Fission History Project

Josh Cooper & Tovi Spero
Fission History Project

Extra Knowledge not in Narrative

Fractional Precipitation/Crystallization –

“Fractional crystallization is a method of refining substances based on
differences in solubility. If a mixture of two or more substances in solution is
allowed to crystallize, for example by allowing the temperature of the solution to
decrease, the precipitate will contain more of the least soluble substance. The
proportion of components in the precipitate will depend on their solubility
products.” – Wikipedia

Fractional precipitation is the method of refining substances based on
density, not solubility like crystallization.

Fast vs. Slow (Thermal) Neutrons –

Depending on the definition looked up, fast neutrons are neutrons with
kinetic energy of 1eV, 0.1 MeV, or 1 MeV. Slow neutrons have kinetic energy below
that, less than ~ 0.4 eV.

Fissile vs. Fissionable –

Fissile material is any material capable of undergoing fission, and can do so
with a neutron of any energy. Fissionable material can only undergo fission with
neutrons of higher energy (fast neutrons). This is distinct from the probability of a
neutron being absorbed by the material. Slow neutrons have a much higher
probability of being absorbed, rather than fast neutrons. This is why slow neutrons
are preferred for fissile material for chain reactions.

Heavy Water –

Composed of two deuterium atoms with one oxygen atom. Deuterium is one
proton, one electron, and one neutron. In fission chain reaction, it is mixed with the
fissile materials (235U) and serves as a “moderator” that slows down fast neutrons to
sustain a fission chain reaction.

235U versus 238U –

235U is the isotope of uranium used for fission reactions, because it has an
odd number of neutrons it is more unstable, so the introduction of a neutron is more
likely to cause this instability to cause fission. 238U has an even number of neutrons
so is more stable, and an incoming neutron will not necessarily cause fission, it
needs neutrons of higher energy (fast neutrons). Side note: only about 1.4%
difference in mass.

Plutonium –

Created by neutron capture of 238U. First neutron capture, then beta decay to
neptunium (Z = 93), then another beta decay and neptunium becomes plutonium (Z
= 94). *Z = # protons

n0 + 238U => 239U => 239Np + e‐ + (anti)νe

239Np => 239Pu + e‐ + (anti)ν
e

Beyond this, 239Pu (a fissile material) can capture a neutron to make 240Pu,
which is not very good for fission chain reactions, because it fissions spontaneously.
But 240Pu can capture yet another neutron to produce 241Pu, which is a fissile
material.

235U Enrichment –

A series of steps where each steps refines the purity of 235U further. In the
1940’s, the steps were: thermal diffusion, gaseous diffusion, and then
electromagnetic separation. Thermal diffusion uses the property of 235U that it
diffuses towards a hot surface, while 238U diffuses towards a cold surface. Gaseous
diffusion forces gaseous uranium hexafluoride (UF6) through a semi‐permeable
membrane. Keep running it through the membrane until it becomes as separable as
possible. Gaseous diffusion is based off of Graham’s Law. Electromagnetic
separation is a form of mass spectrometry. What it does is applies a magnetic field
to the particles, and even though they all have the same charge, the different masses
are deflected a slight difference apart.

Critical Mass –

“Critical” is the point where a fission chain reaction will sustain itself, where
at least one neutrons from each individual fission reaction will encounter another
235U atom and also cause it to fission. For this criterion to occur, you need a certain
amount of 235U and it needs to have a certain geometry. The neutrons released from
each fission reaction must also be slowed by a moderator such as heavy water or
light water. Purity of material also matters, so for a bomb, there must be far more
235U than 238U such that most neutrons go to a fission reaction, rather than be
absorbed by 238U or any other materials. Containment can also effect how much or
how pure the 235U needs to be.

Neutron Reflective Container –

Neutron reflective tungsten carbide can be used to contain a fission chain
reaction, and because the neutrons produced by any fission reactions cannot escape,
it becomes much more likely that they will hit an unfissioned uranium atom. In this
way you can have “subcritical” amounts of 235U, but still cause the chain reaction to
go critical.

