Japan planned to dirty bomb SFO Aug 1945?
jt
originally scheduled to bomb San Francisco with a dirty nuke about 3
days after surrender? Supposedly the 2 German submarines delivering
nuke debris (not explosive) to Japan were sunk (thanks to code
breakers), but think what could have happened if not...
I saw the aircraft long ago at the MD Smithsonion Garber facility, but
their web site makes it exhausting to reidentify them without knowing
the maker - anyone know?. They were those foldable float planes that
went into huge submarine hangers. I think it's well known how those
were designed to attack the Panama canal (using detailed studies the US
published on how both Pearl Harbor and Panama Canal were vulnerable to
attack), then diverted for SFO duty.
What if the nuke shipment wasn't interdicted, and Japan was considering
surrender mid Aug? A recent documentary claims as it was, the military
strongly resisted the Japanese gov't decision for surrender, and only
avoided a military coup due to the confusion caused by the last
conventional B-29 raid. If the military had a SFO counterstrike
forthcoming, maybe they would have been able to impose their favored
guerilla war option for main Japanese islands that killed such
astronomical percentages of civilians and soldiers in Okinawa.
The dirty bombs were not thought to be very destructive; just a
psychological weapon. But were US defenses likely to thwart the
subs/aircraft? Or would bombing have the opposite effect and put some
backbone into SFO quite lacking today? The facts are hard to find on
the web, and I forget the ultimate fate of the super-subs.
Rob Arndt
http://www.combinedfleet.com/sen_toku.htm
The Germans had 2 radiological weapons planned to hit NY in 1945 as
well; thats why the Sanger, Ho XVIIIb, and other project bombers were
being reactivated or authorized. The German weapons were captured
intact and destroyed. More on those at the Luftwaffe '46 site.
Japan had its own nuclear program going in Konan, occupied Korea and is
claimed to have either constructed or began construction on 2 atomic
bombs named "Genzai Bakudan" in August 1945. They abandoned Konan upon
the Soviet advance. The Germans were shipping them uranium during the
war.
As for the radiologicals, they would have contaminated the cities for a
few decades...
Rob
p.s. Neither the German radiological nor atom bomb projects were the
ultimate German Superbombs intended for production at Jonastal S-3.
The orders to construct a plasma weapon were given in March 1945 but
could not be carried out.
The weapon would have been a deadly combination of coal dust power,
LOX, and a reagent that would create a firestorm and lightning storm at
ground level- destroyeing everything in a 4.5km radius. The weapon was
to be dropped on the Soviets first, then dropped on London by strategic
bomber, then fired at the US with either the completed A-9/A-10 or
Prufstand XII sub-towed launcher used by a Type XXI or Type XXVI
submarine.
Keith W
"Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107366658.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> The weapon would have been a deadly combination of coal dust power,
> LOX, and a reagent that would create a firestorm and lightning storm at
> ground level- destroyeing everything in a 4.5km radius.
Learn a little thermodynamics Herr Arndt. The energy released in
oxidising coal dust is well understood and I'd estimate you'd
need to deliver at least 10,000 tons of the stuff to achieve the
effect you desire along with rather more liquid oxygen and then
you'd need to mix it in just the right proportions before ignition.
Somehow I doubt the British authorities would have provided
free passage for the freighters carrying this stuff along the River Thames.
Keith
Rob Arndt
sound like you know everything about weaponry, genetics, biology,
aerodynamics, etc... but you aren't qualified to say anythign except
your stupid-ass Brit opinion which I disregard with amusement.
And I'll do it with your own BIOS Reports and Intel... which of course
you will deny because your are one arrogant prick.
Concerning the Superbomb:
The four items of literature appearing to relate to the explosive
tested at Ohrdruf in March 1945 are as follows:
a. British Security Coordination (BSC) was the largest integrated
intelligence network enterprise in history. Its Director was Sir
William Stevenson, a Canadian industrialist. His code-name was
"Intrepid". In his autobiography², Stevenson relates: "One of the BSC
agents submitted a report, sealed and stamped THIS IS OF PARTICULAR
SECRECY which told of "...liquid air bombs being developed in
Germany... of terrific destructive effect."
The reader should not be misled into thinking that these were modern
common-or-garden "liquid air bombs": Stevenson noted that they were "as
powerful as rockets with atomic warheads".
b. The book "German Secret Weapons" was authored by Brian Ford, Barrie
Pitt and Capt Sir Basil Liddell Hart.³ At page 28, the text states:
"...The Whirlwind Bomb produced an artificial hurricane of fire and is
absolutely authentic even though it may seem improbable. The explosive
was developed and tested by Dr. Zippermayr at Lofer, an experimental
Luftwaffe institute in the Tyrol. The explosive was pulverzied coal
dust and liquid air. Its effect was sufficient to create an artificial
typhoon and was intended initially as an anti-aircraft weapon able to
destroy aircraft by excessive turbulence. The effective radius of
action was 914 metres..."
c. This is a 4-page declassified US Intelligence document of the
Zalzburg Detachment of the US Forces Austria Counter-Intelligence
Corps, describing Dr. Zippermayr was interrogated at Lofer on August 3,
1945. His laboratories were established at Lofer with head office at
Weimarerstrasse 87, Vienna. Staff was 35, work financed by RLM and
under direction of Chef der Technischen Luftruestung.
