text:
Talk:Norwegian heavy water sabotage

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jespergb2407.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Any one know why ?
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)

It was a byproduct. The primary product of the plant was something else like a fertilizer.

Cheap available hydroelectric power & water -> water electrolysis -> hydrogen & oxygen.

air -> nitrogen.

hydrogen & nitrogen -> ammonia

Water remaining in hydrolisis tubs is enriched in heavy water because it hydrolises slower than water.

Jclerman 15:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Great - that explains everything!! DaveEngineman (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Ohh - apparenlty not!!!!Engineman (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Electrolysis
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)

apparenlty scienties were playing with heavy water even in 1934
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)

However, I can imagine that electrolysis was the first stage in the production. On top of that, you'll have to treat tons of water because the heavy ions are rather rare. A big factory (next to a powerful electricity generator) will be an asset in that case. --J c stuifbergen 17:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether there is any truth to my father's understanding that random hostages were taken from among the populace after the raid on Vermork.

 * 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)

I've just discovered that there is another page, Operation Gunnerside, which covers this material. The two pages should be merged. --Robert Merkel 07:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Moved these old notes from Talk:Operation Gunnerside to Talk:Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage (nice merge by the way).

Some notes on the Grouse team to add to an article sometime:

Jens Anton Paulsson wrote in his report that in 1942 the snow was sticking to their skis and there was surface water on the ice so that each day their feet were soaking wet.

The Grouse team's task was to transport batteries, radio and equipment some 100 kilometres from lake Sona (spelling?) in 30 days, and then radio the glider team waiting in the UK to make the attack on the plant.

However, after 10 days the Grouse team had covered less than a third of the way, and were on low rations of around 2500 calories per day, doing work that required 6000 per day.

Because the equipment to move was so heavy, it had to shuttled in 30 kilogram portions, with each team member skiing some 10 km dropping the stuff, and returning back to the previous drop point. This meant they had to travel 3 times the actual distance they moved forward.

During this whole time they could not make any radio contact so noone back in the UK knew of their problems.

After some (10+ ?) days the team left the frozen lake and moved the stuff on sledges.

Claus Helberg said something (I didn't quite catch what he said) about discovering or jury-rigging a sledge which eased moving the equipment.

Jens Anton Paulsson once fell through thin ice over a frozen lake but was recovered by his team members.

(TV programme shows the technique for surviving falling in ice cold water: keep hold of ski poles, use them to swim back to where you fell in, and use the pole-points to drag yourself out, get to a heated tent, and/or remove all wet clothes, and put on clothes from your ditch-kit, packed for this eventuality. Otherwise you freeze to death)

When the team reached a point near to the plant they rigged an aeriel and used Morse code to radio Bletchley park, England.

17 Nov 1942 Knut Haugland sent radio msg about good conditions for gliders: clear sky, -5C, strong N wind has died down. Set up landing lights in snow and wait. Plan was 2 gliders with soldiers air-towed across over the N,Sea, land, debark, fight way into plant, and sabotage it.

But the tow ropes on the towing aircraft iced up, 3 aircraft crashed...

-Wikibob | Talk 23:14, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

Knut Haugland/Haukelid
Are these the same person, spelled differently because of translation? Joyous 02:05, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

 * No.
 * See, for example, the photo of the memorial at http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/freshman.htm Gene Nygaard 02:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * To be specific, they are Knut M. Haugland and Knut A. Haukelid, respectively. Haugland (radio operator) was a member of the Grouse/Swallow group, who parachuted over the Hardangervidda on the night of 18/19 October 1942. Haukelid was a member of the Gunnerside group, who dropped down from the sky to join Swallow four months later on 17 February 1943. --Wernher 02:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you both. I linked to this article from Kon-Tiki, and then wasn't sure I had his identity straight.  Joyous 02:55, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Nazi A-bomb?
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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

Big missing part
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:

 * 1) Approach attempt
 * 2) Approach attempt 2
 * 3) Get into the building
 * 4) Sneak away from the building.

Did they perhaps set a bomb or two? Tempshill 20:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Good question. I don't know exactly how they sabotaged the heavy water production.--Robert Merkel 21:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

prematurely abandoned the idea of a graphite-moderated reactor
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)

Removed from page
Nothing to do with subject of page.

