Talk:Manhattan Project/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

Perhaps someone would like to explain how each of the bombs worked, and alittle more detail on as to why the two different isotopes where needed for the two different bombs. Also maybe a lead in as to how the implosion bomb is used to start the explosion in a Hydrogen bomb... if not Ill get to it eventually -- mincus

---

The two bombs usewd different elements -not different isotopes. Fat man used plutonium while Little boy used uranium. --- rmhermen

---

Is the following paragraph from the article right?

"The first thing he did was rechristen the project The Manhattan District. The name evolved from the Corps of Engineers practice of naming districts after its headquarters' city (Marshall's headquarters were in New York City). At the same time, Groves was promoted to brigadier general, which gave him the rank thought necessary to deal with the senior scientists in the project. "

I think it should read

"The first thing he did was rechristen the project The Manhattan Project. The name evolved from the Corps of Engineers practice of naming projects after districts in its headquarters' city (Marshall's headquarters were in New York City). At the same time, Groves was promoted to brigadier general, which gave him the rank thought necessary to deal with the senior scientists in the project. "

but I shan't change it because I'm not sure. Heron

"District" is right. The project was correctly known as the "Manhattan Engineering District" but is known popularly today as the Manhattan Project. Jumbo

---

However, the U.S. already had a policy of massive incendiary attacks against civilian targets in Japan. IMO it's a tad gauche to implicitly compare firebombing (shocking and awful tho it be) with nuclearbombing (the gift that keeps on giving)... or use one as a defense/justification for the other. =p

Disagree -- it's relevant. One of the criticisms made by the opponents of nuking is that the USA was already destroying various cities with incendiary bombing.

---

It would be worth slipping in here that Oak Ridge (TVA) and Hanford were likely chosen for their abundant and inexpensive hydroelectricity...

---

Fast neutrons could only be produced in particle accelerators, which were still relatively uncommon instruments in physics departments in 1942.

Is this dry physicist humor? I assume there were no particle accelerators at that point, and to the layman (me), it won't be obvious that it's dry physicist humor.

I believe the statement is straight - not a bad joke. Your assumption that there were no particle accelerators at that time is wrong - they had been around for over 15 years which is a relatively long time in the physics world. Trelvis 00:58, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

---

Things needed that I see right off the bat: to distinguish that Oppenheimer as in charge of the *lab*, NOT the whole project (Groves was in charge of the project). As for its name, Groves' outfit was the Manhattan Engineering District, which was colloquially the Manhattan Project. There are a few other edits along these lines that I'll try to implement when I get the chance.. the description of the bomb mechanisms is not needed here, they are covered in the nuclear weapons design page.

Also, the transition between Roosevelt's Uranium Committee and the Manhattan Project is far larger than emphasized here (or in related texts). I'll try to flesh out that a bit better eventually but saying that the Einstein letter started the Manhattan Project is not completely true. The work on the bomb languished for years in the hands of the National Bureau of Standards until Compton and Vannevar Bush pushed it into their hands (and then Army hands).

Most of the Los Alamos entry can be folded in here so that essay can have more to do with the lab's post-WWII work. --Fastfission 05:18, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I find these two paragraphs confusing. Are they talking about the same letter? If so, which date is correct? Should the order of the two paragraphs be reversed? Lupin 13:57, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"US President Franklin D. Roosevelt was presented with a letter signed by Albert Einstein (transcribed by Leo Szilard) on October 11, 1939, which urged the United States to rapidly develop an atomic bomb program. The president agreed. The Navy awarded Columbia University the first Atomic Energy funding of $6,000, which grew into the Manhattan Project under Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi's work.

Scientists in Germany discovered nuclear fission in late 1938. Refugee scientists Leo Szilard, Edward Teller and Eugene Wigner believed that the energy released in nuclear fission might be used in bombs by the Germans. They persuaded Albert Einstein, America's most famous physicist, to warn President Franklin Roosevelt of this danger in an August 2, 1939, letter. In response to the warning, Roosevelt ordered increased research in nuclear physics. "

It looks like this is referring to the same letter, the more famous date of August 2 is when the letter is dated - but could it have taken 2 months to deliver? Anyway I merged these two paragraphs, and left the reference to the actual date of the einstein letter - also included a link to the actual letter text for reference. Thanks for pointing that problem out. Trelvis 01:19, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, the letter was not delivered directly but was mediated through Alexander Sachs, and it did indeed take a few months for him to get an appropriate audience with Roosevelt. This is something which could be looked up (Rhodes?) I imagine.. --Fastfission 21:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

links

Is it just me, or is the first half of "Early Ideas on Nuclear Energy" greatly oversaturated with links? --Niffux 10:51, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it could use a combing through to remove links which had already been referenced earlier, and maybe (I shutter at the thought) remove links to things which don't have articles that look like they will be even started anytime soon (like the OSRD). --Fastfission 16:03, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re: Targets

Does anyone else think that the section up top about the selection of the civilian targets of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is misplaced? The project was to produce bombs, not to select targets; that was the doing of Truman and the USAAF (if I remember correctly). I just don't see how it's relevant to the discussion of (where, when, who, etc.) made the bombs which were later dropped.

Well, Oppenheimer, Groves, Lawrence, Fermi, and Compton, I think, were all consulted on the question of using the weapons (on the basic question of use on "built up" targets as they were euphemistically called, or whether to just demonstrate them). Which is to say: I think it ought to be in the ideal article on the Manhattan Project, but at the moment this article doesn't even get that far through the chronology, so it is very awkward and out of place and ought to be on the page about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not the page about the Manhattan Project, which is struggling as it is to be useful as an article about the development of the first nuclear weapons. That's my take on it, anyway. --Fastfission 21:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think we should lose that paragraph completely from this article;it's just not that germane to this topic (which is length enough without bringing this in). Not that I'm saying we should ignore the issue, just that this isn't the right article for it. It more properly belonds in an article about the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, or in an article about the (continuing) arguments over whether they justified/etc. I would cut and paste it into the Talk: page so it's still available, if we eventually want some of it somewhere else. (I would have done but, but I didn't want to make that major a change on my first edits - I didn't know if y'all had come to some compromise over it.) Noel (talk) 15:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article says Radar invented at MIT, should be England

i.e. radar was NOT US invention, although MIT may have indeed produced microwave devices. I don't have a reference handy; need confirmation. 67.113.2.193 07:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History of radar shows that the history of RADAR is not very clear-cut: it's "discovery" was spread out over many decades as the principles of electromagnetics were developed. Additionally, depending on which sort of RADAR you're talking about, it was developed at different times and in different places. Read the article a bit, and clear up the Manhattan Project page if you like so that there's no blanket statement that the US developed it, but it's not clear-cut that it was invented totally in the UK either. --ABQCat 08:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the article text is reasonably close to accurate when you look at exactly what it says, but since it's a side-observation, it's probably worth replacing it with some more generic statement which is less liable to misunderstanding. Just for the record, the thumbbail credit division is that the basic ideas have wide credit (the History of Radar thing is good); the British had the first useful radar (the CH air defense line); they also invented the magnetron; the MIT Rad Lab did very important development work (the details of which I don't recall off the top of my head). I was thinking of moving that whole para to the intro (it's a good para to round out the intro); will improve the radar mention in the process. Noel (talk) 15:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are actually right. The basic physics of the cavity magnetron which was the central and most important component of radar, was invented in England by Randall and Boot, Rudolf Peierls, Mark Oliphant and many others.- Ashujo

The article says that radar was developed at MIT Rad Lab, not invented. Which is not terribly misleading in my opinion -- quite a lot of the radar actually used, and I'm fairly sure most of the advanced models, were designed there during the war. In any event, the point of its mention is really just to link to the Rad Lab, I believe, as another one of the Big Science endeavors during WWII. It could easily be worded differently if someone has a problem with it, this doesn't have to be a descent into techno-nationalism. --Fastfission 03:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right, I was going to reword that paragraph and move it to the end of the intro (to replace the "bombs dropped on Japan" stuff). However... I went to see if we had a generic article on code-breaking in WWII which I could reference, and discovered that the WWII code-breaking pages (other than Enigma) were in a state, and got involved in a major project to improve them, and never got back to this! (Typical Wikipedia experience, sigh.. :-) Anyway, I'll take a crack at this now, see what you think. Noel (talk) 14:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS: I wouldn't want to make any definitive statement about "advanced models" without a lot more research. I can't lay my hands on my copy of Friedman, Naval Radar at the moment (misfiled, somewhere, I guess), but e.g. Johnson, Secret War says that development of the H2S airborne ground imaging radar was done by TRE in Malvern. (Alas, Price, Instruments of Darkness has a lot of talk about how stuff was used operationally, but no details on who did the development.) Noel (talk) 14:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fine point; Tolman, Berkeley summer '42 school --to Fastfission