Zippermayr worked on three projects of which one was the
Enzian/Schmetterling anti-aircraft rockets "charged with a coal dust
explosive so strong that the concussion could break the wings of a
bomber." This item "was proved successful by August 1943, but orders
for its production were not issued until March 9, 1945..."
d. This item is an extract from BIOS (British Intelligence Objectives
Sub-Committee) Final Report 142(g) "Information Obtained from Targets
of Opportunity in the Sonthofen Area, (HMSO London).
The report states that during 1944, an explosive mixture of 60% liquid
air and 40% finely powdered coal dust invented by Dr. Mario Zippermayr
was tested at Doeberitz explosives ground near Berlin, and was found to
be very destructive over a radius of up to 600 metres.
Waffen-SS scientists then became involved and added some kind of waxy
substance to the explosive. The bombs had to be filled immediately
prior to the aircraft taking off. Bombs of 25 and 50 kgs were dropped
on Starnberger See and photos taken. Standartenfuehrer Klemm showed
these to Brandt (Himmler's scientific adviser). The intensive explosion
covered an area up to 4.5 kms radius.
This waxy substance was a reagent of some kind which was said to
interact with air during the development of the explosion, causing it
to change its composition and so create meteorological change in the
atmosphere. A lightning storm at ground level consumes all the
available oxygen. Goering's statement upon his arrest in May 1945 is
significant: he claimed to have led a revolt against Luftwaffe use of a
bomb "which could have destroyed all civilisation." The bomb was not a
nuclear weapon, and it appears to have been a conventional explosive
which used a reagent or catalyst produced by Tesla methodology or
similar for its inexplicable effect.
Rob
Rob Arndt
Warsaw Ghetto with the "Pandora" weapon designed to fire coal-dust
explosive shells. Pandora, sadly, wiped out a lot of Jewish freedom
fighters.
Bet you a million dollars you never even heard of the weapon and you
want to lecture me?
Piss off.
Rob
Keith W
> Since WHEN did you become a scientist Keith?
I became an Engineer courtesy of studying mechanical engineering
at Teesside Polytechnic, one of my elective subjects
was thermodynamics
>Like always you TRY to
> sound like you know everything about weaponry, genetics, biology,
> aerodynamics, etc... but you aren't qualified to say anythign except
> your stupid-ass Brit opinion which I disregard with amusement.
Trouble is old son I earn my living writing engineering
software which in parts deals with estimating the likelihood
and consequences of failures in petrochemical and other
industries. A large portion of that work involves estimates
of energy yields from fire and explosion so you see
I am somewhat qualified in this area.
> And I'll do it with your own BIOS Reports and Intel...
> which of course
> you will deny because your are one arrogant prick.
Your disdain for cats is well known
> Concerning the Superbomb:
> The four items of literature appearing to relate to the explosive
> tested at Ohrdruf in March 1945 are as follows:
> a. British Security Coordination (BSC) was the largest integrated
> intelligence network enterprise in history.
Indeed it was responsible for sorting and disseminating SIGINT intercepts
to Canadian, British and American authorities, and for assisting
in the coordination of allied intelligence efforts.
> Its Director was Sir
> William Stevenson, a Canadian industrialist.
Actually his name was Sir William Stephenson, getting his name
wrong is a VERY BAD START.
William Stevenson was the chap who wrote the book about him
called 'A man called Intrepid'
http://www.nt.net/~toby/intrep.html
> His code-name was
> "Intrepid". In his autobiography, Stevenson relates: "One of the BSC
> agents submitted a report, sealed and stamped THIS IS OF PARTICULAR
> SECRECY which told of "...liquid air bombs being developed in
> Germany... of terrific destructive effect."
No that was the journalist chappy writing about him - see above
and his book contains a distressing number of factual errors.
To enumerate a few
1) It claimed he was WWI ace with 26 victories the actual total was 8
victories,
2) He is supposed to Invented television which would surprise Baird and
Bell Labs
among others)
3) He is claimed to have encouraged production of the Spitfire whereas
he had no interest or influence whatsoever in Supermarine
4) He is supposed to have been Instrumental in Allied jet engine
development,
despite the fact his name appears in NO account of the jet engine and
Whittle
had never heard of him
5) He is claimed to have developed a training camp for agents and
to have been the go-between for Roosevelt and Churchill - not true
of course
The eminent historian David Stafford remarked in 1988
"The Intrepid book is a 'farrago of nonsense'"
Just your sort of source in fact.
> The reader should not be misled into thinking that these were modern
> common-or-garden "liquid air bombs": Stevenson noted that they were "as
> powerful as rockets with atomic warheads".
