1: %\vspace{-4truecm} %

2: {}\hfill{DSF$-$1/2008}%

3: 

4: %{}\hfill{physics/yymmnnn}%

5: %\vspace{1truecm}

6: %

7: %{\bf \noindent As agreed with Prof. Mallinckrodt, the authors

8: %kindly ask the reviewers to manage the present manuscript as

9: %CONFIDENTIALLY as possible (for obvious reasons), at least until

10: %the announcement of the discovery described in detail here in a

11: %forthcoming issue of Nature (likely in January). \\

12: %Please, note also that the figures reported at the end of the

13: %paper are deliberately in a low resolution format for keeping the

14: %size of the pdf below 1 Mb. The appendix to this paper, including

15: %the list of all the papers by Fermi will be in case put on EPAPS,

16: %and thus may be found as a separate document.}

17: %

18: %\vspace{1truecm}

19: 

20: \title[Fermi and the nuclear pile: the retrieval of novel

21: documents]{Enrico Fermi and the Physics and Engineering of a

22: nuclear pile: the retrieval of novel documents}

23: 

24: \author{S. Esposito and O. Pisanti}

25: \address{{\it S. Esposito}: Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche,

26: Universit\`a di Napoli ``Federico II'' \& I.N.F.N. Sezione di

27: Napoli, Complesso Universitario di M. S. Angelo, Via Cinthia,

28: 80126 Napoli ({\rm Salvatore.Esposito@na.infn.it})}%

29: \address{{\it O. Pisanti}: Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche,

30: Universit\`a di Napoli ``Federico II'' \& I.N.F.N. Sezione di

31: Napoli, Complesso Universitario di M. S. Angelo, Via Cinthia,

32: 80126 Napoli ({\rm Ofelia.Pisanti@na.infn.it})}%

33: 

34: \begin{abstract}

35: We give a detailed account of the recent retrieval of a consistent

36: amount (about 600 pages) of documents written by Enrico Fermi

37: and/or his collaborators, coming from different sources previously

38: unexplored. These documents include articles, patents, reports,

39: notes on scientific and technical meetings and other papers,

40: mainly testifying Fermi's activity in the 1940s about nuclear pile

41: physics and engineering. All of them have been carefully

42: described, pointing out the relevance of the given papers for

43: their scientific or even historical content. From the analysis of

44: these papers, a number of important scientific and technical

45: points comes out, putting a truly new light on the Fermi's (and

46: others') scientific activity about nuclear piles and their

47: applications. Quite unexpectedly intriguing historical remarks,

48: such as those regarding the relationships between U.S. and

49: Britain, just after the end of the war, about nuclear power for

50: pacific and/or military use, or even regarding long term physics

51: research and post-war research policy, emerge as well.

52: \end{abstract}

53: 

54: \maketitle

55: 

56: %keywords:

57: 

58: \section{Introduction}

59: 

60: \noi The name of Enrico Fermi is universally associated to the

61: successful development of the self-sustaining nuclear chain

62: reaction culminated, at first, in the operation of the first

63: controlled nuclear pile in Chicago on December 2, 1942 and, then,

64: in the realization of the first nuclear explosion in the Trinity

65: test of the Los Alamos laboratory on July 16, 1945. The

66: acknowledgment of the fundamental role played by the Italian

67: scientist in this project comes directly from the papers written

68: by Fermi himself, and collected in the 1960s by his former

69: collaborators \cite{FNM}, but especially from the numerous  and

70: detailed accounts by the people who worked with him in that

71: project. In fact, as it is natural to expect, the work on nuclear

72: fission carried out during the war years was classified, so that

73: only essential reports were written on that work, and only part of

74: them was declassified  after some time, and made publicly

75: available. These reports testifying Fermi's activity, as available

76: in the first 1960s, were published in the {\it Collected Papers}

77: of Ref. \cite{FNM}. However, by giving an accurate look at this

78: material, it results quite evident that what published, though

79: amounting to a large figure, is not the complete story. This

80: conclusion comes out not only by assuming the existence of

81: possible documents, earlier classified, but also by analyzing and

82: cross-checking different testimonies (among the others, we quote

83: for example the book written by Emilio Segr\`e \cite{FermiFisico}

84: and the recollections by Herbert L. Anderson and Albert Wattenberg

85: in Ref. \cite{Sachs}).

86: 

87: A careful work devoted to investigate towards such a direction has

88: now been performed by one of us (S.E.) and has lead to the

89: retrieval of a consistent amount of papers, reports or other

90: documents written by Fermi himself and/or his collaborators,

91: directly pointing out the peculiar activity of the Italian

92: scientist about different aspects of Nuclear Physics, but {\it

93: not} limited to the scientific point of view (in a strict sense).

94: 

95: We have completed the analysis of all this novel material,

96: amounting to about 600 pages, and present here the results of this

97: study.

98: 

99: The major sources of the documents are the following:

100: 

101: \begin{enumerate}

102: \item[1.] the Albert Wattenberg Papers at the University Library

103: of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign;

104: 

105: \item[2.] the United States Patent and Trademark Office;

106: 

107: \item[3.] the Papers of Sir James Chadwick at the Churchill

108: Archives Centre in Cambridge (U.K.).

109: \end{enumerate}

110: 

111: \noi In the archives of the University of Illinois at

112: Urbana-Champaign a number of papers are deposited donated by

113: Albert Wattenberg (1917-2007), a former collaborator of Fermi, who

114: collected documents pertaining to the Manhattan Project. Part of

115: them were retrieved by Wattenberg as joint editor of the {\it

116: Collected Papers} by Fermi, and then published in Ref. \cite{FNM}.

117: However, among these documents we found many unpublished notes and

118: reports, all dealing with the activity by Fermi and others on

119: nuclear fission topics, ranging from 1942 to 1944. In particular

120: we have found 23 notes on meetings of different Councils, where

121: explicit interventions by Fermi were annotated, 2

122: scientific/technical reports written by Fermi and collaborators, 5

123: periodic reports edited by Fermi and others, 1 anonymous

124: scientific/technical report classified by Wattenberg among the

125: Fermi papers.

126: 

127: In the U.S. Patent Office, instead, we have found the most

128: important papers, from a strictly scientific viewpoint, that is

129: the papers for 15 patents filed up to 1952 (the vast majority

130: ranging from 1944 to 1946), all but two directly dealing with

131: nuclear reactors. In practice, all these patents were issued many

132: years after their application to the competent office, some of

133: them being even posthumous, and were never published (in Ref.

134: \cite{FNM}, for example, except for one case, they hadn't  even

135: been mentioned).

136: 

137: Finally, among the papers deposited by Sir James Chadwick at the

138: Churchill Archives Centre in Cambridge (U.K.), the most relevant

139: one related to Enrico Fermi is a complete version of the set of

140: lectures given by Fermi at Los Alamos in 1945 on Neutron Physics,

141: containing some material {\it not present} in the known

142: ``American'' version (published on page 440ff of Volume II of Ref.

143: \cite{FNM}).

144: 

145: Other ``minor'' documents have been recovered as well; all the

146: material not published or mentioned in the Fermi's {\it Collected

147: Papers} and now retrieved will be discussed in some detail in the

148: following.

149: 

150: \section{The path to the exploitation of nuclear energy}

151: 

152: \noi In order to put in the right context what is the object of

153: the present analysis, it will be preceded by a rapid summary of

154: what was known about the activity of Fermi on nuclear fission and

155: related topics before our recent retrieval.

156: 

157: \subsection{The discovery of the fission of uranium and the

158: possibility to produce a chain reaction}

159: 

160: \begin{quote}

161: It has been known for many years that vast amounts of energy are

162: stored in the nuclei of many atomic species and that their release

163: is non in contradiction with the principle of the conservation of

164: the energy, nor with any other of the accepted basic laws of

165: physics. In spite of this recognized fact, it was the general

166: opinion among physicists until recently that a large scale release

167: of the nuclear energy would not be possible without the discovery

168: of some new phenomenon. \cite{FNM223}

169: \end{quote}

170: 

171: \noi Such a new phenomenon, as mentioned by Fermi in one of his

172: reviews of 1946, was that observed by Otto Hahn and Fritz

173: Strassmann in the Fall of 1938 at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in

174: Berlin, when bombarding the uranium nucleus with neutrons from a

175: radium-beryllium source. The correct explanation of the Hahn and

176: Strassmann experiments was soon given by Lise Meitner and Otto R.

177: Frisch who interpreted the observed phenomenon as due to the

178: splitting of uranium, from which two elements formed, each of

179: approximately half of its original mass. The mass which

180: ``disappeared'' was assumed to be converted into energy, according

181: to Einstein's theory of relativity.

182: 

183: The news of the novel phenomenon reached the other side of the

184: Atlantic Ocean just after Fermi and his family arrived in America,

185: after receiving the Nobel Prize in Stockholm.

186: 

187: \begin{quote}

188: Niels Bohr, who had come for a stay at Princeton, was on his way

189: to attend a conference in Washington. [...] By the time he was

190: ready to leave Princeton, Bohr had heard the results of Frisch's

191: experiments. It was a most exciting development.

192: \cite{AndersonSachs}

193: \end{quote}

194: 

195: \noi Willis Lamb was in Princeton at that time and, after heard

196: from Bohr of this breaking news, he went to Columbia University

197: and communicated it to Fermi \cite{FermiFisico}. Quite

198: independently, according to Anderson's recollections,

199: 

200: \begin{quote}

201: on his way to Washington, Bohr thought it would be a good idea to

202: drop by and see Fermi to tell him about the exciting new physics.

203: He came to the Pupin Physics Laboratory looking for Fermi. [...]

204: He didn't find Fermi; he found me instead. I was the only person

205: around. He hadn't see me before but that didn't stop him. He

206: grabbed me by the shoulder and said, ``Young man, let me tell you

207: about fission.'' [...] I had heard enough to catch the excitement.

208: [...] When Bohr left I felt I had something to tell Fermi. [...]

209: ``Professor Fermi, I've come to tell you that I have just seen

210: Professor Bohr. He was looking for you and he told me some very

211: interesting things.'' Fermi interrupted me. A smile broke out and

212: he said, ``Let ME tell you about fission.'' Then I heard again,

213: but this time much more graphically, how the energy would appear

214: when the uranium was split and the pieces flew apart by Coulomb

215: repulsion. \cite{AndersonSachs}

216: \end{quote}

217: 

218: \noi After the news spread out, many physicists (including Fermi

219: and collaborators) confirmed the results by Hahn and Strassmann

220: and proved true the interpretation and suggestions by Frisch,

221: working rapidly for a better understanding of the phenomenon.

222: 

223: \begin{quote}

224: In the spring of 1939 it was generally known that a fission that

225: can be produced by the collision of a single neutron with a

226: uranium atom was capable of producing more than one new neutron,

227: probably something of the order of two or three. It was felt at

228: that time by many physicists that a chain reaction based on the

229: uranium fission was a possibility well worth investigating.

230: \cite{FNM223}

231: \end{quote}

232: 

233: The idea of a nuclear chain reaction able to liberate energy on a

234: large scale came to Leo Szilard as early as in 1933-4, when it was

235: believed that beryllium (instead of uranium) was unstable and that

236: neutrons would split off when this element disintegrated. This

237: proved soon incorrect, but the possibility to create a process

238: that would emit more neutrons than were absorbed (or, in other

239: words, with a multiplication or reproduction factor greater than

240: one) came back into the picture when the fission of uranium was

241: discovered. This was promptly recognized by Szilard who, according

242: to Anderson \cite{AndersonSachs}, ``was very anxious to work with

243: Fermi, or at least to have discussion with him'' in order to

244: achieve effectively a chain reaction.

245: 

246: \subsection{Natural uranium and graphite}

247: 

248: In 1939 a number of experiments were performed to put the problem

249: of fission on a quantitative basis. The first important fact to be

250: realized was that the cross section for neutron fission was higher

251: for low energy neutrons, while the second one was that the key

252: isotope of uranium involved in  the fission induced by slow

253: neutrons was the rare one of mass 235, instead of the most

254: abundant $^{238}$U. The problem was. however, complicated by the

255: fact that, besides producing fission, slow neutrons can also give

256: rise to the production of the radioactive isotope $^{239}$U by

257: simple capture. In particular the capture of neutrons with thermal

258: energies (thermal neutrons) was proved to be due  to a strong

259: resonance absorption at somewhat higher energies \cite{FNM131}.

260: Such a process competes with fission in taking up the neutrons

261: which are needed to sustain a chain reaction, so that a major

262: problem in making the chain reaction to be effective was to avoid

263: losses due to this absorption.

264: 

265: In any case, the first basic point to be cleared up was the choice

266: of the fissile material to be used and, in this respect, two

267: alternatives were opened at the end of 1939. The first one was the

268: separation of $^{235}$U from the natural uranium, thus eliminating

269: the absorption by the most abundant isotope $^{238}$U. Obviously,

270: for this method to work, the major difficulty for that time was to

271: produce large quantities of the isotope needed. The alternative

272: choice was, instead, to use directly natural uranium, with the

273: evident drawback caused by the undesirable absorption of neutrons

274: by the most abundant isotope, which may lower significatively the

275: multiplication factor for the self-sustaining reaction to be

276: achieved. The problem with both the alternative methods were

277: serious, and Fermi chose to work out the one where more physical

278: effects should be understood and kept under control, i.e. he

279: decided to study the possibility of a chain reaction with natural

280: uranium. It is quite interesting to observe that Fermi was very

281: confident that such a way was the right one:

282: 

283: \begin{quote}

284: ``Herbert,'' he said, ``if you stick with me we'll get the chain

285: reaction first. The other guys will have to separate those

286: isotopes first, but we'll make it work with ordinary uranium.''

287: \cite{AndersonSachs}

288: \end{quote}

289: 

290: \noi Such an attitude, as usual for him, came from the appropriate

291: quantitative results he and his collaborators obtained from an

292: extensive experimental work. Here, as already mentioned, the

293: discriminating factor was the slowing down of the incident

294: neutrons, which makes more effective the cross section for fission

295: with respect to that for absorption.

296: 

297: The problem of  the slowing down of neutrons and its effect on the

298: development of neutron-induced nuclear reactions (and, in

299: particular, the production of radioactive elements) had been the

300: subject of intense and fruitful researches by Fermi and his group

301: in Rome as early as 1934 \cite{DeGSlow}, and lead to several

302: important papers, collected in Ref. \cite{FNM}. A patent for the

303: practical applications of the results obtained was as well issued;

304: the interesting subsequent anecdotes related to this patent have

305: been narrated in Ref. \cite{FermiFisico}. It was recognized that

306: the most efficient way to slow down neutrons was to pass them

307: through hydrogen, the lightest chemical elements present in water,

308: paraffin, etc., so that the obvious conclusion for getting a

309: reproduction factor high enough for a chain reaction was to

310: disseminate uranium powder in water. However, measurements

311: revealed \cite{FNM132} that thermal neutron absorption by hydrogen

312: was too large for water to make it a usable medium for slowing

313: down neutrons in a chain reaction, since that absorption (leading

314: to formation of deuterium) would lower substantially the

315: multiplication factor. Thus, other light elements should be taken

316: into consideration.

317: 

318: \begin{quote}

319: Out of Szilard's thinking came the idea of using graphite instead

320: of water to slow down the neutron. [...] Fermi had also been

321: thinking about graphite. \cite{AndersonSachs}

322: \end{quote}

323: 

324: Measurements showed \cite{FNM136} that the absorption of neutrons

325: on graphite was small enough to make it the obvious choice for a

326: material for slowing down the neutrons, so that Fermi set forth

327: also the basic theoretical techniques for describing the behaviour

328: of neutrons in such substances. It was also shown that, after the

329: neutrons reached thermal energies, a second diffusion process

330: began in which the neutrons continued to diffuse through the

331: material until they either escaped or were absorbed. The

332: advantages of graphite against water, as a moderator for neutrons,

333: came out from experiments with a pile of graphite aimed at

334: measuring the absorption of carbon \cite{FNM138}. In such a pile

335: the neutrons were slowed down more slowly than in water, but once

336: they reached thermal energies the neutrons would diffuse longer

337: and reach greater distances from the source. As a consequence, a

338: physical separation of the thermal neutrons from higher energy

339: ones could be obtained, and this property was later used by Fermi

340: in many different ways.

341: 

342: \subsection{Experimental piles}

343: 

344: At this point of the story, the next step was to design a chain

345: reacting pile that would work, and, to this end, a number of

346: experimental piles were built, early at Columbia University in New

347: York and then at Chicago, to study directly the properties of

348: uranium and graphite (or other moderators) in a pile.

349: 

350: The key ingredient was, of course, to work with sufficiently pure

351: materials; these were obtained from different factories (with

352: quite different degree of purity), and always were tested by Fermi

353: and his collaborators. A chemical method, involving ether

354: separation, was used to purify uranium \cite{FNM137} while the

355: absorption of neutrons by graphite was especially measured.

356: 

357: Graphite bricks were stacked into the so-called ``sigma pile''

358: (denoted with the Greek letter ``sigma''), designed to measure the

359: absorption cross section. A neutron source was placed near the

360: bottom of the pile and indium foils were exposed at various points

361: on the vertical axis above the source; from the radioactivity

362: induced in these foils the absorption cross section of graphite

363: was deduced. To this regard, standard procedures were introduced

364: \cite{FNM140} by which indium (and rhodium) foils could be

365: calibrated in order that the measurement of their radioactivity

366: could be used to give either the slow neutron density or the

367: slowing down density in absolute units. The graphite column

368: erected at Columbia was also used as a source of thermal neutrons

369: in the measurement of the absorption cross section of boron. This

370: element, in fact, had importance in absolute neutron measurement,

371: because of its high neutron absorption cross section and its

372: dependence on the inverse of the velocity of neutrons

373: \cite{FNM148}.

374: %Such measurements turned out to be very useful also later

375: 

376: For uranium, apart from its purification, an important problem was

377: that of resonance absorption, as mentioned before. The idea then

378: came out of using uranium in lumps, just to reduce the resonance

379: absorption. Also, Fermi measured the resonance absorption for

380: uranium oxide compressed into spheres and, in particular, when

381: these spheres were embedded in graphite \cite{FNM139}. Evidently,

382: he was already thinking about experiments to test a ``complete''

383: uranium-graphite reactor.

384: 

385: Meanwhile, the fission of uranium induced by fast (rather than

386: slow) neutrons was as well investigated to some extent, not only

387: for the possibility of obtaining a fast neutron chain reaction,

388: but also for measuring the contribution of fast neutron-induced

389: reactions to the slow neutron chain reaction \cite{FNM145}.

390: 

391: Fermi and Szilard had the very important idea of placing the

392: uranium oxide in a lattice in the graphite, instead of spreading

393: it out uniformly \cite{WattenSachs}. Here the problem was ``to

394: ascertain whether a given lattice of uranium oxide lumps embedded

395: in graphite could give a divergent chain reaction if its

396: dimensions were made sufficiently large'' \cite{FNM150}, by

397: exercising the greatest care in keeping under control possible

398: losses of neutrons.

