Talk:Norwegian heavy water sabotage

message: Any one know why they had a heavy water plant at all which was built as I understand it before the war?  What was the point if no one was actively building a bomb when the plant was first built?  Was it just a by prodcut of producing hydrogen for other purposes?  Dave
Book reference (I haven't read it, but I saw the documentary):
* Ray Mears, The Real Heroes of Telemark, Hodder & Stoughton, London 2003. --Robert Merkel 13:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any one know why ? 

message: The Hydro plant was built before the war to utilize the relatively simple process known as electrolysis to split the water molecule into highly acidic hydrogen ions and highly basic hydroxide ions. They used the hydrogen to make fertilizer, and had no idea until the Germans showed interest in the plant that their biproduct could be useful in beginning a chain reaction wherein a stable uranium atom becomes plutonium, necessary for making nuclear weapons. Does that help at all? Lily Grace 07:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrolysis 

message: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/vemork.htm
"Norsk Hydro supplied the world's scientific community with heavy water only as a sideline."
a correction: 
The book E=mc^2, the biography of a formula also mentions that the hydro plant produced fertilizer, and that heavy water was a by-product.
I don't think so - chemically, heavy water isn't very different from ordinary water, and I'd say that it can just as well be used to make fertilizer.
*Deuterated water has, in fact, rather different properties from normal water. That's why it was a byproduct of the electrolysis reaction which preferred the lighter chemical species. And, just in case, please do not drink it. Jclerman 18:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall that such tactics were used by the Nazis in many territories in WWII (resistance movements, as a rule, aren't above some rather nasty actions towards "collaborators" themselves), and I think the Hollywood movie implied this (though, as stated, it never let the facts get in the way of a good story).  Somebody needs to do some book research to find out. --Robert Merkel 05:42, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: apparenlty scienties were playing with heavy water even in 1934 

message: Among historians there is doubt that Germany was really working on a nuclear weapon. Of course, the Nazi's were interested in such a weapon, and were experimenting with nuclear fission. The allies were convinced that the Germans were building a bomb (one of the reasons for the Manhattan-project), but after the war little evidence for a bomb was found. There were experimental nuclear reactors found, but those weren't very effective and could not produce enough plutonium for a bomb. After the war it became apparent that the Nazi's decided the development of a nuclear weapon would take too long, cost too much and use too much resources. 
- FB
:FB, they certainly didn't attempt anything like what the Allies did with the Manhattan Project, but the experiments they were conducting could ultimately have led to plutonium production and a bomb design.  With the benefit of hindsight it's clear that the Nazis would never have finished in time, but hindsight is always 20/20. --Robert Merkel 15:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically, the fact that Nazi Germany despised/discarded "Jewish" physics led to many extremely talented physicists and engineers to emigrate, some to the United States, and were essential in the Manhattan Project, and this was detrimental to the Nazi pursuit of a nuclear weapon - I am trying to motivate myself to look through the various sources in my private history library of 300-plus volumes to find some good references on this for the article, but it is Sunday, and I am extremely lazy right now.  :-)   HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The tipping point for the Allies (actually, Britain) was the 1940 Frisch–Peierls memorandum that proved an atomic bomb was a feasible proposition, this led to fears that Germany might be working on a bomb and might get one first, and all responses were based on that (albeit mistaken) assumption. After the war it was discovered that Germany had not been anywhere near getting an atomic bomb but the Allies hadn't known that at the time. Getting this wrong would almost certainly have lost the Allies the war.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi A-bomb? 

message: Great narrative in this article, but it's missing the most important part: in the "Operation Gunnerside" section, what did the team do after entering the building?  The narrative goes:
# Approach attempt
# Approach attempt 2 
# Get into the building
# Sneak away from the building.
Did they perhaps set a bomb or two?  Tempshill 20:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I don't know exactly how they sabotaged the heavy water production.--Robert Merkel 21:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big missing part 

message: Recent edit states: "Having prematurely abandoned the idea of a graphite-moderated reactor for plutonium production due to initial failure to examine ultrapure graphite, the Germans instead settled on a heavy-water-based design (in the U.S., this mistake was prevented by the insight of Leo Szilard). A nuclear reactor could be used to do bomb research, and, ultimately, to breed plutonium from which a bomb could be constructed."  
Come now, the heavy water concept was perfectly viable—one needs only consider the production reactors at Savannah River Site’s   R-Reactor, P-Reactor, L-Reactor, K-Reactor, & C-Reactor or Mayak’s production reactors to see compelling proof that heavy water is more effective for plutonium production than graphite-moderated reactors. How is it that the abandonment of a graphite-moderated reactor was premature? Were the Germans to have the prescience that allowed them to see the Norwegians would sabotage their approach?
Williamborg 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   prematurely abandoned the idea of a graphite-moderated reactor 

message: Nothing to do with subject of page.
Beginning in 1943, the U.S. pursued this method and plantsA fuel fabrication plant, two production reactors, cooling basins, laboratories and three reprocessing plants (each 250 m in length). were built to produce plutonium at the Hanford Works north of Richland, Washington. The Hanford production was based on a technological insight by Leo Szilard that uranium arranged in a spatial array in ultrapure graphite as a neutron moderator could be used to produce Pu239. Although heavy water is a superior neutron moderator, it was not selected by the U.S. due to difficulty in heavy water production. 
''
--Light current 12:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from page 

message: As of 24 October 2006, I am making a speedy failing for this article to reach Good Article status, per WP:WIAGA, because this article is totally unsourced. The only item in the References and notes section is not a source, but merely a footnote.  Please provide your reliable sources according to WP:CITE to support the three pillars of Wikipedia: neutral point of view, no element of original research and verifiable. — Indon (reply) — 11:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA failed 

