https://doi.org/10.1140/epjh/s13129-026-00117-1
Regular Article
Frisch's likely path to the 2.1 cm critical radius in the 1940 Frisch–Peierls Memorandum
Physics Department, University of Houston, 77204, Houston, TX, USA
a
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Received:
26
May
2025
Accepted:
5
February
2026
Published online:
26
March
2026
Abstract
Two striking, physically wrong assumptions are asserted in the 1940 Frisch-Peierls' Memorandum: The Memorandum ignores the known large scattering cross section while inventing a hypothetical fission cross section that is twenty times larger than the known fission cross section in 1940. The point of this paper is to show how Frisch used Peierls' approximate solution to his nonstandard chain reaction–diffusion equation along with the two wrong cross-section assumptions to make the Memorandum's famous critical radius prediction. Frisch's two 'vastly optimistic' cross sections were essential for getting the neutron multiplication number ν≈ 2.3 (the average number of neutrons per fission event) into the right place in Peierls' partial differential equation. If we simply translate Frisch's assumptions as stated in the 1940 Memorandum directly into equations, then the prediction that R = 0.8 L with a correspondingly too small mean free path L = 2.6 m falls out from Peierls' approximate solution of his partial differential equation. Under these assumptions, the mean free path is identical with the fission mean free path. Summarizing, following the shortest path that Frisch could have taken leads us directly to R = 0.8 L and the end of the mystery of how he could have predicted the tiny critical radius.
Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to EDP Sciences, SIF and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2026
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
