Re: Arado 234 with liquid hydrogen engines? - SS hiding one in woods

On Jul 15, 3:52 am, "Keith Willshaw"
<ke...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<eunome...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:8664a2b0-b6ba-40c7-8240-f44ed4fa9157@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The "Church" is on top of a 20 meter tall limestone mountain. The
'cellar' is a two car wide shaft tunneled into limestone cliff face at
the base of that mountain hence there was 20 meters of limestone
between the church foundations and the roof of the cellar. The
reactor was not designed to go critical but to remain subcritical and
there was no chance of it going supercritical, and yes there definetly
were cobalt control rods.

Cite please - the only rods I have seen at haigerloch belonged
to the neutron probes and source. Note cobalt is not a suitable
material for control rods. The Magnox reactors used born carbide
Cobalt will do the job of shutting down the reaction if needed as a
'scram rod' whether or not it is optimal for control is another
matter, that was not the purpose the the B-8 experiment.  Cobalt
works.

No it doesn't and the lack of a cite is noted

Its true that the Haigerloch B-8 reactor didn't have an automatic
"control" mechanism in the sense of having Geiger-Mueller tubes to
measure reactor radiation activity and to link this to a servo control
mechanism to "regulate" the reactor but again this was a subcritical
reactor.   Diebners first lattice reactor of late 1943 achieved 6%
increase in neutrons.

No requirement for autimatic mechanisms was stated

Page 15 shows some of the rods.
http://www.chymist.com/The%20German%20Nuclear%20Reactor.pdf

Several long objects of differing designs do not amount to control rods.
Heisenberg is on record as stating there were none. Those are neutron
probes,

Nope "control rods" see page 10 of this link.
http://www.en-genius.net/includes/files/col_050409.pdf

You will also note that the use of cadmium was seen as a method of
regulating the reactor: see page 38 and that the effect of

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=0xvBwotTuTEC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=haigerloch+b8&source=bl&ots=DvkgE1DHtQ&sig=JfhwiUQtlmPYozEY6Csftl-Q9TE&hl=en&ei=RsJdSqXzLYm6swOpxbGbCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2




there's a difference. When interrogated post war Heisenberg stated
quite clearly that the reactor was not expected to work and due to
the lack of time to install them none were installed. Instead
they would drop lumps of cadmium through the probe openings
if the reactor looked like getting out of control

This is probably either a rendition of the semi-fictional "Copenhagen"
play or a very poor translation or just malicious fabrication.

Why would Heisenberg and the other physicists like Weisakcker drop
tiny lumps of cadmium no bigger than 20mm in diameter into the B8
reactor core where they would sit on on the bottom of the 1.3m
diameter and have little effect on the reaction when they could simply
attach attach cadmium rods to the same probes used for distributing
sensors and ensure the control rods were interdicted amongst the
lattice. The cadmium control rods were as much a part of the
experiment as the radiation sensors.

They are perhaps better refered to as safety rods, maybe not even
control rods but they are not 'regulating rods' in the sense of being
attached to neutron sensitive radiation sensors that are used to
control a servo motor to position those sensors.





David Irvings History "Virus House" mentions a "cobalt lump" but this
proably a misreporting and is repeated in the fictive post war
conversation between Heisenberg and Bohr in the Copenhagen Play.   The
holes for the 'scram' rods are obviously to small for a lump.

Actually he refers to cadmium not cobalt

Several other sources do as well.

"Here Bethe offers a personal recollection: “When
Bohr came to Los Alamos at the end of 1943, he told Oppenheimer that
Heisenberg
had talked to him about an atomic bomb. Bohr reproduced from memory a
rough
drawing that Heisenberg had shown him. The drawing was shown to Edward
Teller
and me, and we immediately recognized that it is a nuclear reactor
with many control
rods. ... Perhaps he was trying to get Bohr to be a messenger of
conscience, ... to
persuade allied scientists also to refrain from working on a bomb.” "

That was the interpretation BOHR gave them.







The location was chosen in part for its
safety from bombing, a very important consideration for a German
reactor. The reactor itself was deep in a long tunnel.

It was a bolt hole

The Soviet era RMBK style reactors were graphite moderated and water
cooled. They had a positive void coefficient and all of the dangers
associated with having vast tonnages of a flammable material
(graphite) in a reactor. (It takes less heavy water than graphite).

