my BIKES in the driveway on Google Earth, and they're only a metre and a half long...

We also seem to be missing a couple of tables?

[phylo_roadking]

By the way - when you bring up the screen to write a new post, down below the text box you'll see a tab marked "Upload Attachment". You should be able to post up the report in toto AND in the original using that facility, I believe?

[HenryS]

To HenryS,


I suggest you look into the work done by Manfred von Ardenne for the Russians after the war.

Next, a study group was formed in Austria in 2009 to look into German-Austrian atomic research during the war.

Finally, an Austrian nuclear physicist, Willibald Jentschke, was brought to Wright Field in 1947 under Operation Paperclip.

Hi Stellung,

Assuming you are referring to klyston technology, I tried to attach what Rainer Karlsch said about the Reichspost and von Ardenne regarding klystrons but it was too big and so the program would not accept it. Edgar Mayer and Thomas Mehner did a whole chapter on this: Ein grosses Zyklotron im Untergrund des AWO-Gebietes?. I do not know what von Ardenne did for the Soviets, though.

[phylo_roadking]

By the way -

Spurren nukliear Tests

Untersuchungen von Bodenproben aus Gottow, Ohrdruf and Bug/Ruegen




Inhalt

1. Ziel der Untersuchungen

2. Zusammenfassung dier Ergebnisse

2.1 Versuchsanlage "Gottow"

2.2 Krater "Ohrdruf"

2.3 Testflache "Bug/Ruegen

3. Referenzen und Dokumentation von messdaten, Berechnungen und Bildmaterial.


___________________
(my English translation of title: Traces of Nuclear Tests
Investigation of soil samples from Gottow, Ohrdruf and Bug/Ruegen

This dates from april, 2004

Since I don't know if you guys are familiar with this or not, I am going to do Bug/Ruegen and then you can either tell me to go on or not
________________________________


2.3 Tstflaeche Bug/Ruegen

Feststellbar waren ein trichterfoermiger Krater mit ca. 30 m Durchmesser (Tiefe 4 m) und die optischen Eindruecke sowei muendlichen Mitteilungen ueber einen eingeebneten Krater mit etwa 200 m Druchmesser, aber unbekannter Tiefe.
Wegen der losen, kuenstlich veraenderten bodenstruktur (Kieselsteine und Sand) auf der Kraterflache waren repraesentative Probennahmen nur am noch erkennbaren Kraterrand und in groesserer Entfernung (ca 800 m, bei der ehemaligen Postation) sinnvoll (tab. 2.3). Der Kraterrand zeigt, im Vergleich zur umgebenden Flaeche, Bedenveraenderungen bezueglich Farbe und Koernung.
Dier Ortsdosisleistungen schwankten im Bereich von 50-100 nSv?h.

Bislang durchgefuhrte Analysen erbrachten folgende Ergebnisse:

Dier Kleine Krater is juengeren Datums als der grossflache Krater. Fuer die Entstehung der erstgenannten war ein Energieaequivalent von 0.5 bis 2 t TNT erforderlich, fuer den zweiten ein erheblich hoeherer Wert (bis 200 t TNT). Letzterer is nur eingrenzbar durch Ermittlung der Kratertiefe und der Verdaemmung (Ref. 7).

Verglasungen und Aufschmelzungen an schwarzen Partikeln, die eine leicht erhoehte Akivitaet unter dem GM-Zaehlrohr aufwiesen, konnten aus Proben des suedlichen Teil des Kraterrandes (ab 20 cm Tiefe) nur vereinzelt fest gestellt werden. Durch Probennahme in Groesseren Tiefen erwartet der gutachterlich taetige Geologe deutliche Ergebnisse (Ref 10).

Gammaspektrometrie: Die Bodenproben von Kraterrand und Poststation zeigen Cs137-Aktivitaeten von 35 bzw. 48 Bq/kg. Von amtlichen Stellen werdenfuer Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Werte von 14 bis 23 Bq/kg angeben.
Die Uranaktivitaet (U238) ergib fuer die genannten Orte 18 bzw. 80Bq/kg. Eine Anreicherung von U235 is aus den bislang vorliegenden Daten nicht abzuleiten.

