Created on 2 January 2012
Status: 6 January 2012
On request of Mr. Helwig Schmied this discussion page is being created.
Nachtfee working hypothesis 3, by Helwig Schmied
My comments and reflections - created on 2 January 2012
That Vierling might have worked on all sorts of secrets projects is not my point.
Nachtfee carried a military designation FuG136
Do we have any other GAF project number of the many projects Vierling was engaged to or, apparently, should have worked on?
Trenkle is quoted - when it fits into the frame of thinking, Schmied's referring is entirely based on some TICOM reports. Most of these reports are in many respects at least brief reflections of what really had been done. A downside of the TICOM reports - is the fact that these mainly deal with what is being found in the US occupied areas. The many BIOS and CIOS reports are covering more widely, what existed in the two Allied zones in the west. The US FIAT reports are the only serious ones, which sometimes go into the very details. However, the French territories were hardly covered, as they often refused cooperation. That they were brief ones can be seen in what is available already on this website (see previous link), they are, saying it frankly, very very brief reports. One gets the impression that they were not much interested at all, maybe with some exceptions.
The striking exception is the US summary report: No. F-SU-1109-ND called "The High-Frequency War" by Lt. E.S. Henning. Release date 4 June 1946.
Trenkle mentioned that Rechlin was engaged, which actually was their main GAF test and research centre. For instance, also FuG16ZY was developed there.
Bearing in mind military tradition of resisting to anything that is not theirs, it is most unlikely that Vierling could have done this undertaken; accomplishing a military project where a very close cooperation was to be engaged. EGON A or EGON B was an existing military system technique. I highly doubt, that a civilian entity might have brought together the implementation of a Nachtfee like technique – at the same time getting the crew being trained as well as implementing it into a tactical operational system. Albeit, still an experimental one, but it was doubtless used against London in February 1944 operationally. Neglecting, however, the possibility that Vierling’s lab might have done some assembling or construction work.
Let us be aware, that Vierling went to establishing his own private lab after 1942, thus after the university lab where he was engaged to was bombed out.
His staff was only 15 people. When the Nachtfee was becoming operational, be it in a preliminary state in February 1944, the Nachtfee prototypes must have been tested in late 1943. Regarding the pre-phase of Vierling’s lab, this is not very much likely.
I would like to compare Vierling with Fritz Wankel, also an independent personality having Nazi backings in the higher Berlin circles, relying, however, on different contacts.
When quoting Trenkle, we also have to confront ourselves with inconvenient statements. Trenkle points that it was the GAF research centre of Rechlin where it had been developed. Trenkle could, in contrast to TICOM which organisation was dissolved (ceased) in autumn 1945, relying on eyewitness reports (aural story). When what he had pointed out was not according the actual facts (truth), a tremendous row would have been created; following the German attitude (habit) focussing (criticising) at even ‘comma’ level.
A general comment, which should not be underestimated, is the fact the Erstling (FuG25a) wobbled the incoming signal over a range of 6 MHz. We must thus forget, that under 'the state of the art of 1944', a phase shift- or jump technology was practically possible.
My basic point is: let us wait for what signal information is finally shown on the control-screen above the ‘oder compass’. I strongly believe, that this small display (LB2) is showing what should be equally painted on the CRT screen inside the aircraft cabin.
Phase shifting inside our Nachtfee is accomplished by means of the servos (selsyn or Drehfeldgeber), which are each mechanically coupled with the three controls at the front panel; in this case acting, in contrast, as phase-shifters (goniometer like). That this actually is the fact is very recognisable on the scope screen. Sadly, not reproducible owing to the fact that the recurrence frequency of the scope time base is many times faster than the photographic exposure time of my camera. Let us forget, in first instance, that the 10 quartz channels were used as to code the commands towards the aircraft, via EGON-B. My guess, but it has not been proven yet, is that the quartz-channels might have caused a virtual vector shift of a command towards an aircraft (order rotation clock- or anti-clockwise). Again, my guess, which a command might have been pointing at a different position at the repeater-display in the aircraft.
The electrical concept is, in some respect, quite straightforward. I highly doubt, that in the very limited space inside the aircraft cabin, very delicate technology was employed. The operator had to cope with so many things, that he must not have been bothered with complicated technology. Again, my guess, accepting that I may be having it wrong.
An important detail, which we should not neglect, is the fact that the drawing shown (Fig.6) in this paper, which originates from the post war translation of the German radar periodical Funkmessnachrichten 19 issued on 25 February 1945 - which the British correctly translated in: Radar News 19, is being manipulated. Sadly, the original German language issue cannot be found in the British NA (formerly PRO) in Kew Gardens; although, according their index, it should exist.