''Beginning in 1943, the U.S. pursued this method and plants 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)

GA failed
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)

Documentary List
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)

Removal of link
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)

Why did they have heavy water?
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) http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/vemork.htm

Vermork

The 60-MW Vemork power station at the Rjukan waterfall in Telemark, Norway, was the world’s largest power plant when it opened in 1911 after six years of construction. The project was so expensive that the works had to be finance by overseas sources. The plant became the corporate precursor to Norsk Hydro. Ten 6-MW T/G sets were supplied by Voith and AEG (Units 1-5) and Escher Wyss and Oerlikon (Units 6-10). Now closed, the facility has been converted into the Norsk Industriarbeidermuseum which, among other things, portrays the area’s history before and during World War II.

In 1934, Norsk Hydro built the first commercial heavy water plant with a capacity of 12 tons per year at Vemork. During World War II, the Allies decided to destroy the heavy water plant in order to inhibit the Nazi development of nuclear weapons. In late 1942, a raid by British paratroopers failed when the gliders crashed and all the raiders were killed in the crash or shot by the Gestapo. In 1943, a team of British-trained Norwegian commandos succeeded in a second attempt at destroying the production facility, one of the most important acts of sabotage of the war.

sceintits were already playing around wit nuclear stuff and heavy water in 1934
Vemork Heavy Water Plant - 1942-44 In 1911, the Vemork hydroelectric station in Rjukan started exploiting the tremendous power in the waters that flow from the mighty Hardangervidda down into the narrow Vestfjord valley. Norsk Hydro, Norway´s great industrial adventure, was born here, among the perilous cliffs and deep gorges.

Late in 1938, Lise Meitner, Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman discovered the phenomenon of atomic fission. Physicists everywhere realized that if chain reactions could be tamed, fission could lead to a promising new source of power. What was needed was a substance that could "moderate" the energy of neutrons emitted in radioactive decay, so that they could be captured by other fissionable nuclei. Heavy water was a prime candidate for the job.

Allied forces were determined to stop Nazi Germany from developing the atomic bomb. Of two materials to control a nuclear reaction -— pure graphite and heavy water -- the Germans chose heavy water because of a mathematical error in calculating the use of graphite. The German nuclear research community relied on a supply of deuterium oxide [heavy water] from the Norwegian Norsk Hydro plant, the only commercial production facility. This plant in Vemork, Norway was the world's major source of heavy water in the early 1940s. In the United States, Heavy water was used as a coolant and moderator in nuclear materials production reactors at the Savannah River Site.

Concentrating heavy water requires enormous amounts of electricity. In the 1930s, one of the few places in the world with power to spare was the Vemork plant of Norway's Norsk Hydro-Elektrisk, which had harnessed a 144-meter-high waterfall to produce fertilizers. The heavy water was generated as a by-product of producing fertilizer. Norsk Hydro supplied the world's scientific community with heavy water only as a sideline. In late 1939, the Germans began ordering heavy water in very large quantities, Norsk Hydro management suspected "some kind of deviltry."

With the cooperation of Norsk Hydro, the French managed to spirit the company's entire stock of heavy water, some 185 kilograms, out of the country under the noses of watchful German agents.

Germany captured Norway and the plant in May 1940. The Allies set out to destroy Vemork, a story familiar from the 1965 Hollywood film, Heroes of Telemark, starring Kirk Douglas and Richard Harris. The struggle for control of the heavy water plant took more than two years, involved four assaults and claimed 92 lives.

On October 18, 1942, an advance party of four Norwegian SOE commandos -- Code-named "Grouse" -- were dropped in Norway on the Hardanger Plateau on a reconnaissance mission of the plant. In November 1942 the military campaign began with a disastrous British commando raid into Norway. Operation Freshman, mounted by Special Operations Executive (SOE), failed when thirty four Royal Engineers of the 1st British Airborne Division, together with the crews of two gliders and one bomber, died when their craft crashed into mountains during poor visibility. Survivors were interrogated, tortured, and executed by the Germans. On 28 February 1943 a second all-Norwegian commando raid -- Operation Gunnerside -- destroyed the Rjukan electrolysis plant, with the loss of 500kg of heavy water. The plant was, however, quickly repaired. On 16 November 1943 the American attempt to destroy the plant employed a total of 388 B-17 and B-24 bombers from Eighth Air Force. The raid resulted in considerable loss of civilian life but minimal damage the electrolysis building. While this attack did little damage it convinced the Germans to abandon the plant and move remaining stocks and critical components to Germany in 1944. On 20 February 1944 a final successful attack by saboteurs and members of the Norwegian resistance interdicted the remaining supply of heavy water by sinking the ferry D/F"HYDRO" taking a shipment to Germany. The disassembled factory was later found in southern Germany during the closing stages of the war by members of Operation Alsos.

