N-Stoff (Chlortrifluorid)
nlNet
(Chlortriflourid, ClF3) in a large underground bunker in Falkenhagen (East
of Berlin).
The substance was demonstrated to Hitler. During the demonstration, the made
a brick "burn". Hitler was impressed and ordered to build the large
underground production bunker in Falkenhagen. This all happened in the early
40's.
It sounds a bit strange, but Hitler gave permission the produce the
substance, even thought there were no real applications for the substance
(N-Stoff).
The building of the large underground bunker ended in 1944, production of
N-Stoff started.
Recent research showed that research is conducted to use N-Stoff in V2
rocket engines. This to give them more trust. For this purpose a large
bunker is build in a forest near the N-Stoff production plant in
Falkenhagen. In this bunker (about 15meters high), the V2 engines with
N-Stoff are/were tested.
When Russian troop advanced the capital Berlin, all equipment and document
were moved to a place in Bavaria. There, everything was captured by American
forces. There is a strong suspicion that the US Army used N-Stoff
(Chlortriflourid) in there rocket development program.
The questions I have:
- Does anyone know the US name for N-Stoff (Chlortriflourid)
- Does anyone have more info on N-Stoff
- Can anyone confirm the story that N-Stoff it is used by the US army
(NASA?) in rockets
Thanks and Regards,
Michel
Uncle Al
nlNet wrote:
>
> During W.W.II, the Germans secretly produced a substance called N-Stoff
> (Chlortriflourid, ClF3) in a large underground bunker in Falkenhagen (East
> of Berlin).
[snip]
> The questions I have:
> - Does anyone know the US name for N-Stoff (Chlortriflourid)
> - Does anyone have more info on N-Stoff
> - Can anyone confirm the story that N-Stoff it is used by the US army
> (NASA?) in rockets
"Advanced Inorganic Chemistry," 6th Ed., Cotton and Wilkinson.
Specific impulse is closely tied to the average molecular weight of
the exhaust. Adding a heavy element like chlorine puts you at a
distinct disadvantage vs LOX/kerosene and especially LOX/liquid
hydrogen. There are also storage considerations, which is why solid
fuel boosters are preferred for most military applications.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti
wrote:
>During W.W.II, the Germans secretly produced a substance called N-Stoff
>(Chlortriflourid, ClF3) in a large underground bunker in Falkenhagen (East
>of Berlin).
>The substance was demonstrated to Hitler. During the demonstration, the made
>a brick "burn". Hitler was impressed and ordered to build the large
>underground production bunker in Falkenhagen. This all happened in the early
>40's.
I have an article by Bernd Appler, "The production of chemical warfare
agents by the Third Reich, 1933-45," which is chapter 6 in "The
Challenge of Old Chemical Munitions and Toxic Armaments Wastes," T.
Stock, K. Lohs, Eds., volume 16 in the SIPRI Chemical & Biological
Warfare Studies. Appler indicates that a plant was built in 1938 at
Falkenhagen with a planned capacity of 50 tons per month, but the
actual capacity was reduced to 10 tons per month. The total production
was probably less than 50 tons.
>It sounds a bit strange, but Hitler gave permission the produce the
>substance, even thought there were no real applications for the substance
>(N-Stoff).
Appler indicates that N-Stoff production was considered a priority by
the Waffen SS as a chemical warfare agent.
>The building of the large underground bunker ended in 1944, production of
>N-Stoff started.
Appler indicates that the N-Stoff plant was built in 1938 (I've never
seen the primary documentation, just Appler's review), but gives 1944
as the date when Germany's pilot plant for Sarin was built at
Falkenhagen. They might have constructed a bunker there in 1944 for
rocket testing, Sarin production, or N-Stoff storage, but it's
difficult to imagine that they would have built an underground bunker
in 1938 specifically for N-Stoff production. I'm not aware of any
bunkers built to house pre-war chemical warfare agent production
facilities.
>Recent research showed that research is conducted to use N-Stoff in V2
>rocket engines. This to give them more trust. For this purpose a large
>bunker is build in a forest near the N-Stoff production plant in
>Falkenhagen. In this bunker (about 15meters high), the V2 engines with
>N-Stoff are/were tested.
>When Russian troop advanced the capital Berlin, all equipment and document
>were moved to a place in Bavaria. There, everything was captured by American
>forces. There is a strong suspicion that the US Army used N-Stoff
>(Chlortriflourid) in there rocket development program.
>The questions I have:
>- Does anyone know the US name for N-Stoff (Chlortriflourid)
Chemical Abstracts Service calls it "Chlorine fluoride (ClF3)," CAS
registry number 7790-91-2. The Merck Index uses "Chlorine
Trifluoride," which would also be acceptable for any English-speaking
chemist.
>- Does anyone have more info on N-Stoff
Merck Index, 11th ed., entry 2100, gives several leading references
for the preparation. It's characterized as a corrosive, colorless gas,
with a somewhat sweet, suffocating odor, mp -76.34 degrees, bp 11.75
degrees. They state "extremely reactive" with emphasis. Glass wool and
organic materiel burst into flames on contact, although I'm not so
certain about masonry bricks; perhaps the demonstration for Hitler
used a block of wood? CLF3 is violently hydrolyzed by water. It
attacks quartz if traces of moisture are present, although that leads
me to suspect that the moisture acts to generate HF which attacks the
quartz.