Fastfission said in history: "I am fairly sure that Tolman was not at that summer meeting, though Serber does credit him with an early version of implosion." Can you corroborate his nonpresence? You edited out "Tolman", and my reference from Serber that SPECIFICALLy said he was there, (although he could be mistaken of course... ). I found another place where Serber says it: LA Primer, UC Press page xxx-xxxii, and also page 59. A general wiki comment: Please, authors, more footnotes and references, it would help the serious reader and Wiki credibility as well. And that includes more weblinks as well as articles, books, films. In my opinion, extremely detailed, highly technical references that are on topic ARE OK. No one's forcing anyone to read them; provides a service to the next guy; saves time, which is the whole point of the wikithing. 64.168.31.37 05:59, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't remember how Serber words it (is this from the Primer or the Annotations?) but most other sources don't list Tolman as one of the participants of the conference. Herken's Brotherhood of the Bomb (which I consider a pretty reliable source, more than Serber's memory and Primer) lists on pages 63-65: Oppenheimer, Serber, Nelson, Frankel, Van Vleck, Konopinski, Bloch, Bethe, and Teller. He cites quite a few sources on this as well. Anyway, that was my justification (I spent some time looking up the participants for a project I did, and Tolman was never one of names I have come across in the historical literature). I have to admit I am more likely to trust the historian's assessments than a scientist who wrote the Primer less as a work of history and more as a work of expedience, but that's a personal bias, I realize. Maybe I'll get some time to check what Rhodes has as well... --Fastfission 03:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is some on-point discussion at Wikipedia talk:Cite sources#Proposed in-text citation guidelines which may be of interest in terms of citing sources for specific points.

As to the sources, I agree, the more the better, but I make a habit of dividing them up into "Further reading" (i.e. things I recommend for the average reader who wants to know more than is in the article) and "References" (for the specialist, or people who want to verify statements in the article). My reasoning for so doing is that the writer of the article knows the sources, and can give guidance about which ones an average reader would find useful; to leave that info out would leave readers floundering, and going to trouble to locate material that turns out to be too advanced for them. Noel (talk) 23:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rhodes also does not list Tolman as one of the participants- Ashujo 21 Dec

http://www.childrenofthemanhattanproject.org/HISTORY/H-05b.htm this page proports to be: "Copyright Notice For Scientific and Technical Information Only Copyright © 1998-2001 The Regents of the University of California. For All Information Unless otherwise indicated, this information has been authored by an employee or employees of the University of California, operator of the Los Alamos National Laboratory under Contract No. W-7405-ENG-36 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. Government has rights to use, reproduce, and distribute this information. The public may copy and use this information without charge, provided that this Notice and any statement of authorship are reproduced on all copies. Neither the Go.." and is obvious a precursor to the wiki page. "..; portentions for the future of mankind " etc. Copyvio? Doesn't say where THEY got it. And it lists TOLMAN. 64.168.30.4 23:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, they clearly got it from http://www.lanl.gov/worldview/welcome/history/02_berkeley-summer.html whose copyright status is somewhat sketchy in my opinion (though I'd rather not use it), as it is apparently the product of Los Alamos National Lab which would make it public domain material as a product of the US federal government, as I understand it. I see it lists Tolman too, but I'd still rather find a historian who says explicitly that Tolman was a participant in the conference itself—rather than simply around the area and in communication with Oppenheimer, et al, which he certainly was. But it's really not all that important to me in the long run. --Fastfission 23:33, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The copyright crap is what's bugging me. If it's public domain, what is all this copyright crap on the LLNL site. And according to that site, copies have to cite that page, which is contrary to wikifreedom. Yet the wiki page still maintains sentences lifted directly from LLNL, but no credit to LLNL site, contrary to LLNL "copyright" claim. My understanding of Federal employee non copyright is same as yours, but why doesn't it say that? I guess there are no sanctions against making bogus copyright claims. As far was the question of Tolman, yes it proves nothing, the author may have just got the "fact" from Serber's account; it doesn't count as a separate account.64.168.29.165 19:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The copyright status of national lab work has confused me for some time. The work of federal employees is not eligible for copyright, as I understand it. But the work of California state employees, and in particular the work of employees of the University of California, are subject to strong copyrights applied de facto by the UC (all employees must sign both a loyalty oath and a patent/copyright waiver before beginning work). So is an employee of Los Alamos—a federal lab managed by the University of California—a federal or state employee? Is the work eligible for copyright? I have no idea. I'll try asking someone I know who does a lot of work in intellectual property law to see if there are any easy answers. In any event, I think it is poor to have a Wikipedia article cut and pasted from any source. This article needs a lot of work anyway though (it currently doesn't even cover the major bases of the Manhattan Project), which I don't really have the time to invest at the moment. Perhaps some stalwart soul does, though... --Fastfission 21:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

May turn on whether *employee* or *contractor*. 67.113.3.43 23:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Italian navigator

was: "A coded message, "The Italian navigator (referring to Fermi) has landed in the newworld" was then sent to President Roosevelt to tell him that the experiment was a success."

wrong; it seemed implausible someone would talk to the president in code. the reference is Rhodes, Mak. of the A.B. , p442. A *phone call* between Compton and *Conant* in WashDC. In code to foil wiretappers, presumeably.
"Compton records their improvised dialogue: Jim, I said, " you'll be interested to know that the Italian navigator has just landed in the new world." Then, half apologetically, because I had led the S1 Committee to believe that it would be another week or more before the pile could be completed, I added, "the earth was not as large as he had estimated, and he arrived at the new world sooner than he had expected." "Is that so, " was Conant's excited reponse. "Were the natives friendly?" "Everyone landed safe and happy."64.165.203.60 08:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bold?

I wonder why some people assume that if they write in bold their argument is somehow more legitimate, to me it reflects a rather weak and immature mind.Twobells (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

UK invention of computers and Radar

Absolute load of non-sense. There is no historical proof that the UK played any major role in the invention of computers unless you consider Babbages failed machine, which was just an failed attempt to create a machine proposed by a Hungarian. Or in other words no part, beyond theory.

Computers are 100% an US invention, mostly coming from work done by AT&T. [make up your own mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#History_of_computing] In fact even the machines used in decrypting the enigma were donated by AT&T due to the belief that they could not be used. Or did you always assume that the non-sense story by the British "historians" that say the origin of the "computers" is unknown because it was so secret? Yeah and by some miracle AT&T just happens to have 3 just like it in Michigan, bearing markings identical.

So the machines are 100% US, [Make up your own mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#History_of_computing] the thoery comes from all over the world by mostly from early China, and then later Austria and Hungary.

Radar? Again US invention [Make up your own mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar#History] although a French man did the early work. The British, as usual jumped the train at the end and tried to take credit. Jet Engines? The US was working on them BEFORE the British, as were the French, Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, Spanish and Italians.

So with that in mind the line "Together with the cryptographic efforts centered at Bletchley Park and also at Arlington Hall, the development of radar and computers in the UK and later in the US, and the jet engine in the UK and Germany, the Manhattan Project represents one of the few massive, secret and outstandingly successful technological efforts spawned by the conflict of World War II."

[Make up your own mind : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAUD_Committee]

Should be removed. The line is questionable and even if it was not, it serves no purpose in this article other than to say, yeah the Americans did make this, but the UK is still better look at what we did. Ironic that the two inventions mentioned are actually American anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.50 (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What a load of Anti-Anglo Pro American crap. Grow up.(Butters x (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

Depends on the perspective. British engineers built the first computer, but US engineers built the first WORKING computer --Vock (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not either American or British or German but the German Z3 beat both to the punch - claiming the Atanasoff–Berry Computer as a computer is a bit rich since its not programmable. The Colusses was a WORKING programmable computer from the British before any programmable computer from the US. As for radar the Brits had the first useful widespread radar system in use. That said modern computing and virtually all of modern electronics for that matter has been developed solely in the US (an amazing amount coming out of Bell Labs alone). Britain dropped the technology ball after WWII but their significant contributions to music and culture since can't be ignored. Most inventions build on the work of others. It might make you feel proud to associate yourself with someone clever via nationality but you have most likely contributed nothing more to any inventions being discussed than a starving refugee in Ethiopia. I hope and trust the people that came up with breakthroughs would rather be associated with the human race rather than a nation, race or gender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.221.135 (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sick To Death

I am SICK of this anti-UK jingoistic farce and certain editor's attempted historic revisionism so have linked to the Wiki pages concerning Computers, the Atomic Bomb and Radar so as to let readers make up their own mind. Twobells (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

1/6 of electrical power?

The article states without source that the Oak Ridge facility consumed 1/6 of the electrical power produced in the US, more than NY City. This is a very strong statement, yet unreferenced. (Community editor (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

Yes, I wondered about that too. Does anyone know what this statement's source was or is?