399: 

400: In order to test with a smaller structure whether a larger one

401: would work, Fermi invented the ``exponential experiment''. Uranium

402: was placed among the graphite bricks in a cubic lattice array,

403: with a radium-beryllium neutron source near the bottom and indium

404: foils exposed at various distances from it on the vertical axis.

405: The arrangement is, thus, similar to that of the sigma pile, but

406: the exponential pile was much larger than the sigma pile. The

407: exponential decrease in the neutron density along the axis is

408: greater or less than that expected due to leakage according to

409: whether the reproduction factor is less or greater than one.

410: 

411: Such exponential piles were developed at Columbia in Summer-Fall

412: of 1941 \cite{FNM223}; they produced results indicating that even

413: an infinite amount of material would not lead to a self-sustaining

414: structure, this being due mainly to the impurities in the

415: graphite. The situation changed when, during the following Spring

416: (1942), some new graphite was available. The last two experiments

417: performed at Columbia, before the move to Chicago, gave

418: encouraging results \cite{FNM151, FNM152}, and definitively

419: demonstrated an understanding of the physical effects being

420: involved.

421: 

422: \subsection{Achieving the first nuclear chain reaction}

423: 

424: The National Academy of Science Committee, whose chairman was

425: Arthur H. Compton of the University of Chicago, was charged to

426: review the uranium projects of the United States and to judge

427: their military importance. At the end of 1941 the Committee

428: decided that the work made by the Fermi group using natural

429: uranium was important and, one day before the Pear Harbor attack

430: on December 7, 1941, the Metallurgical Laboratory was established

431: with Compton as its scientific head in Chicago. For people working

432: on a chain reaction using natural uranium, Chicago became the only

433: game going and, finally, Fermi and his group at Columbia

434: definitively moved to Chicago in April 1942.

435: 

436: \begin{quote}

437: Under Compton leadership a large number of people came too. Among

438: them there was Szilard who worked hard getting the graphite free

439: from neutron absorbing impurities, and Norman Hilberry, who did a

440: marvellous job procuring what was needed. Soon large quantities of

441: graphite began to appear for us to test. Equally strenuous efforts

442: were expended getting uranium in forms sufficiently pure. First we

443: worked with uranium oxide. Then various people worked to produce

444: uranium metal. Outstanding among those was Frank Spedding from

445: Iowa State University. [...] Spedding's uranium was an important

446: component of the first chain reaction. \cite{AndersonSachs}

447: \end{quote}

448: 

449: \noi A number of engineers then came into the project to produce

450: an appropriate and feasible design of a chain reacting system, so

451: that a first practical problem was to ``translate'' the known

452: physical achievements into a form suitable to them who had little

453: knowledge in a field completely new. To this end, Fermi invented

454: the notion of ``danger coefficient'' \cite{FNM153} for identifying

455: the impurities which were dangerous for the realization of the

456: chain reaction, due to their high neutron absorption cross

457: section. The effect of such impurities was, then, taken into

458: account directly on the evaluation of the multiplication factor

459: through those danger coefficients. For example, it was determined

460: the effect of gases in the interstices of the graphite, mainly

461: concerning with the appreciable amount of nitrogen impurity in the

462: porous graphite, or even the effect of the undesirable impurity of

463: water in graphite or uranium \cite{WattenSachs}.

464: 

465: Another problem studied was the stability of the pile against

466: temperature changes, since the heat production in the reactor

467: would have altered the reactivity of the pile \cite{FNM154163}.

468: 

469: The study of the uranium-graphite reactor was not the sole work

470: carried out at the Metallurgical Laboratory; other possible

471: systems were as well considered and some measurements made. This

472: is the case, for example, of the so-called ``water boiler'', that

473: is a reactor system made of a central uranium core enriched with

474: $^{235}$U and water around it serving as a moderator

475: \cite{FNM155}. Also, the multiplication factor of a uranium oxide

476: system with a beryllium metal as neutron moderator was measured

477: \cite{WattenSachs}.

478: 

479: Turning back to the study of the main uranium-graphite reactor,

480: the first important result was obtained in August 1942, when very

481: pure uranium oxide was delivered to the Laboratory, making the

482: reproduction factor $k$ greater than one for the first time

483: \cite{FNM166}. The 4\% excess available ($k=1.04$) effectively

484: opened the road to the building of the first self-sustaining pile,

485: the Chicago Pile No. 1 (CP-1).

486: 

487: The major engineering problem with it was the choice of an

488: adeguate cooling system with sufficiently low neutron absorption,

489: since the ``official'' motivation for the project was to produce

490: plutonium, another fissile material (other than $^{235}$U) to be

491: used also for military purposes. Indeed, ``a large effort was

492: underway for planning the pilot and production reactors, on the

493: assumption that CP-1 would succeed'' \cite{WattenSachs}.

494: Alternative choices \cite{FNM176} were proposed to cool the system

495: by gas (preferably helium), water, or even liquid bismuth, this

496: ingenious proposal by Szilard being later set aside because of the

497: lack of engineering experience with this material. The Chicago

498: group definitively worked on the design for a helium cooled plant

499: submitted by the engineers T.V. Moore and M. Leverett.

500: 

501: \begin{quote}

502: So it happened that on 15th of November [1942] we started to build

503: the pile in the West Stands [of the Stagg Field, in Chicago.]

504: [...] Fermi wanted to build the pile with a shape as close  to

505: spherical as possible. This would minimize the surface/volume

506: ratio and make the best use of the material which would became

507: available. [...] A major change in design came when we had news

508: that Spedding would be sending some of his high purity uranium

509: metal. The best place for this was as close to the center as

510: possible. As a result, the shape of the pile was changed as we

511: went along. The spherical shape we started with got squashed

512: somewhat as we went along because the purity of the material we

513: were getting was better than we had anticipated.

514: \cite{AndersonSachs}

515: \end{quote}

516: 

517: \noi The delivery of the Spedding's metal avoided the use of

518: another ingenious trick proposed by Anderson, i.e. to build the

519: pile inside an envelope made of ballon cloth to remove the air

520: (and replace it with Carbon dioxide), in order to minimize the

521: absorption of neutrons by the nitrogen in the air within the pile,

522: with a gain of about 1\% in the reproduction factor \cite{FNM168,

523: AndersonSachs}.

524: 

525: To initiate the chain reaction, it was not necessary (as in

526: experimental piles) to introduce in the pile a separate neutron

527: source since, as already experimentally measured, the uranium also

528: had a non-vanishing probability for spontaneous fission, so that

529: it emits a few neutrons of its own. However, when the pile was

530: building, to keep it from becoming too reactive once it began to

531: approach the critical size, some neutron absorber was needed to

532: control the reactivity of the chain reaction. Control rods were,

533: then, inserted within the pile, made simply of strips of cadmium,

534: since such element was known to be a strong neutron absorber. The

535: pile was controlled and prevented from burning itself to complete

536: destruction just by these cadmium rods, which absorb neutrons and

537: stop the bombardment process of uranium. Further safety

538: arrangements were as well conceived and set up by Fermi for the

539: first reactor (see Ref. \cite{AndersonSachs}, for example), whose

540: construction resulted to be completed about a week earlier than

541: the director of the Metallurgical Laboratory had officially

542: anticipated. In the afternoon of December 2, 1942, in fact, the

543: Chicago Pile No. 1 finally got critical and a chain reaction

544: successfully started for the first time.

545: 

546: \begin{quote}

547: We had built the pile, and Fermi had established that we could get

548: a self-sustaining nuclear reaction that we could control in a very

549: predictable manner. \cite{WattenSachs}

550: \end{quote}

551: 

552: 

553: \subsection{Further studies on nuclear piles during the war years}

554: 

555: The further development in the studies on nuclear pile, during the

556: three years 1943-1945 was of course focused on the main objective

557: of producing weapons, so that it is natural to expect very few

558: detailed information on these classifies topics. Indeed, none of

559: these appeared in the {\it Collected Papers} by Fermi \cite{FNM},

560: and our source of information is only composed of eyewitnesses

561: (see, for example, \cite{FermiFisico}). However, quite

562: fortunately, some reports exist that testify on part of Fermi's

563: activity during these years, not strictly and directly related to

564: military applications, though those reports had been classified

565: for some time (see Ref. \cite{FNM}). In the following we will

566: briefly discuss only such known activity.

567: 

568: First of all, the pile was used as a suitable device for checking

569: directly the purity of the uranium and for studying a number of

570: features of the uranium-graphite lattice, unaccessible before

571: \cite{FNM182183}. However, after about three months of operation,

572: the original CP-1 pile was explored sufficiently to learn how to

573: rebuild it with many improvements. A second pile, CP-2, was

574: effectively built at the Argonne site, near Chicago, in March of

575: 1943, and several studies started to be done. These were mainly

576: aimed at designing an efficient pilot plant for producing

577: plutonium or for isotope separation. Such plants were actually

578: erected (at the end of 1943 and later on) at Oak Ridge, Tennessee

579: (known as ``Site X'') and at Hanford, Washington (known as ``Site

580: W''). An example is the designing and test of a radiation shield

581: for the production piles to be built at Hanford, mentioned in Ref.

582: \cite{FNM187}.

583: 

584: The pile was also used as a tool to measure neutron absorption

585: cross sections by several elements. Samples of these elements were

586: put in the pile, and the compensating changes in control rod

587: position were determined \cite{FNM210}. This method also became a

588: routine tool for checking for neutron absorbing impurities in the

589: materials used in reactors.

590: 

591: Some explicit ``physics works'' was, furthermore, carried out when

592: the so-called ``thermal column'' was devised by Fermi and

593: incorporated in experimental piles \cite{FNM189}. A graphite

594: column was, in fact, set up on the top of a pile, where thermal

595: neutrons could be found with substantial intensity and essentially

596: free from those of higher energy. This lead to the discovery of a

597: novel phenomenon, that is the diffraction of thermal neutrons by

598: graphite lattice \cite{FNM191}, which opened the road to

599: investigate the wave properties of neutrons \cite{FNM217}. The

600: increased neutron intensity available from a pile also allowed to

601: obtain truly monochromatic beams of neutrons for different

602: experiments (such as, for example, the measurement of the boron

603: cross section at a well definite neutron velocity). This was made

604: possible by a thermal neutron velocity selector designed by Fermi

605: at the Los Alamos Laboratory (known as ``Site Y'') \cite{FNM200}

606: and then built at Argonne.

607: 

608: The fission spectrum of uranium was also measured accurately by

609: exploiting the slow neutrons provided by a pile, which were then

610: absorbed by a layer of uranium. Other physical properties of

611: $^{235}$U and $^{239}$Pu were as well determined \cite{FNM212},

612: and these measurements, performed at Los Alamos in 1944 with the

613: active collaboration of Chicago's people, revealed somewhat

614: unexpected properties of plutonium. In the same period some

615: interesting work was also done on the theoretically possible

616: phenomenon of ``breeding'' \cite{FNM211}, namely of producing more

617: fissionable material in a reactor than was consumed, clearly

618: depending on the effective number of neutrons available in the

619: chain reaction.

620: 

621: The increased production of heavy water in 1943 made possible to

622: take seriously into account a proposal by H.C. Urey of April 1942

623: to use heavy water as neutron moderator. This lead to the

624: construction of an experimental reactor, known as P-9 and later

625: becoming CP-3 pile, which would have much more power than CP-2,

626: thus extending the experimental possibilities \cite{FNM194}.

627: 

628: Finally, other effects were studied during 1944, ranging from the

629: dissociation pressure of water due to fission \cite{FNM214} to the

630: measurement of the amount of nitrogen in the first production pile

631: at Hanford. An unexpected problem with the Hanford pile was also

632: studied, and independently solved by Fermi and J. Wheeler, on the

633: xenon poisoning, which caused the full stop of the chain reaction

634: \cite{FNM218}.

635: 

636: Further works by Fermi until the end of the Second World War

637: concerned mainly the realization of the atomic bomb at the Los

638: Alamos Laboratory, so that the corresponding written reports were

639: strictly classified and not available for the {\it Collected

640: Papers}. A relevant exception are the lecture notes \cite{FNM222}

641: for a course that Fermi gave at Los Alamos just after the end of

642: the war, in the fall of 1945. Here he summarized the results

643: achieved on neutron physics, with particular reference to nuclear

644: piles. These lectures are, however, an example of the didactic

645: ability of Fermi rather than a source of information about his

646: research work.

647: 

648: 

649: \section{Novel documents}

650: 

651: \noi We have indulged above on the works carried out by Fermi and

652: his collaborators about pile physics, to give an as complete as

653: possible overview of all the related topics tackled in the first

654: 1940s. This has been done not only for giving an appropriate

655: context for the documents recently retrieved, but also for a

656: better comprehension of the novel material present in it, which we

657: now prepare to discuss in some detail.

658: 

659: In order to identify the documents retrieved in different places,

660: we have used a simple coding for them made of three or four

661: letters determining the source archive: USP for U.S. Patents, WAT

662: for the papers in the Wattenberg Archive and CHAD for the

663: documents in the Chadwick Archive. The number following the USP

664: code enumerates the Fermi patents, in chronological order.

665: Instead, for the WAT code we have used the same cataloguing number

666: of the Library of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign;

667: however, since in several cases this cataloguing number refers to

668: more than one document, we have also added an additional (lower

669: case) letter differentiating the diverse documents (the

670: alphabetical order corresponding to the chronological order).

671: Minor documents coming from other sources do not seemingly

672: necessitate of additional codes.

673: 

674: Some of the papers just retrieved were not directly written by

675: Fermi, but are directly related to works performed by him, such as

676: lecture notes, reports or notes on meetings, and so on. In order

677: to let the reader to recognize promptly these papers, we have used

678: special symbols. In particular, we have denoted with a

679: $\diamondsuit$ those where the contribution by Fermi is explicitly

680: recognizable (typically, notes on meetings), and with a

681: * those where such contribution can be deduced only indirectly

682: (lecture notes or edited reports).

683: 

684: \subsection{Patents}

685: 

686: From the strictly scientific point of view, the most important

687: part of the present work concerns with the retrieval of the

688: patents authored (or co-authored) by Fermi on pile physics and

689: engineering. Except USP1 and USP8, all the patents deal with the

690: technical and operative construction of nuclear reactors. The

691: activity by Fermi on this subject was early well recognized from

692: the accounts given by the living testimonies (see, for example,

693: Ref. \cite{FermiFisico}) and partially documented by several

694: papers appeared in the Fermi's {\it Collected Papers}, as

695: discussed above. Nevertheless, from the newly retrieved papers, a

696: number of important scientific and technical points comes out,

697: putting some new bright light on the Fermi's activity in the

698: project. In practice, what Fermi {\it effectively} did for the

699: success of the project is here technically documented, and very

700: clearly emerges from these papers. It is quite impressive the fact

701: that, just from the accurate reading of the patents, anyone who

702: has at his own disposal the necessary materials could effectively

703: build a working reactor, with a number of possible alternatives.

704: 

705: A detailed account of these patents then follows.

706: \\

707: 

708: \begin{itemize}

709: \item[{\tiny USP1}] {\it Process for the production of radioactive

710: substances} (7 pages + 2 figures),

711: \\

712: by E. Fermi, E. Amaldi, B. Pontecorvo, F. Rasetti and E. Segr\`e,

713: \\

714: filed Oct. 3, 1935 (Patent No. 2,206,634; July 2, 1940); \\

715: original patent application filed Oct. 26, 1934 in Italy (Patent

716: No. 324,458).

717: \\

718: 

719: \noi ``This invention relates to the production of isotopes of

720: elements from other isotopes of the same or different elements by

721: reaction with neutrons, and especially to the production of

722: artificial radioactivity by formation of unstable isotopes. [...]

723: It is an object of the present invention to provide a method and

724: apparatus by which nuclear reactions can be carried on with high

725: efficiency and with the heavier as well as the lighter elements. A

726: more specific object of the invention is to provide a method and

727: apparatus for artificially producing radio-active substances with

728: efficiency such that their cost may be brought below that of

729: natural radio-active materials. Our invention is based upon the

730: use of neutron instead of charged particles for the bombardment

731: and transformation of the isotopes.'' \\

732: \end{itemize}

733: 

734: 

735: \noi Indeed, in this paper, a very detailed description of the

736: experimental results obtained by studying the radioactivity

737: induced in a number of chemical elements by irradiation of slow

738: neutrons is reported, along with a corresponding theoretical

739: interpretation.

740: 

741: The original patent application, {\it Metodo per accrescere il

742: rendimento dei procedi\-menti per la produzione di radioattivit\`a

743: artificiali mediante il bombardamento con neutroni} (Method for

744: increasing the efficiency of the processes for the production of

745: artificial radioactivities by neutron bombardment), was submitted

746: in Italy just after the achievement (on October 22, 1934) of the

747: first experimental results, and later extended to U.S.A. and other

748: countries. The intriguing story about this patent (seemingly

749: without reference to its content), which resulted to be of

750: fundamental relevance for the subsequent development of the atomic

751: energy, is well described in the literature (see, for example,

752: Ref. \cite{FermiFisico}).

753: 

754: Particularly interesting is the mention of the possible discovery

755: of ``transuranic'' elements given in the present patent. Even

756: here, some caution was adopted about its interpretation, as well

757: as the theoretical interpretation of the effects induced by slow

758: neutrons considered in the paper: ``The theoretical statements and

759: explanations are, of course, not conclusive and our invention is

760: in no way dependent upon their correctness. We have found them

761: helpful and give them for the aid of others, but our invention

762: will be equally useful if it should prove that our theoretical

763: conclusions are not altogether correct.''\footnote{Similar

764: sentences appear also in other patents for evident legal reasons,

765: but here the dubious ``theoretical correctness'' is particularly

766: pointed out.}

767: 

768: The reference article for the material here contained is Ref.

769: \cite{FNM107} of February 15, 1935 to which we refer the reader

770: for further details. However, at least in part, specific results

771: discussed here are somewhat different from those in Ref.

772: \cite{FNM107}.

773: \\

774: 

775: \begin{itemize}

776: \item[{\tiny USP2}] {\it Test exponential pile} (11 pages + 11

777: figures),

778: \\

779: by E. Fermi,

780: \\

781: filed May 4, 1944 (Patent No. 2,780,595; Feb. 5, 1957).

782: \\

783: 

784: \noi ``My invention relates to the general subject of nuclear

785: fission and more particularly to a means and method to creating

786: and measuring a chain reaction obtained by nuclear fission of

787: natural uranium having a $^{235}$U isotope content of

788: approximately $1/139$.'' \\

789: \end{itemize}

790: 

791: \noi The paper contains an extremely detailed description of an

792: atomic pile employing natural uranium as fissile material and

793: graphite as moderator. Apart from the discussion of the theory of

794: the intervening phenomena, a report on the very construction of

795: such a pile (with many detailed drawings) and on the experimental

796: test of the pile (discussing experimental data, their

797: interpretation and possible improvements) is given. Particularly

798: relevant is the reported ``invention'' of the exponential

799: experiment, aimed at ascertaining if the pile under construction

800: would be divergent (i.e. with a neutron multiplication factor $k$

801: greater than 1) by making measurements on a smaller pile. The idea

802: is to measure the exponential decrease of the neutron density

803: along the length of a column of uranium-graphite lattice, where a

804: neutron source is placed near its base. Such an exponential

805: decrease is greater or less than that expected due to leakage,

806: according to whether the $k$ factor is less or greater than 1, so

807: that this experiment is able to test the criticality of the pile,

808: its accuracy increasing with the size of the column.