1942 Attack.

Does anyone know the basis for the assertion in the article that the 1942 team were ALL captured or shot by the Germans?

I had thought that two were not immediately caught and it was their survival during the 1942/1943 winter which was a secret because they knew that their team had been dropped straight onto waiting German troops, so they knew that there was an effective spy in SOE or associated depts who had passed info regarding their operation.

Indeed I thought it was the survival of these two (alone and unaided, unable to tell anyone of their plight because they knew that if the British found out they would be given away) throughout the Norwegian winter was one of the most heroic episodes of the war.

Dave

80.58.205.99 (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the Ray Mears survival programme they were supplied during this supposedly secret period by parachute drops...Engineman (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that comment. I read in relation to the "Cockleshell heroes" escapade that no-one in the know trusted Mountbatten (the King's cousin - as he was so fond of telling everyone - who was in charge of combined ops) which was why he was not told of the SOE attack on Brest which was intended to do severe damage to the port. This mission had to be called off after Mountbatten's exploits in canoes brought such little reward for the investment of enormous bravery on the part of the disposable participants. The exploit in Norway is run by the same people at almost the same time, and I have grave reservations that the so called "history" is in any way accurate. I hasten to add I do not slur the memories of the participants but rather the overview.

Forgive me if I'm not putting these comments in the right place. Advice more than welcome.

Dave 80.58.205.99 (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Operation Frankton was not Mountbatten's idea, it was merely he who approved it. The commando operation was carried out becasue it was not possible for the RAF to bomb the ships without a considerable risk to the French civilian population nearby.  The same motivation also applied to Operation Chariot.

 * Such 'niceties' are important when one is dealing with occupied friendly countries rather than enemy ones.

 * Frankton targeted German blockade runners that were carrying such cargoes as rubber and tin that were unobtainable by Germany except from Japanese-occupied Malaya. Germany subsequent resorted to carrying these cargoes in U-boats with greatly inferior carrying capacity compared to the cargo ships which further reduced Germany's already limited stocks of these commodities important to Nazi Germany's war machine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.158 (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's try for Good Article again
On 24 October 2006 this article failed to reach Good Article status, per WP:WIAGA, because this article was totally unsourced. There is a great deal of good material here already. With our joint effort, we should be able to push this over the top to Good Article status. Please assist in adding references and cleaning up the language. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 02:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Good Article internal assessment
The criteria (at least as of today) for a good article are—

Well-written:

 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * Improvement required as follows -
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * Improvement required as follows -
 * Lead section needs to be refined and compacted
 * Layout needs to be reviewed - it is currently choppy
 * There is an embedded list (names of participants in raid). Embedded lists should not be used; the information in a list is better presented as prose paragraphs.
 * Needs to be reviewed to make sure all technical terms are adequately explained.
 * We need to review for words which bias the writing style

Factually accurate and verifiable:

 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
 * Improvement required as follows -
 * (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and
 * Improvement required as follows -
 * (c) it contains no original research.
 * Improvement required as follows - All significant material should be referenced.

Broad in its coverage:

 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * Improvement required as follows -
 * Improve the background so one understands why Norske Hydro got into the business of producing heavy water.
 * Improve the historical context discussion
 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Improvement required as follows -

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

 * Improvement required as follows -

Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

 * Improvement required as follows -

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * Improvement required as follows -
 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * Improvement required as follows -
 * Figure out where to add image [[Image:NorwegianHeavyWaterSabotage.jpg|thumb|250px|right|A reconstruction of the saboteurs in action destroying the cascade of electrolysis chambers.]]
 * Alternative text for images is now standard for FA status and creeping into GAs - apply it here...

pre war heavy water
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)

 * 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)

footnote 20 (Heroes at Telemark) is now available at
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)

"The award of an OBE to Captain Paulsen...."
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)

Video and book coverage - the 1973 BBC document
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)

Year of barrel recovery
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Urine used in sabotage?
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)

External links modified
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)