>- Can anyone confirm the story that N-Stoff it is used by the US army
>(NASA?) in rockets
Merck indicates that CLF3 is used as a fluorinating agent, in nuclear
reactor fuel processing, as an incendiary, as an igniter and
propellant for rockets, and as a pyrolysis inhibitor for fluorocarbon
polymers (interesting, that last one). As Uncle Al would say
"http://google.com/, "chlorine trifluoride" and rockets: 33 hits." I
went a step further out of curiosity; one of those hits is:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4404/ch5-1.htm
which cites:
P.M. Ordin and R. O. Miller, "Experimental Performance of Chlorine
Trifluoride-Hydrazine Propellant Combination in 100-Pound-Thrust
Rocket Engines," RM E9FOI (NACA, 1949).
which would indicate it was tested. However, it would also appear from
the lack of subsequent mention that the handling problems and safety
risks outweighed any potential performance benefits for NASA; it does
not seem to have been used in any of the major NASA programs. The U.S.
military no longer uses any liquid fueled rockets of which I am aware;
I'm not certain whether they might have used CLF3 in one of their
early programs.
Regards,
George
**********************************************************************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc., MS Z310 Fax: (703) 610-1561
7525 Colshire Drive E-Mail: gbiz...@mitretek.org
McLean, VA 22102-7400
**********************************************************************
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
donald haarmann
> During W.W.II, the Germans secretly produced a substance called N-Stoff
> (Chlortriflourid, ClF3) in a large underground bunker in Falkenhagen (East
> of Berlin).
>
[snip]
"Much attention is currently [1969] being devoted to the development of
fluorine-containing oxidants. Chlorine trifluoride has excellent physical properties, and
its performance is high with hydrazine-based fuels. ft is very reactive and is hypergolic
with most fuels. The main problems associated with the use of chlorine trifluoride are
due to its extreme reactivity. Under the proper conditions, it will support the vigorous
combustion of practically all known materials. Only oxygen, nitrogen, the inert gases,
and completely fluorinated compounds are known to be unreactive. Like elemental
fluorine, chlorine trifluoride reacts with most metals to form an impervious fluoride film
that protects the base metal from further attack. fn general, chlorine trifluoride can be
handled at ordinary temperatures in any metal that does not form a volatile or soluble
fluoride. Alloys that contain silicon or carbon are especially bad. The degree of
protection of the fluoride film depends to a large extent on the conditions under which it
was formed. When properly passivated, copper, aluminum, and stainless steel can be
used at moderate temperatures. Monel and nickel are the most resistant metals known
and can be used up to 750'C.
Bromine pentafluoride is similar to chlorine trifluoride in its chemical behavior. Its
specific impulse is lower than that of chlorine trifluoride with the same fuel; however, it
is much denser and possesses distinct advantages for certain volume-limited
applications. It is miscible with chlorine trifluoride in all proportions over a wide
temperature range, and the mixture has properties intermediate to that of the pure
components."
RT Holtzmann
Chemical Rockets and Flame and Explosive Technology
Marcel Decker 1969
donald j haarmann
------------------------
Today's creative writing assignment:
You come home late and your wife asks - "Where did those curly blond hairs
between you teeth come from!!?"
Your reply -
25 words or less
Spelling counts
Points deducted for:
Comma split, periphrasis split infinitives, fused participles, ellipsis,
double negatives/case/passives, compound prepositions/conjunctions,
inversion, anacoluthon, objective-shuffling, passive disturbances,
walled-up objects, and nominativus pendens!!
Roman A Kresinski
Great posts from Bizzigotti and Haarmann - thanks. I'm
tempted to set a literature assignment on this.
I seem to recall that high-valent interhalogens were dropped
on Dresden in WWII as incendiaries - I don't know if that's
correct. I tried to post this snippet before, so
apologies if it appears twice. By the way, with regard to
Geo. Bizzigotti's post, how can such a reactive gas as an
interhalogen have such a tolerable smell? This is wartime
propaganda re-surfacing, No? Or does the liberated HF
selectively disable nervous transmission?
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Roman A Kresinski
Forgot to add this to the last post -
Husband produces newspaper from pocket - the headline reads
"MAN BITES DOG"
[snip]
> Today's creative writing assignment:
> You come home late and your wife asks - "Where did
> those curly blond hairs
> between you teeth come from!!?"
> Your reply -
> 25 words or less
> Spelling counts
> Points deducted for:
> Comma split, periphrasis split infinitives, fused
> participles, ellipsis,
> double negatives/case/passives, compound
> prepositions/conjunctions,
> inversion, anacoluthon, objective-shuffling, passive
> disturbances,
> walled-up objects, and nominativus pendens!!
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Hans
<87c57c$ojr$1...@porthos.nl.uu.net>...