809: 

810: For the present paper, there is no ``reference'' published

811: article, although some material appears also in the important Ref.

812: \cite{FNM150} of March 26, 1942. More in general, some results are

813: as well present in several papers of Volume II of the Fermi {\it

814: Collected Papers} \cite{FNM}, but many details (including several

815: figures) are reported only in the present patent.

816: \\

817: 

818: \begin{itemize}

819: \item[{\tiny USP3}] {\it Neutronic reactor} (30 pages + 42

820: figures),

821: \\

822: by E. Fermi and L. Szilard,

823: \\

824: filed Dec. 19, 1944 (Patent No. 2,708,656; May 17, 1955).

825: \\

826: 

827: \noi ``The present invention relates to the general subject of

828: nuclear fission and particularly to the establishment of

829: self-sustaining neutron chain fission reaction in systems

830: embodying uranium having a natural isotopic content.'' \\

831: \end{itemize}

832: 

833: \noi As emphasized in {\it The New York Times} of May 19, 1955,

834: this ``historic patent, covering the first nuclear reactor'', is

835: the first one issued by the U.S. Patent Office, and served as a

836: reference for the subsequent patents on the same subject. In this

837: long paper, the theory, experimental data and principles of

838: construction and operation of ``any'' type of nuclear reactor

839: known at that time are discussed in an extremely detailed way.

840: Various possible fission fragments produced by the reactor,

841: several forms of the uranium employed (metal, oxide and so on,

842: grouped in different geometrical forms), various materials adopted

843: as moderators, several cooling systems, different geometries of

844: the reactors, etc. are considered accurately.

845: 

846: The theoretical description, centered around the achievement of a

847: self-sustaining chain reaction, is exhaustive, and great attention

848: is devoted to any possible cause of neutron loss, to the resonance

849: capture of neutron and to the effect of the presence of relevant

850: impurities in the reactor. The production chain of neutrons in the

851: pile is described in great detail, along with the theoretical

852: arguments underlying the exponential experiment.

853: 

854: The problem of the variation of the multiplication factor due to

855: the production of radioactive elements, such as xenon, is

856: discussed extensively. In particular it is pointed out that,

857: although the initial production of xenon lowers the multiplication

858: factor $k$ due to its relevant neutron absorption, it subsequently

859: increases again due to the decay of xenon into another isotope

860: which absorbs fewer neutrons.

861: 

862: The building up of reactors with solid (graphite) or liquid (heavy

863: water) moderators is discussed, as well as other possible

864: moderators such as light water or beryllium. In particular, the

865: ratio is given of the absorption cross section to the scattering

866: cross section for several moderators.

867: 

868: Procedures for the purification of uranium are described as well.

869: Several methods (i.e., the exponential pile or the ``shotgun''

870: method; see Patent No. 2.969,307) are reported for testing the

871: purity against neutron absorption of different materials. The

872: effect of the boron and vanadium impurities in the graphite and

873: light water in the heavy water are considered.

874: 

875: Different cooling systems for the reactors are considered and

876: compared in the paper, based on the circulation of a gas

877: (typically, air) or a liquid (light or heavy water, diphenyl,

878: etc.).

879: 

880: The principles and practice for the construction, functioning and

881: control of several kinds of reactors are reported in detail.

882: 

883: One reactor considered in the present paper is a low power

884: uranium-graphite one without cooling system, where the active part

885: consists in (small) cylinders of metallic uranium or

886: pseudo-spheres of uranium oxide (or cylinders of $U_3O_8$). The

887: control rods are made of steel with boron inserts, while

888: limitation and safety rods are made of cadmium.

889: 

890: In addition, an uranium-graphite pile cooled by air or even by

891: water or diphenyl is considered. It is pointed out that dyphenil

892: should usually be preferred with respect to water, due to its

893: lower absorption of neutrons and to its higher boiling

894: temperature, but the disadvantage related to its use is mainly due

895: to the closed pumping system required and to the possible

896: occurrence of polymerization which makes the fluid viscous.

897: 

898: Another kind of reactor described in detail is made of uranium

899: (vertical) bars immersed in heavy water. When, during the

900: operation, the heavy water is dissociated into $D_2$ and $O_2$,

901: these two gaseous elements are carried by an inert gas (helium)

902: into a recombination device. The control and safety rods are made

903: of cadmium.

904: 

905: Hybrid reactors composed of different lattices in the same

906: neutronic reactor, in order to increase the multiplication factor

907: $k$, are considered as well.

908: 

909: A description of the possible uses of nuclear reactors, other than

910: as power supplies, including the production of collimated beams of

911: fast neutrons, the production of plutonium (a fissionable material

912: usable in other reactors) or several other radioactive isotopes

913: (for possible utilization in medicine) is as well given.

914: 

915: As it results clear, no published reference article behind the

916: present paper exists. Some partial results may be found in several

917: papers\footnote{Just to cite some of them, we mention Ref.

918: \cite{FNM139} for the use of uranium spheres or in lumps, Ref.

919: \cite{FNM140} for the use of indium foils to measure slow neutron

920: density, Ref. \cite{FNM153} for the introduction of danger

921: coefficients, Ref. \cite{FNM176} for the methods of cooling, Ref.s

922: \cite{FNM180} and \cite{FNM181} for the discussion about the

923: location of uranium and control rods in the pile, Ref.

924: \cite{FNM194} for the use of heavy water as moderator, and so on.}

925: of Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} (see, for example, \cite{FNM181}),

926: but here very many technical data and some information of historic

927: interest (mainly on the experiments performed in order to obtain

928: the data reported) are given.

929: \\

930: 

931: \begin{itemize}

932: \item[{\tiny USP4}] {\it Chain reacting system} (13 pages + 23

933: figures),

934: \\

935: by E. Fermi and M.C. Leverett,

936: \\

937: filed Feb. 16, 1945 (Patent No. 2,837,477; June 3, 1958).

938: \\

939: 

940: \noi ``The present invention relates to the subject of nuclear

941: fission and more particularly to a plant wherein the heat

942: generated as a result of the fission process can be removed at a

943: rapid rate and preferably in such a manner that it can be utilized

944: for the production of power. In addition, the products resulting

945: from the fission process in the plant can readily be removed

946: without requiring complete dismantling of the plant.'' \\

947: \end{itemize}

948: 

949: \noi This paper focuses mainly on an automatic system for the

950: control rods in a nuclear reactor (in the present case made of

951: natural uranium and graphite) reporting, aside from several

952: related theoretical points (already considered in previous

953: patents), a detailed description of it. The purpose of the control

954: circuit, ruling the position of boron or cadmium rods within the

955: reactor, is just that of achieving a suitable neutron density to

956: produce the desired temperature in the system.

957: 

958: The cooling medium is gaseous helium circulating in the active

959: regions of the reactor, i.e. directly in contact with the uranium,

960: where approximately the 92\% of the heat is produced. The choice

961: of such noble gas is made in order to minimize the possible

962: corrosion of the fissile material and the absorption of neutrons,

963: which are crucial to self-sustain the fission reaction. However,

964: other possible choices for the coolant gas (such as air, oxigen or

965: water vapor) are discussed as well in terms of their ``danger

966: coefficients'' affecting the determination of the multiplication

967: factor \cite{FNM153}.

968: 

969: The discussion of some methods of cooling chain reacting piles was

970: initiated in Ref. \cite{FNM176}, but no reference published paper

971: exists of the material presented here.

972: \\

973: 

974: \begin{itemize}

975: \item[{\tiny USP5}] {\it Neutronic reactor} (8 pages + 12

976: figures),

977: \\

978: by E. Fermi,

979: \\

980: filed May 12, 1945 (Patent No. 2,931,762; Apr. 5, 1960).

981: \\

982: 

983: \noi ``My invention relates to the general subject of nuclear

984: fission and particularly to the establishment of self-sustaining

985: neutron chain reactions, compositions of matter and methods of

986: producing such compositions suitable for use in creating a

987: self-sustaining chain reaction by nuclear fission of uranium by

988: slow neutrons in a neutronic reactor.'' \\

989: \end{itemize}

990: 

991: \noi Particular attention is paid, in this paper, to the problem

992: of removing heat from a chain reacting device. The system proposed

993: (and carried into effect) is to cool the moderator (and not

994: directly the uranium) with a liquid circulating in tubes of

995: aluminium or some other material.

996: 

997: This paper is, in practice, an ``evolution'' of the previous

998: patents (especially Patent No. 2,708,656) where, apart from the

999: presentation of the novel kind of reactor mentioned above, several

1000: new physical data are presented. In particular, some details about

1001: the construction and operation of the system, including

1002: interesting tricks, are reported.

1003: 

1004: The main subject of this patent does not appear in any other

1005: published paper.

1006: \\

1007: 

1008: \begin{itemize}

1009: \item[{\tiny USP6}] {\it Air cooled neutronic reactor} (11 pages +

1010: 12 figures),

1011: \\

1012: by E. Fermi and L. Szilard,

1013: \\

1014: filed May 29, 1945 (Patent No. 2,836,554; May 27, 1958).

1015: \\

1016: 

1017: \noi ``The present invention relates to a neutronic reactor which

1018: is capable of numerous uses but is particularly adapted to use for

1019: the production of the transuranic element\footnote{That is

1020: plutonium, $^{239}$Pu.} $^{239}$94 and/or radioactive fission

1021: products by neutrons released during a self-sustaining nuclear

1022: chain reaction through fission of uranium with slow neutrons. More

1023: particularly, our invention relates to the removal of the heat of

1024: the neutronic reaction to such an extent that the reaction may be

1025: conducted at a more rapid rate and the production of element

1026: $^{239}$94 and/or fission products may be accelerated. Natural

1027: uranium may be used in the reaction and contain the isotopes

1028: $^{238}$92 and $^{235}$92 in the ratio of approximately 139 to

1029: 1.'' \\

1030: \end{itemize}

1031: 

1032: \noi The specific reactor considered in this paper is an

1033: uranium-graphite one cooled by air, circulating within the porous

1034: graphite, and with control and safety rods made of cadmium or

1035: boron. The air serving as coolant passes only once through the

1036: reactor, so that it is not too much enriched in radioactive

1037: $^{41}$Ar. Furthermore, it is exhausted at a substantial distance

1038: above ground (from the top of a stack), in order that the

1039: radioactive argon in the cooling air is sufficiently dispersed in

1040: and diluted by fresh atmospheric air before reaching any person on

1041: the ground.

1042: 

1043: Since the main object of this patent is to produce plutonium, some

1044: constructional details aimed at removing plutonium for the

1045: reactor, when a certain concentration of it is achieved, are

1046: illustrated. In particular, the mechanism for the loading or

1047: unloading of the uranium slugs is made of iron or lead in order to

1048: shield it from the radioactive bars in case they are loaded. It is

1049: also interesting to note with the authors that even after the

1050: uranium slugs have been extracted, they are so exceedingly

1051: radioactive that the produced heat would melt themselves if not

1052: immersed in water.

1053: 

1054: The production of plutonium was considered by Fermi in some

1055: previously issued reports (see, for example, Ref. \cite{FNM} on

1056: pages 391 and 411), but what discussed here in so great detail

1057: (including the basic air cooling) is present in no other published

1058: paper.

1059: \\

1060: 

1061: \begin{itemize}

1062: \item[{\tiny USP7}] {\it Testing material in a neutronic reactor}

1063: (8 pages + 9 figures),

1064: \\

1065: by E. Fermi and H.L. Anderson,

1066: \\

1067: filed Aug. 28, 1945 (Patent No. 2,768,134; Oct. 23, 1956).

1068: \\

1069: 

1070: \noi ``Our invention relates to the general subject of nuclear

1071: fission and more particularly to a means and method for testing

1072: materials by means of a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction

1073: system. Such a chain reaction system may be created by the nuclear

1074: fission of uranium by thermal neutrons, utilizing natural uranium

1075: having a $^{235}$U isotope content of as low as the natural ratio

1076: of approximately 1/139 of $^{238}$U or an

1077: enriched uranium having a higher $^{235}$U content.'' \\

1078: \end{itemize}

1079: 

1080: \noi The main object of this paper is to give a suitable method

1081: for determining neutron absorption by different materials, when

1082: they are irradiated with the neutrons coming from a nuclear pile.

1083: Such a reactor has deliberately a low reproduction factor, due to

1084: the apertures made in the system, from which neutrons are lost

1085: (the use of a coolant, in particular, is not provided).

1086: 

1087: The test is carried out by means of a comparison of the effects

1088: produced by the testing material with respect to those of the

1089: standard active material in the reactor. If the equilibrium

1090: position of the control rod with the test material in the reactor

1091: is further out of the reactor than it was with the standard lump

1092: in the reactor, then the test material absorbs more neutrons than

1093: the standard metal did. The opposite conclusion is, instead,

1094: reached if the control rod must be pushed further into the reactor

1095: to achieve equilibrium with the test material into the system.

1096: 

1097: Several details about the calibration of the control rod with

1098: different units are given, together with a discussion of the

1099: corrective effects due to a pressure change.

1100: 

1101: The main subject of this patent does not appear in any other

1102: published paper.

1103: \\

1104: 

1105: \begin{itemize}

1106: \item[{\tiny USP8}] {\it Neutron velocity selector} (6 pages + 6

1107: figures),

1108: \\

1109: by E. Fermi,

1110: \\

1111: filed Sept. 18, 1945 (Patent No. 2,524,379; Oct. 3, 1950).

1112: \\

1113: 

1114: \noi ``The present invention relates to neutron velocity selector

1115: apparatus and particularly to apparatus of this type

1116: which utilizes a rotating shutter.'' \\

1117: \end{itemize}

1118: 

1119: \noi This paper presents a detailed description of the

1120: construction and operation of a velocity selector for neutrons

1121: with velocities up to $6000 \div 7000$ m/s. This apparatus employs

1122: a rotating shutter designed in such a way that neutrons are passed

1123: during a portion of each rotation of the shutter, the shutter

1124: blocking all neutron radiation at other times.

1125: 

1126: The selector is built up with alternate laminations of a material

1127: with high neutron capture cross section (such as, for example,

1128: cadmium, boron or gadolinium), and parallel laminations of a

1129: material with low capture probability (such as, for example,

1130: aluminium, magnesium or beryllium). This is required in order to

1131: provide a path through the shutter to the neutrons, which then

1132: pass into a ionization chamber.

1133: 

1134: The timing mechanism, adopted to activate or deactivate the

1135: neutron detection and measuring means at given times following

1136: each opening or closing of the shutter, is electronic (not

1137: mechanic), controlled by a photocell unit.

1138: 

1139: The reference published article for the main topic of the present

1140: patent is Ref. \cite{FNM200}.

1141: \\

1142: 

1143: \begin{itemize}

1144: \item[{\tiny USP9}]  {\it Neutronic reactor} (5 pages + 8

1145: figures),

1146: \\

1147: by E. Fermi and L. Szilard,

1148: \\

1149: filed Oct. 11, 1945 (Patent No. 2,807,581; Sept. 24, 1957).

1150: \\

1151: 

1152: \noi ``The present invention relates to the general subject of

1153: nuclear fission and particularly to the establishment of

1154: self-sustaining neutron chain fission reactions in systems

1155: embodying uranium having a natural isotopic content.'' \\

1156: \end{itemize}

1157: 

1158: \noi This paper gives, indeed, a detailed description of a variant

1159: of the reactor presented in the previous Patent No. 2,708,656 by

1160: the same authors; it makes use of uranium arranged in plates,

1161: instead of spheres or rods. Such a different geometry is

1162: particularly efficient when a liquid moderator (for example heavy

1163: water) is used; in this case the moderator itself serves also as a

1164: coolant. In the paper, however, the use of solid moderators (like

1165: graphite or beryllium) is discussed as well.

1166: 

1167: The adoption of the given geometry leads to greater neutron losses

1168: in the reactor (due to resonant capture in uranium), but they are

1169: compensated by the mentioned use of a liquid moderator/coolant.

1170: 

1171: The main subject of this patent does not appear in any other

1172: published paper.

1173: \\

1174: 

1175: \begin{itemize}

1176: \item[{\tiny USP10}] {\it Neutronic reactor} (3 pages + 4

1177: figures),

1178: \\

1179: by E. Fermi, W.H. Zinn and H.L. Anderson,

1180: \\

1181: filed Oct. 11, 1945 (Patent No. 2,852,461; Sept. 16, 1958).

1182: \\

1183: 

1184: \noi ``This invention relates to the general subject of nuclear

1185: fission, and more particularly to a novel means for improving the

1186: establishment of self-su\-sta\-in\-ing nuclear fission

1187: chain reaction.''\\

1188: \end{itemize}

1189: 

1190: \noi An improvement of the reactors described in the previous

1191: patents, aimed at increasing the reproduction factor, is reported

1192: here, obtained by diminishing the neutron loss due to impurities

1193: within the reactor. This is achieved by encasing the reactor in a

1194: rubberized balloon cloth housing (or something like this) in order

1195: to eliminate the atmospheric air therefrom, thus eliminating both

1196: the effect of the danger coefficient of nitrogen (70\% of the

1197: atmospheric air) and that of the argon present in the air, that

1198: can become radioactive. Since the removal of the air from the

1199: reactor may result in structural problems, caused by the forces

1200: brought into play by that evacuation, the reactor is then filled

1201: by a non-reactive (from a chemical and nuclear standpoint) gas

1202: such as helium or carbon dioxide.

1203: 

1204: It is also interesting to point out that the authors consider also

1205: the possibility to control (a little) the reproduction ratio of

1206: the reactor by varying the air content of it.

1207: 

1208: Just a rapid mention of the main idea of the present patent (i.e.

1209: the encasing of the pile in a balloon cloth) appeared in Ref.

1210: \cite{FNM168}, but no detailed description of the system

1211: considered here is reported in any other published paper.

1212: \\

1213: 

1214: \begin{itemize}

1215: \item[{\tiny USP11}] {\it Neutronic reactor} (3 pages + 5

1216: figures),

1217: \\

1218: by E. Fermi and W.H. Zinn,

1219: \\

1220: filed Nov. 2, 1945 (Patent No. 2,714,577; Aug. 2, 1955).

