Talk:Fritz Johann Hansgirg

Help with new article
Hi If you get a chance, and some time, can you please review/clean up this article please? Thanks, as always, for your kind help. Picomtn (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi I'm still not sure how to the portal thing at the bottom of the article, but I'm working on it. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . You can do portals in a left or right floating box (right by default), or inline one-by-one, or in a portal bar as you did. Normally they go in the See also section, but if no such section exists do not create one—‌put the portal in the last section of the article—‌however portal boxes do not mix with sections that have columns, so in that case use inline or bar portals. You can read about them by clicking on these links:, , and . Do a preview to make sure your portals are live. If you see a puzzle piece for an image then right-click on that link (if you're on a PC) and go see what the real portal name is. 1930s as you can see is not a valid Portal name. Cheers!  10:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks I've got to go now but I'll keep reading about this portal stuff, but please fix anything and everything you need to with this article.  Picomtn (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi I've started on this article so it is ready for the additional information you have to add to it. Hope this helps you. Picomtn (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm writing Dr. Hansgirg's biography, but I can't share more about his life or the science until publication. My co-author is a nuclear physicist who has analyzed Hansgirg's inventions thoroughly. - Bill Streifer --Photografr7 (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Complicated science stuff
Hi In the bibliography for this article I've listed two scientific references that explain, and mention Hansgirg directly, his achievements. I am not able, however, to fully comprehend the science here and am hoping that someone more familier with this can (hopefully in plain English) explain it better than I have. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . Post the references here. I have put a template at the top of the article asking for help. You can go to the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed and ask for their help directly too. Cheers!  11:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Here are the two references:


 * Process for producing magnesium US 4572736 A


 * Production of magnesium during carbothermal reduction of magnesium oxide by differential condensation of magnesium and alkali vapours

Lead issues
Hi and any other interested editors. The lead now contains information that is not repeated in the article. The lead is supposed to be a nickel tour (showing somebody around the place) of each section of the article, without giving any section extra weight. For example, the Manhattan Project is mentioned in the lead but not in the article; the atomic bomb is mentioned in the lead but not in the article.

Please review WP:LEADCREATE for an essay on how to create and manage a good lead.

Sometimes it is best to write the article and then backtrack to build out a separate lead section based on the built out article. Once the article is stable, building out the lead becomes easier. Cheers! 22:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi I've revised the lead and, again, thank you so much for your help.  Also, I've changed Japan back to the Empire of Japan as these are two entirely separate entities as they relate to Hansgirg.  In the 1930's when Hansgirg was there, it was still the Empire of Japan as that country lasted until 1947, and this meaning is significant in terms of geography, encompassing Japan and its surrounding areas as he worked in Korea, which at that time was not considered a country due to the Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910 that merged them into one nation.  So, with history, geography, and politics all being a part of this issue, I believe, historical accuracy should win out because the plain fact is that at that time there was no such nation as Korea, either north or south, it was simply known the world over as the Empire of Japan.  What are your thoughts?  Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . I was suggesting that you revise the body of the article, not the lead per se.


 * As for Empire of Japan, after it is said once it is my humble opinion that Japan can be used thereafter. Like for Fritz Johann Hansgirg we only say it once then it's Hansgirg or him or he after that—‌unless he is mentioned in close proximity to a relative who has the last name of Hansgirg in which case he would then be referred to as Fritz (without the Hansgirg).


 * Maybe you are right about Empire of Japan (or as we call it in my 'hood: Empire of the Sun). We'll see what others have to say. Cheers!  08:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi I've revised Fritz Johann Hansgirg, what are your thoughts now?  Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi I've rewritten the lead and added a new postwar section, please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hansgirg atomic bomb, Soviet Union and Manhattan Project
Hi I did understand what you were saying lead vs. body. However, it is going to take an expert to read through the science Hansgirg contributed to showing how it exactly relates to the creation of the atomic bomb. Hansgirg's contributions to the Manhattan Project, at least from my initial grasp of this subject, is very substantial, but, and again, way beyond my expertise to articulate. Also, Hansgirg's heavy water invention needs much more explaining than I'm able to accomplish and, likewise, needs an expert to explain. In fact, an entire new section to Hansgirg's article can be written showing how the Soviet Union used his inventions, after they captured his plants in northern Korea, in making their own atomic bomb--but, and again, the science is too complex for me to explain. What are your thoughts? Picomtn (talk) 09:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Mention atomic bomb, Manhattan Project, and Soviet Union in the body as best you can then put it in fewer words in the lead. Somebody else will come along and buff it up. Cheers!  09:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, and : Since you recently edited the Nuclear weapon article, I was wondering if you could review this one and, hopefully, help to improve it by explaining the science. My belief in this articles subject, like that of Karl-Hermann Geib, is due to their being neglected/marginalized by the passage of time, which, if allowed to continue, may erase them forever. As the creation of the atomic bomb can be viewed as one of the most significant events in human history, the people (all of them, and all over the world) who contributed to it should be historically noted. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 09:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Daniel E. Koshland, Jr. is another article about a chemist and biologist who was involved in the Manhattan Project early in his long career. Cheers!  19:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

CECE process
Hi There needs to be another article written here on the CECE process so that it can be linked back to Hansgirg and both the U.S. and Soviet atomic bomb projects. This process is still be used today in the U.S., but I don't know about Russia. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi

You are clearly hurried with the introduction and conclusion to the article on Fritz Johann Hansgirg. "Hansgirg and atomic bombs" is fake. About Bill Streifer should be written in the article Sorcha Faal. However, he is inadequate and fantasist fellow, not a provocateur. But the result of this is independent. In a nutshell. Hansgirg is loser. Its magnesium process anywhere ever successfully worked. Also concentrated heavy water can not be obtained on his installation. He patented technology is only half. I'm on facebook tried to explain this Bill Streifer in bad English. However, it is not a a language, but in the brain. I also wrote to him that there is no significant trace of Korean in the Soviet atomic project. Bill Streifer has personal knowledge (Polanyi), which will go see him in the grave. Nordosm (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi While I was gone,  did attempt to explain to me what you were directing my attention to on Facebook, which I am not on. In reading your comment(s) here though, I detect that you have some disagreements with the research done by Soviet historian and researcher Bill Streifer.  However, Streifer's research has been validated by Dr. Benjamin C. Garrett and Walter J. Boyne, and the Library of Congress selected one of his research papers into their collection.  Can you explain in depth your opposition to his research please?  Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi : I studied history of Karpov Institute and work of it's employees in the field of heavy water, gas mask, uranium-235. I have nothing to said concerning Hog Wild, but there is no evidence that Hansgirg had to do anything that, as well as the Soviet atomic project. good luck  Nordosm (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)