Commandos escaped by skiing 400km to Sweden. Actual distance is 200km
"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)

Sabaton
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)

I'm positive for this addition 147.95.40.40 (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Number of saboteurs
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, Joachim Rønneberg, no:Tungtvannsaksjonen, Name of saboteurs on memorial stone) JSoos (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Needs a machete taken to it
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)

title: Talk:Norwegian heavy water sabotage


text:
Pontiac Astre

The Pontiac Astre is a subcompact automobile that was marketed by Pontiac as a rebadged variant of the Chevrolet Vega. Initially marketed in Canada for model years 1973–1974, the Astre debuted in the U.S. for the 1975 model year, competing with other domestic and foreign subcompacts that included the Mercury Bobcat, Volkswagen Rabbit, and Toyota Corolla.

Built on the H-body platform, the car was available in hatchback, notchback, wagon, and panel delivery body styles. The Astre shared the aluminum-block 2.3 liter inline-four engine with the Vega through 1977, while the final 1977 models offered Pontiac's all-iron 2.5 liter inline-four engine as an option. The Astre was cancelled with the Vega at the end of the 1977 model year, although the wagon continued for 1978 and 1979, rebadged as part of the Pontiac Sunbird line. The word "astre" is Catalan for "star", a shared naming convention for the Vega.

Design
In 1968 GM chairman James Roche announced that General Motors would produce a new mini-car in the U.S. in two years. Pontiac's own small car program had been rejected. Not only did corporate management make the decision to enter the mini-car market, it also decided to develop the car itself. It was a corporate car, not a divisional one. Ed Cole formed a GM corporate design team exclusively for the Chevrolet Vega headed by William Munser, who had worked on the Camaro. The Pontiac Division was given its own version of the Vega for the Canadian market, named Astre for the 1973 model year. U.S. Pontiac dealers finally had a subcompact to sell when the Astre made its U.S. debut for the 1975 model year.

The Astre used the Vega 140 cu in (2.3-liter) inline-four engine through 1977. The engine features an aluminum-alloy cylinder block and cast-iron cylinder head with a single overhead camshaft (OHC). 1977 models also offered the option of Pontiac's 151 cu in (2.5-liter) inline-four engine with a cast-iron block and head with overhead valves (OHV). Transmissions are the three- and four-speed manual, five-speed manual with overdrive (1976–1977 option) and the three-speed automatic.

The Astre has a 97.0 in wheelbase and a 65.4 in width. The front suspension is short and long control arms with coil springs; the rear suspension is a four-link design with coil springs. A torque-arm design rear suspension replaced the four-link design starting with the 1976 models. The Astre is a rear wheel drive vehicle with a live rear axle. Steering is of a recirculating ball type with a power assist option. The brake system features front disc brakes with solid rotors, and rear drum brakes. Power assist was optional starting in the 1975 model year.

Models and changes

The Astre features Pontiac's trademark split grill, emblems and steering wheel with an upgraded interior trim to help differentiate itself from the Chevrolet Vega. Other styling differences compared to the Vega include — 1973 model Astres have a black-finish grill and clear parking lamp lenses on all models, and chrome headlight bezels on non-GTs. Taillight lenses (same as the Vega) have a chrome trim piece surround. The 1974–1977 models have first generation Firebird-styled taillights (also shared with the 1973–1974 Ventura) on the notchback and hatchback.

The hatchback coupe features a lower roofline and a fold-down rear seat. The notchback sedan had the lowest price and is the only Vega model with an enclosed trunk. The Safari wagon has fixed rear-side glass and a swing-up liftgate. A panel delivery based on the wagon was sold through the 1975 model year. It has steel panels in place of the rear-side glass, and an additional enclosed storage area. An auxiliary front passenger seat was optional.

The SJ hatchback and SJ Safari wagon models feature soft nylon upholstery, cut pile carpeting, padded and cloth covered door panels, and a fabric headliner, plus rally instruments, the higher-output two barrel engine, four-speed or automatic (over a three-speed manual) gearbox and radial tires. A GT package option for the hatchback and Safari wagon combined the lower-line interior with the SJ's performance and handling features.

The 1974 model year brought the only major body design changes, due to revised front and rear 5 mi/h bumper standards-A slanted header panel with a new split grill and recessed headlamp bezels complement the larger, front 5 mph aluminum bumper. Front and rear license plate brackets were relocated and a larger rear 5 mph aluminum bumper was used increasing the overall length three inches compared to the 1973 models. A revised rear panel on notchback and hatchback models had new Firebird-styled taillights and ventilation extractor grills were eliminated on trunk and hatch lids.