1221: \\

1222: 

1223: \noi ``The present invention relates generally to neutronic

1224: reactors and, more particularly, to novel articles of manufacture

1225: used in and in combination with such reactors, and to the

1226: combination of such novel articles of manufacture with neutronic

1227: reactors. [...] More specifically, an object of the present

1228: invention is to provide novel shielding means for the active

1229: portion of a neutronic reactor adapted to be used in combination

1230: therewith. Another object is to provide in a neutronic reactor a

1231: novel cooled shield. Another object is to provide a novel

1232: composite rod adapted to be used as part of the active portion of

1233: a neutronic reactor. Another object is to provide a novel rod for

1234: use as part of the active portion of a neutronic reactor which is

1235: constructed with fissionable material in a portion thereof only.

1236: Another object is to provide in a neutronic reactor novel means

1237: for introducing foreign subject matter into the active portion of

1238: the neutronic reactor for bombardment by neutrons. Another object

1239: is to provide in a neutronic reactor a novel collimated beam for

1240: utilizing the active effects of the neutronic reactor upon objects

1241: exposed exteriorly of the reactor.''\\

1242: \end{itemize}

1243: 

1244: \noi Indeed, this paper describes a series of technical

1245: improvements of a chain reacting pile, as reported above. Some

1246: attention is paid, for instance, to the shielding of the active

1247: part of the reactor, the design of the uranium-containing rods and

1248: to the recombination of $D_2$ and $O_2$ in $D_2O$ (since heavy

1249: water is expensive).

1250: 

1251: Particularly interesting, from the scientific point of view, is

1252: the opportunity to have a well inside the active part of the

1253: reactor (which is the part most rich in neutrons and gamma rays),

1254: where objects to be bombarded with $n, \gamma$ may be placed, and

1255: from which collimated beams of such particles to be used outside

1256: the reactor may be formed.

1257: 

1258: The description of the mentioned technical improvements is not

1259: reported in any other published paper (see, however, Ref.

1260: \cite{FNM186} for the radiation shield, Ref. \cite{FNM214} for the

1261: dissociation of (light) water and Ref. \cite{FNM217} for the

1262: collimation of a neutron beam).

1263: \\

1264: 

1265: \begin{itemize}

1266: \item[{\tiny USP12}] {\it Method of testing thermal neutron

1267: fissionable material for purity} (4 pages + 4 figures),

1268: \\

1269: by E. Fermi and H.L. Anderson,

1270: \\

1271: filed Nov. 21, 1945 (Patent No. 2,969,307; Jan. 24, 1961).

1272: \\

1273: 

1274: \noi ``This invention relates to a novel method of testing the

1275: neutronic purity of uranium or other material to be used in a

1276: neutronic reactor.''\\

1277: \end{itemize}

1278: 

1279: \noi The main aim of this paper is, in fact, to outline a method

1280: for determining the ``neutronic purity'' (i.e., with respect to

1281: elements with an high cross section for neutron capture) of given

1282: materials to be used in a pile.

1283: 

1284: The ``shotgun'' test is conducted by placing an indium foil (as a

1285: neutron detector) near a neutron source, and measuring its induced

1286: radioactivity with a Geiger-Muller counter. The same measure is

1287: performed when a given quantity of boron (a standard neutron

1288: absorbing pellet) is placed near the detector foil and,

1289: subsequently, by replacing the boron with the material containing

1290: impurities. A direct comparison between the absorption caused by

1291: the unknown composition and the standard boron absorber gives the

1292: desired result for the sum of the danger coefficients of the

1293: impurities (in terms of boron equivalent).

1294: 

1295: Some theoretical developments show, as well, that the fractional

1296: absorption of the impurities with respect to uranium is

1297: approximately equal to the variation of the reproduction factor in

1298: the pile, induced by the presence of the impurities themselves.

1299: 

1300: Neutron absorption by impurities is considered in Ref.

1301: \cite{FNM210} (published in 1947 but referring to work made in

1302: 1943-4), but the method adopted is completely different from that

1303: described in the present patent, which is not reported in any

1304: other published paper.

1305: \\

1306: 

1307: \begin{itemize}

1308: \item[{\tiny USP13}] {\it Method of sustaining a neutronic chain

1309: reacting system} (9 pages + 16 fi\-gu\-res),

1310: \\

1311: by E. Fermi and M.C. Leverett,

1312: \\

1313: filed Nov. 28, 1945 (Patent No. 2,813,070; Nov. 12, 1957).

1314: \\

1315: 

1316: \noi ``The present invention relates to devices of primary use for

1317: the production of neutrons by virtue of a self-sustaining chain

1318: reaction through fission of uranium or other fissionable

1319: isotopes with slow neutrons, known as neutronic reactors.''\\

1320: \end{itemize}

1321: 

1322: \noi This paper gives a general discussion of a reactor with

1323: variable critical dimensions. The pile considered is an

1324: uranium-graphite one, cooled by air and with control rods of

1325: cadmium or boron (the uranium rods are placed in aluminium

1326: jackets).

1327: 

1328: Of particular interest is the discussion of the variation of the

1329: reproduction factor $k$ due to long and short term effects. Long

1330: term effects are, for instance, the increase of $k$ due to the

1331: production of plutonium and its decrease due to the production of

1332: fission impurities. Instead, among the short term effects

1333: considered are the production of xenon, which absorbs neutrons,

1334: and the effect of retarded neutrons.

1335: 

1336: It is also of some relevance the pointing out that a moderator

1337: with a thickness of 1-2 feet around the uranium in the reactor

1338: acts as a reflecting screen for neutrons, with the same efficiency

1339: of an infinite thickness one. From this it follows that by using a

1340: moderator of 10 feet, for instance, the uranium content of the

1341: pile may be increased, with no relevant consequence on the

1342: efficacy of the screen.

1343: 

1344: A peculiar curiosity is the suggestion that the presence of

1345: nitrogen (as an impurity) in the reactor, which may change due to

1346: changes in the atmospheric pressure, could be used to obtain a

1347: sensitive barometer.

1348: 

1349: Some partial results may be found already in other patents and/or

1350: in several papers of Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} (in particular,

1351: the realization of xenon poisoning is narrated on pages 428-429 of

1352: this reference). No published reference article behind the present

1353: paper exists.

1354: \\

1355: 

1356: \begin{itemize}

1357: \item[{\tiny USP14}] {\it Neutronic reactor shield} (2 pages + 6

1358: figures),

1359: \\

1360: by E. Fermi and W.H. Zinn,

1361: \\

1362: filed Jan. 16, 1946 (Patent No. 2,807,727; Sept. 24, 1957).

1363: \\

1364: 

1365: \noi ``This invention relates to radiation shielding devices and

1366: more particularly to a radiation shield that is suitable for

1367: protection of personnel from both gamma rays and neutrons.''\\

1368: \end{itemize}

1369: 

1370: \noi The mentioned shield from dangerous radiations is achieved to

1371: the best by the combined action of a neutron slowing material (a

1372: moderator) and a neutron absorbing material. Hydrogen is

1373: particularly effective for such a shield since it is a good

1374: absorber of slow neutrons and a good moderator of fast neutrons.

1375: The neutrons slowed down by hydrogen may, then, be absorbed by

1376: other materials such as boron, cadmium, gadolinium, samarium or

1377: steel. Steel is particularly convenient for the purpose, given its

1378: effectiveness in absorbing also the gamma rays from the reactor

1379: (both primary gamma rays and secondary ones produced by the

1380: moderation of neutrons).

1381: 

1382: In particular, in the present patent a shield is described, made

1383: of alternate layers of steel and masonite (an hydrolized

1384: ligno-cellulose material).

1385: 

1386: The object of the present paper is not discussed in any other

1387: published paper.

1388: \\

1389: 

1390: \begin{itemize}

1391: \item[{\tiny USP15}] {\it Method of operating a neutronic reactor}

1392: (30 pages + 42 figures),

1393: \\

1394: by E. Fermi and L. Szilard,

1395: \\

1396: filed Dec. 1, 1952 (Patent No. 2,798,847; July 9, 1957).

1397: \\

1398: 

1399: \noi ``The present invention relates to the general subject of

1400: nuclear fission and particularly to the establishment of

1401: self-sustaining neutron chain fission reaction in systems

1402: embodying uranium having a natural isotopic content.''\\

1403: \end{itemize}

1404: 

1405: \noi This paper is a later\footnote{Note that the application for

1406: the present patent was filed on the tenth anniversary of the

1407: operation of the first chain reacting pile at Chicago, on December

1408: 2, 1942.} almost faithful copy of Patent No. 2,708,656, already

1409: described above. It was probably prepared (by the authors) in

1410: order to correct several misprints of the previous version. The

1411: most ``relevant'' change is the replacement of the 8 claims of the

1412: original mentioned patent by the following only one claim, which

1413: well summarizes the work done:

1414: 

1415: ``A method of operating a neutronic reactor including an active

1416: portion having a neutron reproduction ratio substantially in

1417: excess of unity in the absence of high neutron absorbing bodies,

1418: said method comprising the steps of inserting in the active

1419: portion a shim member consisting essentially of a high neutron

1420: absorbing body in an amount to reduce the neutron reproduction

1421: ratio to a value slightly higher than unit to prevent a dangerous

1422: reactivity level, controlling the reaction by moving  a control

1423: member consisting essentially of a second high neutron absorbing

1424: body inwardly and outwardly in response to variations in neutron

1425: density, to maintain the neutron reproduction ratio substantially

1426: at unity, and withdrawing successive portions of the shim member

1427: to the extent necessary to enable the reactor to be controlled by

1428: movement of the control member after the neutron reproduction

1429: value has been lowered to the point where the outward movement of

1430: the control member is insufficient to maintain the neutron

1431: reproduction ratio at the desired point, and thus to maintain the

1432: range of control effected by such movement of the control member

1433: substantially constant despite diminution of neutron reproduction

1434: ratio caused by operation of the reactor, the active portion being

1435: substantially free of high neutron absorber other than the control

1436: member and the shim member.''

1437: \\

1438: 

1439: \subsection{Scientific reports}

1440: 

1441: Here we give an account on three scientific reports from the

1442: Wattenberg archive, different from the patent papers, not

1443: comprised in the {\it Collected Papers} \cite{FNM} (the first of

1444: these reports not showing the list of authors).

1445: \\

1446: 

1447: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1043v}]

1448: {\it * The Fourth Intermediate Pile} (15 pages),

1449: \\

1450: Metallurgical Project,

1451: \\

1452: Report C-102.

1453: \\

1454: 

1455: \noi ``The experiments reported here belong to a set of

1456: experiments designed to establish the arrangement of $3^{\prime

1457: \prime}$ cubes of alloy oxide in a graphite moderating medium

1458: which will produce the highest multiplication factor. Previous

1459: experiments were made on a simple cubic lattice of these alloy

1460: oxide cubes of such dimensions that the ratio between the volume

1461: of the graphite and the volume of the oxide was roughly 20/1. This

1462: gave a multiplication factor of 0.94. Half of the oxide cubes were

1463: then removed, leaving a face-centered lattice in which the volume

1464: ratio of graphite to oxide was 40/1. In this arrangement the

1465: multiplication factor fell to 0.86. In the present report, a body

1466: centered structure was assembled in which the volume ratio of

1467: graphite to oxide was about 10/1. It is found that the

1468: multiplication factor is again close to 0.86. From the results of

1469: these structures it is concluded that the simple cubic lattice in

1470: which the volume ratio was 20/1 represents closely the optimum

1471: conditions. Theoretical calculations

1472: support this experimental result.''\\

1473: \end{itemize}

1474: 

1475: \noi This paper did not report explicitly the list of the authors,

1476: but it was classified by Wattenberg among the Fermi papers. A

1477: careful analysis has shown that, apart from indirect information

1478: on Fermi's activity, it was to some extent effectively written

1479: (or, at least, ``inspired'') by Fermi. The date of writing was, as

1480: well, not given but, according to the material presented in the

1481: paper, it was likely written in 1942.

1482: 

1483: The results presented here, very well summarized in the abstract

1484: above, were not reported in any other published paper.

1485: \\

1486: 

1487: \begin{itemize}

1488: \item[{\tiny WAT1043t}] {\it Report of the Committee for the

1489: Examination of the Moore-Leverett Design of a He-Cooled Plant} (18

1490: pages),

1491: \\

1492: by E. Fermi, S.K. Allison, C. Cooper and E.P. Wigner,

1493: \\

1494: Report CE-324 (1942).\footnote{This report was likely written

1495: around October 29, 1942.}

1496: \\

1497: \end{itemize}

1498: 

1499: \noi This report was likely written by Fermi (the chairman of the

1500: Committee) with memoranda by Allison, Cooper, Wigner, and a letter

1501: from Szilard.

1502: 

1503: In it a pile of dimensions considerably larger than that

1504: originally planned in the Moore-Leverett design is considered,

1505: this urging for a re-design of the lattice, for a reduction of the

1506: amount of uranium metal, and the consideration of the possibility

1507: to use a non cubic cell (as stated in previous conferences).

1508: 

1509: The employment of centrifugal (turbo) compressors (for the

1510: coolant) is considered, instead of reciprocating compressors, with

1511: high purity helium to avoid corrosion of uranium.

1512: 

1513: A number of technical problems, such as that of an adequate

1514: radiation shielding, the production of radioactive materials in

1515: the reactor which can be collected by helium during the shut-down

1516: of operations, or precaution on helium released in atmosphere are

1517: discussed. Problems of emergency measures for serious loss of

1518: helium and to prevent the activated uranium from melting (if the

1519: the cooling system with helium is switched off) are as well

1520: considered.

1521: 

1522: It is here pointed out that the operation of the control rods

1523: takes place by looking at the neutron density, rather than at the

1524: temperature of the reactor. Attention is also paid to possible

1525: displacements in the arrangement of the graphite due to the

1526: thermal expansion, that can cause damages to the structure and

1527: interfere with the operation of the control rods. Wigner, in

1528: particular, proposes a cylindrical arrangement instead of the

1529: spherical one.

1530: 

1531: As a conclusion, the Moore-Leverett design of a He-cooled power

1532: plant can work satisfactorily, although several details have still

1533: to be worked out.

1534: 

1535: The object of the present report is not discussed in any other

1536: published paper.

1537: \\

1538: 

1539: \begin{itemize}

1540: \item[{\tiny WAT149}] {\it Measurement of the Cross Section of

1541: Boron for Thermal Neutrons} (4 pages),

1542: \\

1543: by E. Bragdon, E. Fermi, J. Marshall and L. Marshall,

1544: \\

1545: Report CP-1098 (January 11, 1944).

1546: \\

1547: 

1548: \noi ``Measurements of the boron cross section have been made for

1549: slow neutrons from different sources. The cross section of boron

1550: for neutrons of velocity = 2kT/m = 2200 meters/second at

1551: 293$^{\mathrm o}$ K is found to be $705 \times 10^{-24}$

1552: cm$^2$/atom. The cross section varies widely with different

1553: moderators, due to the fact that the temperature of the thermal

1554: neutrons depends on the nature of the moderator.''\\

1555: \end{itemize}

1556: 

1557: \noi As stated in the abstract, this papers deals with the

1558: measurement of the cross section of thermal neutrons on boron for

1559: different velocities of the neutrons. Velocities ranging from 1700

1560: to 5000 m/s were obtained with a velocity selector, not described

1561: in this paper (see, however, USP8). The relevant measurements are

1562: done by varying also the pressure.

1563: 

1564: The results of the present paper converged later in the published

1565: article in Ref. \cite{FNM200} (see also the comment to this paper

1566: in Ref. \cite{FNM}, noting the different number of authors), where

1567: the velocity selector was described as well.

1568: \\

1569: 

1570: \subsection{Notes on Meetings}

1571: 

1572: A substantial part of the documents testifying for Fermi's

1573: activity and retrieved in the Wattenberg archive consists of many

1574: notes on meetings about nuclear piles and related matters,

1575: attended by Fermi mostly in 1942. Some of these notes were already

1576: published in Ref. \cite{FNM}, but many of them were not included

1577: in the {\it Collected Papers}, probably because the corresponding

1578: material does not present itself as reports, but largely as

1579: minutes of discussions. However, these documents are of great

1580: importance both from a purely scientific point of view and for

1581: historical reasons, since all the notes but the last one

1582: (accounting for a meeting of April 1944) directly reported on the

1583: activity that lead to the achievement of the first chain reaction,

1584: ranging from May to November, 1942. In fact, although the final

1585: scientific results obtained in Chicago were later collected and

1586: discussed in subsequent papers (patents or, in few cases,

1587: published articles), the present notes testify on {\it how} those

1588: results were obtained and, in some cases, also give detailed

1589: information on further, practically unknown, achievements, not

1590: reported in published papers.

1591: 

1592: Just to quote few examples, we mention an interesting trick

1593: suggested by Fermi for lowering the temperature in the pile,

1594: inspired by what happens in wind tunnels; or the control of the

1595: multiplication factor by means of the pressure of nitrogen in a

1596: liquid cooled pile. Much attention was, indeed, paid to the

1597: problem of heat transfer in the planned power and production

1598: plants, and to that of an effective and easy control of the chain

1599: reaction. Some discussions were also carried out on chain reacting

1600: piles working with fast (instead of slow) neutrons, and on

1601: different schemes for the uranium-graphite pile.

1602: 

1603: From an history of science viewpoint, these notes also present

1604: very interesting information, not available from other sources, on

1605: the Metallurgical Project, its formation and development, social

1606: and political implications (interventions of General Groves to one

1607: of the Meetings considered are registered in the corresponding

1608: notes), and so on. Several interesting and annoying discussions

1609: reveal, in fact, the urgency of the production of plutonium or

1610: other fissile material for military rather than civil applications

1611: already in 1942, the position of the problem of the moral effect

1612: of the operation and that of the relations with Army, including

1613: the issue of security and the distribution of information.

1614: However, different matters related to the physiological effect of

1615: the radiations developed in a pile (a problem raised more than

1616: once by Fermi), were considered as well, along with discussions

1617: about power utilization and long term research after the

1618: conclusion of the war.

1619: 

1620: A number of other interesting topics treated in the Meetings may

1621: be found in the detailed account of any document which follows,

1622: including (at the end) the notes on the Meeting of April 1944.

1623: \\

1624: 

1625: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1043a}]

1626: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Meeting of Engineering Council} (4 pages),

1627: \\

1628: Present: Moore, Allison, Fermi, Leverett, Wheeler, Compton,

1629: Hilberry and Doan,

1630: \\

1631: Report CE-106 (May 28, 1942).

1632: \\

1633: 

1634: \end{itemize}

1635: \noi The main discussion is on the cooling of the uranium-graphite

1636: pile by water, helium or both; some discussion is present on

1637: problems related to the pumping of the coolant. An interesting

1638: remark by Fermi is the following: since the temperature in wind

1639: tunnels is controlled by changing the cross section of the tubes,

1640: this trick can be used as well in piles for obtaining lower

1641: temperatures.

1642: \\

1643: Minor discussions are on the design of a pilot power plant and a

1644: pilot extraction plant, with a remark by Fermi on the possibility

1645: of long lived activity induced in iron. Fermi also suggested a way

1646: for avoiding non uniform production of power in piles, just by

1647: blocking part of channels by graphite.