> During W.W.II, the Germans secretly produced a substance called N-Stoff
> (Chlortriflourid, ClF3) in a large underground bunker in Falkenhagen
(East
>
> - Does anyone know the US name for N-Stoff (Chlortriflourid)
Usually English translations for German WW code-words are the IUPAC names,
or similar.
Thus, K(3)-Stoff becomes "highly dispersed silica".
> - Does anyone have more info on N-Stoff
No, sorry.
> - Can anyone confirm the story that N-Stoff it is used by the US army
> (NASA?) in rockets
Ask them!
Martin Brown
Hans wrote:
> nlNet <Michel....@simac.nl> skrev i inlägg
> <87c57c$ojr$1...@porthos.nl.uu.net>...
> > During W.W.II, the Germans secretly produced a substance called N-Stoff
> > (Chlortriflourid, ClF3) in a large underground bunker in Falkenhagen
> >
> > The questions I have:
> > - Does anyone know the US name for N-Stoff (Chlortriflourid)
>
> Usually English translations for German WW code-words are the IUPAC names,
> or similar.
> > - Can anyone confirm the story that N-Stoff it is used by the US army
> > (NASA?) in rockets
>
> Ask them!
There is info on the web try a search on ClF3
http://www.rocketry.com/mwade/props/clfosene.htm
will get you started. There was also ClOF3 and BrF5 in play.
As the Enclyclopedia Astronautica puts it somewhat understatedly :
"Chlorine trifluoride was another of the extremely reactive and toxic
oxidisers tested in the United States in the late 1950's. As in the other
cases, it was found that the handling problems and safety risks outweighed the
performance benefits."
Regards,
Martin Brown
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti
<r.kresins...@kingston.ac.uk.invalid> wrote:
>Great posts from Bizzigotti and Haarmann - thanks. I'm
>tempted to set a literature assignment on this.
Just try it yourself before you assign it; make certain you have the
SIPRI series in your library. The primary literature in this area is
largely in German, and I think most of it resides in the German
government archives. (The history of CW is of considerable personal
interest, but I haven't yet found a client willing to pay me to go to
Germany and nose around the archives).
>I seem to recall that high-valent interhalogens were dropped
>on Dresden in WWII as incendiaries - I don't know if that's
>correct.
Most incendiaries are filled with white phosphorus. I can't say for
certain that high-valent interhalogens were not used, but given that
they are a lot harder to handle, much more toxic, and white phosphorus
works, I'm not sure that there were good reasons to use them.
>By the way, with regard to
>Geo. Bizzigotti's post, how can such a reactive gas as an
>interhalogen have such a tolerable smell? This is wartime
>propaganda re-surfacing, No? Or does the liberated HF
>selectively disable nervous transmission?
I have no personal experience with smelling chemical warfare agents
(and I hope not to gain any), I just pass on what's reported in the
literature. I will attempt to answer Professor Kresinski's questions:
(1) Who knows? It is possible that there is a receptor that happens to
bind CLF3 that triggers a sweet odor perception. There are certainly
some strange odors reported for chemical warfare agents. My vote for
most intriguing odor goes to Lewisite, which smells of geraniums.
Also, none of the chemical warfare agents were produced as reagent
grade chemicals, so impurities have an influence on odor. Purified
Lewisite is odorless; mustard gas has three different reported odors,
and I suspect that they are reported for material obtained from
different synthetic routes.
(2) I don't think it's propaganda; before the advent of field-portable
instruments, the Mark I nose was the standard issue chemical warfare
agent detection system. One of the more interesting challenges the
U.S. Army faces is disposing of chemical agent identification sets,
which were glass ampoules of small quantities of agent adsorbed onto
charcoal that were used for training troops in the odors of the
agents. I suspect that the odors are reported honestly.
(3) It's possible, but then other compounds containing labile fluoride
should have similar odors reported.
Roman A Kresinski
George O. Bizzigotti <gbiz...@mitretek.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 05:05:01 -0800, Roman A Kresinski
> <r.kresins...@kingston.ac.uk.invalid> wrote:
> >Great posts from Bizzigotti and Haarmann - thanks.
> I'm
> >tempted to set a literature assignment on this.
> Just try it yourself before you assign it; make
> certain you have the
> SIPRI series in your library. The primary literature
> in this area is
> largely in German, and I think most of it resides in
> the German
> government archives.
A wise warning, thanks - on balance, I am dissuaded.
[snip]
(The history of CW is of
> considerable personal
> interest, but I haven't yet found a client willing to
> pay me to go to
> Germany and nose around the archives).
> >I seem to recall that high-valent interhalogens were
> dropped
> >on Dresden in WWII as incendiaries - I don't know if
> that's
> >correct.
> Most incendiaries are filled with white phosphorus. I
> can't say for
> certain that high-valent interhalogens were not used,
> but given that
> they are a lot harder to handle, much more toxic, and
> white phosphorus
> works, I'm not sure that there were good reasons to
> use them.
I was thinking of the high reactivity with water (which
property phosphorus doesn't share) hampering fire-fighting,
not to mention the terrifying effect of seeing even concrete
burned by this stuff (although military strategists always
seemed to underestimate what psychological pressure bombed
populations could withstand). Of course, I might well be
wrong about its use in the first place.
Thanks again.
[snip]