The main contoversy is over Heisenberg's interpretation of his role in the German WWII effort. In a book by a Swiss journalist (Brighter Than a Thousand Suns )Heisenberg claims that because of his refusal to work on the bomb the Nazis did not obtain it. The problem with his version is the fact that transcripts were taken secretly in the U.K. where many of the German nuclear physicists were held after being captured in Germany by the allieds (out of fear they could work for the Russians later!). From these transcripts it is concluded that the German effort concentrated on building a reactor to breed plutonium and use that as bomb fuel (hence the importance of heavy water, which is used to moderate reactors). It is very likely that the Germans overestimated the amount of fissible uranium needed for a chain reaction (critical mass) by a huge amount and therefore did not attempt to separate uranium isotopes.
The problem with Heisenberg was therefore perhaps not so much his role in WWII, but his dramatic reinvention of his role after the war. The Bohr papers again suggest that the failure of the German nuclear effort was due to Hitler being uninterested and their miscalculations rather than heroic resistance.
Things are of course very complicated and I am very impresessed by Bohr's handling of the whole affair.
What journals are we talking about here? In my field (basic neuroscience) the situation is as follows:
Research: paid for by a grant giving institution, more likely than not taxpayer's money.
Preparing and formatting of manuscript and figures: done for free by author.
Initial review: Editor - paid by the publisher typically.
Peer review: Most of it done for free (I have not done or witnessed one paid peer review - and they are damn good reviewers:-))
Publication: Usually rather steep page charges for the authors.
Copyright: Usually goes to the publisher.
Printing and formatting for print: That is what you were writing about - it is a small part of the whole process.
Private subscription: You pay again:-)
Institutional subscription: Taxpayer pays again
One of the most offensive publishers is Elsevier - I hope you are lamenting their fate. Due to their technical difficulties the online access my university has PAID for still does not work - months after the first complaints.
Did I sign the damn protest - you bet!
Slashdot Mirror
The main contoversy is over Heisenberg's interpretation of his role in the German WWII effort. In a book by a Swiss journalist (Brighter Than a Thousand Suns )Heisenberg claims that because of his refusal to work on the bomb the Nazis did not obtain it. The problem with his version is the fact that transcripts were taken secretly in the U.K. where many of the German nuclear physicists were held after being captured in Germany by the allieds (out of fear they could work for the Russians later!). From these transcripts it is concluded that the German effort concentrated on building a reactor to breed plutonium and use that as bomb fuel (hence the importance of heavy water, which is used to moderate reactors). It is very likely that the Germans overestimated the amount of fissible uranium needed for a chain reaction (critical mass) by a huge amount and therefore did not attempt to separate uranium isotopes.
The problem with Heisenberg was therefore perhaps not so much his role in WWII, but his dramatic reinvention of his role after the war. The Bohr papers again suggest that the failure of the German nuclear effort was due to Hitler being uninterested and their miscalculations rather than heroic resistance.
Things are of course very complicated and I am very impresessed by Bohr's handling of the whole affair.
>more predictable than a computer ...
..running Windows, for sure :-) - not that that's too difficult.
What journals are we talking about here? In my field (basic neuroscience) the situation is as follows: :-))
:-)
Research: paid for by a grant giving institution, more likely than not taxpayer's money.
Preparing and formatting of manuscript and figures: done for free by author.
Initial review: Editor - paid by the publisher typically.
Peer review: Most of it done for free (I have not done or witnessed one paid peer review - and they are damn good reviewers
Publication: Usually rather steep page charges for the authors.
Copyright: Usually goes to the publisher.
Printing and formatting for print: That is what you were writing about - it is a small part of the whole process.
Private subscription: You pay again
Institutional subscription: Taxpayer pays again
One of the most offensive publishers is Elsevier - I hope you are lamenting their fate. Due to their technical difficulties the online access my university has PAID for still does not work - months after the first complaints.
Did I sign the damn protest - you bet!