History of “The Bomb” –

The most important points we thought should be taken out of the materials
and discussed in class were these: Einstein’s letter to FDR (August 1939) about the
danger and importance of nuclear fission. FDR told Einstein he would deal with it
(October 1939), but then he died (April 1945), and then Truman took over and gave
the Manhattan Project to Secretary of War, Henry Stimson. By this time Germany
surrendered and the only other remaining threat was Japan. In June the “Franck
Report” came out, put together by many scientists working on the Manhattan
project, seeking to offer alternatives to using the bomb immediately on Japan. This
report went unheeded, and only one ultimatum was issued to surrender or else! On
August 6 Hiroshima was bombed by a 235U gun‐type bomb named “Little Boy”. The
second bomb dropped on Nagasaki on August 9, only 3 days later. This bomb was
made from 239Pu, and was an implosion type, dubbed “Fat Man”. What was so
shocking about this was the widespread destruction, and the seemingly cold
reaction to the first explosion. Reading the later articles in the handout, you can tell
that the reporter had no idea of the impact, physically or socially, that the bombs
would have. It almost seems like denial or naïveté. The Secretary of War, Stimson’s
defense of the use of the bombs, is quite brusque and highlights the feeling of
impending disaster of the time. Despite how a person feels about this subjects, or
which side you come down on, it is important to discuss these social aspects with
students. We want you as students to be able to think critically about a decision this
momentous, look at your assumptions and predictions, and as teachers, be able to
use this example to have your students learn to think like scientists.

Timelines

Meitner Timeline

• 1878, born
• 1897, starts schooling at University of Vienna
• 1907, awarded her Ph.D. in physics
• 1907, move to Berlin and starts at University of Berlin
• 1907, started working with Otto Hahn
• 1915, started to work for the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute
• 1915, left for WWI
• 1938, escaped Germany
• 1939, sat on a log (liquid drop model application)
• 1946, no Nobel prize 

Fission Timeline

• January, 1934, Irene Curie and Paul Joliot discover artificial radioactivity
• March, 1934, Fermi begins neutron bombardment of heavy nuclei
• September, 1934, Noddack article
• 1935‐1939, Meitner and Hahn half‐life experiments
• January, 1939, Hahn and Strassmann’s paper on Barium‐like substance
• January 1939, Meitner’s use of liquid drop model for fission
• December, 1942, first controlled fission chain reaction in Chicago
• 1945, bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, end of WWII


Fission Narrative

Email:
Review Alpha, Beta, Gamma Decays before class.
Make sure every table has at least one computer with internet access and
java capable web browser
Download the PHET simulation for Nuclear Fission

Set‐up:
• 3 groups
• packets on tables (12 total)
• food at back table
• floor space in center of room
• 2 whiteboards at each table
• markers and erasers
• Balloon demo
o Water balloon
o Water
o Ping pong ball
o Golf ball
o 3 marbles, one with a tack taped on
o plastic tarp
• Timelines on front chalkboard
• Keep room on front chalkboard for physicist web
• Make sure to tell people to not look through the handout before directed to

Bold text means address question to class.
Asterisks (*) mean a reminder for teacher, not narrative for students to hear.

Blue = Tovi
Red = Josh

1. Introduction and Curies (Jan 1934)

Throughout the course of this semester we have seen discoveries produced
by not being able to explain observations. From Archimedes and Galileo defining
motion to Pascal and Bernoulli quantifying air pressure, there was a search for
further knowledge.
As we learned last week Marie Curie was one of the most important
physicists responsible for the discovery and work done on radiation, decays, etc…
Her daughter, Irene Curie also took up this mantle. One thing we did not discuss in
detail last week is the start of our journey today.
In January of 1934 Irene and her husband announced to the scientific
community that they had discovered a method of creating artificial radioactivity, by
bombarding elements with alpha particles. Then, like with all scientific discoveries,
their contemporaries jumped to corroborate and elaborate on this newly discovered
artificial radioactivity.

Can anyone try to explain how bombarding elements with alpha particles
might make elements radioactive?

2. Transition to Fermi (March, 1934)

A mere two months after the Joliot‐Curie’s discovery, in Italy, far from France
where the they were doing their research, Enrico Fermi decided to take their idea
one step further.

What do you think he could have done differently from the Joliot‐Curies’
experiment?

Take two minutes to discuss in your groups and come up with some ideas to
share.

*If neutron bombardment not mentioned:
Before the Joliot‐Curies could only bombard relatively light elements with alpha
particles easily because when the heavier elements came about, the heavy nuclei with
lots of protons in them, the alpha particles would be strongly repulsed by the Coulomb
force. So Fermi thought of bombarding them with neutrons because they have zero
charge and are unaffected by the Coulomb interaction.

*If they want to know what the neutron source is:
Beryllium ‐Radon source, 9Be + 4He = 12C + n

Now, let’s take a moment to read the actual paper published by Fermi on the
very topic you were just ruminating about.

Turn to the first page of your handout and read the article entitled “Fermi and
Neutron bombardment”.

So, what were Fermi’s results from his experiment? What did he conclude?

How does an element with a proton count of 92 have a neutron added to it,
and become an element with a proton count greater than 92?