> b. The book "German Secret Weapons" was authored by Brian Ford, Barrie
> Pitt and Capt Sir Basil Liddell Hart. At page 28, the text states:
> "...The Whirlwind Bomb produced an artificial hurricane of fire and is
> absolutely authentic even though it may seem improbable. The explosive
> was developed and tested by Dr. Zippermayr at Lofer, an experimental
> Luftwaffe institute in the Tyrol. The explosive was pulverzied coal
> dust and liquid air. Its effect was sufficient to create an artificial
> typhoon and was intended initially as an anti-aircraft weapon able to
> destroy aircraft by excessive turbulence. The effective radius of
> action was 914 metres..."
<snip>
> The report states that during 1944, an explosive mixture of 60% liquid
> air and 40% finely powdered coal dust invented by Dr. Mario Zippermayr
> was tested at Doeberitz explosives ground near Berlin, and was found to
> be very destructive over a radius of up to 600 metres.
> Waffen-SS scientists then became involved and added some kind of waxy
> substance to the explosive. The bombs had to be filled immediately
> prior to the aircraft taking off. Bombs of 25 and 50 kgs were dropped
> on Starnberger See and photos taken. Standartenfuehrer Klemm showed
> these to Brandt (Himmler's scientific adviser). The intensive explosion
> covered an area up to 4.5 kms radius.
And these kindly German saints doubtless decided that this
was too terrible a weapon to use and let the Russians destroy
their coountry instead.
Sheesh
Thermodynamics is the key Herr Arndt - it puts a top level
on the amount of energy available from a given reaction.
Keith
Keith W
> Also Keith, the Germans DID use coal dust explosives in action- in the
> Warsaw Ghetto with the "Pandora" weapon designed to fire coal-dust
> explosive shells. Pandora, sadly, wiped out a lot of Jewish freedom
> fighters.
I'm sure you can provide a cite for the use of this weapon
and explain why it wasnt used against the invading Soviet Armies
> Bet you a million dollars you never even heard of the weapon and you
> want to lecture me?
On the contrary I can give you the equation used to estimate damage
for fuel air explosions
D = C x (nE)1/3
where
D is the distance in meters to a 1 psi overpressure
C is a constant for damages associated with 1 psi overpressures or 0.15,
n is a yield factor of the vapor cloud explosion derived from the mechanical
yield of the combustion (usually assumed to be 0.1)
E is the energy content of the explosive part of the cloud in Joules and is
calculated from the mass of substance in kilograms times the heat of
combustion (hc) in Joules per kilogram as follows:
E = mass x hc
see A New Set of Blast Curves from Vapor Cloud Explosion M. J. Tang,
Q. A. Baker Process Safety Progress Winter 1999, Vol. 18, No. 4 - Pg.235
> Piss off.
>
> Rob
>
Ah such a compelling intellectual argument.
Keith
Keith W
"Keith W" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ctrd0i$r9d$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1107373663....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Since WHEN did you become a scientist Keith?
>
> I became an Engineer courtesy of studying mechanical engineering
> at Teesside Polytechnic, one of my elective subjects
> was thermodynamics
>
>
>>Like always you TRY to
>> sound like you know everything about weaponry, genetics, biology,
>> aerodynamics, etc... but you aren't qualified to say anythign except
>> your stupid-ass Brit opinion which I disregard with amusement.
>
> Trouble is old son I earn my living writing engineering
> software which in parts deals with estimating the likelihood
> and consequences of failures in petrochemical and other
> industries. A large portion of that work involves estimates
> of energy yields from fire and explosion so you see
> I am somewhat qualified in this area.
>
>> And I'll do it with your own BIOS Reports and Intel...
>> which of course
>> you will deny because your are one arrogant prick.
>
>
> Your disdain for cats is well known
>
FACTS dammit Facts
Dammed spell checkers
B2431
>Date: 2/2/2005 11:50 Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <1107366658.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>
<snip>
>As for the radiologicals, they would have contaminated the cities for a
>few decades...
>
>Rob
Wrong again. The radioactive components would be heavy and settle rapidly. They
would be easy to clean up or contain.
If you really want to get more paranoid than you are take a sample from the dry
wall in your room to a lab. One ofthe components in drywall is fly ash from
exhaust scrubbers in coal fired power plants. Coal contains small amounts
ofradioactive materials which the scrubbers catch. Your walls are radiactive.
Uranium is also used to colour glass. Your smoke detectors contain a small lump
of the radioactive metal americium (please note it isn't named after Germany)
which emits 3 times as many alpha paricles as radium.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Al Dykes
B2431 <b2...@aol.com> wrote:
>>From: "Rob Arndt" teut...@aol.com
>>Date: 2/2/2005 11:50 Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: <1107366658.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>>
><snip>
>>
>>As for the radiologicals, they would have contaminated the cities for a
>>few decades...
>>
>>Rob
>
>Wrong again. The radioactive components would be heavy and settle rapidly. They
>would be easy to clean up or contain.