The 1975 Astre, introduced in the United States September 1974, gave U.S. Pontiac dealers a needed fuel efficient subcompact. A budget "S" series was added during 1975. More than 267 changes were made including new High-energy electronic ignition system and a catalytic converter. Power brakes and a tilt steering wheel were new options. The Astre panel delivery was discontinued the end of the model year.

A unique Astre package was offered in 1975. Dubbed the 'Lil Wide Track, it was the creation of Jerry Juska of Dymar to help with lackluster Astre sales. Juska took his ideas to Dave Landrith of Motortown Corporation specializing in custom auto work. The package includes a front air dam, rear spoiler, appliance wire mag rims, window louvers, a chrome exhaust tip, and bright stripe decals for the hood, body sides, rear spoiler, door handles, and wheel centers. They assembled a couple of cars in Jan. and Feb. 1975 and took pictures to local Detroit dealers where the package gained acceptance. It added a little over $400 to the price of the Astre but dealers felt the difference in looks was worth the price. Production was later switched from an old warehouse in suburban Detroit to a factory beside the Lordstown Assembly Vega/Astre plant. An estimated 3,000 Lil Wide Track Astres were ordered by dealerships. The package components were later offered as a dealer installed kit.

Astres were confined to a single series for 1976, but they were refined with extensive engine, chassis, and body integrity improvements. A modest facelift included a revised grill. The 2.3 L engine, named Dura-built 140, received improved cooling and durability refinements, and a five years/60,000 mile warranty. The chassis received the new Pontiac Sunbird's upgraded components including the box-section front cross-member, larger rear brakes and torque-arm rear suspension, replacing the four-link design, and effectively eliminating wheel-hop on rough roads. The body received extensive anti-rust improvements.

The final year 1977 models continued to offer the 2.3 L Dura-built 140 engine as standard equipment with Pontiac's new 151 cu in "Iron Duke" inline-four engine as an option. Both the cylinder block and cylinder head are cast-iron. Standard in the Astre and Sunbird, they were the first GM vehicles to utilize the engine which was widely used into the 1990s. 1977 Astre models also featured a new vertical design grill and aluminum wheels (13-inch) were a new option. The "Formula" option was also introduced for the Astre's final year, which included the handling package, chrome valve cover, three-piece spoiler, Formula T/A steering wheel and special decals.

The 1978–1979 Pontiac Sunbird wagon was a rebranded continuation of the Astre wagon, continuing with a modified 1977 Astre grille rather than taking on the Sunbird coupe's square headlights and flat hood.

Reviews
Car and Driver in a 1975 Astre road test, said, "For $180 over the price of a Vega ($0 in dollars ), the Astre features upgraded interior trim-primarily the items for which Chevrolet charges $134 in their custom interior ($0 in  dollars ). You also have the opportunity to go one big step up in luxury if you choose the SJ line which is available in hatchback and wagon body styles."

Car and Driver in a 1977 Astre road test, said, "The Astre is the Vega-polished and refined and significantly improved, but still a Vega in perhaps its ultimate state of development. It remained for Pontiac to do what Chevrolet probably should have done in the first place: the substitution of the marvelous old Chevy II cast-iron four-cylinder econo-motor for the much-troubled aluminum-block Vega engine. Sliding in and starting the engine was a revelation because its so quiet and smooth compared to the Vega." Also the Astre's interior trim was judged more plush than Vega's.

Car and Driver in its 35th anniversary issue in 1990, amusingly recalled the Astre U.S. debut: "Detroit Fights Back - The Pontiac Astre is introduced. It's a Vega with better decals."

Production

 * 1973–1974 (GM of Canada) N/A
 * 1975 Panel Delivery - 131 (included in 1975 Total)
 * 1977 Astre Formula - 67 (20 notchbacks and 47 hatchbacks)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Pontiac Astre


text:
Buick Skyhawk

The Buick Skyhawk is an automobile produced by Buick in two generations for the 1975 through 1989 model years.

The first generation (1975–1980) were two-door hatchbacks using the subcompact, rear-wheel drive H-body platform, a badge engineered entry-level version of the Chevrolet Monza, which was based on the Chevrolet Vega while the only engine available was a V6.