--Sci-Fi Dude (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Improving this page

The original author of this page seems to have set out to do something a bit too over-ambitious -- too much detail. As it is, the article is hopelessly top-heavy: if we wrote up the entire project with as much detail as the first year of it currently has then we'd have an article far too long to be useful. I say: let's scrap a lot of the existing text, try starting over, and try to first sketch out a schematic for the project as a whole. A general skeleton structure might be:

1. Developments in 1930s physics (done)

1. WWII breaks out, British interest in bomb, Einstein letter, British motivate a few US scientists to get the ball rolling again. Take over project from Nat. Bur. Standards. (done)jghjghfjccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccu

- Who was the original author anyway?

--Sci-Fi Dude (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

MR AMERICA IS TALKING NOW'

Complete crap. The US were interested in the Bomb BEFORE the British. The British NEVER took over the project and to this day the UK has NEVER made a successful Nuclear weapon of any considerable yield without US intervention. So what you are really saying is change history so it has a more anti-American, Pro-British stance. You must be an UK Uni professor.

1. Fission work at U of Chicago. Fermi's pile. Project given to Army. Becomes MED. Groves and his business style. Planning for Los Alamos. The University of California brought in.
2. Construction for Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Hanford. Research at Berkeley. Emphasize scope and scale, number of sites.
3. Main difficulties of project: getting refined material, design issues. Uranium mined in Canada, US Southwest, Belgian Congo. Separation methods: electromagnetic, gaseous diffusion. Plutonium breeding at Hanford. Design goes on at Los Alamos and Project Alberta.
4. Concerns about implosion. Discovery that Germans don't have the bomb. Trinity test. Truman informed, Potsdam.
5. Little Boy and Fat Man, their differences and their ad hoc nature. Bombs moved to Tinian. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. End of war. Smyth Report.
6. MED's postwar actions. Operation Crossroads. The question of whether or not the bomb should be controlled by the military or a civilian committee. Atomic Energy Act of 1946. Dissolution of MED, creation of AEC.

Suggestions/additions? Am I omitting anything or getting things mixed up? If these are all going to fit in a reasonably sized article, they should be only a few paragraphs each, which will be somewhat of a challenge, but is probably doable. --Fastfission 15:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought we were supposed to be polite in the talk room. Not to mention, you spelled yield wrong. It's fixed now though.

--Sci-Fi Dude (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

MR AMERICA IS TALKING NOW

Yes you are forgetting that any entry here should be supported by facts and not typical UK re-visionist history with no supporting evidence. Just because it is normal urban legend within the UK does not make it fact - even if it is anti-American

• I tried to start from scratch the other day, and found it too overwhelming. I instead have started Timeline of the Manhattan Project which ought to, by the time it gets a little more under way, cover the major events which should be mentioned in this article, and hopefully provide some structure for a narrative. Help is of course appreciated. --Fastfission 23:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised the article says so little about the work that was done at Columbia University. Fermi's nuclear pile was built there and only moved to Chicago after the military began to worry that its New York location was vulnerable to a German attack. The article overlooks Columbia to the point that it doesn't even show up on the list or map of project sites.

As of 21:29 on the 1st of october some little child has vandalised this article. Can any one restore it to it's original content? celticosprey

"Trinity" plutionum test

The worry was not entirely extinguished in some people's minds until the Trinity test; though if Bethe had been wrong, we would never know.

This passage concerns the first fusion bomb, but generally in this article, and the Trinity article, "Trinity" refers to the first test of a fission bomb. Can anyone clarify? -- Coneslayer 16:09, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

Short answer: the passage doesn't concern the first fusion bomb. It is about the fear that a fission weapon could hypothetically start a fusion reaction with the atmosphere (which was false). It turns out that fusion reactions are much harder to start and sustain than their initial fears thought (which is why making a hydrogen bomb was so difficult). --Fastfission 17:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, but the paragraph still doesn't make sense: In Bethe's account, this ultimate catastrophe came up again in 1975 when it appeared in a magazine article by H. C. Dudley. . . . The worry was not entirely extinguished in some people's minds until the Trinity test. How could the worry be present in 1975, and then be completely extinguished in 1945? -- Coneslayer 17:36, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

I think what it is trying to say is that there an initial worry, extinguished in 1945, which was dredged out again in the mid 1970s through some shoddy reporting. However I'm not 100% sure I understand what the mid 1970s stuff was about (I've never heard of that being a real worry anytime after Trinity, and especially not by the 1970s, when the atmospheric testing was no longer being undertaken by the USA or USSR, and the largest bombs had already been set off without igniting the atmosphere). The confusing sentence, like much of the current entry, should probably be deleted. --Fastfission 20:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To me, it seems like it meant that the atmosphere didn't explode with the Trinity testing, hence any fears about a nuclear bomb igniting the atmosphere were forgotten. Though if Bethe had been wrong, we would never know seems to imply that they weren't entirely sure about the whole atmosphere thing - and if Trinity and indeed caused the atmosphere to ignite, we'd all be dead so we couldn't exactly say "I told you so" to Bethe. This kind of uncertainty and lack of precaution concerning the consequences of dropping a nuclear bomb seems to be a disturbing familiarity surrounding the whole Manhattan Project.Jarrod 01:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reality of it happening ended being pretty difficult anyway. It turns out that starting self-sustaining fusion reactions is pretty damn hard, as they very quickly learned even during the Manhattan Project as they tried to design the hydrogen bomb. --Fastfission 10:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I have read through this a few times and it seems to me as if the whole article is poorly organized. I think someone needs to go through the page and arrange the information in a more methodical fashion.

• I agree, but it will take a lot of work, so it hasn't happened yet. --Fastfission 01:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Einstein letter photo

the photo of the Einstein letter is NOT a facsimile of the original. It has been retyped. Other books show the letter with serif typeface, eg The Uranium People Libby,1979, frontispiece. GangofOne 03:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Please see Image:Einstein.jpg Thanks Scott 10:42:57, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  • Now I've seen it. Not sure what your point is.GangofOne 20:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • Searching for "einstein letter roosevelt" on Google turns up the following pages, all of which use a serif typeface: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] The latter of which in particular looks pretty credible (the source is the FDR library). --Fastfission 21:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Amazing, Fastfission, Interesting. As I said it was a freebie and you could have one too, Just visit the ORNL visitors center and they have a bunch just laying there on the counter as handouts. Good research, Good job Scott 22:02:08, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

• • Here [6] is the closest thing to a primary source, LANL where the letter is on display in the museum. nobs 22:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Here's some interesting photographs from the National Atomic Museum [7] declassified in 1995.
      • Nice photographs. I converted all of the ones of decent quality to JPEGs and uploaded them to Commons [8]. --Fastfission 03:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Keeping this article to a manageable size

I have just removed two sentences that describe Rutherford's thoughts about the feasibility of nuclear power. These do not even appear in the article on Rutherford and their appearance here is even less relevant. Rutherford's ideas could legitimately be included in a book on the history of the science leading to the atomic bomb, but not in an encyclopedia article about the Manhattan Project and its origins. JMcC 09:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think the beginning nuclear physics section is pretty useless at the moment, anyway. Personally I'd prefer something a bit more like the first section on the History of nuclear weapons article (though it would have to be shortened considerably) which emphasizes both the relevant developments in physics (that is, those which led directly to fission and bomb research, and those which the reader will need to know to understand the basics of bomb development) while paralleling them with the relevant political developments (why people wanted to make a bomb in the first place, why the physicists were enthusiastic about it). --Fastfission 17:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Russian spying?

This site makes a mention that the Russian nuclear program was kick started by stealing from the Manhatten project. Should this get a mention? Or is it bunk? -> http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Sovwpnprog.html ~ Si.

It's in some other nuclear article; this article can't say everything, it's too big. The Russians didn;t inflitrate, people trusted in the project gave them the stuff. See Klaus Fuchs, German-born physicist, part of the British contingent , convicted after the war of giving secrets to an ally. (15 year sentence) Theodore Hall. Fuchs and Hall didn't know about each other, though both were at Los Alamos. Then some lower level guy, was it Greenglass ? Maybe others. One motivation was the fear of a fascist monopoly on the bomb. That is, the fear that the US would become fascist. GangofOne 23:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• At the end of the article it does mention Fuchs and Hall. Our pages on the Soviet atomic bomb project and atomic spies have more information. --Fastfission 01:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The plans were stolen by a british engineer who was a Soviet Union man at heart. this should get a mention, as the resulting Cold War accellerated space technologies and restored the US' funding to nuclear weapons --Vock (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"ignition of the atmosphere was impossible.... though if Bethe had been wrong, we would never know."

because we wouldn't exist. GangofOne 23:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I get it, but it's still a silly and not very encyclopedic comment. --Fastfission 01:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I know you get it, it's only intended to be read by those who don't get it. As far as silly goes, I don't know, but unencyclopedic , yes, the hope is that it would cause thinking, and thus get more people familiar with the sensation. GangofOne 03:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The point of an encyclopedia is to inform people, not pose little riddles to them. --Fastfission 03:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You're being normative. GangofOne 03:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, here's an idea...how about we not throw things at each other and just work on making the article better. Of course, I may just be being normative - and that might be a good thing!

