Myths of nuclear graphite in World War II, with original translations

IF 1.2 4区 物理与天体物理 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Patrick J. Park, Sebastian Herzele, Timothy W. Koeth
{"title":"Myths of nuclear graphite in World War II, with original translations","authors":"Patrick J. Park,&nbsp;Sebastian Herzele,&nbsp;Timothy W. Koeth","doi":"10.1140/epjh/s13129-025-00098-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We re-examine a common narrative that experimental errors by Walther Bothe in 1941 led Germany to abandon graphite as a reactor moderator during World War II. Using document-based nuclear archaeology, we first show that both American and German scientists used an incorrect carbon scattering cross section, thereby undermining the accuracy of all wartime data, including their conclusions on carbon’s absorption. Moreover, we argue that the availability of exceptionally pure petroleum coke in the United States, rather than any academic breakthrough, decisively enabled their production of nuclear-grade graphite. In contrast, Bothe’s Siemens electrographite had more boron contamination than any graphites considered in Fermi’s experiments, rendering it genuinely impractical as a moderator. By reframing the decision to eschew graphite as a deliberate decision rather than a mere experimental oversight, we believe the German decision was a rational consequence of material constraints and wartime priorities.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":791,"journal":{"name":"The European Physical Journal H","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1140/epjh/s13129-025-00098-7.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European Physical Journal H","FirstCategoryId":"4","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjh/s13129-025-00098-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We re-examine a common narrative that experimental errors by Walther Bothe in 1941 led Germany to abandon graphite as a reactor moderator during World War II. Using document-based nuclear archaeology, we first show that both American and German scientists used an incorrect carbon scattering cross section, thereby undermining the accuracy of all wartime data, including their conclusions on carbon’s absorption. Moreover, we argue that the availability of exceptionally pure petroleum coke in the United States, rather than any academic breakthrough, decisively enabled their production of nuclear-grade graphite. In contrast, Bothe’s Siemens electrographite had more boron contamination than any graphites considered in Fermi’s experiments, rendering it genuinely impractical as a moderator. By reframing the decision to eschew graphite as a deliberate decision rather than a mere experimental oversight, we believe the German decision was a rational consequence of material constraints and wartime priorities.

第二次世界大战中核石墨的神话,有原始翻译
我们重新审视一种常见的说法,即1941年瓦尔特·博特(Walther Bothe)的实验错误导致德国在第二次世界大战期间放弃使用石墨作为反应堆的慢化剂。利用基于文献的核考古学,我们首先表明,美国和德国科学家使用了不正确的碳散射截面,从而破坏了所有战时数据的准确性,包括他们关于碳吸收的结论。此外,我们认为,决定性地使他们能够生产核级石墨的,是美国特别纯净的石油焦的可用性,而不是任何学术突破。相比之下,Bothe的西门子电石墨比费米实验中考虑的任何石墨都有更多的硼污染,这使得它作为慢化剂实际上是不切实际的。通过将避免石墨的决定重新定义为一个深思熟虑的决定,而不仅仅是一个实验性的疏忽,我们相信德国的决定是物质限制和战时优先事项的合理结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
The European Physical Journal H
The European Physical Journal H HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The purpose of this journal is to catalyse, foster, and disseminate an awareness and understanding of the historical development of ideas in contemporary physics, and more generally, ideas about how Nature works. The scope explicitly includes: - Contributions addressing the history of physics and of physical ideas and concepts, the interplay of physics and mathematics as well as the natural sciences, and the history and philosophy of sciences, together with discussions of experimental ideas and designs - inasmuch as they clearly relate, and preferably add, to the understanding of modern physics. - Annotated and/or contextual translations of relevant foreign-language texts. - Careful characterisations of old and/or abandoned ideas including past mistakes and false leads, thereby helping working physicists to assess how compelling contemporary ideas may turn out to be in future, i.e. with hindsight.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信