1648: \\

1649: Other minor discussion is on leakage, where Fermi suggested an

1650: external graphite layer of 1 feet.

1651: 

1652: \

1653: 

1654: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1043b}]

1655: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Meeting of the Planning Board} (3 pages),

1656: \\

1657: Present: Hilberry, Spedding, Allison, Wigner, Doan, Szilard,

1658: Wheeler, Fermi, Moore and Compton,

1659: \\

1660: Reports CS-112, CS-185 (June 6, 1942).

1661: \\

1662: 

1663: \end{itemize}

1664: \noi Discussion on the status and organization of the activities:

1665: first self-sustaining pile, open pile working at a low rate of

1666: operation, helium cooling, other best cooling agents.

1667: \\

1668: Re-organization of the work at Chicago (concentration of physics

1669: under Fermi), with discussion of problems on finding location,

1670: which should be chosen according to facilities and personnel at

1671: disposal (the decision, however, lies with Washington).

1672: \\

1673: Discussion on the steps to undertake to protect Government's

1674: position about patents and on the understanding with British (a

1675: common patent pool).

1676: \\

1677: Other scientific discussions are on the purity of the graphite

1678: supplied from various factories, with a remark by Fermi on the

1679: properties of different samples. Wigner discussed the results by

1680: Creutz on resonance absorption.

1681: 

1682: \

1683: 

1684: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1043c}]

1685: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Meeting of the Engineering Council} (9 pages),

1686: \\

1687: Present: Moore, Wilson, Seaborg, Wheeler, Leverett, Fermi,

1688: Hilberry, Compton, Spedding and Allison,

1689: \\

1690: Report CS-131 (June 11, 1942).

1691: \\

1692: 

1693: \end{itemize}

1694: \noi The choice of the site location of the first pile is

1695: discussed in detail, with reference to: water power for the

1696: cooling system; alternative schemes for supplying the power needs

1697: of the plant (about 65000 kW obtained either directly from the

1698: electric lines or from {boilers} by using engines producing

1699: mechanical power); schedule of plants (100 W, 100 kW, 100-100000

1700: kW, 10$^6$ kW); housing and list of the personnel; advantages and

1701: disadvantages of the possible association of the {separation}

1702: project to the atomic power project. Alternatives on the site

1703: location are Chicago or Tennessee Valley: the majority of the

1704: presents is for the first one.

1705: 

1706: \

1707: 

1708: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1043d}]

1709: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Meeting of the Engineering Council} (7 pages),

1710: \\

1711: Present: Moore, Leverett, Fermi, Wheeler, Seaborg, Doan, Wilson

1712: and Spedding,

1713: \\

1714: Report CS-135 (June 18, 1942).

1715: \\

1716: 

1717: \end{itemize}

1718: \noi Discussions on: optimum lattice constants, neutrons losses

1719: due to ducts and channels, {batch} versus continuous operation of

1720: the pile and relation with possible ``chemical'' experiments to

1721: plan (especially on the transformations undergone by U and Pu).

1722: \\

1723: Fermi made some estimates on optimum lattice constants and gave

1724: relations among the multiplication factor $k$, the critical size

1725: and the neutron density. He favored the possibility to have more

1726: small rectangular ducts instead of less large squared ones.

1727: \\

1728: Moreover, Fermi also suggests to use nitrogen as well for

1729: controlling a pile with liquid coolant, since $k$ depends on

1730: pressure and would control up to 4\% in $k$.

1731: 

1732: \

1733: 

1734: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1043e}]

1735: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Meeting of the Engineering Council} (4 pages),

1736: \\

1737: Present: Moore, Leverett, Doan, Szilard, Allison, Teller, Seaborg,

1738: Wheeler, Fermi and Wilson,

1739: \\

1740: Report CS-147 (June 25, 1942).

1741: \\

1742: 

1743: \end{itemize}

1744: \noi Fermi describes the advantages of the possibility to work

1745: with a pile {\it not} operating at optimum $k$.

1746: \\

1747: Discussions on cooling by gas or liquid (but people later focused

1748: on the former): problems with hydrogen that reacts with uranium

1749: metal, with graphite (producing methane), etc.; problems with

1750: helium about leakage, large {sound velocity} (in relation to the

1751: use of blowers or compressors). The general agreement is to use

1752: helium for the {100000 kW pile}.

1753: \\

1754: Further discussions are on the diffusion of the fission products

1755: (in the circulating helium, the walls of the pile, etc.), with a

1756: suggestion by Fermi to not use water spray, and about {blowers and

1757: compressors}.

1758: 

1759: \

1760: 

1761: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1043f}]

1762: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Meeting of the Engineering Council} (6 pages),

1763: \\

1764: Present: Fermi, Allison, Seaborg, Whitaker, Doan, Wilson, Moore,

1765: Leverett, Wheeler, Szilard, Compton, Spedding, Hilberry and

1766: Wollan,

1767: \\

1768: Report CS-163 (July 2, 1942).

1769: \\

1770: 

1771: \end{itemize}

1772: \noi Discussion on the construction, installation (at Chicago) and

1773: operation of pile I, pile II and pilot plant. During the

1774: discussion on the necessary facilities, Fermi recommends to avoid

1775: limitations on water and electric supply in order not to ``cut the

1776: wings''.

1777: \\

1778: Several studies and possible experiments for the piles {I and II}

1779: are considered. Fermi proposes to: study the thermal stability in

1780: pile I or intermediate pile with heat supplied from external

1781: sources; test different cooling mechanisms on the various piles;

1782: have experiments with the piles with the precaution that the

1783: produced radioactivity does not influence them. Fermi also

1784: suggests to: measure $k$ by using the theory of anisotropic pile

1785: or, otherwise, preferably depend altogether on theoretical

1786: calculations; design pile I for evacuation (that is: for

1787: extracting uranium oxide from the pile); etc. (gas tight, sheet

1788: metal, balloon cloth).

1789: 

1790: \

1791: 

1792: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1043g}]

1793: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Meeting of the Engineering Council} (4 pages),

1794: \\

1795: Present: Moore, Leverett, Fermi, Wigner, Allison, Wollan, Wheeler,

1796: Seaborg, Spedding, Szilard, Steams and Wilson,

1797: \\

1798: Report CS-174 (July 9, 1942).

1799: \\

1800: 

1801: \end{itemize}

1802: \noi Fermi reports on a test of chemical stability of uranium, its

1803: reaction with graphite, etc.. He also discusses a number of other

1804: topics as follows.

1805: \\\

1806: About the problem of heat transfer in an energy producing pile,

1807: Fermi proposes to study the behavior of the pile both when its

1808: temperature is large and when it is small, noting that the

1809: Reynolds number depends on temperature.

1810: \\

1811: About the control mechanisms, he suggests an alternative scheme of

1812: control by putting in an absorbing gas, as well as to regulate the

1813: pile by raising or lowering the water level in it .

1814: \\

1815: Finally, about cooling, Fermi observes that calculations are

1816: sufficient for helium but not for water, for which the

1817: intermediate experiment is required. Also, he points out that the

1818: exponential experiment is not suitable for measuring the effect of

1819: the {helium} diffusion through ducts.

1820: 

1821: \

1822: 

1823: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1043h}]

1824: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Meeting of the Technical Council} (7 pages),

1825: \\

1826: Present: Fermi, Compton, Allison, Moore, Szilard, Wigner and

1827: Wheeler,

1828: \\

1829: Report CS-184 (July 14, 1942).

1830: \\

1831: 

1832: \end{itemize}

1833: \noi Fermi discusses the use of beryllium (giving also some data)

1834: as moderator and neutron reflector, pointing out that it is not

1835: convenient to have an all-beryllium structure, but rather a pile

1836: with 2 cm of beryllium around the uranium metal, since the thermal

1837: absorption is not compensated by the $n\rightarrow 2\, n$

1838: reaction.

1839: \\

1840: A discussion on the shielding of experimental plant and the

1841: handling of materials (with respect to protection problems)

1842: follows, with remarks by Fermi.

1843: \\

1844: About the problem of cooling, a general discussion is made on the

1845: temperature dependence of conductivity of uranium oxide and

1846: graphite. In particular, Fermi considers the possible behavior of

1847: U$_3$O$_8$ in a pile working at 100 W (corresponding to a

1848: temperature of about $1000^\circ C$), and alternative choices of

1849: cooling. For the last point, Szilard proposes the use of bismuth

1850: as coolant.

1851: \\

1852: About the control system, Fermi also observes that, for proper

1853: consideration of the problem of removing oxide, it is important to

1854: decide if control columns have to take out from the pile

1855: horizontally or vertically, such a choice coming out from

1856: practical attempts (build different structures and try out).

1857: \\

1858: A minor discussion on the necessity of more people involved in

1859: operations is also present.

1860: 

1861: \

1862: 

1863: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1043i}]

1864: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Meeting of the Engineering Council} (3 pages),

1865: \\

1866: Present: Moore, Leverett, Lewis, Fermi, Wollan, Hilberry,

1867: Whitaker, Wilson, Wheeler, Allison, Wigner, Seaborg and Doan,

1868: \\

1869: Report CE-194 (July 21, 1942).

1870: \\

1871: 

1872: \end{itemize}

1873: \noi General discussions on power plant, extraction plant (by

1874: using fluorination, precipitation with a carrier), and pile

1875: problems (radiation, recharging, breakdown, etc.) are present.

1876: \\

1877: Fermi observes that it would be useful to make some of the

1878: discussed problems clear to a radiologist.

1879: 

1880: \

1881: 

1882: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1043j}]

1883: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Meeting of the Technical Council} (5 pages),

1884: \\

1885: Present: Fermi, Szilard, Wigner, Compton, Whitaker, Allison,

1886: Moore, Wheeler and Doan,

1887: \\

1888: Report CS-202 (July 25, 1942).

1889: \\

1890: 

1891: \end{itemize}

1892: \noi Fermi discusses the value for the multiplication factor $k$

1893: (equal to 1.06) obtained by using several technical solutions and

1894: with UO$_2$ compressed in pseudo-spheres.

1895: \\

1896: A general discussion on the providers of uranium metal and the

1897: product provided then follows.

1898: \\

1899: Fermi raises also the question of the physiological effects of

1900: radiations, by claiming the need for a physician. On this point,

1901: Compton displays data from several medical institutions (National

1902: Cancer Institute and  Chicago Tumor Institute).

1903: 

1904: \

1905: 

1906: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1043k}]

1907: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Meeting of the Planning Board} (4 pages),

1908: \\

1909: Present: Spedding, Fermi, Szilard, Wigner, Doan, Moore, Wheeler,

1910: Compton and Hilberry,

1911: \\

1912: Report CS-213 (August 1, 1942).

1913: \\

1914: 

1915: \end{itemize}

1916: \noi About the problem of heat transfer and cooling, Fermi reports

1917: some values for the conductivity of the materials involved in

1918: different conditions.

1919: \\

1920: A proposal comes out to study the chemistry of the pile under

1921: radiation, with Fermi observing that two tubes leading into the

1922: pile were planned for insertion of samples. Other technical topics

1923: under discussion regards the use of carbide in pilot plant, but

1924: not in experimental plant, the recommendation to use graphite

1925: around the pile (for reflecting escaping neutrons), and the

1926: problem of carbide production.

1927: \\

1928: Also interesting are the discussions about the responsibility for

1929: clearance and security (leaved to Army), and the authorization for

1930: giving information about the pile to ``anyone'', Conant being

1931: recognized as the final authority on the distribution of

1932: information. A mention is present about the use of the pile for

1933: power but not for production of explosives.

1934: 

1935: \

1936: 

1937: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1043l}]

1938: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Meeting of the Engineering Council} (2 pages),

1939: \\

1940: Present: Moore, Leverett, Steinbach, Fermi, Spedding, Wheeler,

1941: Wigner, Seaborg and Wilson,

1942: \\

1943: Report CE-229 (August 8, 1942).

1944: \\

1945: 

1946: \end{itemize}

1947: \noi Minor discussions are present about safety and control rods,

1948: the use of a covering layer of graphite, possible external (rather

1949: than inside the pile) cooling with {oil}, etc..

1950: \\

1951: Fermi estimates a 90\% probability for achieving thermal stability

1952: in the pile.

1953: 

1954: \

1955: 

1956: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1043m}]

1957: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Meeting of the Technical Council} (2 pages),

1958: \\

1959: Present: Nichols, Hilberry, Spedding, Doan, Fermi, Steinbach,

1960: Grafton, Boyd, Moore and Wheeler,

1961: \\

1962: Report CS-251 (September 4, 1942).

1963: \\

1964: 

1965: \end{itemize}

1966: \noi Fermi reports on the status of the values obtained in the

1967: multiplication factor $k$. Other interesting discussions regard

1968: the possible combination of water cooling and bismuth cooling

1969: (with bismuth circulating in the uranium-containing channels,

1970: between the aluminium jacket and the uranium rod), the status of

1971: production of uranium (and, in particular, about material provided

1972: by Alexander), and problems with radiation protection.

1973: \\

1974: Fermi proposes to consider the possibility to test uranium metal

1975: with an exponential pile, with a remark that ``the metal won't be

1976: better than the oxide''.

1977: 

1978: \

1979: 

1980: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1006}]

1981: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Discussion of Helium Cooled Power Plant} (3

1982: pages),

1983: \\

1984: Present: Leverett, Cooper, Moore, Wigner, Steinbach, Fermi,

1985: Szilard and Wheeler,

1986: \\

1987: Report CS-267 (September 16, 1942).

1988: \\

1989: 

1990: \end{itemize}

1991: \noi Several problems related to He cooled power plant (steel and

1992: compressors, control and safety rods, oil unaffected by radiation,

1993: etc.) are discussed in this meeting. A list of topics to be

1994: studied (and tasks to assign) is reported.

1995: \\

1996: It is also interesting to point out a remark by Szilard, which

1997: argued that $10^5$ kW of power were necessary to win the war.

1998: 

1999: \

2000: 

2001: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1043n}]

2002: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Meeting of the Technical Council} (11 pages),

2003: \\

2004: Present: Compton, Wheeler, Moore, Allison, Szilard, Fermi and

2005: Spedding,

2006: \\

2007: Report CS-274 (September 18, 1942).

2008: \\

2009: 

2010: \end{itemize}

2011: \noi General discussions on technical details, including a water

2012: cooled plant, are made.

2013: \\

2014: Quite interesting is the discussion of several points regarding

2015: the policy for the site X. These points included: triple

2016: extraction plant; water supply; association with the production

2017: unit.

2018: \\

2019: It is pointed out that, while the work by {Lawrence and Urey} was

2020: carried out under the only control of OSRD, that performed by the

2021: Metallurgical Laboratory was under the control of OSRD through the

2022: Army. Possible alternatives were considered to propose to work not

2023: under the direct supervision of the Army, Szilard suggesting to

2024: take no action until the pile was effectively operating.

2025: Discussions about the ``future'' of the people working in the

2026: project are made, with particular reference to the research policy

2027: of the next 20 years.

2028: \\

2029: After other discussions about alternative locations for production

2030: piles (Argonne, Tennessee, {Palos} Park), the attention is turned

2031: on the committee proposed by Bush for the decision about the

2032: destination of the fissile material: this had to be employed for

2033: the design and production of bombs.

2034: \\

2035: Finally, the problem of further man power is discussed. Szilard

2036: recommends to associate Auger, Rasetti, Goldhaber and Rossi,

2037: taking care of an advice by Conant that the inclusion of such

2038: people in the project was possible only if the work is made in a

2039: restricted area. Another name proposed by Szilard is that of

2040: Lewis, although it is recognized that he had already too many

2041: duties, among which the development of methods for explosives in

2042: China.

2043: 

2044: \

2045: 

2046: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1043o}]

2047: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Meeting of the Technical Council} (8 pages),

2048: \\

2049: Present: Allison, Fermi, Moore, Wigner, Compton, Wheeler and

2050: Oppenheimer,

2051: \\

2052: Report CS-281 (September 29, 1942).

2053: \\

2054: 

2055: \end{itemize}

2056: \noi The main discussions deals mainly with the work related to

2057: the pile operating with fast neutrons, and the question of the

2058: move of the work to Site X (logistic problems with the Site X,

2059: etc.). To this regard, it has to be pointed out that Fermi

2060: dissented about the shift of the work on fast neutrons to Site X.

2061: \\

2062: The choice of the Site X as the new main basis of the

2063: Metallurgical Project, had by now been definitive (a preliminary,

2064: rough map was also included), this having been favored to a

2065: certain extent by Army, who preferred to have all the relevant

2066: work in only one enclosure.

2067: \\

2068: Other non physics arguments, touched in the meeting, are about the

2069: patent rights assignment to the American government and the

2070: collaboration of British engineers. Instead, minor topics of

2071: scientific interest are about helium and bismuth cooled plants and

2072: water cooling.

2073: 

2074: \

2075: 

2076: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1043p}]

2077: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Meeting of the Technical Council} (10 pages),

2078: \\

2079: Present: Allison, Fermi, Wigner, Compton, Whitaker, Moore, Cooper,

2080: Szilard, Manley, McMillan, Wheeler and Doan,

2081: \\

2082: Report CS-284 (October 1, 1942).

2083: \\

2084: 

2085: \end{itemize}

2086: \noi As in the meeting of two days before, the arguments of the

2087: discussion deals with work on fast neutrons and, especially, with

2088: the move to Site X (with evaluation of alternative, possible

2089: options). The majority of the presents prefer Chicago as a

2090: suitable site in order not to waste time and, moreover, they

2091: express their preference to work not under the supervision of Army

2092: and independently of industry.

2093: \\

2094: Other discussions concern the work by Fermi on slow neutrons. The

2095: development work for piles 1 and 2 was assumed to be out of way by

2096: March 1 (1943); after this was completed, the schedule comprised

2097: to work on other piles, including fast neutron pile and heavy

2098: water pile.

2099: \\

2100: Mentions are made to bismuth cooling and to other technical

2101: issues.

2102: 

2103: \

2104: 

2105: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1043q}]

2106: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Meeting of the Technical Council} (9 pages),

2107: \\

2108: Present: Allison, Fermi, Szilard, Moore, Wigner, Whitaker,

2109: Wheeler, Steinbach, Compton and Groves,

2110: \\

2111: Report CS-286 (October 5, 1942).

2112: \\

2113: 

2114: \end{itemize}

2115: \noi Detailed discussions regard results about different schemes

2116: for the pile: 1) (Wigner) uranium rods, water cooling with pipes,

2117: graphite as moderator; 2) (Fermi) uranium lumps {imbedded} in

2118: graphite, cooling by occasional water pipes; 3) (Cooper) metal

2119: pipes, {shot}, and graphite as moderator, with removal of uranium

2120: metal and recharging; 4) external cooling (which gives about 300

2121: kW power only). No definitive decision is adopted on this

2122: argument.