>
>If you really want to get more paranoid than you are take a sample from the dry
>wall in your room to a lab. One ofthe components in drywall is fly ash from
>exhaust scrubbers in coal fired power plants. Coal contains small amounts
>ofradioactive materials which the scrubbers catch. Your walls are radiactive.
Not disagreeing with you, but do you have a citation for this ?
I've never heard of it before.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
B2431
>Date: 2/2/2005 13:47 Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <1107373663....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>
>Since WHEN did you become a scientist Keith? Like always you TRY to
>sound like you know everything about weaponry, genetics, biology,
>aerodynamics, etc... but you aren't qualified to say anythign except
>your stupid-ass Brit opinion which I disregard with amusement.
Teuton, you have just described yourself perfectly. At least Keith never
presented us with a link to a NASA site claiming to prove something without
actually reading the site. Doing that sort of stuff makes you look more foolish
than anyone in this NG except denyav.
Keith W
"Al Dykes" <ady...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ctrkj7$6vq$1...@panix5.panix.com...
http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy/factshts/163-97/FS-163-97.html
Keith
Rob Arndt
have one way of calculating each destructive effect. For the German
plasma bomb you don't know the reagent or catalyst so how can you
determine its destructive power? And that bomb is creating both a
firestorm and an electrical storm at ground level. When did any Allied
nation test that out? Never. You don't have any blast data tables for
that. You are now an academic and technical fraud. Poser.
Who TF are you kidding?
B2431
>Date: 2/2/2005 16:47 Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <ctrl6g$9vf$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>
Hey, no fair, he asked me.
Thanks, Keith:)
Rob Arndt
I never claimed anything from that NASA pic except its shape which
resembles exactly a Haunebu disc form- which it DOES. The fact that
NASA poked fun by putting a "UFO?" caption under it made me ask what it
was. And I am perfectly satisfied with the explanation.
It was obviously not a Haunebu due to its small size. A Haunebu III had
a diameter of 71 meters!!!
And I didn't look foolish by asking a question, that's what the NG is
here for. There have been many people here who have asked similar
questions and I helped them out with them. I didn't make fun of them.
Rob
Keith W
> There are many types of fuel air explosives and you cannot tell me you
> have one way of calculating each destructive effect.
Actually I can
> For the German
> plasma bomb you don't know the reagent or catalyst so how can you
> determine its destructive power?
So you dont even know what a reagent is !
Its simply the agent in a chemical reaction, the equation
I quoted allows you to substitute the combustion yield
of the reagents involved. Something you apparently didnt
understand.
> And that bomb is creating both a
> firestorm and an electrical storm at ground level.
Allegedly
> When did any Allied
> nation test that out? Never. You don't have any blast data tables for
> that. You are now an academic and technical fraud. Poser.
So provide details of the mechanism and yields
>
> Who TF are you kidding?
>
Nobody - but then thats not MY intention.
Keith
The Enlightenment
single engined floatplane using a Atsuta 32 engine which was a
derivative of the large volume Daimler Benz DB603 inverted V12. It's
designe was initiated ostensibly to attack the Panama canal.
http://www.tamiyausa.com/product/item.php?product-id=60737
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/aichi_serian.htm
It is well streamline and quite a pretty plane that was carefully
designed to fold up for submarine stowage.
There appears to have been considerable exchange of German and Japanese
research in both conventional fields and at least some effort in the
atomic field. This was rendered difficult by the fact that
submarine/u-boat journeys between Japan and Germany took many months
and that polar flights by Junkers Ju 290 aircaft were limited and
resisted by the Japanese since they did not want to aggravate the
Soviets with whom they were not yet at war.
Interestingly the Japanese had multicavity magnetrons 1 year before the
British: they simply didn't recognise their value, gave low priority to
the supply of the magnet materials and contemplated them as potential
system to burn up aircaft. Because they didn't invest to much effort
into them they didn't have a duplexor switch (a relatively simple gas
device discharge that prevents the transmit pulse from the radar
damaging the receiver) so their radars consisted of a seperate conical
transmit and receive antenna they were however effective radars.
B2431
>Date: 2/2/2005 17:15 Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <ctrmq3$b0r$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>"Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1107384776.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> There are many types of fuel air explosives and you cannot tell me you
>> have one way of calculating each destructive effect.
>
>Actually I can
>
>
> > For the German
>> plasma bomb you don't know the reagent or catalyst so how can you
>> determine its destructive power?
>
>So you dont even know what a reagent is !
>
>Its simply the agent in a chemical reaction, the equation
>I quoted allows you to substitute the combustion yield
>of the reagents involved. Something you apparently didnt
>understand.
>
You missed the point teuton was attempting to make. Poor boy has poor
communications skills. He meant "plasma bomb" as in the super secret bomb that
was only to be used to blow up Allied blood plasma supplies because the Nazis
couldn't figure out how to produce it themselves.
As for terms like "reagent" he uses the Nazi dictionary which defines the word
as an adult who acts in the stead of an under aged monarch until he reaches the
age of majority.