message: We should add the following to the list:
Untold Stories of WWII: Three Secrets that Changed the War
Produced by Stephen Burns, David Clark, and Amy Wray
Written by James Barrat, Michael Dolan, and Frank Nesbitt
National Geographic Society, 1998
:This Documentary contains testimony of some of the original Grouse teammembers
Tha slughy 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Documentary List

message: I strongly suggest the removal of the link to the slideshow about the "real heroes of Telemark". Some of the facts presented were wrong and it puts much too heavy emphasis on the German nuclear programme - Poulsson himself says in his book (Aksjon Vemork - Vinterkrig på Hardangervidda, Gyldendal Norsk Forlag 1982) that it was unlikely the Nazis were even working towards an atomic bomb.
M.B., 23 February 2007
193.216.116.179 14:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of link 

message: Going back to an earlier question and the answer that heavy water was merely a by product, doesnt this imply or state that they actaully wanted heavy water in 1934 - if so for what purpose?  Thanks...Engineman (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why did they have heavy water?

message: the article mentioned that the heavy water was shipped out by the french before the war. I think it would improve the article if it would tell what happend to the heavy water in france. It is stated that it is shipped to france in 1940, but it does not tell what happend during the occupation of france 92.226.193.92 (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In 1940 it was transported out of France to England by the SS Broompark by a party led by Charles Howard, 20th Earl of Suffolk. Image of ship here:  For a time the HW was stored at Windsor Castle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  pre war heavy water 

message: http://www.hydro.com/en/About-Hydro/Our-history/1929---1945/1943-The-Heroes-of-Telemark/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.176.67.242 (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  footnote 20 (Heroes at Telemark) is now available at 

message: This is the first and only mention of Captain Paulsen. I would add detail, but I think it is already too much detail for a story about sabotage. I'm not sure how much of Joliot-Curie's travels and travails the article needs, but I do not think we need the captain and cargo manifest for the ship he was on. The same for the evacuation the ship had participated in three weeks before. I would slice it myself, but perhaps someone could guide on what to slice and what to leave? Fotoguzzi (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The award of an OBE to Captain Paulsen...." 

message: The article mentions the 2003 BBC documentary by Ray Mears. However, BBC made a pretty comprehensive document "The Saboteurs of Telemark" already in 1973. It's now even in Youtube . (The references mention it but only giving the name, the year and the publisher.) --Sivullinen (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video and book coverage - the 1973 BBC document 

message: In the "Sinking the SF Hydro on Lake Tinnsjø" section, it says "In 2005, an expedition retrieved a barrel (numbered "26") from the bottom of the lake.[25] Its contents of heavy water matched the concentration noted in the German records, and confirmed that the shipment was not a decoy." In the "Historical perspective" section, it talks about analysis of a salvaged barrel of the water from 2004. Is one of those years incorrect (which?), or are there two different barrels being discussed? DMacks (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of barrel recovery 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Norwegian heavy water sabotage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090527182059/http://hydro.com:80/en/Press-room/News/Archive/2006/November/17083/ to http://www.hydro.com/en/Press-room/News/Archive/2006/November/17083/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I read somewhere once that Norwegian workers urinated into the heavy water to sabotage it. It makes sense: it's a good way to sneak in an unauthorized liquid. I love the story but I haven't been able to find any verification. Does anybody have any sources on this creative approach? SnappingTurtle (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urine used in sabotage? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Norwegian heavy water sabotage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040902025445/http://teachnet.edb.utexas.edu/~lynda_abbott/abtknutslides.html to http://teachnet.edb.utexas.edu/~lynda_abbott/abtknutslides.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040824230655/http://www.fettes.com/scotsatwar/AZindex/v/vemorkraid.htm to http://www.fettes.com/scotsatwar/AZindex/v/vemorkraid.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Although 3,000 German soldiers were dispatched to search the area for the commandos, all escaped; five skied 400 kilometres (250 mi) to Sweden"
Distance on the map is 200km EasyBeginning (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commandos escaped by skiing 400km to Sweden. Actual distance is 200km 

message: The operation gunnerside, is featured on the song "Saboteurs" from the album "Coat of Arms". Should we add this piece on the popular culture paragraph? 2A02:1388:214B:11CE:3D19:13EC:F83D:1ECE (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabaton 

message: There is a confusion about how many saboteurs took part in the whole Operation Gunnerside. Grouse team had 4 members, while Gunnerside team had 6, but there was an 11th member of the combined team: Einar Skinnarland who was already near Vemork, keeping contact to SEO and organizing other people in resistance, eg. his brother Torsten. The plus member may be the reason why the double name: "Grouse" and "Swallow" of the team. (Though it is not detailed in this article, in some news it can be read: 9 saboteurs approached the plant, and 1 was left behind to keep contact with SEO, however sometimes they talk about 2, as one of them was Skinnarland). When they escaped, then 5 went to Sweden, 6 remained in Norway (=11), remainers included Skinnarland and Knut Haukelid who participated later in the Lake Tinn operation as well.
It is also not clear if "SOE had a Norwegian agent in the plant who supplied detailed plans and schedules" then it is the same person who took part Lake Tinn team as "Larsen" or not.
(See: Operation_Freshman#Operation_Grouse, Joachim Rønneberg, :no:Tungtvannsaksjonen, Name of saboteurs on memorial stone) JSoos (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of saboteurs 

message: This article is WAY too discursive, careering wildly from factoid to factoid about isotopes and Pu and which issues of the Gazette carried the award of the OBE to the caption of the ship that had brought the D2O to Cornwall and also was part of the Dunkirk evacuation after its shipment of coffee had been ... EEng 09:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a machete taken to it