Alpha-, Beta-Gesamtaktivitaet: Aus Teilen der Bodenprobe des Kraterrandes wurden durch Siebung und Sedimentation in Wasser Partikelfraktionen zishen 0.2u. 39,6g mit Druchmessern groesser/kleiner 1 mm hergestellt. Deren Fixierung in einem getrockneten Sedimentkuchen (mit Konzentration der schweren Komponente am Boden, wie beim tonhaltigen Material von Ohrdruf) gelang bei sandigem Material nur mit Zuckerzusatz. Es ergab sich in einer Fraktion (4.4 g.(sign for "greater than" which I do not have on this keyborad) 1 mm.) eine Beta-Aktivitaet von 340 Bq/kg und eine Alpha-Aktivitaet von 8 Bq/kg (tab. 3)

Deutlisch ueber dem Normal liegende Beta - bzw. Alpha-Aktivitaet zeigt dagegen ein durch Schwere-Sedimentation gewonnenes feinkoerniges Praeparat (0,2 g, (sign for "less than") 1 mm) mit beta 9.400Bq/kg bzw Alpha 410 Bq/kg.

Die Auswertungen und die Suche nach Begruendungen fuer die Anomalitaeten snce nich abgeschlossen. Eine Ursache is die Weigerung von zwei Instituten die Ergebnisse der Analyse von Praeparaten, die mit grossem Zeitaufwand extrahiert wurden, vorzulegen - oder das Marterial zurueck zu geben.

Es stehen zudem entscheidende alpha- und massenspektrometrische Analysen aus.

Fazit zum Bug:

Die o.g. Ergebnisse zeigen eine Anormalitaeten. Im Vergleich zu Ohrdruf deuten sich beim Bug ebenfalls auffaellig hohe Beta-Aktivitaeten in dier feinkoernigen Fraktion des Bodens an.

Es sind zudem in Proben des Bug einige Gammalinien zu beachten, deren Zuordnung mit den Ueblichen Auswerteprogrammen nicht moeglich war. Demartige Aspkkte sollten Anlass sein, moegliche Fusions-Komponenten gezielt zu untersuchen. Es koennten unterscheidliche Materialien be der Erzeugung der Krater vom Bug und von Ordruf eingesetzt worden sein. Belastbare Bewertungen lassen sich erst abgeben, nachdem Proben aus groesseren Tiefen auf Aktivierungs - und Spaltprodukte, sowie auf Aktiniden untersucht worden sind.

Did you type this in or cut&paste?

[Ironmachine]

HenryS, I want to think that you are not deliverately ignoring my question, so I will repeat it:
who made that report?

[phylo_roadking]

Henry, I see you were back on the board later...http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p1437474...quite disappointing that you didn't address any of the questions here...

[stellung]

To HenryS:


In 1949, Nikolaus Riehl won the Stalin Prize for his work on the Russian atomic bomb project.
In 1951, Peter Adolf Thiessen won a Stalin Prize for uranium enrichment.
In 1953, Manfred von Ardenne won a Stalin Prize for isotope separation and plasma research toward the development of a hydrogen bomb. You may look up the term "Ardenne Source" as well. He returned to Germany in 1954.


This stands in stark contrast to the lack of knowledge claimed for the Germans.

[LWD]

Does it? The Soviets in general and Stalin in particular had a propensity to hand out awards more for politcal purposes than merit.

[HenryS]

HenryS, I want to think that you are not deliverately ignoring my question, so I will repeat it:
who made that report?

It is only the substance of the report which is in question. I have already stated that the writers cannot be named. That part of the report was deleted as were the index and notes, the measurement date, calculations and photo material. And, once again, there were two reports done at this time. I was given this marked in handwriting "Entwerf" which is in this case "concept" or "conception" but might be read as "outline". A summary was made of the three sites and what was found. Ruegen was chosen because it was the shortest. I had to retype this on to the computer, as I have said.

Maybe this is too much German for some. OK, no problem, some German native will come along. But the basic ideas regarding this particular site to jump out and I am a little surprised that nobody picked up on even one.

I am more than disappointed at the fact that at Axis History we have on the one hand people who or superknowledgable in their field and on the other hand we have those who cannot make a knowing comment on the simplest of things.

[Auseklis]

Maybe this is too much German for some. OK, no problem, some German native will come along.

Shure, we are everywhere.

What shall I tell in your place?
That the report was done by Prof. Uwe Kaiser of the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB)?
That it is just copyied out of "Hitlers Bombe" by Karlsch?

Making a x-file out of public availabe information seems not to be helpfull.