ENRICO FERMI AND URANIUM FISSION

by
Otto Hahn

Being asked to write something for the Inter-

national Atomic Energy Agency to commemorate
2 December 1942 gives me a strange feeling. There
is really nothing to connect me directly with that
momentous date, since Germany's scientific contacts
with foreign countries - England in the first place and
America soon afterwards - came to an end, at least
as far as nuclear research was concerned, on the out-
break of the Second World War in September 1939.
Western periodicals ceased publishing anything
having to do with uranium fission, which had been
announced in January 1939. When, shortly after-
wards, it was demonstrated that in uranium fission a
few neutrons were "evaporated" in addition, the
scientific world knew that harnessing nuclear energy
by building up a "chain reaction" had entered the realm
of the conceivable. In war, every means that can be
developed to weaken or destroy the enemy takes pre-
cedence over any beneficent application. Such was
the case here too: the possibility of an atomic bomb
was discussed. (1)
I remember many a conversation with my friend
Fritz Strassmann, in which we talked about our fear
that a bomb might be built. We consoled ourselves
with the thought that it would probably be another
twenty years or more before humanity could come into
possession of such a weapon, so that its employment
Otto Hahn
in the present war was out of the question.
artificial nuclear transformations, instead of the
We had then no inkling of the success of Enrico positively-charged o-particles or protons hitherto
F e r m i and his numerous collaborators, and were employed. He and his colleagues had accordingly
happy to be able to continue and publish our purely bombarded with neutrons practically all the elements
scientific work on clarifying the many processes in the periodic table up to uranium, and had obtained
occurring during the splitting of the uranium nucleus. artificial nuclear transformations in the course of
which the nucleus, enlarged by the neutron, was
I have therefore really no right and no occasion
transmuted into the next higher element with emission
to commemorate the day on which the Fermi reactor
of p-rays.
went critical, the day, that is, on which it was proved
that a chain reaction can be established, permitting Since in the case of uranium irradiation also
effective exploitation of the energies slumbering in artificial nuclear species had been detected by Fermi,
atomic nuclei. his conclusion had been that one or even several ele-
ments beyond uranium - hence "transuranic " elements -
Nevertheless, I have good reason to remember
were formed. This conclusion was, however, dis-
the name of Enrico Fermi. For in 1934 Fermi was
puted by my former colleague A. V. Grosse, who had
the factor motivating the decision by my colleague and
been the first to succeed in producing pure protac-
friend of many years' standing, Lise Meitner, and
tinium. Grosse and Agruss did not believe in the
myself, to verify Fermi's experiments on uranium
presence of atomic species with a nuclear charge
irradiation by neutrons.
higher than 92, but considered the species reported
Discussion had arisen on the interpretation of by F e r m i to be forms of element 91, in fact to be
Fermi's experiments. Fermi had had the attractive isotopes of protactinium. As Lise Meitner and my-
idea of using the uncharged neutrons to induce self were well acquainted with the properties of pro-
(1) See in this connection: S. Flugge, DieNaturwissenschaften 27, 402- tactinium, and as I had myself discovered many years
410 (1939)