Introducing a subcompact was a new approach for Buick and GM, with a similar approach from Oldsmobile with the Starfire hatchback.

The second generation (1982–1989) Skyhawks were built on the compact, front-wheel drive J-car platform that was available in four body styles: two-door sedan and hatchback, as well as four-door sedan and station wagon — manufactured alongside its rebadged variants, the Chevrolet Cavalier, Cadillac Cimarron, Oldsmobile Firenza, and Pontiac J2000/2000/Sunbird at GM's South Gate Assembly and Janesville Assembly plants.

First generation (1975–1980)
The "first generation" Buick Skyhawk is a subcompact, four passenger, hatchback automobile that was introduced September 1974, and produced for the 1975 through 1980 model years. It was based on the Chevrolet Vega, and shares its wheelbase and width. The Skyhawk was produced with H-body variants Chevrolet Monza, Oldsmobile Starfire, and Pontiac Sunbird. In North America, it competed with other small sporty cars, such as the Toyota Celica, Datsun 200SX, VW Scirocco, Mercury Capri, and the Ford Mustang II. The Buick Skyhawk was the smallest car to wear the Buick badge in more than 60 years.

Overview
The Skyhawk has a 97.0 in wheelbase and a 65.4 in width. The Skyhawk, Chevrolet Monza, and Oldsmobile Starfire were among the first vehicles to adopt the newly approved quad rectangular headlamps. The body style is noted for having a resemblance to the Ferrari 365 GTC/4. The Skyhawk is a rear-wheel drive vehicle with a live rear axle design. Throughout its production, the H-body Skyhawk was offered only with the Buick-designed 3.8 liter (231 cid) V6 engine, using a two-barrel carburetor that generated 110 hp at 4000 rpm in comparison to its siblings which offered a variety of engines. A four-speed manual transmission was standard; with a three-speed automatic offered as an option. The front suspension is short and long control arms with coil springs, and anti-roll bar; the rear suspension is a torque-arm design with coil springs and an anti-roll bar. Its design was later incorporated into GM's third- and fourth-generation F-bodied (Camaro and Firebird). Variable-ratio power steering was standard and of a recirculating ball design. The brake system features standard power assist including front disc brakes with solid rotors, and rear drum brakes.

Changes
Following the introduction of the Skyhawk, in mid-1975, it was joined by a lower-priced and less well-equipped Skyhawk S.

In 1976, a five-speed manual transmission became available as an option. Starting with the 1976 models, the front and rear disc rotors were of the vented type. Another new option was the Astroroof, which was a large, heavily tinted, overhead glass roof combined with a wide aluminum band that extended from one B-pillar across the roof to the opposite B-pillar. In 1977, a conventional sliding sunroof became optional and also could be ordered with the aluminum band.

To commemorate the Bicentennial of the United States, the standard colors available on all Buicks were Judicial Black, Liberty White, Pewter Gray, Potomac Blue, Continental Blue, Concord Green, Constitution Green, Mount Vernon Cream, Buckskin Tan, Musket Brown, Boston Red and Independence Red, with specially available colors on select models Congressional Cream, Revere Red, Colonial Yellow and Firecracker Orange.

For the 1979 model year, the Skyhawk received a facelift that incorporated single rectangular headlamps, replacing the previous dual rectangular headlamps that all models had used. A new option was the "Road Hawk" package that included a Rallye ride and handling package consisting of larger front and rear stabilizer bars, larger tires, and special interior and exterior trim. There was also a "Skyhawk Designers' Accent Edition" that was primarily an exterior trim package available in bright yellow or red with black trim.

There were few changes for 1980, the last model year for the GM H-body platform, most notably the discontinuance of the five-speed manual transmission as an option and revisions to the interior decor. Only the four-speed manual and three-speed automatic transmissions were offered for 1980.

The Skyhawk and Starfire failed to achieve the sales success of the Monza and Sunbird possibly because small sporty coupes seemed out-of-place in a Buick or Oldsmobile showroom. They were discontinued on December 21, 1979, to allow for more production of Monza and Sunbird hatchbacks.

A total of 125,311 H-body Skyhawks were produced in six model years.