2123: \\

2124: At a certain point of the meeting, Compton and General Groves came

2125: in reporting, quite interestingly, that War Department considered

2126: the Metallurgical Project important. The discussion then changed a

2127: little, with Allison's claims that one couldn't win the war with

2128: an externally cooled plant and Fermi's remark that the program

2129: will be delayed by several months due to change plan at the

2130: Argonne site.

2131: 

2132: \

2133: 

2134: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1043r}]

2135: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Meeting of the Technical Council} (9 pages),

2136: \\

2137: Present: Allison, Wigner, Compton, Whitaker, Szilard, Wheeler,

2138: Fermi, Moore, Cooper, Steinbach and Kirkpatrick,

2139: \\

2140: Report CS-290 (October 7, 1942).

2141: \\

2142: 

2143: \end{itemize}

2144: \noi Various arguments are treated, all related (directly or

2145: indirectly) to the move to the Site X.

2146: \\

2147: Groves is said to be eager to have explosives, by June 15, 1943,

2148: several plants being assumed to be operating after June 15 (dates

2149: by Groves have not been reported in the minutes). Some

2150: discouragement in Army is reported, that the project had not

2151: achieved more so far. {Moral} effect of operations is discussed as

2152: well.

2153: \\

2154: Technical council recommends the construction at site X of a 300

2155: kW pile (Pile 2) by March 15 and, to this end, Fermi notes that

2156: there was no need that such a pile be made with uranium only in

2157: the form of metal.

2158: \\

2159: The decision by Groves about production and extraction of fissile

2160: material at Site X is discussed, as well as concentration of the

2161: work on fast neutrons at the same site (Groves' decision urged by

2162: Oppenheimer). Topics related to power utilization and long term

2163: research (not) at the same Site X, with possible

2164: ``countermeasures'' to undertake regarding this last point, are

2165: also considered.

2166: \\

2167: The time schedule for Pile 1 is committed to Fermi, that for Pile

2168: 2 to Whitaker, etc.. In connection to possible changes in the

2169: plans due to move of the work, Fermi notes that the original plan

2170: (for Pile 1) was to prove that chain reaction goes and to flash

2171: pile for a limited time.

2172: \\

2173: A minor discussion on the question of plating uranium (and

2174: possible reactions of it) is also made.

2175: 

2176: \

2177: 

2178: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1043s}]

2179: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Meeting of the Technical Council} (6 pages),

2180: \\

2181: Present: Allison, Szilard, Wigner, Moore, Wheeler and Fermi,

2182: \\

2183: Report CS-294 (October 12, 1942)

2184: \\

2185: 

2186: \end{itemize}

2187: \noi The questions of machining graphite and sintered uranium

2188: metal are discussed in some detail.

2189: \\

2190: Several options for an externally cooled pile are considered by

2191: using: 1) copper pipes; 2a) copper shell cooled by air; 2b) copper

2192: shell cooled by water spray. Fermi's preference is for choice 2a),

2193: assuming that copper didn't leak; however he himself points out

2194: that it would be difficult to find leak (then, the rubber cap

2195: method was considered). A general agreement is expressed to leave

2196: this problem to Fermi to look into.

2197: \\

2198: A peculiar remark by Fermi is about his feeling that time

2199: estimates for pile to work were not certain, since the amounts of

2200: uranium metal required (to prevent loss in $k$) were probably

2201: underestimated. Nevertheless, he considered a mistake to wait any

2202: time at all for producing the chain reaction in this way, while he

2203: favored to put the uranium oxide in form of spheres.

2204: \\

2205: Other interesting suggestions by Fermi are about the change in

2206: picture of $k$, and the use of a ``sandwich'' experiment with 4

2207: layers of uranium metal (about 1 ton); U$_3$O$_8$ pile was

2208: suggested to be used as a standard, and a gain of 0.8\% in $k$ was

2209: estimated just by removing nitrogen.

2210: \\

2211: More discussions are again about the move to Site X: people felt

2212: not to transfer until the working situation was not clear. Fermi

2213: observes that all matter about Site X appeared to arise from a

2214: mistaken impression that experimental work was practically

2215: finished.

2216: 

2217: \

2218: 

2219: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1008}]

2220: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Conference on Lattice Spacing} (2 pages),

2221: \\

2222: Present: Steinbach, Leverett, Fermi, Wigner and Wheeler,

2223: \\

2224: Memo \#15 (October 21, 1942).

2225: \\

2226: 

2227: \end{itemize}

2228: \noi Estimates about optimum lattice spacing in the pile and C/U

2229: ratio for the helium cooled plant are presented, by taking into

2230: account the request of a minimum total amount of uranium metal.

2231: Fermi suggests to save the amount of metal by diminishing the

2232: proportion of U to C toward the outside of the pile.

2233: 

2234: \

2235: 

2236: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1043u}]

2237: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Meeting of the Technical Council} (4 pages),

2238: \\

2239: Present: Allison, Compton, Fermi, Moore, Spedding, Szilard and

2240: Wigner,

2241: \\

2242: Report CS-356 (November 19, 1942).

2243: \\

2244: 

2245: \end{itemize}

2246: \noi Preliminary agreements are discussed in this meeting about

2247: the preparation of a report for a committee (which included

2248: industrial specialists on production problems) formed for

2249: examining the Metallurgical project in Chicago (alternative to the

2250: project based at Berkeley), that will come on November 26. The

2251: topics discussed regard the purity of the final product

2252: (plutonium), its radioactivity, spontaneous heating, etc., by

2253: pointing out that very little was known about the metallurgy of

2254: plutonium, and the processes proposed for producing it seemed very

2255: far from industrial possibilities.

2256: \\

2257: Remarks are present about the availability in U.S.A. of 1000 tons

2258: of uranium, and that no slowing down of neutrons would be required

2259: for Piles 1 and 2, although Wigner pointed out that studies on

2260: fast neutron reactions were still preliminary.

2261: \\

2262: About non strictly scientific issues, it is quite interesting to

2263: note the invitation from Washington authorities to go ahead with

2264: the production of plutonium, and the remark on General Groves who

2265: was interested in all possible military uses of what studied in

2266: Chicago, rather than applications to power production.

2267: \\

2268: In these notes it is pointed out that a report on the chain

2269: reaction of about 10 pages should have been prepared by Fermi

2270: (along with the contributions of other scientists on other

2271: subjects), this report being unknown.

2272: 

2273: \

2274: 

2275: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT}]

2276: {\it $\diamondsuit$ Notes on Meeting of April 26-28, 1944} (5+8

2277: pages),

2278: \\

2279: Present: Fermi, Allison, Wigner, Smyth, Szilard, Morrison, Watson,

2280: Feld, Hogness, Young, Weinberg, Creutz, Cooper, Vernon and

2281: Ohlinger,

2282: \\

2283: Report N-1729, Eck-209.

2284: \\

2285: 

2286: \end{itemize}

2287: \noi This report is composed of two papers accounting for a

2288: two-day meeting (April 26-28, 1944).

2289: \\

2290: A large part of the first paper, with much of the Fermi's

2291: intervention at the two-day meeting, was already published in the

2292: {\it Collected Papers} \cite{FNM211}. There, the discussion

2293: focused on chain reaction for the production of a power of about

2294: $10^6$ kW. A large {mother} plant was conceived for producing

2295: plutonium to be used as fissile material in smaller plants; Fermi

2296: noted that this arrangement could be useful for the heating of

2297: towns. Then, after a brief theoretical discussion, with numerical

2298: estimates and data, for the full metal utilization, Fermi focused

2299: on four different types of piles, both operating with slow

2300: neutrons and fast neutrons, and depending on the percentage of the

2301: enrichment of the fissile material and the moderator employed. The

2302: remaining part of the first paper, not published in \cite{FNM211},

2303: dealt with alternatives to what discussed by Fermi proposed by

2304: Szilard, coming out by ``assuming more optimistic values of the

2305: constants so as to indicate other potentialities''.

2306: \\

2307: %The first model of pile should be of Hanford type, the second one

2308: %should be a P-9 moderated pile, then a fast chain reacting pile

2309: %with little or no moderator (two possibility are described for its

2310: %realization) (the main problem is the removal of heat from the

2311: %\textcolor{red} {...}), finally a compromise between an slightly

2312: %enriched pile with enough moderator to reduce the enrichment

2313: %percentage.

2314: The second paper dealt mainly with a discussion by Morrison on

2315: several scientific, economic, and social issues related to pile

2316: producing power, resulting quite interesting from an historical

2317: point of view. Among the remarks to the Morrison's relation, we

2318: mention that ``Fermi questioned the estimated value of [the number

2319: of neutrons produced/number of fissionable atoms used up] = 2.5 on

2320: the ground that it might be too optimistic and pointed out that

2321: there is a long range future in developing the full utilization of

2322: [$^{238}$U] and thorium''.

2323: \\

2324: 

2325: \subsection{Edited reports}

2326: 

2327: In the Wattenberg archive several reports are present, describing

2328: some of the work performed in 1943 and 1944 by the division of the

2329: Metallurgical Laboratory headed by Fermi. As it is already known

2330: (see, for example, Ref. \cite{FermiFisico} or the introduction to

2331: the papers of Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM}), Fermi played a very

2332: active role in the work officially assigned to others, so that

2333: although none of these reports describes (theoretical or

2334: experimental) activities directly performed by him, they

2335: nevertheless reveal precious information about part of the work

2336: done under the supervision of Fermi. Of course, these few reports

2337: account only for activities not directly related to military

2338: applications, although they were finalized primarily to the

2339: production of fissile material for explosives.

2340: 

2341: The detailed description of the four reports available follows

2342: below.

2343: \\

2344: 

2345: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1023}]

2346: {\it * Report for Month Ending September 25, 1943} (55 pages),

2347: \\

2348: edited by A.H. Compton, S.E. Allison and E. Fermi,

2349: \\

2350: Report CP-964.

2351: \\

2352: 

2353: \end{itemize}

2354: \noi This report does not contain the description of the work

2355: performed directly by Fermi, but rather it describes some of the

2356: activities performed in the month of September 1943 by different

2357: people under Fermi's supervision.\footnote{In this report, the

2358: summary of these activities was written (on September 27, 1943) by

2359: Wigner ``in the absence of Mr. Fermi''.} The most interesting ones

2360: are summarized below.

2361: \\

2362: Much work, both experimental and theoretical, was devoted to the

2363: study of a so called P-9 pile, that is a chain reacting system

2364: with heavy water as a coolant. The Zinn group was involved in

2365: making plans for an experimental P-9 plant at Argonne, while the

2366: Young group worked on the design of a P-9 pile, both for a

2367: heterogeneous and a homogeneous pile. In a P-9 pile more fissile

2368: material had to be used for several technical reasons (related to

2369: pumps and heat exchangers employed), but this was compensated by a

2370: higher value of the effective multiplication factor $k$. Other

2371: problems to be solved were that of the separation of the uranium

2372: oxide from the circulating heavy water and the method to choose

2373: for separating the heavy water from the cooling liquid (in order

2374: to use it again after a given cycle), the determination of the

2375: critical size for a P-9 pile, etc.. A sketch showing one possible

2376: arrangement for a (near) homogeneous P-9 slurry pile was presented

2377: as well.

2378: \\

2379: Another research conducted by some people of the Zinn group

2380: regarded the ``cell saturation'' effect, induced by increasing the

2381: absorption cross section of a single cell (to be used in the

2382: lattice of a pile) to such an extent that the change in reactivity

2383: of the pile was no longer proportional to the amount of impurity

2384: added, but rather to its square.

2385: \\

2386: The group headed by Anderson studied, among the other things, the

2387: residual radioactivity of control rods made of different

2388: materials, the effect of fast fission on the multiplication

2389: factor, and remeasured the ratio of the absorption cross sections

2390: of boron and hydrogen.

2391: \\

2392: Marshall, instead, studied and prepared a velocity selector

2393: consisting of a sandwich of aluminium and cadmium sheets for

2394: obtaining measurements on neutrons with definite energy (see

2395: previous section), while Morrison performed an experimental study

2396: on the boundary conditions for the neutron density between

2397: paraffin and graphite for a study on a neutron reflector, with the

2398: determination of the temperature effect on the diffusion length in

2399: graphite.

2400: \\

2401: The Feld group got involved in the investigation on inelastic

2402: cross sections of several heavy elements (lead, bismuth, iron and

2403: uranium), which were relevant for fast neutron chain reaction,

2404: while started novel measurements on the (n,2n) and ($\gamma$,n)

2405: reactions on beryllium with the paraffin pile technique.

2406: \\

2407: In this report, a large account is also given to some theoretical

2408: activity performed by several people, as emphasized by Wigner

2409: himself: ``the Theoretical Physics Section's report for this month

2410: is in considerably more detail than was the custom in previous

2411: months''. Then Wigner interestingly continues: ``It is not

2412: expected to report in similar detail in the future, as a good part

2413: of the work done by us is principally for our own use. However, it

2414: was intended to give a more adequate picture of the work that we

2415: are doing''.

2416: \\

2417: As already mentioned, much of the theoretical work was devoted to

2418: the P-9 pile, but another interesting investigation (by some

2419: people of the Weinberg group) dealt instead with the fast chain

2420: reacting pile, having found that the measured cross section for

2421: fast fission was smaller than previously assumed (the ratio of the

2422: fast fission neutrons to the thermal fission ones was previously

2423: measured incorrectly).

2424: \\

2425: Other researches regarded the study of possible danger situations

2426: in which control rods could not be governed due to a pressure

2427: damping in the cooling circuit, or the studies on the preferred

2428: geometrical form of a pile, its dimensions or other technical

2429: details (pumps, valves, heat exchangers, etc.)

2430: 

2431: \

2432: 

2433: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1027}]

2434: {\it * Report for Month Ending December 25, 1943 - Part II} (6

2435: pages),

2436: \\

2437: edited by A.H. Compton, S.E. Allison and E. Fermi,

2438: \\

2439: Report CN-1190.

2440: \\

2441: 

2442: \end{itemize}

2443: \noi This report does not contain the description of the work

2444: performed directly by Fermi, but rather it describes some of the

2445: activities performed in the month of December 1943 by different

2446: people under Fermi's supervision. The summary of the first part of

2447: this report is in Ref. \cite{FNM199}, while the second part

2448: dealing with the work performed by the Anderson group is

2449: considered here.

2450: \\

2451: The Anderson group determined the yield of plutonium per kWh for

2452: the Argonne pile, and predicted that the Hanford 250 kW operations

2453: should produce about 230 grams of plutonium per day. They also

2454: studied neutron yields from polonium by irradiating different

2455: samples (lithium sulphur, chlorine and argon) with alpha

2456: particles.

2457: 

2458: \

2459: 

2460: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1037}]

2461: {\it * Report for Month Ending August 26, 1944} (38 pages),

2462: \\

2463: edited by A.H. Compton, E. Fermi and W.H. Zinn,

2464: \\

2465: Report CP-2081.

2466: \\

2467: 

2468: \end{itemize}

2469: \noi This report does not contain the description of the work

2470: performed directly by Fermi, but rather it describes some of the

2471: activities performed in the month of August 1944 by different

2472: people under Fermi's supervision. The most interesting ones are

2473: summarized below. It was here noted that the Chicago Pile N.3

2474: completed its second {month} of operation, while a silver {tape}

2475: recorder was completed and installed on CP-2.

2476: \\

2477: The Seren group studied the properties of the thermal column (see

2478: the previous section), while Zinn performed measurements on the

2479: Bragg reflection of a highly collimated beam of thermal neutrons

2480: and, more in general, on neutron spectroscopy.

2481: \\

2482: Licthenberger studied, instead, the scattering from strong

2483: absorbers, Morrison and Teller having identified the isotope

2484: $^{112}$Cd as that responsible for the strong capture of thermal

2485: neutrons, while Wattenberg prepared photo-neutron sources made by

2486: activation of several nuclides.

2487: \\

2488: Finally, Anderson focused on the neutrons from the reaction

2489: $^3$H+$^2$D$\rightarrow^4$He+n and, in general, studied possible

2490: transformations of thermal into fast neutrons, while the Nagle's

2491: group measured the yield of delayed neutrons.

2492: 

2493: \

2494: 

2495: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1039}]

2496: {\it * Report for Month Ending October 28, 1944} (27 pages),

2497: \\

2498: edited by A.H. Compton, E. Fermi and W.H. Zinn,

2499: \\

2500: Report CP-2301.

2501: \\

2502: 

2503: \end{itemize}

2504: \noi This report does not contain the description of the work

2505: performed directly by Fermi, but rather it describes some of the

2506: activities performed in the month of October 1944 by different

2507: people under Fermi's supervision. The most interesting ones are

2508: summarized below.

2509: \\

2510: The group guided by Zinn studied the poisoning of the chain

2511: reaction by $^{135}$Xe in CP-3 (see the previous section) and

2512: related arguments, and May and Anderson measured the nuclear

2513: constants of $^{233}$U, whose behavior they found similar to that

2514: of $^{235}$U but giving larger values for $k$, so that the use of

2515: $^{233}$U was suggested to be more favorable than that of Pu.

2516: \\

2517: Langsdorf studied, instead, the resonance scattering of neutrons,

2518: while the Seren group measured the activation cross section of

2519: columbium Cb, which resulted to be a useful information for

2520: producing stainless alloy with uranium.

2521: 

2522: \

2523: 

2524: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny WAT1040}]

2525: {\it * Report for Month Ending November 25, 1944} (24 pages),

2526: \\

2527: edited by A.H. Compton, E. Fermi and W.H. Zinn,

2528: \\

2529: Report CP-2436.

2530: \\

2531: 

2532: \end{itemize}

2533: \noi This report does not contain the description of the work

2534: performed directly by Fermi, but rather it describes some of the

2535: activities performed by different people under Fermi's

2536: supervision. The most interesting ones are summarized below.

2537: \\

2538: The Zinn group continued their studies on the Bragg reflection of

2539: thermal neutrons from a crystal (considered as a neutron

2540: spectrometer), and observed also the total reflection by Cu, Al,

2541: Be, glass and graphite mirrors.

2542: \\

2543: The Lichtenberger group, instead, made boron absorption

2544: measurements in order to study the variation with energy of the

2545: resonance absorption of $^{238}$U, while the Wattenberg group

2546: mainly focused on photo-neutrons from U+Be sources.

2547: \\

2548: Finally, the Hill group studied the tuning of coincidences in

2549: $\alpha$-chambers and made an analysis of a number of pictures

2550: from cloud chambers searching for ternary fissions (and possible

2551: appearance of three-particle fissions).

2552: \\

2553: 

2554: \subsection{Lecture Notes}

2555: 

2556: Once the pile program of the Metallurgical Project in Chicago was

2557: sufficiently advanced not to need a continuous attention by Fermi,

2558: he definitively moved to Los Alamos (in September 1944) to join

2559: the Manhattan Project. Here Fermi began to give isolated lectures

2560: on many different subjects \cite{AndersonSachs,FermiFisico},

2561: related to that project, for the benefit of the people who worked

2562: at Los Alamos, many of them being just students or graduated guys.