--Sci-Fi Dude (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Any interest in helping out with the Y-12 National Security Complex article?

Hi! Would anyone working on this article be interested in helping out with the article on the Y-12 National Security Complex? I just stubified it because it was mostly .gov website copy/pastes. The article could certainly use any help it can get. --Takeel 18:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Parallel Processing

Maybe some note should be given to the fact that modern parallel processing concepts were developped at this time to efficiently do the required computations for the design of the bomb (though the 'computers' were still human at this point). Just a thought. -Mr. Tachyon

• Well, there's a lot of things that came out of the project that should be discussed but currently aren't, and that's definitely one of them... --Fastfission 18:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

rv last 2 edits

The Manhattan Project evolved from the Briggs Uranium Committee, which was formed well after FDR got the Einstein letter, which was after Hitler took Poland in early Sept., 1941. Also the rewording of the previous edit says that WW2 caused the scientists to fear ....blah blah blah. The previous wording was better; it wasn't the "war", it was Hitler and Germany they feared, and they did so before there was a WW2.Sfahey 02:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with your edits. --Fastfission 15:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Serber?

This might be an inaccuracy--I could be wrong. Wasn't Serber of Columbia University, not the University of Illinois? There is nothing in Serber's wikipedia article to suggest he was ever at U of I.

Serber was a Columbia professor for many years until his retirement. I believe he was there during the relevant period but I am not sure.

Looking at the preface Serber wrote to The Los Alamos Primer, suggests it is as follows: He got his PhD from Wisconsin, was going to take a postdoc at Princeton when he met Oppenheimer and instead went to California (Berkeley and Pasadena) where he stayed until 1938, at which point he went to work at U. of I. at Urbana until 1942, when he went to Berkeley and from there Los Alamos. I've added this information to his page here. --Fastfission 20:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The road towards nuclear fission accelerated in the 1930s

The road cannot accelerate, it's the movement on the road that accelerates 85.11.148.60 09:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:MilHist Assessment

I've got nothing to add or to criticize. This article is incredibly long, detailed, and thorough. It includes a multitude of pictures, and an extensive list of references, even if they're not cited in-line. I would love to see this accelerated to A-class or FA status as soon as feasible. LordAmeth 13:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It needs a lot of work, IMO. It is missing quite a lot, and the narrative goes between being very (too) detailed and being very sparse. --Fastfission 00:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is not that bad overall. I have researched on this topic before, and i believe that overall it is a very good article with a few sticky points. I like the amount of detail, though in some places it does seem a bit too much. Either way, this article deserves a rating higher than the B it has now, and this could easily get there with a bit of editing. Eaglestrike7339 03:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

which countries where involved besides USA?

I've heard that this project involved several nations?

• See section called "Similar efforts", second paragraph. JMcC 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is Inaccurate

Is it me or is this article very inaccurate? I mean this article is talking about russians stealing the idea and stuff well ITS TRUE THE DAMN RUSSIAN CAN NEVER THINK UP ANYTHING BY THEIR SELF....AND THAT GOES FOR ALL THEM DAMN IDEA STEALING COUNTRIES OUT THERE.......STAY OUT OF OUR DAMN BUISNESS!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks A Cencerned Reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.245.80 (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What does this sentance mean?

Under the Early UK and US research heading this sentence appears: "There was little sex elsewhere until Oliphant visited Ernest Lawrence, James Conant, chairman of the NDRC, and Enrico Fermi and told them of the MAUD Report"

Am I missing something or did some one screw with this page? (pun intended) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.70.149 (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

This is one of the problems with Wikipedia. Of course, it cannot be fixed unless it is brought to our attention. I am 99% sure that the above statement is false and created by someone who knows nothing of the subject and edited just to be an idiot. I will delete it.

Einstein's involvement (or lack of) in the project

Altered 1st section sentence:

"There were many scientists who worked on the project; one of which was Albert Einstein."

Einstein never worked directly on the project,

Sources:

1) "Einstein's FBI dossier grew to 1,427 pages, and denied a security clearence his was not permitted to know about the work of the Manhatten project even though his letter to President Roosevelt helped launch it"

Begley,Sharon "Newsweek" April 16th 2007 pg. 98

2) "In July 1940, the U.S. Army Intelligence office denied Einstein the security clearance needed to work on the Manhattan Project. The hundreds of scientists on the project were forbidden from consulting with Einstein, because the left-leaning political activist was deemed a potential security risk."

American Museum of Natural History http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/peace/manhattan.php

Woofmaster 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

British Motives

What exactly are the British Motives that the Americans were weary of which I have seen referred to in several pages on Anglo-American Nuclear co-operation I don't know this as fact but I believe it the US thought Churchill might Bomb Occupied europe with nuclear weapons (Its well know that he was willing to use poison gas and other illegal weapons in the event of a German invasion.(86.31.184.151 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

Similar Efforts

This section ends with the paragraph "Together with the cryptographic efforts centered at Bletchley Park and also at Arlington Hall, the development of radar and computers in the UK and later in the US, and the jet engine in the UK and Germany, the Manhattan Project represents one of the few massive, secret, and outstandingly successful technological efforts spawned by the conflict of World War II." The V-2 program in Germany deserves to be mentioned in this list. Vgy7ujm 07:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It should get more than a mention. If Germany had not begun the V2 project, then it it very likely rockets would not have been invented --Vock (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

90 Church Street?

I cannot find any other reference to 90 Church Street being the original location of the Manhattan Project. The website cited (travelgoat.com) does not look particularly reliable.

Can anyone confirm this?

---

71.106.172.78 05:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The NY Times published an article that gives the correct original locations. I corrected that information here.

I am sure there is lots of other stuff in the article and the book that can add to this page --Dogtown08 03:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger

I have requested that the Military Policy Committee article be merged into this one, as the MPC does not appear to warrent a seperate article.Cromdog 03:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just a stub now, but it could potentially expand into a full article. I don't see much advantage to merging this, as it will send people looking for that topic to search through a very large article (only to be disappointed by how little information they will find).--ragesoss 05:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I also oppose merger, as the tiny amount of information in the article would add nothing of value to the Manhattan Project article. Either expand Military Policy Committee to a meaningful article, or delete it. --Orlady 05:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

NO MERGE- WikiLuke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.208.190 (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

military police integration

i agree that military police... should be integrrated into the article because they served a significant role in the project. that is all.

(81.158.75.114 09:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

Highly purified??

This sentence: "Also, the bomb dropped used all the existing extremely highly purified U-235 (and even most of the highly purifed material)".. is that not duplication? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.108.142 (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No; "highly" and "extremely highly" are two different grades of quality. According to that sentence, all of the "EHP" was used, and most of the "HP" was used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.183.142 (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Los Alamos site land price

FTR, I reverted a recent edit that added the detail that the Los Alamos site was bought by the government for $440,000. It was unsourced, and in the context of this article about the entire Manhattan Project it seems like irrelevant trivia. However, http://www.mphpa.org/classic/HISTORY/H-06c6.htm gives the total land price as $414,971. --Orlady (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Democritus came up with the theory of fission?

The roots of the theory of fission reach two thousand years back when Democritus expounded the theory that matter is made up of atoms, small particles that cannot be split into smaller parts.

1. The scientific method did not exist during the Ancient Greek period of learning; the scientific theory of fission was thus not rooted in Democritus's ideas. In fact, the term theory would be anachronistic.

Some people learn big words and decide they are intelligent. Your comment could not be more stupid. Just because the term Scientific theory did not exist yet did not mean humans did not have theories. The ancient Greek's idea just as the ancient Chinese ideas did in fact play a part in the evolving science of physics and in this case this bomb

2. Simply because the word "atom" owes its origin to the Greeks does not mean they actually studied, discovered, or hypothesized about the atom. They had no evidence to support its existence; these ideas of Democritus were purely philosophical, not scientific. Atomism, a philosophical school, and Atomic theory, a scientific area of study, are not the same thing! This is akin to grouping Astrology with Astronomy without proper context provided.

Not really, although it would not be entirely incorrect to group the two together in some references

3. Democritus believed atoms are unbreakable (and he did not know of atoms in the way that we think of them; he simply considered it to be a nominal, uncuttable unit), so the notion that he would have come up with "fission" would actually contradict his philosophical school.