9
previously a p-emitting protactinium isotope, I shall l i m i t myself to a very brief d e s c r i p t i o n
uranium Z , we were very interested in reproducing of our continued mistaken c o u r s e and ultimate s u c c e s s .
F e r m i ' s experiments in order to verify whether Under c e r t a i n i r r a d i a t i o n conditions Lise Meitner and
F e r m i or G r o s s e was right, i. e. whether the new Ifound, in addition to the 10- and 40-second substances
artificial nuclear s p e c i e s corresponded to elements r e g a r d e d by F e r m i a s uranium isotopes, an artificial
with an atomic number higher than 92, or to element 91, product of 23 minutes' half-life which, with the aid of
protactinium. Using uranium Z a s a t r a c e r for the t r a c e r technique, we were able to identify u n e -
element 9 1 , L i s e Meitner and I were able to demon- quivocally a s a genuine u r a n i u m i s o t o p e . Since it
strate c o n c l u s i v e l y that the F e r m i substances w e r e emitted p - r a y s it must of n e c e s s i t y t r a n s m u t e into
not i s o t o p e s of protactinium and that t h e r e f o r e the element 93, e k a r h e n i u m . Owing to our weak r a d i a -
inference that they were e l e m e n t s beyond uranium, tion s o u r c e we were unable, d e s p i t e our e f f o r t s , to
transuranic elements, was justified. (The elements discover this ekarhenium. At that t i m e , h o w e v e r ,
thorium 190J or actinium 189J had been excluded previ- it was in any c a s e of no p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t to u s ,
ously. ) Our explanation of the p r o c e s s e s was there- since we believed that we already p o s s e s s e d forms of
fore a s follows: e k a r h e n i u m in the shape of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n p r o d u c t s
of F e r m i ' s short-lived uranium isotopes. H e r e again
When uranium i s subjected to neutron bombard-
we h a v e a r e p e t i t i o n of the n e a r - t r a g i c m i s u n d e r -
ment, a neutron i s absorbed by the uranium nucleus
standing connected with t h e s e products, but for which
and an artificial uranium isotope with a m a s s greater
we should have taken a great deal of t r o u b l e with the
by one unit i s created. Hence a neutron in the nucleus
transformation product of the 23-minute uranium i s o -
i s converted into a proton. With e m i s s i o n of a p-
tope. By repeatedly s e p a r a t i n g the 23-minute u r a n -
particle the uranium isotope becomes an isotope of
ium and hence enriching i t s unknown t r a n s f o r m a t i o n
element 93, i . e . a transuranic element. Fermi and
p r o d u c t , we should probably have discovered the
his collaborators discovered not merely one but several
e k a r h e n i u m in p r o c e s s of formation and seen to our
simultaneously-formed p - e m i t t e r s , including a 10-
astonishment that it p o s s e s s e d none of the p r o p e r t i e s
second and a 40-second product. All experience with
we w e r e obliged to a s s u m e for it on the b a s i s of our
the other e l e m e n t s in the periodic s y s t e m indicated
Fermi transformations. McMillan and Abelson
that these must therefore be short-lived uranium i s o -
found the t r u e e l e m e n t 93 after u r a n i u m fission had
topes, which evidently then changed into further arti-
been d i s c o v e r e d . It w a s c a l l e d by i t s d i s c o v e r e r s
ficial products.
neptunium.
L i s e Meitner and 1 confirmed and extended the
experiments of the F e r m i group. It transpired that But back to 1938. The number of artificial
the p r o c e s s e s w e r e e x t r e m e l y c o m p l e x , and in a s - nuclides resulting directly or indirectly from uranium
sociation with Fritz Strassmann we worked out, over irradiation became greater still when Strassmann and
a period of four y e a r s , two extensive s e r i e s of arti- m y s e l f . i n examining a 3 . 5 hr product described by
ficial transuranic elements with postulated nuclear Curie and Savitch, were able to demonstrate the ex-
charges from ekarhenium 93 to ekaplatinum 96. One istence of no fewer than four new substances, all of
s e r i e s began with Fermi's 10-second uranium isotope which we had to describe a s artificial isotopes of
and the other with the 4 0 - s e c o n d product. A s the radium. F r o m their chemical reactions they could
transformation products resulting from these isotopes only be either radium or the barium which had been
w e r e all precipitable from a strongly-acid solution added for their precipitation. The latter was of
by means of hydrogen sulphide the "transuranic" e l e - course excluded on the basis of all nuclear physics
m e n t s w e r e in good agreement, a s r e g a r d s their experience gained up to that point.
chemical properties, with the hypothesis of ekarhen-
ium 93 and the platinum metal homologues eka- But now at last there followed the experiments
o s m t u m 9 4 , ekairidium 95 and ekaplatinum 96. which led to enlightenment. We tried to separate our
Yet the entire structure of our "transuranic" artificial "radium" from the inactive barium ballast
elements rested on the a l m o s t t r a g i c e r r o r repre- material by fractional crystaUization, because we
sented by postulation of F e r m i ' s s h o r t - l i v e d uranium wished to have thinner layers for studying the p-radia-
isotopes of 10 and 40 seconds' half-life. Fermi's tion. The result i s well-known: despite the most
conclusion when he c a r r i e d out his neutron irradiation varied techniques, long familiar to u s , we failed to
of uranium in 1934 was c o r r e c t and our long t r a n s - separate the "radium" from the barium, and t r a c e r
formation s e r i e s appeared to be equally correct. experiments with natural radium i s o t o p e s , such a s
F e r m i could not know that under neutron bombard- mesothorium and thorium-X, and our artificial
ment a completely different p r o c e s s takes place in the "radium" finally forced us to the conclusion that the
c a s e of uranium than in that of the lower elements in latter w a s not radium at all but barium. During
the periodic table. Further results were required - neutron bombardment the uranium had "split" into
which at first only increased the confusion - before medium weight elements, one of which was barium,
the events occurring during uranium irradiation r e - the other being shown shortly afterward to be krypton,
ceived their proper explanation. both elements appearing in the form of several isotopes.

10
 The first explanation of this "split" was provided point of four y e a r s ' work in common. And although,
by L i s e Meitner and O. R. F r i s c h . It i s a s a result once the true p r o c e s s e s had been clarified, these
of their suggestion that the p r o c e s s i s known today short-lived uranium i s o t o p e s stood r e v e a l e d a s an
a s "fission". illusion which was unavoidable at the time, the s y s t e m -
At the beginning of this brief historical account atic effort n e v e r t h e l e s s led to s u c c e s s in the end.
I stated that I had really nothing to do with 2 December Had it not been for Fermi, Hahn, Meitner and Strass-
1942, the day on which F e r m i ' s nuclear reactor be- mann might never have taken an interest in uranium.
came critical. That i s quite true. With F e r m i
h i m s e l f however, my c o l l e a g u e s L i s e Meitner and Our gratitude to F e r m i today i s therefore due
Fritz Strassmann and I myself had a great deal to do. l e s s perhaps for his reactor than for his experiments
F e r m i ' s short-lived transformation products, con- using uncharged neutrons in order to bring about arti-
sidered to be isotopes of uranium, were the starting ficial nuclear p r o c e s s e s .

11