*If beta decay not mentioned:
Now, will anyone explain to the class how beta decay works? How is that
applicable in this situation?
(Time for telling if no knowledge of beta decay (n0 ‐> p+ + e‐ +(anti)νe) and how the
nucleus undergoes beta decay, emitting an electron and anti electron neutrino, and
becomes z=93)

Ok, so that’s beta decay as we know it in 2010, but in 1935, physicists didn’t
know about anti neutrinos, or lepton number, which came later with the beginning
of the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

What Fermi actually thought happened was that a negative beta decay
occurred from the nucleus, and the nuclear charge increased by one, since the
emitted charge was ‐1, and 92‐(‐1)=93.

*If asked why electron emitted from nucleus:
Remember from last week what we discussed about electrons in the nucleus?
Because of the uncertainty principle, it is not possible for electrons to ever reside in the
nucleus of an atom because their momentum and kinetic energy would be much higher
than the binding energy required to keep them within the nucleus.

One thing we didn’t mention before was that Fermi had the idea to slow
down the neutrons coming from his neutron source, so that these slower neutrons
would theoretically have greater probability of being captured. We are going to get
into the importance of this later on.

*If asked about how he slowed them:
He used a thin layer of paraffin, the neutrons would collide with the paraffin
and lose momentum/kinetic energy.

3. Stand and Bombard

Now that we know what he thought happened, we want you all to model the
interaction with yourselves as the individual particles. Everyone stand up, and join
us in the middle of the room.

Take some time to figure out as a class how best to model the reaction. What
particles need to be included, where do they come from, where do they go,
what do they hit?

*If directions are needed to facilitate activity:
We should have some students being the nucleus (remember from last week
what makes up a nucleus!) and differentiate yourselves by having protons be smiling,
neutrons being straight faced. Assign one person to be the bombarding neutron, and
one person to be the ejected electron, with a frowning face. Also, one person should be
the anti neutrino, and they need to figure out what kind of face a nigh massless almost
non interacting particle would have.

4. Noddack and Assumptions (September 1934)

We would like you, in your groups, to come up with some assumptions that
Fermi made in his experiment or analysis. Take 2 minutes. List them on one of your
whiteboards, don’t erase, we will be adding to this list later.

Can anyone give us one assumption that Fermi made?

Turn the page and read the article entitled “A Critique on Fermi’s
Explanation”.

Add any assumptions we did not find together to your list on your
whiteboard.

5. Review #1/Physics Web

Now we are going to start a class project that we will build on as we continue
in class tonight. On the table in front of us you see four finger puppets. They
technically represent real scientists, but we will be assigning them different
identities for our “Physics Web”. As in keeping with proper historical gender ratios of
the time, we have numerous male finger figures, and this one female puppet for all
women scientists in Europe.

*Draw circles for Enrico Fermi, Marie Curie, Irene Curie, and Ida Noddack.

We want you to tell us how these people are connected, so we can show a
logical progression of ideas throughout this discovery cycle.

* Make sure students who understand better, explain to students that are still
having trouble.

From this point on, when thinking about the assumptions you have
made, keep in mind that science is not just a scientific venture, but also a social
venture.