B2431
>Date: 2/2/2005 17:02 Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <1107385037....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Nice shuffle. You really only put it into the form of a question in case
someone caught you lying again. Why else would you have brought the subject
into this newsgroups? Ion drives are more NASA related than military. You
didn't imply humour and the comparison to the pipedream of yours that the same
Nazis who believed German blood can be differentiated from "subhuman" blood
under a microscope could build a flying saucer using Samskrit plans and powered
by mercury.
BTW, your insistance on periodically announcing your "pure German blood" is
proof you too believe there's a difference. Guess what, the Germanic tribes
were mongrels racially due to occupations from both the east and the west. You
will find that you have Mongol and Mideastern "blood" in you. If you believe in
evolution you will have to admit you are descended from Africans.
B2431
>Date: 2/2/2005 16:52 Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <1107384776.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
Speaking of posing when will you provide us with details of this "plasma bomb?"
I have done a quick web search for it and all the references are to video game
arsenals.
Dan, U.S. Air force, retired
B2431
>Date: 2/2/2005 17:26 Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <1107386795....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>
>The aircaft you refer to is the Aichi M6A1 Seiran which is a large
>single engined floatplane using a Atsuta 32 engine which was a
>derivative of the large volume Daimler Benz DB603 inverted V12. It's
>designe was initiated ostensibly to attack the Panama canal.
>
>http://www.tamiyausa.com/product/item.php?product-id=60737
>http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/aichi_serian.htm
>
Thanks for the links. I didn't realize any still existed.
It is well streamline and quite a pretty plane that was carefully
designed to fold up for submarine stowage.
I agree it is an attractive airplane.
Steve Hix
"Keith W" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1107366658.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The weapon would have been a deadly combination of coal dust power,
> > LOX, and a reagent that would create a firestorm and lightning storm at
> > ground level- destroyeing everything in a 4.5km radius.
>
> Learn a little thermodynamics Herr Arndt. The energy released in
> oxidising coal dust is well understood and I'd estimate you'd
> need to deliver at least 10,000 tons of the stuff to achieve the
> effect you desire along with rather more liquid oxygen and then
> you'd need to mix it in just the right proportions before ignition.
The stuff would be likely to ignite during mixing, for that matter.
LOX and hydrocarbons are tricky like that.
Steve Hix
b2...@aol.com (B2431) wrote:
The ones here use Polonium-210...still not named after Germany.
The Enlightenment
B2431 wrote:
> >From: "The Enlightenment" bern...@yahoo.com.au
> >Date: 2/2/2005 17:26 Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <1107386795....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> >
> >The aircaft you refer to is the Aichi M6A1 Seiran which is a large
> >single engined floatplane using a Atsuta 32 engine which was a
> >derivative of the large volume Daimler Benz DB603 inverted V12.
It's
> >designe was initiated ostensibly to attack the Panama canal.
> >
> >http://www.tamiyausa.com/product/item.php?product-id=60737
> >http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/aichi_serian.htm
> >
>
> Thanks for the links. I didn't realize any still existed.
An interestin story about its restoration.
http://www.si.edu/opa/insideresearch/9995/seiran.htm
Where do all these aeroplane nuts come from. A friend worked on a
Walrus restoration some time back. Apparently it took them 6 hours to
fly 400 miles up the NSW coast.
The Enlightenment
possibilites:
1 Magnetically stabalised monatomic hydrogen which has at least 10
possibly 100 times the yield of conventional explosives.
2 Nanontech materials based on energetic metals such as aluminium with
a large surface area:
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/wo/wo_gartner012105.asp
it might be combined with liquid oxygen or perhaps even rely on
atmospheric oxygen.
3 An EMP 'electomagnetic pulse weapon can be made by running an
extremely high current through a coil from say a fast spining generator
and then blowing the coil apart.
Of course these are highly speculative, especially in the context of
the final year of the Reich abillity to make nanotech sized particles
or stabalise monatomic hydrogen.
Keith W
"The Enlightenment" <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1107430472.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You can't defy the law of conservation of energy but there are two
> possibilites:
>
> 1 Magnetically stabalised monatomic hydrogen which has at least 10
> possibly 100 times the yield of conventional explosives.
Interesting but not practical even now.
> 2 Nanontech materials based on energetic metals such as aluminium with
> a large surface area:
> http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/wo/wo_gartner012105.asp
> it might be combined with liquid oxygen or perhaps even rely on
> atmospheric oxygen.
>
This could release energy more quickly and give a true detonation
rather than a deflagration with a consequent enhanced
blast effect. The total energy release would be the same of course
> 3 An EMP 'electomagnetic pulse weapon can be made by running an
> extremely high current through a coil from say a fast spining generator
> and then blowing the coil apart.
>
Indeed but given the electronics technology of the period
I dont imagine any would have noticed the effect.
Thermionic valves arent terribly susceptible to EMP
>
>
> Of course these are highly speculative, especially in the context of
> the final year of the Reich abillity to make nanotech sized particles
> or stabalise monatomic hydrogen.