Yet without his "ponderings" it is possible no "scientist" would have ever thought about the atom and what could be done with it. Or in other words, looked to prove his "theories"

IMO, some of this history stuff needs to be reworded, because it is a misleading synthesis of material that suggests continuity in atomic theory from the time of the Ancient Greeks to today; this is simply not the case. -98.209.101.146 (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. It's a common move by non-historically savvy scientists to try and find the earliest possible author for something and then give them a ton of credit for it, even if it doesn't make any real historical sense. Democritus's "atom" had nothing to do with the modern atomic theory, had no influence whatsoever on the history of 20th century physics; H.G. Wells' "atom bombs" had nothing to do with actual nuclear weapons except that Leo Szilard was inspired by Wells in general. < I seriously doubt Szilard was inspired by Wells and their is no historical proof to support he was other than he claimed to be a fan of his books? Since he was a major sci-fi writer of his time that is hardly surprising >( Most people neglect to note as well that Wells' air-bombing fantasies were often combined with explicit genocide of other races for the good of the Europeans!)

In any case it isn't a useful use of space in the article: better to start with the atomic model of 1932 and go forward from there, as even starting with something apparently relevant as 1905's E=mc² is not actually very informative for the reader. For the reader who wants more in-depth history of physics, there are other articles for this. For the Manhattan Project, what we need is a quick, "look, they were working on this, they discovered that, and it became really clear to some that you could make an atomic bomb." --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who has interjected their comments in bold here (which is not the proper style), but I don't think there's any historical question as to whether atomism would have eventually come about with or without Democritus. For most of its history atomism was pretty philosophical in any case—it's only when it became really concrete that scientists started taking it experimentally seriously. You might as well argue that without Aristotle we might not have had science at all and thus no atomic bomb. It's not good history, and it's not good for an encyclopedia. The idea that there is any sort of straight line from the Greeks to the 1930s is patent nonsense, and horrible, amateurish history.

As for Szilard, he himself credits Wells quite heavily in his own writings. On "The World Set Free", Szilard wrote that "The book made a very great impression on me, but I didn't regard it as anything but fiction," but when he came up with the idea of the chain reaction he knew what it "would mean—I knew it because I had read H. G. Wells", and when he heard about fission, "All the things which H. G. Wells predicted appeared suddenly real to me." (This is all from Spencer Weart and Gertrude Weiss Szilard, eds., Leo Szilard: His Version of the Facts; Selected Recollections and Correspondence.) It's not a stretch to say that Szilard himself said that Wells was pretty influential in his thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

J Robert Oppenheimer

As a UC Berkeley grad student, I worked as a desk clerk in a retired residence in Berkeley where Oppenheimer's aunt lived. She was a wonderful person, and I believe that her husband was one of the founders of the School of Ethical Culture in New York.

One night Oppenheimer came in the building to visit his Aunt. I was shocked! I have never seen a face more lined and wracked with pain than his. I think he had a very difficult and disappointing life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.181.214.20 (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

gaseous diffusion during the war

The current article states that most of the U-235 that went into the Little Boy bomb came from the gaseous diffusion plants. It was my understanding that most of it came from Calutrons, because gaseous diffusion was not up and running at much capacity until the very end of the war. I understood them to be mostly a post-war thing. I also recall Groves saying that the Calutrons were meant to be a temporary measure, just for the war, and used the fact of the borrowed silver as evidence of this (they'd have to give it back). Thoughts? --Fastfission (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that section of the article contained several errors. I didn't take the time to go back through the history and figure out where the article went off course, but I edited it to better correspond with the truth as I know it. The electromagnetic separation process in calutrons at Y-12 produced most of the U-235 for the Hiroshima bomb, but gaseous diffusion at K-25 and thermal diffusion at S-50 also contributed (as I understand it, for a time the three processes were used in series). --Orlady (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

John Von Neumann?

Wasn't John Von Neumann involved with the MP as a mathematical consultant? Why isn't he mentioned at all in the article? Kreachure (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There are 162 pages in Category:Manhattan Project people. The single article about the Manhattan Project could not possibly discuss all of them. --Orlady (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Secretcy

Mstare88 (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Should the fact that FDR was completly unaware of the atom bomb. He had no clue that one was being created neither did Truman when he took office. That is how secret this whole thing was. Ironicly though Churchill knew about the project. One of the causes for the cold war was strained relatons between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. Stalin was angry at the U.S. for telling Churchill about the project but not telling him about the project.maybe we could put this under trivia or maybe attach it to the FDR article or Stalin or Cold War

FDR did know about the bomb—he started the bomb project personally. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

German Nuclear Test

Joseph P. Farrell in his book "Reich of the Black Sun" claims that the first atomic test was done by Nazi Germany. Is that true? If yes, why there is no reference here? Shaahin (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not true. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Uranium bomb never tested?

This is very interesting, from the main article:

The method was so certain to work that no test was carried out before the bomb was dropped [...]. Also, the bomb dropped used all the existing extremely highly purified U-235 (and even most of the highly purified material) so there was no U-235 available for such a test anyway.

Allied dropped an atomic bomb which was untested, based on concepts of physics that were very new, on an enemy city known to be working on acquiring the atomic bomb as well? The interesting part is this, which I believe must be mentioned in the main "Manhattan Project" article, here on Wikipedia:

Friedrich Georg, Hitlers Siegeswaffen: Band 1: Luftwaffe und Marine: Geheime Nuklearwaffen des Dritten Reiches und ihre Tragersysteme (Schleusingen: Amun Verlag, 200), p. 150 :

Also another question is of great importance: Why was the uranium bomb of the USA, unlike the plutonium bomb, not tested prior to being hurled on Japan? Militarily this would appear to be extremely dangerous.... Did the Americans simply forget to test it, or did others already do it for them?

I strongly believe that this should be mentioned somewhere on the main article. This belongs to the controversy part, but still needed for the main article. Any thoughts?Shaahin (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not really controversial—only conspiracy theorists worry about it. It is well-addressed in the historical literature: 1. they didn't have enough U-235 to waste on a test bomb; 2. the physics of a U-235 bomb is relatively simple compared to the physics of a plutonium bomb, which they had tested; and 3. they had very precisely determined what happens when large chunks of uranium come into contact with one another by use of criticality experiments like the famous "Tickling the Dragon"—these are a very good indicator for how a bomb of this sort would perform (not so the case with a plutonium one, which requires implosion to make more sense of). As for the possibility of it not working—they were well aware of the possibility, which is one of the reasons they didn't announce the test ahead of time. If it had not detonated with much force they would have just dropped the plutonium one in a day or two—better to drop the most chancy one first before anyone is expecting it. There was, of course, some risk that the bomb would be recovered in a way usable by the Japanese but they no doubt felt that the drop itself would probably scatter the U-235 every which-way (esp. since it would surely detonate the chemical explosive) and anyway they would probably have dropped the Fat Man bomb on Hiroshima ASAP if that had happened. Anyway, yes it was somewhat dangerous, though less than you would think; no, they did not "forget", and no, they did not have others "do it for them". --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Personnel

In addition to those listed in the wikiarticle, Manhattan Project personnel included:

• Frey, Sheldon E.; chemist (Manhattan & Oak Ridge)

It included around 200,000 people... we aren't going to list them all in one article. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

early efforts section

This article needs an "early efforts" section, which covers 1939-1942:

• The Einstein-Szilard letter
• The Advisory Committee on Uranium
• The comparative UK efforts
• The frustration amongst US scientists, urging from UK scientists
• Push to accelerate from an on-paper stage to a production-stage

At the moment it jumps from Einstein to the last stage, omitting the important intermediary stages. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Support The earlier versions of this article (eg May 2007) had long sections (perhaps overlong) on this period. However I suppose it depends when the Manhattan Project itself actually started. Perhaps two articles are needed with the one about the early phase and one about the project starting in 1942. However it is done, an article in this series should at least mention the S-1 committee, Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls, the MAUD Committee, Mark Oliphant and Lyman Briggs. JMcC (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits

I noted that in the section "Uranium Committee (1939-1941)" there is no clear antecedent for the following sentence: "He reported that "this inarticulate and unimpressive man had put the reports in his safe and had not shown them to members of his committee."" I think it's referring to the aforementioned Lyman Briggs, but I can't be sure.

Does anyone else know for sure?

Sci-Fi Dude (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have clarified this. The reference is here on the Atomic Heritage web site JMcC (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

--Sci-Fi Dude (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's something new...'A coded phone call from Compton saying, "The Italian navigator [referring to Fermi] has landed in the new world, the natives are friendly" to Conant in Washington, D.C., brought news of the experiment's success.' I could not find this "Conant" anywhere in the article. Anyone know who he is?

--Sci-Fi Dude (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

James B. Conant. Really though, the article needs a total overhaul. It is a factual and stylistic mess. --140.247.254.97 (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Sci-Fi Dude (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems incomplete. The history section begins but once it progresses to gun type and implosion type the article is over. I think there needs a section on the entirety of the progam. Perhaps I will read a book or two on the program and come back and contribute. 130.101.14.218 (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Implosion facts?