6. Meitner – Birth‐1935, start of experiments

Born in 1878, Meitner grew up in a family of many children, in a middle class
household in Austria. Her family came from Jewish ancestry, though her parents’
generation had converted to being Protestant, so Lise grew up both a part of and not
a part of the Jewish tradition. But just having that heritage would become a very big
problem for her later in life. Fortunately for her, Meitner’s parents encouraged their
children to pursue their interests. This was a huge thing that she could have a
family, really a head of her family, that was liberal enough to allow a daughter, a
woman, an education in the late 1800s. By age 8 she had already developed a strong
interest in mathematics.
In order to convince her father to allow her to continue her studies in physics
and math he told her that she must demonstrate that she could work a trade. So in
1896 at the age of 18 she prepared for a teaching degree in French. A year later she
was given permission by her family to apply to the University of Vienna. In the year
1900 the law requiring women to get state permission to enroll in universities was
annulled, and subsequently in 1901 Lise Meitner became the first woman to ever
attend physics lectures at the University of Vienna.
At this point in her career, she started to focus more on physics than
mathematics, and this was largely influenced by a returning lecturer at the
university, Ludwig Boltzmann. While studying under him and after doing her own
dissertation work about “Thermal Conduction in Non‐Homogeneous Bodies” she
became the first woman in the university’s 500 year history to be awarded a Ph.D. in
physics. This was a very pivotal point in her career, because her first major mentor,
Boltzmann committed suicide the year before in 1906, upsetting a very delicate
balance in Meitner’s life.
The very next year in 1907, at the age of 29, she again must ask her father for
help, because she wanted money to support herself for moving to Berlin, the most
exciting and dynamic physics community around. To begin study at the University of
Berlin was an experimentalist’s dream, and not only that but be able to attend Max
Planck’s lectures. In Planck she found both a new mentor and a genuine friend. He
used to invite her as well as other of his students over to his house to dinner, have
fascinating discussion on the new physics of the day. Lise actually became very close
friends with his wife and twin daughters.
Just the fact that Meitner, a woman, attending one of the oldest and most
prestigious universities in the region was offensive beyond compare to many of the
faculty she had to study under. She came very close to not being able to find a job,
when the head of the Experimental Physics Department, Heinrich Rubens, denied
her access to labs because she was a woman. Unfortunately Germany, unlike Austria,
was not at the forefront of women’s rights. On a lucky chance she met a young
nuclear chemist, Otto Hahn, who unlike the physics community, had no problem
doing research with Meitner in her chosen field of radioactivity. A very big problem
arose when Emil Fischer did not allow Meitner access to any labs or to lectures
where men attended, even though Hahn already had access to a lab at this chemistry
institute. So in order to do research they set up in a small woodworker’s shop just
outside the official labs. These policies, though very personal prejudices of Fischer’s,
were backed up by state policy in Prussia.
Her life at this time was very hard, and her work hard‐earned. In working in
an all male environment she had few friends. Otto Hahn was simply “Herr Hahn” for
many years before they became comfortable with each other. Her budget was so
tight that in her notebooks she accounted for “the purchase of one egg, one bus
ticket, and, as always, cigarettes.” Another sobering fact was the recollections of
Hahn and Meitner in their memoirs when it was mentioned that as the both of them
would pass their colleagues near the chemistry institute, only “Herr Hahn” was
greeted and acknowledged. Meitner was not seen as a part of the larger scientific
community, only as a visitor. Just to go to the bathroom she had to leave the
premises and go to a bakery across the street to relieve herself. Oh and before I
forget later, while Hahn was being paid by the institute for their work, she was not.
Finally in 1910 Meitner was allowed into the regular labs because of a change
in Prussian law, and in 1912 was starting to receive a modest stipend for her work,
and her starting as a TA!
Their research continued until WWI began. Hahn was in the German army
reserves, so was called up in 1914 when the war started and went to the front. The
Fall of that year Meitner began her training in X‐ray applications at a city hospital.
Throughout the war Meitner corresponded with Hahn via letters, keeping him
updated on “their” work.
By 1915 she had secured a permanent job with the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute
and decides to put research on hold and join the war effort as a volunteer X‐ray
tech/nurse in the Austrian Army. Before she left and he was away, she still
continued to publish under both of their names…remember that for later.
And I just want to say that while Meitner was at the front, aiding doctors and
nurses in taking X‐rays of the wounded, Hahn was busy working on Germany’s
poison gas project.
When they both returned after Germany’s resounding defeat, when its
economy was on the brink of collapse, they never‐the‐less continued their research.

7. Half‐Life Experiments (1935‐1939)

And now we leave the realm of pure physics, and enter the strange world of
chemistry to figure out what Fermi and other scientists actually did in the lab. In
Meitner and Hahn’s lab, when they reproduced and elaborated on Fermi’s neutron
bombardment experiment, they found the remaining substance radioactive with
several distinct half‐lives detected. In their initial experiments, Meitner and Hahn
found four half‐lives of 10 seconds, 40 seconds, 13 minutes, and 90 minutes. They
weren’t sure what these half‐lives were from, so started postulating genetic
relationships with elements starting from proton number 92. This in turn made
them search harder for more half‐lives, which they eventually found multitudes
(sixteen) of previously hidden in the original four.

*If they ask what previously means:
First redirect question to another student. If no one knows, explain that saw
half‐lives by a decay curve, which was a composite of multiple, finer decay curves.

8. Separating Unknowns (Spectroscopy)

You may have wondered how all of these scientists distinguished between
the different half‐lives and separated out possible different transuranic elements.
What we are going to do is an example of identifying component elements in an
unknown substance. We are going a different route from the one Meitner, Hahn, and
Fermi used because it’s a bit hard to get some uranium this time of night.

So now we are going to look at spectroscopy, which is the identification of
elements by their characteristic photon emissions or absorptions. As an example
please come up to the table and take one of your diffraction gratings from your table
and look at this Hydrogen lamp.

*If they ask what the grating does:
A light source that hits a grating is usually made up of several frequencies, and
this grating deflects frequencies at specific angles, so based on that, interpret what you
see.

What do you see?

Now go back to your tables, plug in your incandescent light bulbs, we will
turn off the lights, and we want you to look again through the diffraction grating at
the light coming out.