>
And of course irrelevant to a claim that a super weapon
was made using powdered coal and LOX
Keith
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Keith W
"The Enlightenment" <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1107430472.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> possibilites:
>
> 1 Magnetically stabalised monatomic hydrogen which has at least 10
> possibly 100 times the yield of conventional explosives.
Interesting but not practical even now.
> 2 Nanontech materials based on energetic metals such as aluminium with
> a large surface area:
> http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/wo/wo_gartner012105.asp
> it might be combined with liquid oxygen or perhaps even rely on
> atmospheric oxygen.
>
This could release energy more quickly and give a true detonation
rather than a deflagration with a consequent enhanced
blast effect. The total energy release would be the same of course
> 3 An EMP 'electomagnetic pulse weapon can be made by running an
> extremely high current through a coil from say a fast spining generator
> and then blowing the coil apart.
>
Indeed but given the electronics technology of the period
I dont imagine any would have noticed the effect.
Thermionic valves arent terribly susceptible to EMP
>
>
> Of course these are highly speculative, especially in the context of
> the final year of the Reich abillity to make nanotech sized particles
> or stabalise monatomic hydrogen.
>
And of course irrelevant to a claim that a super weapon
Keith W
"The Enlightenment" <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1107430472.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> possibilites:
>
> 1 Magnetically stabalised monatomic hydrogen which has at least 10
> possibly 100 times the yield of conventional explosives.
Interesting but not practical even now.
> 2 Nanontech materials based on energetic metals such as aluminium with
> a large surface area:
> http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/wo/wo_gartner012105.asp
> it might be combined with liquid oxygen or perhaps even rely on
> atmospheric oxygen.
>
This could release energy more quickly and give a true detonation
rather than a deflagration with a consequent enhanced
blast effect. The total energy release would be the same of course
> 3 An EMP 'electomagnetic pulse weapon can be made by running an
> extremely high current through a coil from say a fast spining generator
> and then blowing the coil apart.
>
Indeed but given the electronics technology of the period
I dont imagine any would have noticed the effect.
Thermionic valves arent terribly susceptible to EMP
>
>
> Of course these are highly speculative, especially in the context of
> the final year of the Reich abillity to make nanotech sized particles
> or stabalise monatomic hydrogen.
>
And of course irrelevant to a claim that a super weapon
Keith W
"The Enlightenment" <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1107430472.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> possibilites:
>
> 1 Magnetically stabalised monatomic hydrogen which has at least 10
> possibly 100 times the yield of conventional explosives.
Interesting but not practical even now.
> 2 Nanontech materials based on energetic metals such as aluminium with
> a large surface area:
> http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/wo/wo_gartner012105.asp
> it might be combined with liquid oxygen or perhaps even rely on
> atmospheric oxygen.
>
This could release energy more quickly and give a true detonation
rather than a deflagration with a consequent enhanced
blast effect. The total energy release would be the same of course
> 3 An EMP 'electomagnetic pulse weapon can be made by running an
> extremely high current through a coil from say a fast spining generator
> and then blowing the coil apart.
>
Indeed but given the electronics technology of the period
I dont imagine any would have noticed the effect.
Thermionic valves arent terribly susceptible to EMP
>
>
> Of course these are highly speculative, especially in the context of
> the final year of the Reich abillity to make nanotech sized particles
> or stabalise monatomic hydrogen.
>
And of course irrelevant to a claim that a super weapon
Keith W
"The Enlightenment" <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1107430472.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> possibilites:
>
> 1 Magnetically stabalised monatomic hydrogen which has at least 10
> possibly 100 times the yield of conventional explosives.
Interesting but not practical even now.
> 2 Nanontech materials based on energetic metals such as aluminium with
> a large surface area:
> http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/wo/wo_gartner012105.asp
> it might be combined with liquid oxygen or perhaps even rely on
> atmospheric oxygen.
>
This could release energy more quickly and give a true detonation
rather than a deflagration with a consequent enhanced
blast effect. The total energy release would be the same of course
> 3 An EMP 'electomagnetic pulse weapon can be made by running an
> extremely high current through a coil from say a fast spining generator
> and then blowing the coil apart.
>
Indeed but given the electronics technology of the period
I dont imagine any would have noticed the effect.
Thermionic valves arent terribly susceptible to EMP
>
>
> Of course these are highly speculative, especially in the context of
> the final year of the Reich abillity to make nanotech sized particles
> or stabalise monatomic hydrogen.
>
And of course irrelevant to a claim that a super weapon
Guy Alcala
<snip>
> > Your disdain for cats is well known
> >
>
> FACTS dammit Facts
>
> Dammed spell checkers
Oh, I don't know. I liked it the first time - it was a wonderful non
sequitur. OTOH, I do often get a mental image of Mein Herr sitting in a chair
doing his best Blofeld/Dr. Evil impression as he plots to take over the world
from his sekrit subterranean Antarctic base (cleverly disguised as his parent's
garage), and that more or less requires that he pet a cat (or a fact, as the
case may be).
Guy
Glenn Dowdy
"Guy Alcala" <g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:42014EE0...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net...