See also
 * General Motors H-platform
 * Chevrolet Vega

Second generation (1982–1989)
The 1982–1989 front-wheel drive Skyhawk (J-body) debuted in February, at the 1982 Chicago Auto Show. The Skyhawk was originally available as a two-door and four-door sedan in both Custom and Limited trim packages. The standard engine was a corporate 1.8 liter "122" OHV carbureted four-cylinder (88 hp), with a Brazilian-built 1.8 liter overhead-cam TBI four (84 hp) as an option. A carbureted, 90 hp OHV two-liter also appeared soon after the Skyhawk went on sale, along with an optional five-speed manual. The 1982 Skyhawk Limited sedan was listed at $7,931 ($0 in dollars ) before optional equipment. The suspension was shared with the front-wheel-drive Skylark and Century, which consisted of MacPherson struts, lower control arms, coil springs and a stabilizer bar for the front, and a torsion-beam rear axle, along with coil springs and rear stabilizer bars. The unique dashboard unit was shared only with the Oldsmobile Firenza.

The Skyhawk was an entry-level compact platform for a luxury brand, Buick, and was a refocused effort from the previous generation introduced. It followed many economic factors. The United States had entered into a recession, following the effects of the 1970s energy crisis, and the United States Congress having passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, establishing Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. Sales of large luxury sedans declined in favor of smaller, fuel efficient products with luxury features installed. Smaller luxury vehicles were imported into North America from both Europe and Japan, and GM responded with a small luxury sedan that included power windows, power adjustable drivers seat, air conditioning, upgraded stereo system, available automatic transmission, velour cloth interiors and other appearance features. The station wagon was available with 60/40 split folding second row seat to accommodate passengers and cargo.

For 1983, the Chevrolet-built OHV 1.8 was replaced by a Chevrolet-built OHV 2.0 with 86 hp. A four-door station wagon was also introduced, Buick's first front-wheel drive wagon. The next year there was a minor facelift, with bigger cooling openings and larger bumper rub strips. Shortly after the introduction of the '84s, a turbocharged MPFI version of the Brazilian 1.8 became available on the T-Type model, offering a hefty 150 hp, 150 lbft of torque and the performance oriented Gran Touring suspension, provided by a Garrett T25 turbocharger and shared with the Pontiac Sunbird GT, but was only offered in the two-door coupe or hatchback, and the turbo T-Type was not available with the five-speed manual. The turbocharged engine was optional on the T-Type trim package, and was listed at $800 ($0 in dollars ). The Skyhawk set a sales record in 1984 with 134,076 built. There was not much change for 1985, but for 1986 a new two-door hatchback was added, in "Sport" or T-Type trim. Also, the 2.0 now had 88 hp.

The 1.8-liter engines were replaced by two SOHC multi-port injected 2.0 liter versions for 1987, one naturally aspirated (96 hp/71 kW) and one 165 hp turbocharged version known as RPO LT3. The OHV two-liter remained, still with 88 hp. For 1988, only Skyhawk Sports remained, and the hatchback was discontinued. There was also a "Sport S/E" two-door coupe. The OHV and turbocharged engines were no longer available.

Starting in 1986 the front facia was updated with a more rounded appearance, and the T-Type and Limited coupes, sedans, station wagons and hatchbacks received headlight covers that concealed dual sealed beam halogen headlights that retracted underneath the headlights, while the base model had exposed headlights.

1989 was to be the last year of the Skyhawk, but nonetheless the car received updates such as standard electronic fuel injection, better acoustical insulation and body colored door and window frames on the station wagon. The only engine was the Chevrolet OHV two-liter, now with 90 hp. A total of 23,366 of the 1989s were built, for a total of 529,564 second generation Skyhawks.

The Skyhawk, along with the variant Oldsmobile Firenza, were built in Leeds, next of Kansas City, Missouri from 1982 through 1988. 1988 was the last year of Oldsmobile Firenza production and Leeds Assembly was then closed. For 1989, GM moved Skyhawk production to its Janesville, Wisconsin, assembly plant. Production of the Skyhawk ceased after the 1989 model year. The Chevrolet Cavalier was also produced at Leeds for some of these model years.

The Skyhawk was the last Buick vehicle to offer a manual transmission option, until the introduction of the Opel Insignia-based 2011 Buick Regal Turbo.