What do you see? How is this different from the Hydrogen lamp? How can we
use this knowledge to identify different materials?

*Ask them as a class, not in groups.

Now take out your computers and go to the website written on the board.
Take a minute to play with the spectra of different elements.

At the top of this applet there is button labeled “New Target”. Click this, then
adjust the setting to: 2 to 3 elements, first 3 rows only, no Doppler Shift. Then click
“Ok”. Match the spectral lines above with elements from the table below.

Now how does this differ from what was done in the 1930’s? Flip to the next
page in the handout titled “Fermi’s Chemical Separation”.

So what do you think they did? How does it work?

*If students cannot figure out what happened:
Used well known chemical separation methods to get the different radioactive
materials apart from remaining uranium source. Did this by mixing with materials like
alkali metals so that if the unknown was a element with similar properties, one would
expect it to be separable in the same way.

9. Review #2/Physics Web + Assumptions

Now we are going to add two more physicists to our physicist web, Lise
Meitner and Otto Hahn. Review what we have done so far by adding to the
physics web. What should we write?

Remember your list of assumptions from before? Add to them now the
assumptions we have encountered. Hint: not only scientific assumptions are
important. Do this in groups only!

10. Meitner: WWII (1938‐1939)
Throughout all of these experiments, one fact remained constant. The Nazi
party had gained power in Germany, and Meitner was still seen as being of ‘tainted
blood.’ While Meitner herself didn’t truly think this would cause much of a problem
at the start of 1938, those around her, and her colleagues around Europe, begged
with her to leave Germany for her own safety. She received offers to go to America,
Zurich, and Copenhagen, but she turned the majority of these offers down because
of her unease with spoken languages other than German. In addition to concerns for
her safety, she had great concerns with job security. At the Kaiser Institute where
she worked, there was a call for her resignation from the resident Nazi chemist, Kurt
Hess, stating that the “Jewess endangers the Institute.” (Rife 163) Luckily, Meitner
had some friends in high places, such as the current director of the Kaiser Wilhelm
Society, Carl Bosch, who asserted to Hess that the Institute was still under his
jurisdiction, and not under the governments.
After the concerns for her wellbeing and job became more apparent, Meitner
accepted the offer to join the Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and applied for a travel
visa from the government. This is when the real troubles in her escape begin. These
events all occurred after Germany’s annexation of Austria, which meant that
Meitner’s Austrian passport was now no longer valid. Thus, with no channels to the
outside world on her own, she turned to the only person she could think of with the
clout to get her out of the country, Bosch. Bosch applied for a travel visa for Meitner
to leave the country so that she could “travel” abroad. While waiting to hear back
from the government about this new travel visa, Meitner was approached with
another offer to teach abroad, this time from the University of Groningen in the
Netherlands, via Dirk Coster, a very important player in the days to come.
By now, the Nazi government had responded to Bosch’s application for
Meitner’s travel visa with a resounding negative, because having a Jew travelling
abroad possibly acting against the interests of Germany could not be allowed. This
refusal sent the need for finding a way to spirit Meitner out of Germany into
overdrive. Neils Bohr was a huge help in this, as he was with many other political
refugees over the years. It was arranged for Meitner to be admitted into Holland
without a proper entry visa or a valid passport, by Dutch border officials who used
“friendly persuasion” on the German border guards. Now that her method of egress
was secured, it still remained that she would need to find a job outside Germany,
both for self‐sustenance and to continue her research into the transuranics. Again,
Neils Bohr comes to the rescue, and convinces the head of the Institute of Physics
attached to the University of Stockholm, Manne Siegbahn to offer Meitner employ
and lab space. Remember this name for later; this man is highly influential in events
down the road.
When the time for Meitner’s escape finally came, it was extremely sudden,
without much warning to Meitner or to anyone who might be watching her.
Wednesday, July 13th 1939, Lise Meitner successfully escaped from Germany with
Dirk Coster, and made her way to Groningen, Holland before she would continue on
her way to Stockholm. The whole process was amazingly taxing on Meitner, who
was past sixty. But at least now she could settle down and continue her work.
There was just one small problem. Seigbann’s Institute wasn’t set up for the type of
nuclear research Meitner was doing, so Meitner had to waste a large portion of time
reconstructing her experimental apparatus’.

11. Barium? (January 1939)

Please turn to the page titled: “Return of Irene Curie” and read for a minute.

In your groups discuss for a few minutes the significance this has. What
happened? Take any ideas you have about what Curie and Savitch’s results are and
take a look at the next page entitled “Barium?” and discuss in your groups how this
is similar to Curie’s experimental results.