> Keith W wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Your disdain for cats is well known
> > >
> >
> > FACTS dammit Facts
> >
> > Dammed spell checkers
>
> Oh, I don't know. I liked it the first time - it was a wonderful non
> sequitur.
I'm with you. It was a very damning statement.
Glenn D.
Keith W
"Guy Alcala" <g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:42014EE0...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net...
The thing is disdain perfectly describes the behaviour of cats with
regard to humans, it just seems wrong to use it the other way :)
Keith
The Enlightenment
There is of course element 110 'darmstadtium' which is named after a
German city and Ge or Germanium though that is only a semiconductor.
jt
It appears the answer to that and many WW2 pacific questions can now be
researched using search term "Japan Center for Asian Historical
Records". Japan's war archives have apparently finally been made
available online, and at least partially in english. I remember a war
historian saying his profession has been held back by failure to
translate the very lengthy, complete, and well organized Japanese gov't
war publications.
Cub Driver
or at least there is supporting evidence. No doubt others have already
commented on this (I've been traveling for a while) but here are some
tidbits:
David Myhra in his biography of the Horten brothers made the claim and
showed diagrams to support the claim that the Germans were developing
a dirty bomb for Washington or more likely New York City in the winter
of 1944-45. He even publishes a "ground zero" street map of New York
showing the area that supposedly would be affected.
The float plane you speak of was the "centerfold" story in Air & Space
/ Smithsonian last year. Find the magazine and it will tell you more
than you ever thought to ask about it and the subs that were to have
carried it.
Nuclear material was indeed shipped from Germany for the Japanese late
in the war.
Finally, about the first question that was asked in the Japanese war
cabinet after the Hiroshima blast was determined to be nuclear in
origin was: how is our own program going? Evidently it had been
abandoned long since, and no further questions were raised on this
subject.
Not much has been published about either the German or the Japanese
nuclear programs, which of course makes them prime material for
documentary exposes.
-- all the best, Dan Ford
email war...@mailblocks.com (put Cubdriver in subject line)
Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
Keith W
"Cub Driver" <war...@mailblocks.com> wrote in message
news:nvnm01plrt58rjaek...@4ax.com...
>
> Not much has been published about either the German or the Japanese
> nuclear programs, which of course makes them prime material for
> documentary exposes.
>
A great deal has been published about the German programme
but very little about the Japanese one I'll agree.
I recommend Mark Walker's excellent book
Nazi Science: Myth, Truth, and the German Atomic Bomb
Publisher Plenum Press
ISBN 0-306-44941-2
fredf...@spamcop.net
B2431 wrote:
> >From: "Rob Arndt" teut...@aol.com
> >Date: 2/2/2005 11:50 Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <1107366658.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> >
> <snip>
> >
> >As for the radiologicals, they would have contaminated the cities
for a
> >few decades...
> >
> >Rob
>
> Wrong again. The radioactive components would be heavy and settle
rapidly. They
> would be easy to clean up or contain.
>
>
Depends on what was used.
Cesium salts have a strong chemical affinity for cement, spills
of cesium contaminated water onto concrete in nuclear power plants
sometimes require removal of the concrete to clean them up.
I disremember the exact half-lives of Cs-134 and Cs-137 but they
are somewhere around ten and thrity years respectively I think.
A radiological dispersion device using radioisotopes of Cesium
detonated in an urban environment would therefor present a serious
problem for several decades.
Cesium sources are commonplace in industry and medicine.
Uranium, of course, would be ineffective in such a device,
which makes the accusations against Padilla, particularly
suspicious, though I wouldn't completely discount the notion
that maybe Padilla is not very bright.
--
FF
Keith W
<fredf...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1108062689.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> B2431 wrote:
>> >From: "Rob Arndt" teut...@aol.com
>> >Date: 2/2/2005 11:50 Central Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <1107366658.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>> >
>> <snip>
>> >
>> >As for the radiologicals, they would have contaminated the cities
> for a
>> >few decades...
>> >
>> >Rob
>>
>> Wrong again. The radioactive components would be heavy and settle
> rapidly. They
>> would be easy to clean up or contain.
>>
>>
>
> Depends on what was used.
>
> Cesium salts have a strong chemical affinity for cement, spills
> of cesium contaminated water onto concrete in nuclear power plants
> sometimes require removal of the concrete to clean them up.
>
> I disremember the exact half-lives of Cs-134 and Cs-137 but they
> are somewhere around ten and thrity years respectively I think.
>
> A radiological dispersion device using radioisotopes of Cesium
> detonated in an urban environment would therefor present a serious
> problem for several decades.
>
> Cesium sources are commonplace in industry and medicine.
They are NOW. In 1940's Germany they were nonexistent since you
need a reactor to produce them and German scientists never
managed to get any of theirs to go critical.
Keith
Peter Stickney
Critical, no. They did, however, put on some ompressive
demonstrations of the pyrophoric properties of Uranium. IIRC, one of
their "reactors" (Steel Bucket with lumps of Uranium in it) burned for
2-3 months. Most Impressive Indeed.
