sure
but joseph is saying is that it was highly enriched uranium U235 , hence the gold lined cylinders
German science progress before and during the 2nd world war
- Thread starter river
- Start date
sure
but joseph is saying is that it was highly enriched uranium U235 , hence the gold lined cylinders
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Confess I cannot immediately see why gold lining would be indicative of what isotope of uranium was enclosed.
Yeah?
According to you he said and further in 1945 the U-234 had 560kilograms of Uranium Oxide ,in gold lined cylinders , thus implying highly enriched uraniumU235 and was captured by the U.S. (post #24).
And that's supported by the cargo manifest he quotes on page 61.
He does, admittedly, go on to state "Thus, the uranium oxide on board the U-234 was highly enriched uranium, and most likely, highly enriched U235" (page 61) but that's an unwarranted (and completely incorrect) assumption of his own.
to your last statement , perhaps true
BUT he ties the submarine uranium to the shortage by Oak Ridges of enriched uranium , then within a week , the output of enriched uranium by Oak Ridge , doubles ( pg. 62 )
Largely irrelevant.
For one thing it was, as stated by Farrell own sources uranium oxide not enriched uranium, and for another he appears to be ignoring that by June ALL the plants were into full production (as opposed to some of the plants - it wasn't just one plant at Oak Ridge - ramping up and working bugs out).
In other words "tying it to Oak Ridge" is very likely yet another unwarranted assumption on his part.
disagree
yet he says , pg. 58 , that ,
" If the stocks of weapons grade uranium ca. late 1944 - early 1945 were about half of what they needed to be after 2yrs. of research and production , and if this in turn was the cause of Senator Brynes' concern , how then did the Manhattan Project acquire the large remaining amount or uranium 235 needed in the few months from March to the dropping of Little Boy bomb on Hiroshima in August , only five months away ? "
Of course you do.
Because you, like him, are ignoring what I stated in the post you just quoted.
And you are simply accepting HIS assertions (which says much about your repeated comments to others to "think for themselves and not just accept what they've read").
yet your making assertions as well
what other plants ? , to just say so means nothing
Beside the point.
The actual point is that you are uncritically accepting what HE claims and disputing what everyone else says.
Yeah because looking for yourself would mean doing something other than just reading what's handed on a plate to you in a book, wouldn't it?
Y-12.
S-50.
K-25 & X-10.
yeah well you had to look it up as well
X-10 , didn't come across this plant
but how would the Y-12 plant work , its electromagnetic , meaning it would use an enormous amount of electricity ,and they don't describe the mechanism for getting the uranium to be positive hence , operational problems and K-25 , Gaseous diffusion is very inefficient
https://www.osti.gov/manhattan-project-history/Events/1942-1945/come_through.htm
And you're still missing the point: that being - I do look stuff up instead of just taking one nutcase's word for things.
What?
Your point being?
There was more than plant involved in producing the stuff - that's it.
As for "gaseous diffusion being very inefficient"... In 2008, gaseous diffusion plants in the United States and France still generated 33% of the world's enriched uranium. So, certainly not "inefficient" enough to be replaced by something else for little while, eh?
Silly river (as usual), it was Japan, not Germany, that was close behind the US in developing the atomic bomb.
Yeah, yeah - silly River as ever! Can you even spell your name without help?