2563: Then, after the end of the war, in the Fall of 1945 he taught a

2564: regular course on neutron physics to about thirty students: this

2565: was the first time that such a complete course was given, ranging

2566: over more than ten years of important discoveries, and also the

2567: first occasion for the scientists who contributed in those

2568: achievements to pause and reason a bit more on the results

2569: obtained.

2570: 

2571: We know about the content of this course from the notes taken down

2572: in class by one of the attending students, I. Halpern, who

2573: assembled them into a (classified) typescript on February 5, 1946.

2574: A first part of the Fermi lectures at Los Alamos, containing

2575: neutron physics without reference to chain reactions, was

2576: declassified on September 5, 1946, while the remaining part has

2577: been declassified only in 1962. Both parts have been later

2578: published in the {\it Collected Papers} by Fermi \cite{FNM222}.

2579: Leaving aside the pregnant didactic style by Fermi, the main

2580: relevance of such notes is, as we have already mentioned, that

2581: they present for the first time a complete and accurate treatment

2582: of neutron physics from its beginning, including a detailed study

2583: of the physics of the atomic piles. In this respect it is not

2584: surprising that especially the second part of the notes, dealing

2585: just with chain reactions and pile physics, was considered as

2586: ``confidential'' material by governmental offices.

2587: 

2588: However, we have recently recovered a {\it different} version of

2589: the Fermi lectures at Los Alamos, formerly belonged to James

2590: Chadwick and now deposited at the Chur\-chill Archive Centre in

2591: Cambridge (U.K.). The folders relevant to us are essentially two.

2592: The first one (CHAD I 17/3) contains a letter from R.T. Batson of

2593: the Atomic Energy Commission (A.E.C.), a copy of the paper {\it

2594: Elementary Theory of the Pile} by Fermi\footnote{This paper is

2595: reproduced in Ref. \cite{FNM}; in particular see page 538 of

2596: Volume II.} and a copy of only the {\it first part} of the Halpern

2597: notes of the Fermi lectures. The second folder (CHAD I 4/1)

2598: contains a version of the {\it complete} set of lectures made by

2599: A.P. French, dated June 23, 1947.

2600: 

2601: It is apparently not strange that the material of the first folder

2602: belonged to Chadwick, since he was the respected (also by

2603: Americans) leader of the British Mission in the United states. The

2604: biggest part of the British contingent was, in fact, at Los

2605: Alamos, and Chadwick himself was present at the world's first

2606: nuclear test at Alamogordo on July 16, 1945. Several scientists of

2607: the British Mission were very young and, among the others, it was

2608: Anthony P. French who graduated in Physics at the Cambridge

2609: University just in 1942. In the same year he joined the atomic

2610: bomb project (``Tube Alloys'') at the Cavendish Laboratory, and

2611: was later sent to Los Alamos in October 1944 as a member of the

2612: British Mission. Here he worked with E. Bretscher, O.R. Frisch, J.

2613: Hughes, D.G. Marshall, P.B. Moon, M.J. Poole, J. Rotblat, E.W.

2614: Titterton and J.L. Tuck in the field of experimental nuclear

2615: physics \cite{Szasz},\footnote{The remaining part of the British

2616: Mission was composed by B. Davison, K. Fuchs, D.J. Littler, W.G.

2617: Marley, R.E. Peierls, W.G. Penney, G. Placzek, H. Sheard and

2618: T.H.R. Skyrmes.} and returned to the United Kingdom in 1946,

2619: working for two years at the just newly formed Atomic Energy

2620: Research Establishment (A.E.R.E.). The second folder of the

2621: Chadwick papers mentioned above contains just the notes of Fermi

2622: course on neutron physics taken by French on his own, when he was

2623: at Los Alamos, and later (1947) re-organized into a final version

2624: when he came back to England.

2625: 

2626: The present recovery thus shows a clear historical and scientific

2627: relevance. However, while the historical interest is the main

2628: subject of a different paper \cite{FermiFrench}, we here focus

2629: only on the scientific relevance of that recovery, which is

2630: clearly centered about the fact that our previous knowledge of the

2631: Fermi course was incomplete and, to some extent (limited to the

2632: Halpern notes) misleading. As his usual, Fermi was very accurate

2633: in the choice of the topics, that he developed in detail and in a

2634: very clear manner, a peculiarity which does not often emerge from

2635: the notes taken directly down in class by students, and later

2636: arranged into the Halpern version.

2637: 

2638: We have performed a careful analysis of the mentioned documents,

2639: whose main results are summarized below. First of all, our study

2640: has shown that the French notes do {\it not} depend on the Halpern

2641: ones, but French probably saw them (the organization of the

2642: introduction is similar). The topics covered are exactly the same,

2643: although to a certain (minor) extent the material is organized in

2644: a little different manner. The detailed table of contents

2645: (including sections and subsections) follows.

2646: \\

2647: 

2648: \begin{itemize} \item[{\tiny CHAD}]

2649: {\it * Neutron Physics. A Course of Lectures by E. Fermi} (113+iii

2650: pages),

2651: \\

2652: Notes by A.P. French (June 23, 1947).

2653: \\

2654: \end{itemize}

2655: \noi

2656: 

2657: \begin{itemize}

2658: \item[1.] Sources of neutrons\\

2659: - Natural Sources\\

2660: ${}$ \quad (a) Alpha particle sources \\

2661: ${}$ \quad (b) Photo-neutron sources\\

2662: - Artificial Sources

2663: \item[2.] The Isotopic Chart: Nuclear Masses and Energies\\

2664: - The Isotopic Chart\\

2665: - Energy Balance of Reactions\\

2666: - The Binding Energies of Nuclei\\

2667: - The Packing Fraction Curve

2668: \item[3.] The Scattering of Neutrons (Part 1)\\

2669: - General Considerations\\

2670: - Elementary Theoretical Treatment\\

2671: ${}$ \quad 1) Elastic Scattering \\

2672: ${}$ \quad 2) Inelastic $(n,n)$ scattering\\

2673: ${}$ \quad 3) Inelastic $(n,m)$ scattering\\

2674: ${}$ \quad 4) Inelastic $(n,\gamma)$ scattering

2675: \item[4.] Resonance: Models of the Nucleus\\

2676: - Resonance in Nuclear Reactions\\

2677: - Two Models of the Nucleus

2678: \item[5.] The Scattering of Neutrons (Part 2)\\

2679: - The Solution of Schrodinger's Equation\\

2680: - The Scattering Cross Section\\

2681: - Neutron-Proton Scattering\\

2682: - The Breit-Wigner Formula\\

2683: - The Effect of Chemical Binding on Scattering\\

2684: - Scattering Cross Sections for Other Elements

2685: \item[6.] Slow Neutrons as Waves\\

2686: - Introduction\\

2687: - Isotopic Effects\\

2688: - Penetration of Thermal Neutrons\\

2689: - The Production of Very Slow Neutrons\\

2690: - Reflection and Refraction

2691: \item[7.] The Slowing Down of Neutrons\\

2692: - Introduction\\

2693: - The Energy Loss in One Collision\\

2694: - Many Collisions\\

2695: - The Spatial Distribution of Slowed Neutrons\\

2696: - Theory of the Spatial Distribution

2697: \item[8.] The Age Equation\\

2698: - Derivation of the Age Equation\\

2699: ${}$ \quad 1) Diffusion\\

2700: ${}$ \quad 2) Energy Drift\\

2701: - The Problem of Point Source

2702: \item[9.] Thermal Neutron Distribution\\

2703: - The Basic Equation\\

2704: - Point Sources of Slow Neutrons\\

2705: - Point Sources of Fast Neutrons\\

2706: - Bounded Media\\

2707: - The Measurement of Diffusion Length\\

2708: - Diffusion in Graphite\\

2709: - Some Useful Quantities and Relationships

2710: \item[10.] The Reflection of Neutrons\\

2711: - Introductions\\

2712: - Approximate Solution of the Escape Problem\\

2713: - Exact Solution by the Integral Equation Method\\

2714: - The Albedo\\

2715: - Measurement of the Albedo

2716: \item[11.] The Stability of Nuclei\\

2717: - The Binding Energy of a Nucleus\\

2718: ${}$ \quad 1) The Liquid Drop Model\\

2719: ${}$ \quad 2) Nuclear Composition\\

2720: ${}$ \quad 3) Coulomb Forces\\

2721: ${}$ \quad 4) The Odd-Even Effect\\

2722: - Determination of Coefficients\\

2723: - The Binding of Neutrons in Nuclei

2724: \item[12.] Nuclear Fission\\

2725: - The Possibility of Fission\\

2726: - Limitations on the Occurrence of Fission\\

2727: - The Liquid Drop Model in Fission\\

2728: - The Particles of Fission\\

2729: - Cross Section for Fission and Other Processes

2730: \item[13.] The Possibility of a Chain Reaction\\

2731: - The Properties of Natural Uranium\\

2732: ${}$ \quad 1) The High Energy Region\\

2733: ${}$ \quad 2) The Thermal Region\\

2734: - Moderators\\

2735: - Homogeneous and Lumped Graphite Piles\\

2736: - The Possibility of a Homogeneous Pile

2737: \item[14.] The Heterogeneous Pile\\

2738: - The Design of a Lumped Pile\\

2739: - The Determination of Pile Constants\\

2740: ${}$ \quad 1) The Magnitude of $\epsilon$\\

2741: ${}$ \quad 2) $(1-f_R)$\\

2742: ${}$ \quad 3) Calculation of $f_T$\\

2743: - Reproduction Factor and Critical Size

2744: \item[15.] The Time Dependence of a Pile\\

2745: - The Time-Dependent Equation\\

2746: - Evaluation of the Period

2747: \item[16.] Practical Aspects of Pile Physics\\

2748: - The Determination of $k$\\

2749: - The Study of Pile Materials\\

2750: - Energy and Radiation Production\\

2751: - Shielding\\

2752: - Other Types of Pile

2753: \item[17.] Fast Reactors\\

2754: - Elementary Considerations\\

2755: - The Integral Equation to the Neutron Distribution\\

2756: - The Critical Size for a Fast Reactor\\

2757: - Supercritical Reactors\\

2758: ${}$ \\

2759: Problems and Exercises\\

2760: \end{itemize}

2761: 

2762: Almost all the topics listed above were expounded by Fermi;

2763: according to French, when Fermi was absent, R.F. Christy and E.

2764: Segr\`e treated the scattering of neutrons and the albedo in the

2765: reflection of neutrons, respectively.

2766: 

2767: The text of the notes is different in the French and Halpern

2768: versions; in few cases, however, similar or even identical words

2769: or sentences are present in both versions, likely denoting quotes

2770: from an original wording by Fermi. In general, the French notes

2771: are much more detailed and accurate (as may be roughly deduced

2772: even looking at the table of contents reported above), with a

2773: great number of shorter or larger peculiar additions\footnote{The

2774: case is completely different, for example, from that of the

2775: revision of the (first part of the) Halpern notes made by J.G.

2776: Beckerley in 1951 (document AECD 2664 of the Atomic Energy

2777: Commission). Here the author {\it re-wrote} the Fermi lectures by

2778: including several additions from {\it other} sources, ``where

2779: clarity demanded more information and where the addition of recent

2780: data made the text more complete.'' Contrarily to the present case

2781: (as it is evident from the text of the notes), Beckerley ``was not

2782: privileged to attend the course'' by Fermi.} (explanations,

2783: calculations, data or other, and 5 more exercises) not present in

2784: the Halpern notes. It is quite interesting that the greater detail

2785: already present in the French notes increases even more in quality

2786: (especially figures and data) in the last part, directly related

2787: to chain reactions and their applications, and, moreover, explicit

2788: references to bomb applications are made (see below). By limiting

2789: ourselves to significative scientific remarks or discussions, the

2790: French version of the Fermi lecture notes contains about 100

2791: additions, 18 of them being quite relevant while the remaining

2792: part accounts for minor remarks, calculation details or figures.

2793: Instead the peculiar additions present in the Halpern version but

2794: not in the French one are only about 30 (and 3 more exercises),

2795: only one of them being relevant. Also, the French paper contains

2796: the six questions which were set as a final examination at the end

2797: of the lecture course.

2798: 

2799: The most relevant additions deals with the following (the page

2800: number refers to that present in the French manuscript):

2801: \\

2802: 

2803: - (French, page 6) the entire section {\it The Binding Energies of

2804: Nuclei}, where the definition of the binding energy and an example

2805: for calculating it in a specific case is reported;

2806: 

2807: - (French, page 19) the introduction of the first section of

2808: chapter 5: ``In this section we consider the solution by wave

2809: mechanics of a simple problem in nuclear scattering. The nucleus

2810: is considered as a centre of force, the force being of short

2811: range, so that it ceases to exist beyond a certain distance $r_0$

2812: from the origin. The actual shape of the nuclear potential then

2813: approximates to a square well, as shown in Fig. 14. The potential

2814: $U$ is negative and constant over most of the nucleus. This

2815: corresponds to the facts, as far as we know them, of the

2816: interaction between a neutron and a nucleus. The depth of the

2817: nuclear potential well is equal to the binding energy, that is

2818: about 8 MeV'';

2819: 

2820: - (French, page 27) some details about the Bragg scattering of

2821: slow neutrons by an element with different isotopic composition,

2822: ending with the following remark: ``the total scattering intensity

2823: is thus given by $I_{\rm sc} = {\rm const.} \, ( \sigma_1 +

2824: \sigma_2 \pm \sqrt{\sigma_a \sigma_2})$, and may be seen to

2825: consist of coherent and incoherent contributions, the latter not

2826: being subject to interference'';

2827: 

2828: - (French, pages 35-36) a long discussion, with detailed

2829: calculations about the spatial distribution of slowed neutrons,

2830: aimed at calculating the source strength in neutrons per second

2831: both for a thermal detector and for a resonance detector (final

2832: explicit expressions are reported);

2833: 

2834: - (French, page 42) calculation details about the neutron

2835: scattering in a medium (with the determination of the mean free

2836: path), ending with a prediction for the neutron-proton scattering

2837: cross section (in water) of $\sigma \simeq 20$ barns  which

2838: ``agrees very closely with the accepted value'';

2839: 

2840: - (French, pages 52-53) discussion on calculation details aimed at

2841: solving the so-called (Fermi) age equation for the diffusion of

2842: neutrons from a Ra-Be source in a column of graphite of square

2843: section (with length of side $a$) and infinite length; the

2844: effective length of a side of the column, $a=a_{\rm geometrical} +

2845: 2 \cdot (0.67 \, \lambda)$ ($\lambda$ being the mean free path),

2846: and the range of the neutrons, $r_0=\sqrt{4 \tau}$ ($\tau$ being

2847: the age parameter), are introduced; the numerical values of $r_0$

2848: (instead of only $\tau$ as in the Halpern notes) for three

2849: (instead of two) typical neutron energies are given; the addition

2850: in the French notes ends with the peculiar observation that ``we

2851: have the somewhat paradoxical result that the system can be made

2852: infinite for fast neutrons being slowed down, but not for the same

2853: neutrons when they have become thermal'';

2854: 

2855: - (French, pages 59-60) after some calculations, the section on

2856: the measurement of the albedo ends with the observation that ``a

2857: thermal neutron in these media [paraffin and water] makes about

2858: 100 collisions before being captured. The distance it travels,

2859: measured along the path, is about 80 cm on the average, and the

2860: time it takes to do this, which is its lifetime as a thermal

2861: neutron, is something less than a millisecond'';

2862: 

2863: - (French, page 61) introductory remarks on the binding energy of

2864: a nucleus, with the theoretical expression for the measured mass

2865: of an atom in terms of $A,Z$ and the said binding energy;

2866: 

2867: - (French, pages 63-65) several important additions related to the

2868: stability of nuclei (according to the even- and odd-ness of $Z$,

2869: $A$ or both) and the accurate determination of the expression of

2870: the binding energy of nuclei in terms of $Z$ and $A$, with several

2871: numerical data (and a graph);

2872: 

2873: - (French, pages 72-73) the inclusion of three graphs for the

2874: cross section of $(n,\gamma)$ and $(n,{\rm fission})$ processes on

2875: uranium as function of the incident neutron energy;

2876: 

2877: - (French, pages 79-80) relevant additions about homogeneous and

2878: lumped graphi\-te piles: explicit calculations of the neutron

2879: absorption volume by uranium spheres of 3 cm radius (and of other

2880: quantities) lead to the conclusion that ``no homogeneous pile of

2881: this type will work, and we must therefore devote our attention

2882: (if we are considering only the U-graphite combination) to

2883: heterogeneous piles'';

2884: 

2885: - (French, page 81) small introduction (with key comments) to the

2886: design of a lumped pile, with figures of lattice structures with

2887: spherical lumps or rods of uranium;

2888: 

2889: - (French, page 84) two relevant figures (and related discussion)

2890: about efficient cooling systems (by blast of air or water flowing)

2891: for piles; introductory remarks to the section dealing with the

2892: reproduction factor and critical size of a pile, with a graph of

2893: the actual neutron density in a finite pile as a function of the

2894: distance from the center of the pile;

2895: 

2896: - (French, pages 86-87) explicit expressions and related comments

2897: on the reproduction factor $k$ as a function of geometrical and

2898: other parameters of the pile;

2899: 

2900: - (French, pages 99-100) ``We have discussed the mechanism of

2901: thermal neutron chain reactions. The question now arises how to

2902: produce a nuclear explosion''; introductory remarks about fast

2903: reactors starting from the calculated expression for the growth of

2904: neutron density in a reactor;

2905: 

2906: - (French, pages 100-101) definition, calculations and related

2907: discussion on the transport cross section and transport mean free

2908: path for neutrons in a fast reactor with a core of $^{235}$U and a

2909: tamper (neutron reflector);

2910: 

2911: - (French, pages 103-104) discussion of equilibrium conditions

2912: (with explicit expressions) for a fast reactor and mathematical

2913: expressions for some quantities describing neutron losses;

2914: 

2915: - (French, page 110) the end of the chapter on fast reactors (and,

2916: then, of the lecture notes) is: ``in this way one can calculate

2917: the e-folding time for a fast reactor, and its value thus found

2918: will be valid until mechanical effects set in  -- these having to

2919: be known before the efficiency etc. of the bomb can be

2920: estimated''.

2921: \\

2922: 

2923: The only relevant addition in the Halpern version is, instead:

2924: \\

2925: 

2926: - the description of a fast neutron detector, based on the

2927: scattering of a neutron flux by a paraffin layer (see page 471 of

2928: Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM}).

2929: \\

2930: 

2931: \subsection{Other contributions}

2932: 

2933: Few other minor documents, of different nature and relevance, have

2934: come to light during our research.

2935: 

2936: Although not properly a paper or a report, the first document we

2937: point out here is a letter written by Fermi to Lord Rutherford as

2938: early as in 1934, when he and his group in Rome started to study

2939: the radioactivity induced by neutron bombardment. As recalled

2940: above, these studies led, in October 1934, to the discovery of the

2941: important properties of slow neutrons (see Patent USP1). This

2942: document is presently conserved among the Rutherford Papers at the

2943: Cambridge University Library (U.K.). The text of the letter is as

2944: follows:

2945: \\

2946: \begin{quote}

2947: {}\hfill{Rome, June 15th, 1934}\\

2948: 

2949: My dear Prof. Rutherford, \\

2950: I enclose a reprint of a paper on the present status of our

2951: researches on the activation of uranium. The same results shall

2952: appear shortly in Nature.