See what kind of model you can come up with to explain your understanding
from the interpretation of these results. Do this is your groups, and on your second
whiteboard. Take 5 minutes and then we will discuss as a class.

12. Meitner: Log Story (January 1939) + Liquid Drop Model (January
1939) + Nobel Prize Controversy (1944)

Fed up with the lack of support at the Institute, she went to visit her nephew,
Otto Robert Frisch, in Kungälv, to discuss the letters she had been sending back and
forth with Hahn discussing Hahn and Strassmann’s progress on identifying the
products of the neutron bombardment, and the how the two men were absolutely
baffled by their results. Since Meitner has great personal love of walking (said to try
to walk up to twenty miles a day if time permits (Eugenia and her are such kindred
spirits)), Frisch suggested they go on a tour of the nearby woods, Frisch on cross
country skis, and Meitner walking along beside him. As they roam through the
woods having animated discussion of transuranic possibilities, Meitner has an idea.
A few physicists before had imagined the nucleus akin to a liquid drop, including
Bohr, and George Gamow, our resident Russian do everything ever physicist.
Meitner and Frisch discuss this possible beginning, and come up with the idea that is
illustrated on the next page.

Now turn to the next page and read it.

Is this like the model you came up with before after reading Hahn,
Strassmann, and Irene’s experimental results?

Going back to the article on the page called “Barium?” did you notice what
was said towards the end? Hahn and Strassman said “we cannot bring ourselves yet
to take such a drastic step which goes against all previous experience in nuclear
physics”. Wow! What they just said was basically a slap in the face of Lise Meitner. If
she hadn’t been the resident physicist on the case, knowing she was testing out
Fermi’s transuranic element hypothesis, if only Hahn and Strassmann could have
taken this as an observational experiment, maybe they could have though outside
the box enough to get to their conclusion faster. It sounds like they blame physics,
and blame Meitner for this taking so long, in such a circuitous path. Ironic then
when they immediately sent their data to Meitner to have her be the one to connect
the dots for them.
And I know what every woman in here is thinking… “*sigh* … men”

What was so shocking about this discovery was the amount of energy
liberated during the fission process. Using Einstein’s famous equation relating
energy to mass, E = mc2, it was calculated that 200 MeV should be released per atom
of Uranium as kinetic energy. To quote a more knowledgeable source, “Suppose one
accepts the 200 MeV figure, and calculates the energy available from a pound of
uranium fuel. It can be shown that one pound contains about 1024 uranium atoms,
and if they all undergo fission in a controlled reaction, one can calculate that they
would release more than a million watts of power continuously for a year…The
energy released by the uranium fission reaction would be a million times greater
than burning a pound of conventional fuel like oil or coal, if the theoretical
predictions could be fulfilled.” (Graetzer, 68)

Experimentally, physicists found that the two large chunks of matter after the
fission reaction only carried 175 MeV of kinetic energy. What do you think
happened to the other 25?

Can someone explain to the class the meaning of the parts of the picture? Is
this picture completely correct? How would you change it to make it a better
representation of what actually happens?

Would this work with different isotopes of uranium? Compare 235U with 238U,
which do you think undergoes this reaction?

*If cannot offer any explanation for how 235U is different from 238U:
Explain how the binding energy of the last neutron in 236U, after 235U has absorbed an
incoming neutron, is more than the critical energy needed for fission. On the other
hand, 239U’s last neutron has a binding energy less than required energy for fission.

This leads us to the question of how much energy the neutron has to have
coming in. Remember we said before how Fermi slowed down his neutrons?
How could he have slowed them down, and why would this matter for the
different isotopes of uranium?

Could every atom be wrapped in paraffin?

*If don’t come up with heavy water:
Heavy water is water where the hydrogen atom has 1 neutron instead of none,
a deuterium atom, instead of a normal hydrogen atom. Heavy water slows down
neutrons by means of an elastic collision. Light water cannot be used for this purpose
because it absorbs neutrons rather than scattering them as heavy water does.
ξ ~ 2/(A + 1), where ξ is the energy loss per collision, and A is the atomic mass of the
nucleus.

13. Water Balloon Demo

Explanation: Have an opaque water balloon, filled with water, 2 marbles, a golf ball,
and a ping pong ball. Also have a 3rd marble with a thumb tack attached to it to
represent the incoming neutron that initiates the fission reaction. The marbles in the
balloon represent extra neutrons that come out of the reaction, fodder for a chain
reaction. The golf ball and ping pong ball represent the daughter halves of the fission
reaction, and the water represents the energy released by the reaction.

Okay, now please come up to the front once again, we have a small demo to
show you.

*Ask four students to hold plastic tarp from all ends. Have one take the marble with
the pin attached (tell them to drop the pin as they pop the balloon).