Shouldn't the very important fact that the Manhattan Project had failed to detonate a device until British engineers led by James L Tuck flew to the US to show the team they need an implosion rather than a explosion? (This was outside of the Tube Alloys contribution.)The measly sentence covering Tuck denies his crucial contribution to the project. Isn't it about time the British contribution was brought to the light of day.See British Scientists and the Manhattan Project: The Los Alamos Years ISBN: 0312061676 [User:Twobells|Twobells]] (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Tuck was an expert on hollow charges (developed in the UK for anti-tank use), and it was his expertise that was used in the design of the implosion lens. Tuck was also the reason that British-developed explosives were used in the resulting lenses. His character (or one based on him) appears in some US TV mini-series about the Manhattan Project from, IIRC, around the 1980s/1990s, but I can't remember the name of it.

Just checked, Tuck designed the explosive lenses for the Fat Man implosion bomb.

I think the TV programme I mentioned above was The Shadow Makers.

Speaking of the UK contribution I should point out that until fairly recently the UK involvement in the Manhattan Project was positively ignored in most US histories until as late as the 1980s in some cases, and it wasn't helped by many US people in high places denying any UK involvement at all, so Wikipedia (and some of the US contributors on nuclear issues) is/are at least acknowledging more than was admitted previously. Penney for example, was one of the key players in the bomb project - Groves said as-much.

The British contribution to the Manhattan Project was, in the words of Robert Oppenheimer;

I think that the fact the the British were convinced very early by Simon and Peierls probably was the greatest single factor in getting the job done when it was ... If the British Government had not been committed we might have been very much slower in this country to put the necessary resources into it ... The British at Los Alamos were very valuable. If they hadn't been there it is hard to know who would have taken their place.

And Hans Bethe thought that the British contribution to his theoretical team's work had been; essential.

Another (unnamed) American scientist suggested that the UK team's involvement had; saved a year in the making of the bomb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.151 (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

William Friedman patents

If one does a search on William Friedman on FreePatents online or Google Patents(?), one finds several cyphered patents that have remarkable Manhattan Project information. The patents include pictures on how to cut out the sheet and apply it over the text to read the cyphered text in plain english (sort of a slide rule/nomograpgh-cryptograph). These patents appear with application dates from 1934 to 1939, and some in 1928 to 1931. The legitimate patents are under William F. Friedman, while the bogus patents are under W. Friedman, I. W. Friedman, E. Friedman, and various anagrams and nom de plums. They are distinguished by 2 close filings on Saturdays or Wednesdays, and there is one patent application with a January 1 date, (ie. when the USPTO is closed!!). These are in fact the top secret (in plain view) Manhattan Project Bomb patents spoken of by Alex Wellerstein and the NPR!! Are these patents (with odd SHORT titles like: container, legging, bag, syringe, packet, packet and pad, toilet accessory, etc.), having patent numbers between 1,500,000 and 1,950,000. Are these the work of William F. Friedman, or the work of Captain Lavender and his atomic scientists; Glenn T. Seaborg, Enrico Fermi, Arthur Compton, Earnest O. Lawrence, Szilard, Morrison, Feynman, etc?

The USPTO database violation and incursion seems clear enough (Pat. #2365494, with application date of January 1, 1944, is a clear USPTO database violation because no patent can ever receive an application date on a holiday under U.S.C. 35!). Since one of the cornertstones of the USPTO is the filing date, if the USPTO's inviolable (assumed) database was violated or "hacked" by an atomic scientist, then presumably any "walk-in" off the street could, in theory, read, copy, edity, modify, delete or add to the USPTO database without the knowledge of the USPTO. This act of sabotage would invalidate every single patent application and issue, since the USPTO opened for business in 1836!!! This appears to be the first time a United States Database was ever hacked and rendered useless, and it was done under the name of W. Friedman. The USPTO has never fully recovered from the first database virus in human history. The question seems why? Like any computer hack, to make a point. The USPTO was (is?) insecure to hold atomic secrets in 1945 and 1946. The Department of Energy and the National Security Agency may owe at least part of their existence to a database security hack under the name of W. Friedman (perhaps by Glenn T. Seaborg or Enrico Fermi).

"Senator MILLIKIN. Of these applications that are impounded in the Patent Office, how many people have access to them? Captain LAVENDER. We have set up a very definite way of handling these applications, and they are known in the Patent Office as “special handling” cases. These special handling cases are designated at the time I filed them, in the letter forwarding the application to the Commissioner of Patents. These applications are sent down to Richmond—that is, to the examiners when they are down there—only by an official of the Patent Office and delivered personally to the chief examiner of the division. The chief examiner and his assistant were the only ones who were designated by the Commissioner of Patents to handle those cases. They are kept in separate safes in the Patent Office. Senator MILLIKIN. That is two people. Does anybody else get to look at them? Captain LAVENDER. I would say “No.” An examiner may be examining one, and the chief examiner may be on a case and have someone come up. But I have been down there several times and I know that they are working on those cases. Senator MILLIKIN. So at one time you said the chief examiner and now you have mentioned chief examiners. How many people could this possibly clear through in the Patent Office? Captain LAVENDER. Each case would go to the examiner of a division who is known as the chief examiner. Now, he may have one other person—his assistant—work on that case with him. In some of these divisions there are quite a large number of cases so that one person couldn’t handle them all. The only other way I suggested was that another person in the Patent Office might see them would be, say, a person who happened to pass along at the time that this case was on the desk of the chief examiner. Senator MILLIKIN. Is there a compartmentalization so far as these particular impounded applications are concerned, so that by rule or by law in some way or other one examiner cannot be talking to another? Captain LAVENDER. Oh, yes. The Commissioner of Patents has issued very definite instructions as to the disclosure of information to anyone who is not entitled to receive it. Senator MILLIKIN. Have these men been very carefully studied in the light of this particular problem? Captain LAVENDER. I would say “Yes,” because the chief of the division has been a person of long service and he didn’t come into that position except as his integrity, his reliability, and other characteristics were very well developed. The heads of these divisions are all very well tried officials. Senator MILLIKIN. You would have complete confidence? Captain LAVENDER. That is correct. I have on several occasions been to Richmond in connection with the work on this and have talked with the examiners that have most of my cases, and I have found them all to be a very fine, reliable group. Senator MILLIKIN. Can you tell us whether you know as a fact that the background of these men, so far as there country of origin is concerned, has been studied. Captain LAVENDER. I don’t quite understand. Senator MILLIKIN. If John Doe, examiner, is born in X foreign country, has that feature of it been studied specifically in the case of all of them? Captain LAVENDER. I don’t know, but I can only say this: The heads of these divisions have been tested and tried throughout a number of years, and I don’t think that there is any chance of a leak there. Senator MILLIKIN. I do not by my questioning impute anything of that kind, but in all of these things we have to take extra precautions, and I have been wondering whether a special study of those men has been made in relation to this particular stuff in its relation to the foreign implications. Captain LAVENDER. Well, I imagine that the security division of the Manhattan District has checked the system that we established, and probably the personnel. Senator MILLIKIN. It might not be a bad idea to look into that. Captain LAVENDER. I feel sure the Security Division has done that. Commander ANDERSON. The Security Division has approved them and the handling of this method. Senator MILLIKIN. We can interpret that as the system, but do you give the same answer to the personnel? Commander ANDERSON. They have all been approved by the Department of Commerce, and taken oath with respect to which they are requested to keep all applications under secrecy. They are under the Espionage Act. Senator MILLIKIN. That doesn’t quite go to the thing I am driving at; and that is as to their suitability for the job they hold in connection with this particular thing we are talking about. Captain LAVENDER. I shall suggest that to the Security Division and ask whether or not they have investigated the individuals. The CHAIRMAN. Captain, are all of these patents in the status of patent applications, or have any patents been issued? Captain LAVENDER. There are no patents issued that were filed by the Government. There are certain patents relating

Captain LAVENDER. Well, it is very important for this reason: I knew that as soon as the bomb went off there would be a great deal of speculation among various scientists and others, engineers, who had not been connected with the project. I knew that a great many applications would be filed in the Patent Office, so I was interested in having filed in the Patent Office these applications, so that if any applications were filed and we got into interference, the Government would not be suffering the handicap of being the second one to file, because the first to file has a great advantage from an interference procedure point of view. The CHAIRMAN. You see, Senator, this information which we have just received makes all the more pertinent your line of inquiry. I didn’t dream, frankly, up until this point that there was a patent application down there <in Richmond, VA, italics, mine> showing how the bomb was put together. Did You? Senator MILLIKEN. No. Personally, I regret it. The CHAIRMAN. I, too. Captain LAVENDER. I was reserving for any discussion in the executive session another special handling of these applications relating to bombs, which I am sure fully safeguard it. I didn’t mention that at the time I discussed the special handling cases."