--
Pete Stickney
p-sti...@nospam.adelphia.net
Without data, all you have are opinions
fredf...@spamcop.net
Keith W wrote:
>
> > A radiological dispersion device using radioisotopes of Cesium
> > detonated in an urban environment would therefor present a serious
> > problem for several decades.
> >
> > Cesium sources are commonplace in industry and medicine.
>
> They are NOW. In 1940's Germany they were nonexistent since you
> need a reactor to produce them and German scientists never
> managed to get any of theirs to go critical.
>
Agreed.
--
FF
old hoodoo
Debris?
If they had the components for dirty bombs, why didn't they use them
against the Soviets?
jt wrote:
> Is the claim of a tv documentary well accepted, that Japan had
> originally scheduled to bomb San Francisco with a dirty nuke about 3
> days after surrender? Supposedly the 2 German submarines delivering
> nuke debris (not explosive) to Japan were sunk (thanks to code
> breakers), but think what could have happened if not...
>
> I saw the aircraft long ago at the MD Smithsonion Garber facility, but
> their web site makes it exhausting to reidentify them without knowingUS
> the maker - anyone know?. They were those foldable float planes that
> went into huge submarine hangers. I think it's well known how those
> were designed to attack the Panama canal (using detailed studies the > published on how both Pearl Harbor and Panama Canal were vulnerable to
> attack), then diverted for SFO duty.
>
> What if the nuke shipment wasn't interdicted, and Japan was considering
> surrender mid Aug? A recent documentary claims as it was, the military
> strongly resisted the Japanese gov't decision for surrender, and only
> avoided a military coup due to the confusion caused by the last
> conventional B-29 raid. If the military had a SFO counterstrike
> forthcoming, maybe they would have been able to impose their favored
> guerilla war option for main Japanese islands that killed such
> astronomical percentages of civilians and soldiers in Okinawa.
>
> The dirty bombs were not thought to be very destructive; just a
> psychological weapon. But were US defenses likely to thwart the
> subs/aircraft? Or would bombing have the opposite effect and put some
> backbone into SFO quite lacking today? The facts are hard to find on
> the web, and I forget the ultimate fate of the super-subs.
>
Keith W
"Peter Stickney" <p-sti...@Mineshaft.local> wrote in message
news:rdahuc...@adelphia.net...
Indeed their mismanagement was comically impressive.
Those "reactors" were lacking a few minor things like
adequate shielding and control rods. Its as well for them
it didnt go critical.
Keith
Cub Driver
<alf...@cox-internet.com> wrote:
>What kind of "nuclear debris"? How did the Nazi's make this Nuclear
>Debris?
>If they had the components for dirty bombs, why didn't they use them
>against the Soviets?
Well, they needed a plane to deliver it, and a couple were in concept
at the end of the war. It was variously called a Urals Bomber and an
Amerika Bomber.
The "bomb" was alternating layers of paraffin and uranium, 551 kg of
the latter. There were two of them, captured by French troops; each
weighed 1,000 kg. They certainly wouldn't have exploded, but the
uranium would have posed a considerable cleanup problem!
Ground zero was in lower Manhattan. Maybe Wall Street was the target?
I don't say that I believe any of this. There are other explanations
for the diagrams David Myhra shows in his book about the Horten
brothers. The most likely one is that some scientist with his fee to
the fire built the stupid things to keep Goering off his back,
trusting that the war would be over by the time he discovered it was a
dud.
Keith W
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:33:38 -0600, old hoodoo
> <alf...@cox-internet.com> wrote:
>
>>What kind of "nuclear debris"? How did the Nazi's make this Nuclear
>>Debris?
>>If they had the components for dirty bombs, why didn't they use them
>>against the Soviets?
>
> Well, they needed a plane to deliver it, and a couple were in concept
> at the end of the war. It was variously called a Urals Bomber and an
> Amerika Bomber.
>
> The "bomb" was alternating layers of paraffin and uranium, 551 kg of
> the latter. There were two of them, captured by French troops; each
> weighed 1,000 kg. They certainly wouldn't have exploded, but the
> uranium would have posed a considerable cleanup problem!
>
Not really, its scarcely more dangerous than the same weight
of lead. Uranium is a weak alpha emitter that was routinely
used to color glass and pottery before the invention of fission.
Why anyone would want to deliver an extra ton
of raw material for the Manhattan project this way
is beyond me. Fact is HE would be more effective
Keith
den...@aol.com
jt wrote:
> Is the claim of a tv documentary well accepted, that Japan had
> originally scheduled to bomb San Francisco with a dirty nuke about 3
> days after surrender? Supposedly the 2 German submarines delivering
A diversion attempt,Japan bombs ,which were waiting for German
components,were in reality as clean as Hiroshima and Nagazaki bombs.
(In fact they were basically the same bombs from the same
source,Product labels of Hiroshima&Nagazaki bombs stated "Assembled in
USA from German componenents",whereas Japan bomb product labels should
have stated "Assembled in Japan from German components")