Please predict what you think will happen when the neutron impacts the
nucleus.

As we do this demo, keep in mind what you think all the different parts
represent for our model of fission.

*Then while still standing ask students to explain what just happened. Were the
extra things that came out neutrons? Did they get that the water represented
liberated energy?

14. Independent Methods (1939) + Old Assumptions (1935)

Please turn to the page called “Independent Methods”. As we touched on
before, Lise Meitner’s nephew, Otto Frisch was a physicist that helped her with the
original fission idea. He was also one of the first physicists to independently show
that the transuranic model was defunct, and support the new fission hypothesis. He
did this by using a cloud chamber. Having the fission reaction occur within, he
actually took high speed, detailed photos of the tracks that the two large particles
took through the gas of the chamber as they split and bolted away from each other.

Now we are going to be doing a little bit of Über‐math! Within a period of 10
months after Meitner and Frisch’s paper was published 100 papers, all independent
experiments to support fission were published all over the Western World. This
works out to:

100 papers/10 months = 10 papers/month = 10 papers/30 days =

1 paper/3 days = 1/3 paper per day!

Okay no do you remember that article by Ida Noddack? …yeah well we left
some stuff out. Here is a slightly vital piece of her argument…which was back in the
very beginning of this journey to nuclear fission. Turn to the page titled “Old
Assumptions”.

15. Review #3/Physicist Web + Assumptions

Again, please help us make more connections on our physicist web. We have
one last addition of Otto Frisch.

Are there any new assumptions you came up with? Discuss them with your
group.

* Ask everyone to share all as a class to compare all assumptions, social and scientific.
If no social assumptions brought up, ask them if there were any, and to keep social
attitudes and assumptions in mind for the last part of the class.

16. Fission Chain Reaction (Dec, 1942) + PHET Simulation

Remember back to the water balloon demo, with the extra marbles. Where do
you think they go?

This reaction is what is called a chain reaction, where the excess neutrons
emitted from the fissioning of the uranium nucleus go on to cause fission reactions
in surrounding nuclei of uranium, thus causing an ever increasing number of
reactions from every single original neutron from the radon source. This reaction
was first utilized in a “controlled” setting in an underground lab at the University of
Chicago by our old friend Enrico Fermi. We say “controlled” because their
experiment had to potential to blow up Chicago, even though the science team might
not have been aware of it.

Look at the picture entitled “Fission Chain Reaction”

Now, the story of how this experiment went goes a little something like this.
There is this huge pile of uranium and radon sitting separated by cadmium slabs,
which can be pulled out from between the uranium and radon, allowing for the
neutron source to initially irradiate the uranium piles. Energy production of the pile
was measured, and when the pile produced around ½ a watt, the experiment was
turned off by reinserting the cadmium rods to allow neutron production to fall
below self‐sustainability. Even at ½ a watt of power, there were 1010 fissions every
second. When the experiment was allowed to go to a higher power, around 200
watts, the experimental safeties kicked in, because 200 watts was the calculated
limit for not having radiation exposure outside the building exceed physiological
tolerance levels.

Has anyone heard the terms “critical mass” or “uranium enrichment”?

What do you think they mean?

Can you quantify how enriched uranium has to be for it to be “weapons
grade”?

For fission chain reaction to occur, you need a certain purity of 235U as well as
a certain amount to sustain the reaction. If there is too much extra stuff like 238U,
there will be no chain reaction. In nature, 235U is usually only found to be about .72%
the uranium ore mined, the rest of the ore being 238U. For a modern fission reactor, a
purity of 3‐4% minimum is needed for a sustained reaction. Lastly for highly
enriched or weapons grade uranium, 90% purity of 235U is needed.

Critical mass is both a measure of purity of 235U and density. For the highly
enriched uranium bombs of WWII, the size of the material was only about 17 cm in
diameter. This is what makes suitcase bombs so scary.

As a point of sheer terror, we would like to mention that Wikipedia states
that there is 2000 metric tons of weapons grade enriched uranium. It takes a critical
mass of 52 kg of highly enriched uranium to make a fission bomb, so this could
potentially be made into over 38,000 nukes.

Now please take out your computers and run the Nuclear Fission PHET
simulation we asked you to download. Take 2 minutes and play around with the
process of fission with one Uranium atom, as well as simulate a chain reaction.

Does this match everything we have talked about so far?

Is this a good model for Nuclear Fission?