The list of patents with secret U.S. military value, will be added later, including E. REED (an anagram perhaps for a US department).

And Now, the patents: W. F. Friedman patents: 1516180, 1522775, 1530660, 1608590, 1694874, 1857374, 2028772, 2080416, 2139676, 2140424, 2166137, 2224646, 2395863, 2465367, 2518458, 2552548, 2877565, 6097812, 6130946

W. Friedman patents: 1577406, 1580030, 1626674, 1626927, 1630566, 1630566, 1634712, 1650703, 1652402, 1672519, 1681110, 1719428, 1733189, 1739634, 1743813, 1794602, 1814747, 1814749, 1815922, 1852455, 1854373, 1858218, 1887298, 1887299, 1895187, 1903357, 1949201, 1977183, 2072327, 2365494, 2677861, 2712652, 2836925

W. Friedman USPTO inviolable patent database violation and database intrusion: 2365494

“In the process I personally destroyed more property in the form of patents than any other man living.” --Vannevar Bush, Pieces of the Action (New York: Morrow, 1970), p. 84.

E., F., G., Isidor, H. Lois D., M., N. H., I.W., Samuel, William D., W.E., W.H., W.L. (etc.)…Friedman patents: 1358685, 1564056, 1653163, 1699105, 2011335, 2124551, 2359148, 2378072, 2440042, 2487797, 2544308, 2615214, 2637031

E. REED (Defense Research Establishment Encryption Engineer??) patents: 2712652, 2836925

F.T. BARR (FUBAR??) patent: 2518270

Glenn T. Seaborg and Isadore Perlman patent: 2852336

The above patents may be confirmed or refuted through at least three patent search engines: http://www.google.com/patents, http://www.freepatentsonline.com/search.html, and http://www.pat2pdf.org/ (they all use pdf formats).

70.52.212.244 (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Gordon Jenkins, 76 chemin du Village, Luskville, QC J0X2G0 CANADA70.52.212.244 (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_F._Friedman" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.212.244 (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Manhattan Engineer or Engineering District

It's referred to both ways in the article, and even on some government websites. Based on documents quoted in a primary source (transcript of the Oppenheimer security hearing), I'm changing it from "Engineering" to "Engineer" in the lead paragraph. I'm also adding that it was also known as the "Manhattan District." Figureofnine (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually the name 'Manhattan Project' came about because the initial information given to the US on the British Tube Alloys project came via British Security Coordination which was based in the Rockefeller Building in Manhattan.

That's interesting, though it doesn't address the "engineer" vs. "engineering" issue. Figureofnine (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't sound idiomatically correct to me (my ear would prefer "Engineering"), but the best-researched sources call it "Manhattan Engineer District". For example, see this article about the prehistory of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (which, confusingly, was part of the "Clinton Engineering Works"). --Orlady (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Another detail: The Army personnel assigned to the Manhattan Project were in the "Special Engineer Detachment" (again with no "ing").[9] --Orlady (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems that the closer one gets to the historical source, the more there is no "ing." I think that we need to resolve this, as it deals with the very name of the article. I've already de-"ing"ed the lead, based on the hearing transcript. A search of Google news archives back to 1945 shows "engineer" favored by almost four to one. Figureofnine (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Possible source of historical confusion: The New York Times consistently used the "ing." Figureofnine (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Its official name was the Manhattan Engineer District. I think that is pretty clear. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Notable commanders

I understand why Nichols is listed as the only "notable commander" of the MED; he was the District Engineer for the Manhattan District. However there ought to be a way to indicate that Groves was the one with ultimate command over the whole thing in the infobox. I think it is a little misleading to stick to the pure military jargon in this case. Strictly speaking Nichols was only in charge of "administrative matters," whereas Groves was in charge of everything else. While I understand that the current status must reflect some kind of literal interpretation of "commander" for the infobox, it strikes me that the casual reader will not realize this and either be confused or misled. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I appreciate your concern. There is a whole section on the command and organization of the project. I looked at it this way; which is more likely: that the casual reader would mistakenly believe that Nichols was in charge of the project, or that Groves commanded the MED? The latter error seems more common. (Another common error is crediting Oppenheimer as Groves' scientific advisor instead of Tolman.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• I did consider splitting the article in two, with separate articles on the Manhattan Project and the Manhattan District. I would appreciate your input on this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree that we need to credit Groves, as he was Nichols' boss and definitely hands-on in charge of the whole thing. Perhaps the solution is some different nomenclature. As per his testimony in the Oppenheimer security hearing, he was in "complete charge and development planning for use of the atomic bomb." Figureofnine (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Groves must be listed—he was critical in bringing it all together at the practical level. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • It is like crediting Eisenhower as a commander of Patton's Third Army. Yes, he was in charge of the Third Army the whole time; but he was not its commander. Do you want a footnote explaining that Groves did not command the MED? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is titled "Manhattan Project". Its scope is wider than the MED. I think the infobox should reflect the article, not a rigid adherence to the fact that it is a MED infobox. Can't we just list Groves first as "Leslie Groves (overall Manhattan Project commander)" and then "Kenneth Nichols (District Engineer)"? (Or something less verbose that indicates the difference.) Wouldn't that be both complete and clear? We could even put a footnote there that makes it very clear, should anyone be confused. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added Groves to the infobox but retained Nichols. I think that should handle it. The article can explain their respective roles. It is correct that this article is about the overall project, not the MED per se. If this was about the MED only, then perhaps Nichols alone would be cited as commander. Perhaps the infobox should be titled "Manhattan Project" to make it consistent with the article. I think that may be the root of the problem. Figureofnine (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not just the commander. A number of other items in the infobox would be different:

Project vs District

	Manhattan Project	Manhattan District
Commanders	MG Leslie R. Groves (1942-1946)	BG James G. Marshall (1942-1943) BG Kenneth D. Nichols (1943-1946)
Formed	23 September 1942	13 August 1942
Headquarters	Washington, D.C.	Oak Ridge, TN
Superseded by	Atomic Energy Commission	Armed Forces Special Weapons Project
Shoulder patch	(none)	Manhattan District

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye7 (talk • contribs)

Appreciate your clarifying this. I think it would be helpful in the article to better distinguish between the two. I must say that I've read quite a bit on this subject and the differences between the Manhattan Project and MED never occurred to me. They tend to be treated as synonymous. Figureofnine (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason we can't have a footnote that just explains the above in a concise form? --Mr.98 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Tube Alloys

"The British were moving ahead with Atomic weapons development being engaged in serious Atomic weapons research since 1939. Informed by his chief scientific advisor in September 1941 that the atomic bomb programme had a chance of success of between 1 in 10 to 1 in 2, Churchill did not hesitate to instruct the British scientists to accelerate the programme to top speed."

There are a number of problems with this:

1. The grammar is very poor ("moving ahead with Atomic weapons development being engaged in") making it very confusing. (Moving ahead of whom? The Germans? The Americans?)
2. Who was "his chief scientific advisor"? (And Churchill has not been introduced yet.)
3. What does "did not hesitate" and "to top speed" mean? Taken literary, they are untrue.
4. Does the article need more about the British program? Would it not be better to fix up Tube Alloys?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Re No. 3 I took at as meaning that Churchill made a decision (quickly) to expand and resource the project. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That the matter was quickly brought to Churchill for a decision? Or that when it was brought to Churchill for a decision, he then made it quickly?

What he did was fire off a minute which read:

General Ismay for Chiefs of Staff Committee: Although personally I am quite content with the existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement, and I therefore think that action should be taken in the sense proposed by Lord Cherwell, and that the Cabinet Minister responsible should be Sir John Anderson. Source: Clark (1961), p. 154

Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Huge improvements!

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Six months ago, this article was a huge mess that spent too much time on small things and completely skipped over big things. I despaired of it ever being a decent article. Now it is quite good, quite excellent. I say this as someone who has read quite a few books on the subject. Congratulations are due to the editors who worked especially hard as of late to make it this way. Your efforts are definitely recognized and have really transformed this into a quite excellent article about a very important episode in human history. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Engagements" in Infobox

Apart from the atomic bombings of Japan, the infobox has the Manhattan Project involved in the Allied Invasion of Japan and Germany, and the occupation of Germany. Does anyone have any information on this? Figureofnine (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume it is in reference to Operation Alsos, and the fact that MED officers were sent into Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the war? --Mr.98 (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Right now the infobox engagements include: Allied Invasion of Italy, Allied Invasion of France, Allied Invasion of Germany, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Allied Occupation of Japan. Apart from the bombings (obviously), the only one that seems justified is the occupation of Japan, and that seems tangential I don't see how Alsos figures into the invasions of France, Germany and Italy. Figureofnine (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Alsos teams participated in those campaigns. The claim to participation in the atomic bombings arises because MED personnel were crew members on board the aircraft. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly. They had some operations after Italy, France and Germany were secured. The infobox reference is confusing as it makes it seem as if members of the project were actively involved in the invasion of those countries. Figureofnine (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

They were. Alsos operations were conducted before those countries were secured, while the fighting was ongoing, and at times behind enemy lines. (It looks like the Alsos article needs to be overhauled. But see Groves, Jones and Goudsmit for details.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I think that point needs to be clarified in this article too. Figureofnine (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Roosevelt, and Bush?