It has to be understood, that the Germans are most accurate people, and that putting pointers in a drawing at least should have been dealt within the text. Far more likely, is that it is the result of PoW interrogation, maybe a bit mixed up with what is in the original German explanation.
We must, however, be grateful for this drawing exists - as it is the nucleus of unravelling the secrecy about Nachtfee. I guess, that Trenkle might himself never have seen a technical drawing of it, nor otherwise have had information on what was reflected in his publications.
The first page drawing of Schmied’s paper is originating from a DEGON publication of the mid 1960s. Many old fellows were then member of it, and must have provided some information, long before the British archives became accessible in the 1970s and 1980s. Quite curious, is that Trenkle nowhere else has used it later. Sadly, I did not know about Nachtfee yet, I otherwise would certainly have raised this matter with him.
Arthur O. Bauer
On 4 January we received from Hans Jucker the following drawing
I trust that Hans Jucker's drawing is self-explaining
Please click at this drawing as to open it in pdf
I would not like to give any comment as it is a basic trial, without having notice of our recent findings of 3 and 4 January 2011
On 6 January 2012 I would like contributing myself (AOB)
Hypothesis 8 AOB
After being engaged in the Nachtfee survey since 12 November 2011, and having expressed my various opinions on what Nachtfee technology is about, time has come to express how the Nachtfee data might have been conveyed towards an aircraft.
We have noticed that our investigation on 4 January (http://www.cdvandt.org/nachtfee-page-3a.htm) brought to daylight how de “Freya-Polwender” signal might have looked like (I believe, that our signal still is more or less faulty).
I know, that calling this data line “Freya-Polwender” is not entirely accurate, but it shows what kind of signal we are dealing with. The term ‘Polwender’ does imply only: that by means of a double-pole-switch at the front panel the two data wires is at will interchanged. This does only make sense, when there is a sort of data coherence. Hence, the phase of the input pulse provided must have been correlated to the Nachtfee data output signal. For better understanding – the data line is completely kept free from ground; hence, we are dealing with a two-wire data line.
My second guess - it does make sense using a sinusoidal carrier with some data fit onto it (superimposed). This sinusoidal carrier is then to be transmitted towards the accordingly equipped aircraft. In this case allowing that this sinusoidal signal is in some way fed onto the CRT deflection system inside the aircraft. However, fading and eventually Doppler shift might cause vector data deviation.
I have not a clear judgement how this principle could cope with the frequency wobbling inside the FuG25a aircraft transponder receiver. It might cause a sort of data sampling, but its audio phase will not be shifted. Not yet clearly measured is the exact frequency of the sinusoidal data signal versus the impulse phase. I would not be surprised when this is about the same as the pulse recurrence frequency send from the Freya or EGON system towards the Nachtfee order apparatus.
The Nachtfee 220 V ac mains connector is accompanied by the information that the source is, or has to be, stabilised. My guess, they might themselves have encountered how delicate the internal free running oscillators respond onto environmental conditions.
It is also likely, that Nachtfee and EGON were operated in the same cabin. Paul Reuvers suggested already op 12 November 2011, that the strange way the moveable order section (and photo 2) is mounted might point to the path that some personnel must use the flexible space (moveable about 45 degrees) for entering or leaving. This is a rather logical conclusion, as we never have seen elsewhere a comparable like apparatus layout. When we look at the Würzburg apparatus arrangement, then we also recognise similar way of thinking, but now being fit to operational conditions. CRTs placed under different angles and that like.
This hypothesis is, as the word expresses a hypothetical estimation, which, nevertheless, might be incorrect. However, this is the way it goes.
Arthur O. Bauer
6 January 2012
Everybody is strongly invited to join this discussion, as long as it contributes to the aims of our website.
Please contact us at:
please entre what you read
Please don't forget to use the handsome: Nachtfee Chronology page (up to August 2012)
And, the PowerPoint progress page (converted into PDF)
Survey page 1 & 2 (date 21 and 23 November 2011)
Survey page 3 (started on 30 November 2011) (status: 21 December 2011)
Survey page 3a superseding page 3a (status: 5 January 2012)
MLK-lab. survey (started on 2/5 December 2011) (status: 13 December 2011)
Please notice also our: query page
By Arthur O. Bauer
Please go back to, or proceed with: Handbooks papers and product information