Production figures:

Engines

 * 1982: 1.8 L L46 carbureted OHV I4
 * 1982–1986: 1.8 L LH8 TBI SOHC I4
 * 1983–1986: 2.0 L LQ5 TBI OHV I4
 * 1984–1986: 1.8 L LA5 turbocharged MPFI SOHC I4, 150 hp
 * 1987–1988: 2.0 L LT2 TBI SOHC I4
 * 1987: 2.0 L LT3 turbocharged MPFI SOHC I4, 165 hp
 * 1987, 1989: 2.0 L LL8 TBI OHV I4

title: Buick Skyhawk


text:
Butty

Butty may refer to:

 * Butty boat, a type of narrowboat
 * Julius Butty, Canadian record producer
 * The Butties, a cover band
 * A sandwich, in Northern English dialect
 * A Welsh term for buddy or friend from byti a person who helped in the coal mines

title: Butty


text:
Janet Ecker

Janet Ecker (born October 18, 1953) is a former politician in Ontario, Canada. She was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 1995 to 2003, and was a senior cabinet minister in the governments of Mike Harris and Ernie Eves.

Background
Ecker grew up in Exeter, Ontario. Her father was a family physician. She earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in journalism from the University of Western Ontario. In 1985, Ecker served as Director of Communications at the Ontario Treasury. She worked as a Government Relations Consultant with Public Affairs Management from 1987 to 1991, and was Director of Policy for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario from 1991 to 1995.

Politics
Ecker was also involved with the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario during these years. A Red Tory, she supported Larry Grossman at both of the party's 1985 leadership conventions, and served as Assistant Executive Director of the Ontario PC Party from 1985 to 1987.

She was elected to the Ontario legislature in the provincial election of 1995, defeating Liberal Joe Dickson and incumbent New Democrat Jim Wiseman by a significant margin in the riding of Durham West, east of Toronto. After the election she was appointed Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services. On August 16, 1996 she was promoted to cabinet and named Minister of Community and Social Services.

1999 election
In the provincial election of 1999, she was re-elected by a comfortable margin over Liberal Dave Ryan in the redistributed riding of Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. After the election, she was named to the senior portfolio of Minister of Education. Ecker also served as Government House Leader after February 8, 2001. In 1998, she supported Hugh Segal's bid for the leadership of the federal Progressive Conservative Party.

Ecker's best-known controversy as Education Minister was not with the legislative opposition or the teaching community, but with Jim Flaherty, another cabinet minister in the Harris government. In 2001, Flaherty announced that the government planned to introduce a tax credit for parents choosing to send their children to private and denominational schools. Flaherty's announcement broke a 1999 campaign pledge from Harris not to introduce such legislation. Flaherty reportedly did not consult with Ecker prior to making his statement. Ecker opposed this shift in policy, and according to some accounts was initially prepared to quit cabinet over the issue. She was persuaded to stay, but remained on very poor terms with Flaherty. As a result of this controversy, Ecker became a leading spokesperson for "moderate conservative" positions in her party, against the right-wing views of Flaherty and Harris.

When Harris resigned as party leader in 2002, many anticipated that Ecker would join the contest to replace him. Instead, she supported the candidacy of Ernie Eves, who won by defeating Flaherty in the second round of balloting. Ecker was named Minister of Finance on April 15, 2002. Shortly after being named as Finance Minister, Ecker announced that the Eves government would postpone the previously-announced private-school tax credit.

Ecker also introduced the Eves government's Keeping the Promise for a Strong Economy Act (Budget Measures), 2002.

In 2003, Ecker delivered her provincial budget at an auto parts factory owned by Magna International, rather than in the legislature. The move was widely criticized, even by some members of the Progressive Conservative party. Despite her previous opposition, Ecker re-introduced the private-school tax credit in this budget.

The Eves government was defeated in the provincial election of 2003, and Ecker herself was narrowly defeated by Wayne Arthurs of the Liberal Party.

After politics
Ecker is an advisor with Tramore Group, a Toronto-based program management professional services firm. She also teaches public administration at Queen's University in Kingston. In 2004, she supported Belinda Stronach's unsuccessful campaign to lead the new Conservative Party of Canada. In 2005 she was named as president of the Toronto Financial Services Alliance. She supported Christine Elliott (spouse of Jim Flaherty) during the 2009 Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election and served as her campaign chair.

In December 2016, Ecker was named a Member of the Order of Canada for being a leader in the financial industry.

title: Janet Ecker


text: User talk:168.226.138.73

title: User talk:168.226.138.73