Yes we know about Chernobyl

Graphite + Water = danger.




The difference between the Haigorloch Heavy water reactor and Femis
Graphite reactor is that in the heavy water reactor the moderator was
poored into the vessel. Any signe of a chain reaction meant that the
moderator would be withdrawn and the cobalt rods lowered.

No rods old boy and neutrons fission faster than you can pump water.
No chance of that, the B-8 reactor the final one of several
subcritical reactors that tested various geometries and acheived
neutron multiplication.   B-8 was succesfull in that it performed as
predicted.

Why so many sub critical reactors one wonders

Diebners first lattice reactor of late 1943 achieved 6% increase in
neutrons.  B-8 achieved 670% and was just short of being self
sustaining.
The moderator was added slowly and the "control rods"  (more correctly
safety rods) could be dropped in the same way they were at Fermis
reactor.
"safety rods controlled electronically
so that they would be pushed into the pile if neutron
detectors indicated a runaway reaction, another, weighted
with lead, would fall into the pile if physicist Norman
Hilberry cut a rope with a hatchet."

So where are the actuators ?


Why have actuators when it is a subcritical experiment and safety rods
'dropped' by 'gravity actuators' will do the job.





The first people to have a 'reactor' that made more neutrons than it
consumed were the Germans Fermis first reactors based on graphite
having failed.

Fermi's first reactor was CP-1 , it went crtical in December 1942,
the Germans never achieved this.
The Germans needed just under 10 tons of heavy water to go critical
something they had calculated as early as 1941 and something that
never changed,  Norsk could initially supply 1 ton per year of
electrolytically produced D2O, later a new electrocatalytic process
developed by the Germans and put in place at Norsk increased this to 5
tons year.  The production facilities and much of the D2O was lost due
to the Telemark espionage at the end of 1942 and then begining of
1943.   October 1943 saw a paper emphatically stating that the lattice
form of a heavy water reactor was the most efficient,  a little latter
that year Diebner built a subscale reactor of 670kg of heavy water
that produced 6% more.    Had there been more heavy water and Uranium
B8 could have been built then instead of early 1945.

I've already adressed the bad choices they made using materials produced
exclusively in an occupied country.

There were three other processes that could produce heavy water that
simply needed to be industrialised, these were efficient enough to
produce 1 ton per year per $500,000 investment but were never
developed because it was 'free' to get the D2O from Norway (the
Norweigens were paying for it effectively).

Slaves however are not highly motivated to help you.

Slavery didn't enter into it though clearly the management of Norsk
was compelled.



Essau set aside RM700,000
to compensate for the loss of Norweigen plant by building a new plant
using the new technology in Germany.

Which never materialised.

For whatever reason, one of which was that the TWO Uranium enrichment
processes were looking so good that it would look bad if they invested
in heavy water, pitfull amounts as it was plus IG Farben didn't come
through to produce the product in return for post war commitements to
let them in on atomic power projects.

Producing plentifull heavy water should have been trivial, was
trivial. Ten million reichmarks (US2.5 million) would have secured 10
tons of water per year.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Arado 234 with liquid hydrogen engines? - SS hiding one in woods
    ... Cite please - the only rods I have seen at haigerloch belonged ... material for control rods. ... Its true that the Haigerloch B-8 reactor didn't have an automatic ... Graphite reactor is that in the heavy water reactor the moderator was ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: There can be no Evolution by natural selection Harry Ernest
    ... For reactor grade Uranium the critical mass is much larger. ... of rods, Each Rods is encased with a led shield, ... control rods are raised out of the reactor from the top. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: There can be no Evolution by natural selection Harry Ernest
    ... For reactor grade Uranium the critical mass is much larger. ... of rods, Each Rods is encased with a led shield, ... control rods are raised out of the reactor from the top. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Arado 234 with liquid hydrogen engines? - SS hiding one in woods
    ... Nope "control rods" see page 10 of this link. ... test their effect on the neutron multiplication coefficient. ... Distinction must be drawn, however, between the German ... It can't be judged by the same standards as a reactor would be since ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: Renewable energy alternative
    ... >>allowable value is determined from assuming the reactor suffers a DBA ... Ever actually test a BWR Mark I containment? ... *without* control rods to the point of preventing a containment breach. ... 500,000 lb of water at 550 degreesF. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
Loading