17. History/Social Discussion (1945)

Now, after all of this, we still have the biggest injustice of all to discuss.
During the last years of World War Two, the Nobel Committee had suspended the
awarding of any prizes due to the turbulent nature of Europe and the world at large.
But now that the war was over, the Prizes for 1944 and 1945 could be awarded.
Before this, Meitner and Hahn has been nominated for prizes together a stunning
total of ten times. But when it came time to award the Nobel for the discovery of
fission, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 1944 was awarded to Otto Hahn alone. No
mention was made of Meitner’s absolutely critical role in explaining the process, or
even of Strassmann or Frisch’s contributions to the process. Small comfort came in
the nomination for the 1945 Prize in Physics, both Meitner and Frisch were
nominated, but in the end it ended up going to Wolfgang Pauli, for his contributions
to the understanding of nuclear structure and for discovering the neutrino, which,
incidentally, he had first discussed the possibility of it even existing with Lise
Meitner.
In his acceptance speech for the 1944 Chemistry prize, Hahn mentioned the
contributions of Meitner, Frisch and Strassmann, but nothing really was made of it.
A great injustice had been passed down on one of the most prominent behind the
scenes figures in nuclear physics, but many chose not to take notice.
Remember when I said to remember the name of Manne Seigbaum? Well, he
was on the selection committee for the Chemistry prize when they decided not to
give it to Meitner. Why, you might ask, did he not speak up for a person who had
worked inside his own institute? Well, Seigbaum had no respect for theorists, and
was heavily biased toward any candidate with actual experimental data, and since
all the experimental data was published under Hahn’s name; Seigbaum felt no need
to mention the ‘minor’ contributions of Meitner in interpreting that data.

Finally, the rest, as they say, is history. The last few pages are reading for you
to do on your own, and we will have highlights for what we thought was important
in the History.


Lesson Outline & Timetable

# Activity Type Title Time Materials ISLE Cycle
1 Teacher Talk Intro + Curies 1 N/A Observation => Testing
Group Read/Think + Handout,
2 Discussion Fermi: Transuranic Elements* 8 Whiteboards Testing => Observation
3 Stand-up + Gather Human Fermi Reaction 7 Floor Space N/A
4 Group Read/Think Noddack: Incomplete Article* 10 Handout Assumptions
5 Teacher Talk + Review Review #1 (Class Only) 5 Whiteboard N/A
Teacher Talk + Group
6 Discussion Meitner: Birth - 1935* 6 N/A N/A
Group Read/Think +
7 Discussion Half-Life Experiments* 5 N/A Testing
Computers, Handout,
8 Experiment + Teacher Talk Spectroscopy Activity 16 Hydrogen lamp,
Incandescent light
bulbs N/A
Review #2 + Assumptions (Group
9 Teacher Talk + Review Only) 5 Whiteboard Assumptions
10 Teacher Talk Meitner: WWII 10 N/A N/A
11 Group Read Hahn: Barium?* 21 Handout Testing
12 Teacher Talk Meitner: Log Story 10 Handout Judgment
H2O Balloon, Tarp,
13 Stand-up + Gather Water Balloon Demo 5 Various Size Spheres N/A
Group Read/Think + Independent Methods & Old
14 Discussion Assumptions* 4 Handout Testing
Review #3 + Assumptions (Group &
15 Teacher Talk + Review Class) 5 Whiteboard Assumptions
Whiteboard,
Handout, Computer
16 Group Think + Discussion Chain Reaction + PHET Simulation 20 (PHET) Application
Einstein, Roosevelt, Franck, Poll,

Group Read/Think + New Mexico Testing, Hiroshima &
17 Discussion Nagasaki N/A Handout Judgment
During Reviews:
* = Running Tally of Assumptions on Whiteboard
= Students Making Connections on Puppet Diagram
(Fermi, Curie x 2, Meitner, Hahn, Noddack, Frisch)

Total Time (min) Total Time (min)
138 135

Sources:

Georgia State University. The moderation of fission reactions. Retrieved from
http://hyperphysics.phy‐astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/moder.html

Graetzer, HSG, & Anderson, DLA. (Ed.). (1971). The discovery of nuclear fission: a
documentary history. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

Rife, Patricia. (1990). Lise meitner and the dawn of the nuclear age. Berlin, Germany:
Birkhauser.

Teravation. Spectroscopy applet by teravation. Retrieved from
http://www.teravation.com/products/spectroscopy/

University of Colorado. Nuclear fission. Retrieved from
http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/nuclear‐fission

Wikipedia
• Fractional crystallization
• Fractional precipitation
• Fissile
• Semi‐empirical mass formula
• Neutron moderator
• Little Boy
• Fat Man
• Heavy Water
• Deuterium
• Neutron temperature
• Enriched uranium
• Gaseous diffusion
• Plutonium

Fission History Project

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Fission History Project

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Josh Cooper & Tovi Spero

Einstein, Roosevelt, Franck, Poll,

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen