History of Physics (FHP) 2019 Fall Newsletter, Vol. XIV. No. 3
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A FORUM OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY • VOLUME XIV • NO. 3 • FALL 2019 “Francis Perrin’s Early-1939 Analysis of Uranium Criticality: A Look Back” By Cameron Reed Introduction the outset of his paper that he was interested in the possibility In the May 1, 1939, edition of Comptes Rendus, the weekly of explosively liberating large amounts of energy (“libérant journal of the French Academy of Sciences, physicist Francis une énergie énorme”). In February, 1939, Niels Bohr posited Perrin (1901-1992; Fig. 1) of the Collège de France published that it was the rare 235 isotope of uranium that was respon- a 3-page paper containing the first numerical estimate of sible for slow-neutron fission; perhaps Perrin was thinking the critical mass necessary to achieve a fast-neutron chain that the much more abundant 238 isotope might suffer fast- reaction in a natural-abundance uranium compound [1]. neutron fission if there was some energy threshold involved. His result was about 40 metric tonnes (40,000 kg), which he Bohr’s hypothesis had been made in response to the differing estimated could be reduced to about 12 tonnes with a suit- fission properties of thorium and uranium uncovered by able tamper. He did not seem particularly concerned with Otto Frisch and others [3, 4]; Perrin referenced neither Frisch the enormous scale of this result – which would later prove nor Bohr, but it is hard to imagine that he would have been to be about three orders of magnitude too large – but he did unaware of their work. Further research over the following remark that since a fast-neutron reaction would not be easy to year by Bohr and John Wheeler (among others) would reveal control, a better hope might be to use hydrogenic compounds the poisoning role of inelastic scattering and capture of neu- to slow neutrons and so achieve a controllable reaction. trons by U-238. Perrin’s calculation was soon eclipsed by deeper under- Perrin considered uranium oxide (U3O8) of natural standing of the mechanism of fission; it had no real relevance isotopic abundance, and treated a chain reaction as an for a Hiroshima-type nuclear weapon, which requires essen- tially pure U-235. He was, however, apparently the first to Continues on page 4 publish a diffusion-theory-based quantitative estimate of the critical mass (“masse critique”), so it is interesting to take a retrospective look at his work to see both how his numbers arose and to explore the impact of his paper. As I will show, In This Issue Perrin’s physics was largely correct: Had he considered using pure U-235 and been armed with even rough numbers Francis Perrin’s Early-1939 Analysis for the relevant cross-sections, he could have made a quite of Uranium Criticality: A Look Back 1 respectable estimate of the critical mass for a nuclear weapon nearly a year before Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls alerted FHP Essay Contest Winners 2 British authorities to the possibility of “super-bombs” in their famous memorandum of March, 1940 [2]. In this article I examine Perrin’s model, make some speculations as to the provenance of his parameter values, and consider how his March and April 2020 FHP Sessions 2 work compared to later efforts. Perrin’s criticality model April Session Reports 3 To set the context of Perrin’s work, it is helpful to briefly summarize what was known of fission in the spring of 1939. Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann had discovered fission via Book Review 8 slow (moderated) neutron bombardment of uranium, but Per- rin considered fast neutrons, a choice which may have been conditioned by the fact that he would not have to deal with Officers and Commiittees 9 the complicating effects of a moderator; also, it is clear from Revised 12/19/19 FHP Essay Contest Winners By Paul Cadden-Zimansky he FHP Student Essay Contest received a record number of entrants in 2019, with submis- Tsions from four continents and essay writers ranging from high school stu- dents to graduate students. The win- ning essay “A Changing Dichotomy: The Conception of the ‘Macroscopic’ and ‘Microscopic’ Worlds in the Histo- ry of Physics” was submitted by Zhixin Wang, a graduate student in applied physics at Yale University. Wang's essay examines scientists' shifting views on the what distinguishes micro and macro over four centuries, from seventeenth century hypotheses of hid- Zhixin Wang, a graduate student in applied Melia Bonomo, a Ph.D. candidate in applied den mechanical mechanisms as expla- physics at Yale University physics at Rice University nations for visible phenomena to more contemporary distinctions where it is Rice University. Bonomo's essay charts Bonomo will receive a $500 cash award not size, but quantum metrics that are the career of the largely unknown Stone for her work. Both essays are posted often appealed to. For winning the con- who, under the supervision of Albert on the FHP's website at aps.org/units/ test Mr. Wang will receive a cash award Michelson, became the first American fhp/essay/index.cfm of $1,000, plus support for travel to an woman to be awarded a physics doc- APS annual meeting to deliver a talk toral degree in 1897 and went on to be based on his essay. This year's runner- a co-founder of the American Physical up essay "Isabelle Stone: breaking the Society while making significant con- glass ceiling with thin films and teach- tributions to multiple schools of higher ing" was submitted by Melia Bonomo, education that served women. Ms. a Ph.D. candidate in applied physics at The Forum on History of Physics of the American Physical Society pub- March and April 2020 FHP Sessions lishes this Newsletter biannually at http://www.aps.org/units/fhp/newslet- ters/index.cfm. Each 3-year volume consists of six issues. March 2020 FHP Sessions April 2020 FHP Sessions The articles in this issue represent the views of their authors and are not necessarily those of the Forum Monday 3/2 2:30 pm Sunday 4/19 8:30 am or APS. History of Materials Science Science Policy and Science’s History Editor Tuesday 3/3 8:00 am Sunday 4/19 1:30 pm Robert P. Crease History of Physics and Computation History of Cosmology Department of Philosophy (cosponsored with DCOMP) Stony Brook University Sunday 4/19 3:30 pm Stony Brook, NY 11794 Friday 3/6 8:00 am Pais Prize Session [email protected] History of Physics in India (631) 632-7570 Monday 4/20 1:30 pm Author in Dialogue: Jeff Bub, Assistant Editor Bananaworld: Quantum Mechanics for Don Salisbury Primates Austin College [email protected] 2 Volume XIV, No. 3 • Fall 2019 • History of Physics Newsletter APRIL SESSION REPORTS: “Secrecy and Espionage in Science” By Dan Kennefick t the April 2019 APS meet- vision of intelligence gatherers central- Acquire German Science and Technol- ing the FHP and the Forum izing the latest scientific knowledge ogy during and after the Second World on Physics and Society co- in government hands never became a War.” He is the author of the forthcom- Asponsored a session of invited talks reality, but considerable penetration of ing book Taking Nazi Technology: Allied on Secrecy and Espionage in Science. the scientific community by the intelli- Exploitation of German Science after the There was considerable interest in the gence apparatus was achieved. In her Second World War. His talk was focused topic, with the room being packed. view “The United States’ commitment on the spoils of German science and Quite a few people were standing at the to international scientific cooperation technology, which were greatly coveted back. The large and engaged audience was never primarily about scientific by the wartime Allies, who hoped to was treated to three excellent talks. values; it was scientific international- be recompensed for their enormous The first was given by Audra Wolfe, a ism for the sake of anti-Communism.” wartime losses by benefiting from historian of science who is a member Alex Wellerstein is a historian of technology and scientific transfer from of the FHP’s Executive Committee as science at the Stevens Institute of Tech- Germany to their countries. He demon- well as being the author of Freedom’s nology and the creator of NUKEMAP strated strikingly that their understand- Laboratory: The Cold War Struggle for the (nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) which ing of the problems involved in such a Soul of Science. Her talk, entitled “Scien- permits the ordinary citizen to find out transfer was often on a very high level. tific Internationalism, Scientific Intelli- how their city would fare in a nuclear There was considerable appreciation of gence, Or Both?” concerned the efforts attack. His talk was entitled “The legacy the difficulties in simply transferring made by the United States government of nuclear secrecy in the United States” science and technology. Allied powers to wrestle with competing impulses and it discussed the scientific area in often recognized that taking material in post-war science policy. On the one which the tensions addressed in Wolfe’s and personnel out of their own environ- hand they wished to maintain secrecy, talk were at their sharpest, namely ment would probably merely result in especially in the area of nuclear phys- nuclear research. In this subject even the loss of the very “know-how” they ics, and on the other hand they hoped most of the scientists agreed about the sought to acquire. The very phrase to use science as an aid to Diplomacy need for secrecy and he discussed the “know-how”, he confides, emerged in in the cold war.