"At a meeting between President Roosevelt, Bush and Vice President Henry A. Wallace on 9 October 1941, the President approved the atomic program."

Just a note is this correct ?

CS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.5.48.206 (talk) 07:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"The use of the bombs"?

Could the subsection titled "The use of the bombs" be renamed "Bombings"? The section is concerning Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the subsection preceeding the one I wish to change is titled "Preparations", so wouldn't a more logical name be simply "Bombings"? 70.160.37.47 (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Bombing/Enola Gay Maneuvers

The "150 degree bank" referenced in the article as the Enola Gay's evasive maneuver is most likely a 150 degree turn. 150 degrees of bank is almost inverted (180 degrees of bank), and not likely for a heavy bomber. 15trik (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Corrected the text. Thankyou. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Some interesting connections to other articles

I was just recently helping out with Fluorine which was up for FA. MP is mentioned as the first large scale use of elemental fluorine. I actually grabbed and used the same picture of the gasseous diffusion plant (not from this article, but from one of the others where it is used).TCO (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Participation by Canada.

I do not understand why so much emphasis is being put on Canada as being a significant contributor. The United States funded the heavy water plant in Canada, designed it, and directed the building of it. The only thing the Canadians did was build it, I would essentially consider them contractors.

Source: Canada enters the nuclear age: a technical history of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (ISBN 0773516018, 9780773516014) This can be found on Page 334 under the heading "HEAVY-WATER PRODUCTION IN CANADA" (JVDnh3 (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC))

That's OK, as I can't understand why the US is given such prominence, as all they did was finance the bomb and build it. Most of the theoretical work was carried out by UK scientists and the UK had an atomic weapons programme long before the US did. All the US did was to provide finance and resources on a larger scale.

You see, the various US Governments since 1945 have all lied and maintained that 'the bomb' was a solely US invention. It wasn't, the UK had been working on one for at least a year before the US became involved, and many key scientists, such as Penney, Bohr, etc. were part of the British involvement in the Manhattan Project. Previously many had been involved in the Tube Alloys project, that pre-dated the US one by at least a year.

See, in 1946 the US passed the McMahon Act which tried to assert that the 'bomb' was solely the property of the US and that no-one else had any right to the principles. This was despite the US previously signing an agreement with Britain and Canada in 1943 (the Quebec Agreement) that stated that nuclear energy was a co-invention and that research would be freely shared. The US under Truman reneged (look it up) on that agreement and tried to keep the 'bomb' as a US monopoly. Although a nuisance to the British, this had the unforeseen advantage of forcing them to develop the areas on which they had been denied knowledge in ways along their own lines, which resulted in them 'leap-frogging' the US in several important fields.

The results of this 'leap-frogging' was the US signing the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement agreement in 1958 that re-asserted the principles of the Quebec Agreement of 1943.

BTW, amongst these areas of US benefit was in re-entry vehicles, and in warhead design and hardening against EMP. One of the many other benefits that the US gained was in receiving 3DQP which was used for the casing of ICBM re-entry vehicles.

Oh, and if you have seen photos of missile warheads in position in the missile nose cones, the sharp, cone-shaped warheads are the result of British tests using Black Knight back in the 1960s - US ReV s (ICBM warheads) prior to this were all blunt-nosed.

... oh, and one more thing:

The reason Canada is important in all this is because in 1940 when America was still trading and otherwise enjoying peaceful relations with Nazi Germany, Britain and her Empire (of which Canada was then a part) where then fighting the Battle of Britain, during-which the British and Canadian Governments had to make contingency plans should Britain be invaded as a result of what the Germans called Operation Sealion. In this scenario it had been arranged for the British Government to be re-located to Canada, from where, the war against Germany would be continued - although Churchill refused to be evacuated, he said he would remain and 'fight them in Downing Street'. In this situation, the long-term development and expense needed for an atomic weapon was thought justified and so plans had been made for the development of a suitable device to be continued in Canada, with the long-term intention (assuming that Germany was also working along similar lines) of having an atomic bomb available for use against Berlin should the need arise. So the large-scale effort carried out in the US would have instead been carried out in Canada, although due to the US involvement in the war against Nazi Germany, with Hitler's declaration of war against the US following Pearl Harbor, the respective nuclear weapons plans were subsequently merged. Thus the planned development in Canada was only partially completed, many of the intended laboratories/manufacturing sites remaining unbuilt, due to the wish to avoid 'unnecessary' duplication with sites in the US.

Oh, and another BTW, in 1940 plans were made to transfer the entire remaining UK gold and currency reserves to Canada in case of invasion, the plan being to send them by battleships. So if Britain had been invaded Canada could have afforded to build the bomb 'on its own'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"That's OK, as I can't understand why the US is given such prominence, as all they did was finance the bomb and build it. Most of the theoretical work was carried out by UK scientists..." If you are going to use this logic that UK scientists did most of the work, then Germany should be considered an crucial contributor as well, considering the groundbreaking research they contributed that was later used during this project. Ignoring your logic, American scientists contributed greatly to the research. Philip Abelson developed a practical uranium enrichment system (liquid thermal diffusion). Glenn Seaborg and Arthur Wahl discovered plutonium. Americans designed the implosion model after Emilio G. Segrè's discovery rendered the plutonium gun model impractical, and I could go on. Your claim that Americans simply financed and built it is rather ignorant. JVDnh3 04:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JVDnh3 (talk • contribs)

LOL! That's OK, as I can't understand why the US is given such prominence, as all they did was finance the bomb and build it the sarcasm I intended perhaps didn't come across on the written page. The point I was trying to make was that Canada's presumed 'lack of importance' is only due to ignorance (perhaps understandable) on the initial poster's part. The point is that for sixty years the US has been trying to maintain that 'the bomb' was a sole US invention. It wasn't, the three countries, UK, US, Canada, all contributed to the project in ways that are only coming to light with the declassification of documents in the past ten years or so. In my post above I was merely stating some facts that might not be generally known among readers. The fact is that it was the British who were the driving force behind the bomb project, and it was they who did the first actual work, in Tube Alloys. It was also they who persuaded the US Government that a bomb was not only viable but buildable in the foreseeable future. And if you don't believe me then ask J. Robert Oppenheimer - he said so.

And I think you'll find the implosion method of detonation was unusable until James L. Tuck - an Englishman - was brought in to make it work. And it was Rudolf Peierls (a German working with the British Mission) who assembled the Trinity device before it could be tested. And it was British explosives, Cordite, Baratol, etc that were used in the detonation mechanisms of both bomb types - the guys developing the methods were familiar with them as they themselves were British.

The 'bomb' was a tri-national project and the US rightly gets the credit for putting enormous resources into the building of the first bombs. But it wasn't the US that started it all - it was the British, and if the US had not entered the war then it would have been the British and Canadians who would have done it - on their own. And instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki it would most likely have been the unfortunate residents of Berlin who might have been on the receiving end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hanford site map

I like the Hanford site map, but I think it's non-illustrative now because of size. I think we could crop the top of it off, then center it and make it bigger. Also caption it to replace the info we necessarily chop (that it is a map from 1945) and also call out more of the 200E type information. I thought about moving it up in article, based on the blank spot up there in Hanford, but advise against that. I think as an illustration, when upsized and captioned properluy, that it will much better illustrate the chemical separations, and so it needs to be down here where people get that info (confusing if you move it up in article). Also, even when upsized, I can't quite make out the numbers in the red. I think if we had user Fallshirmjaeger, who is an image expert, work on tweaking the image for readability, it would take care of this.TCO (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The other option might be to move it up in article, and I guess call out more of the general features that apply to that section (like the river, the town, etc.). And then for this section, what I would love to have is a plan view diagram that shows the four different numbered parts of a given separations plant. I also want to buff up the technical description of the PROCESS (very mildly and it will make it tell a little more of an explanatory story, reads too much like words we don't quite uderstand now). An alternative might just be a graphic of the steps in the process itself (simple flow diagram). Something sort of like the diagrams we have for the bomb types (that shows how it works). I think this is an image we have to make ourselves, but I can work on it. (not trying to be unreasonable, given how stunning this article is and how much work you've done already).TCO (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I asked FS to work on the Hanover map. Can see what he comes up with. I think we might end up moving it into "site" section. Which is pretty bare. But can call out features like the railroad and the river, mentioned in adjacent text. I still have on my plate to do a process flow diagram. Gotta help out the A330 FAC though. Yours is going to pass no problem.TCO (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)