2953: 

2954: We have been forced to publish these results of a research which

2955: is actually not yet finished by the fact that the newspapers have

2956: published so many phantastic [sic!] statements about our work that

2957: we found it necessary to state clearly our point of view.

2958: 

2959: We are now engaged in trying to understand the influence of the

2960: neutron energy on the activation of elements. We try to do this

2961: using neutrons from a source of Em+B.

2962: 

2963: We are interested in this problem not only as it can throw some

2964: light on the processes involved, but also because we plan to

2965: construct a neutron tube similar to that of the Cavendish

2966: laboratory.

2967: 

2968: In this connection I would be much obliged if in case you have

2969: tested your tube for activating elements, you would let me know

2970: some data on the intensities of the activations.

2971: 

2972: The construction of this tube would be much facilitated for us if

2973: it were possible for some assistants of our laboratory (Drs.

2974: Amaldi and Segr\'e) to come this summer to the Cavendish

2975: Laboratory in order to see the apparatus and possibly be

2976: instructed about its use.

2977: 

2978: I would be very grateful to you if you will give me an answer on

2979: this point.

2980: 

2981: With kindest regards \\

2982: 

2983: {}\hfill{\begin{tabular}{c} yours very truly \\ \\ Enrico Fermi

2984: \end{tabular}\qquad}

2985: \end{quote}

2986: 

2987: Here, the relevant information, mainly from an historical point of

2988: view, is the reference to the construction of ``a neutron tube

2989: similar to that of the Cavendish laboratory'' and, particularly,

2990: the request by Fermi of ``some data on the intensities of the

2991: activations'' ought to be obtained by the Rutherford group at the

2992: Cavendish Laboratory. Indeed, this testify for an attempt made by

2993: Fermi to set up some collaboration among the two groups even {\it

2994: before} that Amaldi and Segr\`e came to Cambridge in the summer of

2995: 1934. Although four letters by Rutherford to Fermi were known

2996: (they are conserved at the Domus Galilaeana in Pisa, Italy), such

2997: collaboration at a distance had not been addressed previously. The

2998: reply to the letter by Fermi is, indeed, known\footnote{It is

2999: reported by E. Amaldi in his not very known paper {\it Neutron

3000: Work in Rome in 1934-36 and the Discovery of Uranium Fission},

3001: Riv. Stor. Sci. {\bf 1}, 1-24 (1984).}, but this fact cannot be

3002: deduced from it. The answer by Rutherford to the specific request

3003: by Fermi was negative, denoting the advantage of the Rome group

3004: over that of the Cavendish Laboratory on this point (probably

3005: unexpected by Fermi): ``I cannot at the moment give you definite

3006: statement as to the output of the neutrons from our tube but it

3007: should be of the same order as from an Em+Be tube containing 100

3008: millicurie and may be pushed much higher.''

3009: \\

3010: 

3011: The second document we consider here is the following:

3012: \\

3013: 

3014: \begin{itemize}

3015: \item[{\tiny }] {\it Total Collision Cross Section of Negative

3016: Pions on Protons},

3017: \\

3018: by D.E. Nagle, H.L. Anderson, E. Fermi, E.A. Long and R.L. Martin,

3019: \\

3020: Phys. Rev. {\bf 86}, 603 (1952).

3021: \\

3022: 

3023: \noi ``The transmission of negative pions in liquid hydrogen has

3024: been measured using the pion beams of the Chicago

3025: synchrocyclotron. Pion beams with energies from 60 to 230 MeV were

3026: used. The transmissions were measured using scintillation counting

3027: techniques. The total collision cross section increases with

3028: energy starting from small values at 30 MeV and rising to the

3029: ``geometrical'' value of about $60 \times 10^{-27}$ cm$^2$ at

3030: about 160 MeV. Thereafter up to 220 MeV, the cross section remains

3031: close to this value. The steep energy dependence at low energies

3032: is consistent with interpretation that the pion

3033: is pseudoscalar with a pseudovector interaction.'' \\

3034: \end{itemize}

3035: 

3036: As the companion paper in Ref. \cite{FNM249a}, it was presented at

3037: the 1952 Annual Meeting of the American Physical Society held at

3038: New York on January 31 - February 2, 1952; in the mentioned

3039: journal, only the abstract of both papers were reported, as custom

3040: for the proceedings of that meeting. It testifies for some of the

3041: work performed at Chicago by Fermi and his collaborator on pion

3042: physics \cite{FNMpion}; the results are summarized in the abstract

3043: reported entirely above. Strange enough, the paper considered does

3044: not appear among the {\it Collected Papers} \cite{FNM}, contrary

3045: to what happen for the paper in \cite{FNM249a}, although both

3046: abstracts were published in the journal on the same page.

3047: 

3048: The last document is a popular article written by Fermi for a

3049: newspaper\footnote{Although this paper was effectively published,

3050: again it was not included among the {\it Collected Papers}, so

3051: that it is practically unknown.}, in the occasion of the tenth

3052: anniversary of the operation of the first chain reacting pile at

3053: Chicago, on December 2, 1942:

3054: \\

3055: 

3056: \begin{itemize}

3057: \item[{\tiny }]  {\it Fermi's own story},

3058: \\

3059: by E. Fermi,

3060: \\

3061: Chicago Sun-Times, November 23, 1952.

3062: \\

3063: \end{itemize}

3064: \noi Here Fermi gave a personal description of that event,

3065: preceded by a short story of the main stepping-stones that leaded

3066: to the realization of the first chain reaction, starting from the

3067: discovery of radioactivity by H.A. Becquerel. It is particularly

3068: interesting the conclusion of this article, where Fermi stated his

3069: view (and hope) about science and possible military applications

3070: of it:

3071: \begin{quote}

3072: The further development of atomic energy during the next three

3073: years of the war was, of course, focused on the main objective of

3074: producing an effective weapon.

3075: 

3076: At the same time we all hoped that with the end of the war

3077: emphasis would be shifted decidedly from the weapon to the

3078: peaceful aspects of atomic energy.

3079: 

3080: We hoped that perhaps the building of power plants, production of

3081: radioactive elements for science and medicine would become the

3082: paramount objectives.

3083: 

3084: Unfortunately, the end of the war did not bring brotherly love

3085: among nations. The fabrication of weapons still is and must be the

3086: primary concern of the Atomic Energy Commission.

3087: 

3088: Secrecy that we thought was un unwelcome necessity of the war

3089: still appears to be an unwelcome necessity. The peaceful

3090: objectives must come second, although very considerable progress

3091: has been made also along those lines.

3092: 

3093: The problems posed by the world situation are not for the

3094: scientist alone but for all people to resolve. Perhaps a time will

3095: come when all scientific and technical progress will be hailed for

3096: the advantages that it may bring to man, and never feared on

3097: account of its destructive possibilities.

3098: \\

3099: \end{quote}

3100: 

3101: 

3102: \section{Conclusions}

3103: 

3104: \noi In the present paper we have given a detailed account of the

3105: many documents recently retrieved, and mainly testifying Fermi's

3106: activity in the 1940s about pile physics and engineering. These

3107: documents include patents, reports, notes on scientific and

3108: technical meetings and other papers; all of them have been

3109: carefully described, pointing out the relevance of the given paper

3110: for its scientific or even historical content.

3111: 

3112: From a purely scientific point of view, the patents on nuclear

3113: reactors, some reports or notes, and the complete set of lecture

3114: notes for a course on neutron physics are the most important

3115: documents. Quite intriguing are the papers written for the patents

3116: issued at the U.S. Patent Office, since they directly deal with

3117: the technical and operative construction of the nuclear reactors.

3118: Although the activity by Fermi on this was early well recognized

3119: from the accounts given by the living testimonies and partially

3120: documented by several papers appeared in the Fermi's {\it

3121: Collected Papers} (published in the 1960s), as it is evident from

3122: what discussed above, from the newly retrieved papers a number of

3123: important scientific and technical points come out, putting a

3124: truly new light on the Fermi's activity in the project. In few

3125: words, at last we can recognize exactly what Fermi {\it

3126: effectively} did for the success of the pile project, since it is

3127: now well documented.

3128: 

3129: The other papers, especially the notes on meeting, are also of

3130: particular relevance for the history of the achievement of the

3131: knowledge on chain reactions (with particular reference to the

3132: construction of the first chain reacting pile in Chicago at the

3133: end of 1942) and its application in the Manhattan Project. In some

3134: documents, explicit references to weapons, their use during the

3135: Second World War, and related matters appear. Quite a persistent

3136: ``obsession'', even as early as in 1942, for the production of

3137: fissile material (mainly plutonium) for military uses emerges from

3138: many documents, a feature which was not at all considered in

3139: previous historical reconstructions. The attitude of Fermi on this

3140: point comes out very clear: he is not ``obsessed'' at all by

3141: military applications (like, instead, several other colleagues),

3142: but rather by civil use of nuclear energy (for ``the heating of

3143: towns'') and, quite unexpectedly, by the physiological effects of

3144: radiations. Quite important (and, again, unexpected) are, as well,

3145: the discussions at several meeting of long term physics research

3146: and post-war research policy, and those regarding the

3147: relationship, about nuclear power for pacific and/or military use,

3148: between U.S. and Britain just after the end of the war.

3149: 

3150: Although we have discussed in some a great detail all of the novel

3151: documents, given their obvious relevance, we can expect that

3152: accurate studies on them, to be performed in order to explore the

3153: full implications of them, have still to come, probably committing

3154: the people interested in scientific and historical matters for

3155: some time in the near future.

3156: 

3157: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3158: 

3159: %\acknowledgments

3160: 

3161: \subsection*{Acknowledgments}

3162: The active and valuable cooperation of the staff of the

3163: Chur\-chill Archive Centre, Cambridge (U.K.), the Department of

3164: Manuscripts of the Cambridge University Library, Cambridge (U.K.),

3165: the University Library of the University of Illinois at

3166: Urbana-Champaign, and of the Information Resource Center of the

3167: U.S. Embassy in Rome is here gratefully acknowledged. The authors

3168: are also indebted to A. De Gregorio for valuable discussions and

3169: to G. Miele for his kind support and encouragement.

3170: 

3171: 

3172: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

3173: 

3174: \bibitem{FNM}

3175: E. Fermi, {\em Collected Papers}, edited by E. Amaldi {\it et

3176: al.}, The University of Chicago Press - Accademia Nazionale dei

3177: Lincei, Chicago - Rome, 1962-1965, 2 volumes (1962).

3178: 

3179: \bibitem{FermiFisico}

3180: Emilio Segr\`e, {\em Enrico Fermi, physicist} (The University of

3181: Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970).

3182: 

3183: \bibitem{Sachs}

3184: R.G. Sachs (ed.), {\em The Nuclear Chain Reaction - Forty Years

3185: Later} (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984).

3186: 

3187: \bibitem{FNM223}

3188: E. Fermi, Proc. Amer. Philosophical Soc. {\bf 90}, 20-24 (1946).

3189: Reproduced in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page 542.

3190: 

3191: \bibitem{AndersonSachs}

3192: H.L. Anderson in Ref. \cite{Sachs}.

3193: 

3194: \bibitem{FNM131}

3195:  H.L. Anderson and E. Fermi, Phys. Rev. {\bf 55}, 1106-1107 (1939).

3196: Reproduced in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page 8.

3197: 

3198: \bibitem{DeGSlow}

3199: A recent and accurate analysis of this topic is in A. De Gregorio,

3200: Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. {\bf 37} (2006) 330-346, Nuovo

3201: Saggiatore {\bf 19} (2003) 41-47 (arXiv:physics/0309046).

3202: 

3203: \bibitem{FNM132}

3204: H.L. Anderson, E. Fermi and L. Szilard, Phys. Rev. {\bf 56},

3205: 284-286 (1939). Reproduced in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page

3206: 11.

3207: 

3208: \bibitem{FNM136}

3209: H.L. Anderson and E. Fermi, Report A-21 (September 25, 1940), in

3210: Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page 32.

3211: 

3212: \bibitem{FNM138}

3213: H.L. Anderson and E. Fermi, Report A-6 (January 17, 1941), in

3214: Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page 50.

3215: 

3216: \bibitem{FNM137}

3217: H.L. Anderson, E. Fermi and A.V. Grosse, Phys. Rev. {\bf 59},

3218: 52-56 (1941). Reproduced in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page

3219: 141.

3220: 

3221: \bibitem{FNM140}

3222: H.L. Anderson and E. Fermi, Report A-2, in Volume II of Ref.

3223: \cite{FNM} on page 76.

3224: 

3225: \bibitem{FNM148}

3226: H.L. Anderson and E. Fermi, Report CP-74, in Volume II of Ref.

3227: \cite{FNM} on page 116.

3228: 

3229: \bibitem{FNM139}

3230: E. Fermi, H.L. Anderson, R.R. Wilson and E.C. Creutz, Report A-12,

3231: in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page 70.

3232: 

3233: \bibitem{FNM145}

3234: H.L. Anderson and E. Fermi, Report C-83, in Volume II of Ref.

3235: \cite{FNM} on page 107.

3236: 

3237: \bibitem{WattenSachs}

3238: A. Wattenberg in Ref. \cite{Sachs}.

3239: 

3240: \bibitem{FNM150}

3241: H.L. Anderson, B.T. Feld, E. Fermi, G.L. Weil and W.H. Zinn,

3242: Report C-20, in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page 128.

3243: 

3244: \bibitem{FNM151}

3245: E. Fermi, Report CP-26, in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page

3246: 137.

3247: 

3248: \bibitem{FNM152}

3249: E. Fermi, Report CP-85, in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page

3250: 144.

3251: 

3252: \bibitem{FNM153}

3253: E. Fermi, Report C-5, in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page 147.

3254: 

3255: \bibitem{FNM154163}

3256: E. Fermi, Report C-8, in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page 149.

3257: R.F. Christy, E. Fermi and M. D. Whitaker, Report CP-254, in

3258: Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page 195.

3259: 

3260: \bibitem{FNM155}

3261: G. Breit and E. Fermi, Report C-11, in Volume II of Ref.

3262: \cite{FNM} on page 152.

3263: 

3264: \bibitem{FNM166}

3265: E. Fermi, Report CP-235, in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page

3266: 206.

3267: 

3268: \bibitem{FNM176}

3269: E. Fermi, (CP) Memo-10, in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page

3270: 248.

3271: 

3272: \bibitem{FNM168}

3273: E. Fermi, Report CP-257, in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page

3274: 212.

3275: 

3276: \bibitem{FNM182183}

3277: E. Fermi, Report CP-416 for Month Ending January 15, 1943 and

3278: Report CP-455 for Month Ending February 6, 1943, in Volume II of

3279: Ref. \cite{FNM} on page 308.

3280: 

3281: \bibitem{FNM187}

3282: E. Fermi, Report CP-641 for Month Ending May 10, 1943, in Volume

3283: II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page 326.

3284: 

3285: \bibitem{FNM210}

3286: H.L. Anderson, E. Fermi, A. Wattenberg, G.L. Weil and W.H. Zinn,

3287: Phys. Rev. {\bf 72} (1947) 16-23. Reproduced in Volume II of Ref.

3288: \cite{FNM} on page 397.

3289: 

3290: \bibitem{FNM189}

3291: E. Fermi and W. H. Zinn, Report CP-684 for Month Ending May 25,

3292: 1943, in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page 333.

3293: 

3294: \bibitem{FNM191}

3295: H.L. Anderson, E. Fermi and L. Marshall, Phys. Rev. {\bf 270}

3296: 815-817 (1946). Reproduced in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page

3297: 337.

3298: 

3299: \bibitem{FNM217}

3300: E. Fermi and W.H. Zinn, Report CP-1965, in Volume II of Ref.

3301: \cite{FNM} on page 425.

3302: 

3303: \bibitem{FNM200}

3304: %E. Bragdon, E. Fermi, J. Marshall and L. Marshall, Report CP-1098;

3305: E. Fermi, J. Marshall and L. Marshall, Phys. Rev. {\bf 72} (1947)

3306: 193-196. Reproduced in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page 366.

3307: 

3308: \bibitem{FNM212}

3309: E. Fermi, Report CK-1788, in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page

3310: 415.

3311: 

3312: \bibitem{FNM211}

3313: Notes on Meeting of April 26, 1944, Report N-1729, Eck-209, in

3314: Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page 411.

3315: 

3316: \bibitem{FNM194}

3317: E. Fermi, Report CP-1016 for Month Ending October 23, 1943, in

3318: Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page 347.

3319: 

3320: \bibitem{FNM214}

3321: H.L. Anderson and E. Fermi, Report CP-1729, in Volume II of Ref.

3322: \cite{FNM} on page 421.

3323: 

3324: \bibitem{FNM218}

3325: E. Fermi, Document HW 3-492, in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on

3326: page 428.

3327: 

3328: \bibitem{FNM222}

3329: {\em Neutron Physics. A Course of Lectures by E. Fermi}, notes by

3330: I. Halpern. Reported in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page 440.

3331: 

3332: %@@@

3333: 

3334: \bibitem{FNM107}

3335: E. Amaldi, O. D'Agostino, E. Fermi, B. Pontecorvo, F. Rasetti and

3336: E. Segr\`e, Proc. Roy. Soc. London {\bf A149} (1935) 522-538.

3337: Reproduced in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page 765.

3338: 

3339: \bibitem{FNM180}

3340: E. Fermi, Report CP-387, in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page

3341: 268.

3342: 

3343: \bibitem{FNM181}

3344: E. Fermi, Am. J. Phys. {\bf 20} (1952) 536-558. Reproduced in

3345: Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page 272

3346: 

3347: \bibitem{FNM186}

3348: E. Fermi, Report CP-570, in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page

3349: 324.

3350: 

3351: \bibitem{FNM199}

3352: E. Fermi, Report CP-1175, in Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM} on page

3353: 364.

3354: 

3355: \bibitem{Szasz}

3356: F.M. Szasz, {\it British Scientists and the Manhattan Project: The

3357: Los Alamos Years}, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 1992.

3358: 

3359: \bibitem{FermiFrench}

3360: S. Esposito, {\it Fermi at Los Alamos and the early Britain's way

3361: to nuclear energy}, submitted for publication.

3362: 

3363: \bibitem{FNM249a}

3364: A. Lundby, E. Fermi, H.L. Anderson, D.E. Nagle and G. Yodh, Phys.

3365: Rev. {\bf 86}, 603 (1952).

3366: 

3367: \bibitem{FNMpion}

3368: See the introduction on page 835 of Volume II of Ref. \cite{FNM}.

3369: 

3370: %http://www.library.uiuc.edu/archives/uasfa/1110025.pdf

3371: \end{thebibliography}

3372: