This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chicago Pile-1 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Chicago Pile-1 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Chicago Pile-1 is part of the History of the Manhattan Project series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 2, 2017. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Arthur Compton was copied or moved into Chicago Pile-1 with this edit on 18:28 Nov. 20, 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
How can CP-1 be the first reactor (first critical in later 1942), when the Leipzig Pile L-IV already had an criticality accident on June 23 1942? -- 46.5.104.58 ( talk) 06:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
According to this article that appeared in the new Scientist magazine, there were two primary control systems for the control rods, one electrically controlled with a knob/variable resistor from the balcony and the other titled "zip" (probably so named due to the sound wire makes when running over a pulley at an accelerating rate) under the watchful eye of the SCRAM man/axe man to cut the line/wire.
While for finer control of the neutron rate than the electrically operated dial or knob system may have provided, George Weil operated the last "rod" or more accurately a plank. Incrementally inching it out with Fermi overlooking his progress. So there were 3 human operated control "rods" in total.
Secondly, the call for lunch at 11:30 was not random as the article in its present state suggests, but occurred right after the automated control system dropped a control rod into the fail-safe postion, doing so because it was set on too fine a hair trigger/too sensitive to neutron rates. So you see, they were slowly ramping up the reactor to a self-sustaining point and then all of a sudden this safety system wipes out all their work! So it was time to take a break and start all over again! As it was, it appears they were 2nd time lucky. Who needs to wait for third anyway?
See the bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2.
http://www.waltpatterson.org/georgeweil.pdf New Scientist 30 November 1972
Moreover the paper "The first reactor" published on the 40th anniversary in 1982 also has similar info. Along with the galvanometer chart of neutron intensity, or in the authors poetic terms, the reactors "birth certificate".
185.51.75.43 ( talk) 12:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The documentation of the building and operation of the pile described bricks of (processed) Uranium Oxide (which the Oxygen in the Oxide would be similar in moderation capability as the graphite) and some Uranium. Phrase "neutron-producing uranium pellets" is scientifically inaccurate, doesn't appear in the documentation. Purified Uranium (with decay products found in ore removed) is essentially non-radioactive: the radiation counts for natural Uranium are masked by natural radioactivity from Cosmic Rays, Potassium-40, et al. U-238, 99.2752% natural abundance, radioactive half life is about the age of the Earth. Of the small number of Uranium atopms that do decay, most decay by alpha emmission and only less than .01% by spontaneous fission (which emits neutrons). A neutron source (Berylium/Polonium probably; Little Boy:"Polonium for the initiators") was introduced to initiate reaction, standard practice for all Uranium reactors. Plutonium on the other hand with a 24,000 yr half life and typically decays by spontaneous fission, is its own neutron source and does not need initiation. References:
Shjacks45 ( talk) 14:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chicago Pile-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Just a point of discussion. My father was part of, and possibly in charge of the navy detail at this reactor. Please Discuss the small navy security detail, and its report to the Pentagon. We have a family photo of him discussing the results with the Pentagon. He was a chief petty officer, later on the Bunker hill. Is this verifiable? His name was Louis F Haas. Till his dying day, he did not discuss this, but i know from his brother (who had security clearance in WW2) this was true. Thanks
daniel L Haas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.19.35 ( talk) 18:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chicago Pile-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chicago Pile-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The story that SCRAM referred to a "safety control rod axe man" is apocryphal and has no sources whatsoever. There are numerous sources for this being nothing more than an urban legend, I would like to point to this one in particular, where a historian apparently spoke to several scientists who were present the day of the test: https://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2011/05/17/putting-the-axe-to-the-scram-myth/
I am confused about why the article seems to refer to the axe-man story as fact and refers to it in several places, without any sources. Sopwerdna ( talk) 03:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chicago Pile-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there a good reason this article uses DMY dates like "2 December 1942" rather than MDY dates like "December 2, 1942"? The latter is suggested by MOS:DATETIES. — BarrelProof ( talk) 05:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
On a scientific article, why are we using imperial units first? To most of our target audience, degrees Fahrenheit are as useful as ells. -- John ( talk) 13:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
The fact that it fired in 1942 is major, and so should be in top of the lead. - DePiep ( talk) 00:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
1942 only appears in sentence FOUR. How is that bring "first"? DePiep ( talk) 01:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure the equation for critical radius in the Design section is incorrect. The units don't even work. It's got length on the left and area on the right hand side. I can't seem to find the reference online, or I'd fix it myself. Could someone check this? Fcrary ( talk) 21:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Having just finished a biography of Meitner by Rife, one observation I had about the introductory paragraphs/sections is that the basic motivation behind the pile was the wartime panic and the thought that the Nazis would get an atomic bomb. This was a serious driving force behind the quick developments, together with a healthy dose of early self-censorship to keep the basic facts of nuclear processes away from the Nazis. Most of the immigrant scientists were Jewish (or in the case of Fermi had Jewish family) and knew both the science and the situation in Europe. The article could use a bit of development to indicate this panic, the pressure to develop a weapon first, and the need for secrecy. The Curies were asked not to publish their results, but they published on the chain reaction anyways in 1939 - perhaps the last open publication on that subject until after the war. Their lab was subsequently shipped wholesale to Germany, I believe.
The Hahn-Meitner story and fission is complicated, of course. The collaboration was still in place in December 1938, however, with Hahn repeatedly asking Meitner for help with interpretation. The theoretical analysis on fission was done in December 1938 (on a walk in the Swedish woods), but for awkward reasons, the beans were spilled and the paper's publication was delayed. So you had the Columbia experiment going already in January 1939 before the Meitner-Frisch paper appears (because Bohr had an advance copy of their paper that he had brought across the Atlantic on a ship, etc.) - the instant excitement in the U.S. was due to the Meitner-Frisch physical explanation that had been leaked. In any case, I think we should strive to show that Meitner gets proper credit for the discovery, Nobel Prize oversight notwithstanding.
The article I've been working on is Discovery of the neutron, which may warrant a "See also" from this article. Bdushaw ( talk) 10:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I've made some edits to the lead. The previous version had a lot of information that was not particularly relevant (e.g., weights of materials given in multiple units of measure), and lacked a lot of information that was needed in order to put the project in perspective and explain its significance. For example, it had lacked any mention of the fact that the uranium was not enriched.-- 76.169.116.244 ( talk) 05:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
If we need a note to the lead make a note about what occurred billions of years ago make a note, but not that undue digression for this article. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 22:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
So "fanboy" is a gratuitous insult, and reflects a parochial view that the only real reactors are those designed by nuclear engineers. In the scientific community (physics, geology), Oklo is well known as a natural reactor. I'm open to compromise on how to explain the qualification that CP-1 was the first artificial reactor, but the "see also" link is clearly insufficient because it is disconnected from the use of the term and its presence is unexplained. NPguy ( talk) 03:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Some explanation is needed. If you don't want it in a footnote to the lede (where is't not really that that prominent or distracting) and "see also" is insufficient, maybe you can suggest another place for it. NPguy ( talk) 02:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I recently made an edit to the page changing "University of California" to "University of California, Berkeley", because UC Berkeley is no longer referred to as the "University of California", which only refers to the university system. This edit was reverted by {u|EEng}.
Historically, UC Berkeley was referred to as the University of California, but since its renaming in 1958 and the founding of the University of California (the school system), Berkeley is no longer referred to as the University of California. Doing so is ambiguous and incorrect. This is why I made this edit.
The passage in question refers specifically to UC Berkeley because, at the time, the University of California was UC Berkeley. Emilio Segrè and Glenn Seaborg were not scientists in the UC system, they were scientists at UC Berkeley.
I know anecdotal evidence isn't suitable for an encyclopedia, but after living in California for 18 years, doing research with some of the UCs, applying to UC Berkeley itself, I can say for certain that UC Berkeley is not called the University of California. All of this can be verified by reading the sources, or knowing anything about the way the university system in California works.
{{u|
Rey_grschel}} {
Talk}
20:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Rey_grschel}} {
Talk}
21:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)its renaming in 1958 and the founding of the University of California (the school system). There is one president, one board of regents, and – though the phrase University system lends bureaucratically desirable ambiguity on the question of whether each campus is itself a "university" controlling its own affairs – one university. E Eng 20:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Rey_grschel}} {
Talk}
21:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Rey_grschel}} {
Talk}
21:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Rey_grschel}} {
Talk}
21:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Rey_grschel}} {
Talk}
21:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Rey_grschel}} {
Talk}
21:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Rey_grschel}} {
Talk}
23:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Rey_grschel}} {
Talk}
23:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Hallo!: If Neutrons are 'discrete' particles, meaning it exist in units, not in fractions of units: How can be said a Uranium atom emits in fission an average of 2.4 neutrons? You can indicate this type of figures as an average for a mass of several atoms, but from a single atom, simply, neutrons can not be fractioned, or exploded, or smashed or cut or broken. Could it? Blessings +
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chicago Pile-1 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Chicago Pile-1 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Chicago Pile-1 is part of the History of the Manhattan Project series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 2, 2017. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Arthur Compton was copied or moved into Chicago Pile-1 with this edit on 18:28 Nov. 20, 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
How can CP-1 be the first reactor (first critical in later 1942), when the Leipzig Pile L-IV already had an criticality accident on June 23 1942? -- 46.5.104.58 ( talk) 06:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
According to this article that appeared in the new Scientist magazine, there were two primary control systems for the control rods, one electrically controlled with a knob/variable resistor from the balcony and the other titled "zip" (probably so named due to the sound wire makes when running over a pulley at an accelerating rate) under the watchful eye of the SCRAM man/axe man to cut the line/wire.
While for finer control of the neutron rate than the electrically operated dial or knob system may have provided, George Weil operated the last "rod" or more accurately a plank. Incrementally inching it out with Fermi overlooking his progress. So there were 3 human operated control "rods" in total.
Secondly, the call for lunch at 11:30 was not random as the article in its present state suggests, but occurred right after the automated control system dropped a control rod into the fail-safe postion, doing so because it was set on too fine a hair trigger/too sensitive to neutron rates. So you see, they were slowly ramping up the reactor to a self-sustaining point and then all of a sudden this safety system wipes out all their work! So it was time to take a break and start all over again! As it was, it appears they were 2nd time lucky. Who needs to wait for third anyway?
See the bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2.
http://www.waltpatterson.org/georgeweil.pdf New Scientist 30 November 1972
Moreover the paper "The first reactor" published on the 40th anniversary in 1982 also has similar info. Along with the galvanometer chart of neutron intensity, or in the authors poetic terms, the reactors "birth certificate".
185.51.75.43 ( talk) 12:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The documentation of the building and operation of the pile described bricks of (processed) Uranium Oxide (which the Oxygen in the Oxide would be similar in moderation capability as the graphite) and some Uranium. Phrase "neutron-producing uranium pellets" is scientifically inaccurate, doesn't appear in the documentation. Purified Uranium (with decay products found in ore removed) is essentially non-radioactive: the radiation counts for natural Uranium are masked by natural radioactivity from Cosmic Rays, Potassium-40, et al. U-238, 99.2752% natural abundance, radioactive half life is about the age of the Earth. Of the small number of Uranium atopms that do decay, most decay by alpha emmission and only less than .01% by spontaneous fission (which emits neutrons). A neutron source (Berylium/Polonium probably; Little Boy:"Polonium for the initiators") was introduced to initiate reaction, standard practice for all Uranium reactors. Plutonium on the other hand with a 24,000 yr half life and typically decays by spontaneous fission, is its own neutron source and does not need initiation. References:
Shjacks45 ( talk) 14:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chicago Pile-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Just a point of discussion. My father was part of, and possibly in charge of the navy detail at this reactor. Please Discuss the small navy security detail, and its report to the Pentagon. We have a family photo of him discussing the results with the Pentagon. He was a chief petty officer, later on the Bunker hill. Is this verifiable? His name was Louis F Haas. Till his dying day, he did not discuss this, but i know from his brother (who had security clearance in WW2) this was true. Thanks
daniel L Haas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.19.35 ( talk) 18:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chicago Pile-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chicago Pile-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The story that SCRAM referred to a "safety control rod axe man" is apocryphal and has no sources whatsoever. There are numerous sources for this being nothing more than an urban legend, I would like to point to this one in particular, where a historian apparently spoke to several scientists who were present the day of the test: https://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2011/05/17/putting-the-axe-to-the-scram-myth/
I am confused about why the article seems to refer to the axe-man story as fact and refers to it in several places, without any sources. Sopwerdna ( talk) 03:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chicago Pile-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there a good reason this article uses DMY dates like "2 December 1942" rather than MDY dates like "December 2, 1942"? The latter is suggested by MOS:DATETIES. — BarrelProof ( talk) 05:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
On a scientific article, why are we using imperial units first? To most of our target audience, degrees Fahrenheit are as useful as ells. -- John ( talk) 13:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
The fact that it fired in 1942 is major, and so should be in top of the lead. - DePiep ( talk) 00:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
1942 only appears in sentence FOUR. How is that bring "first"? DePiep ( talk) 01:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure the equation for critical radius in the Design section is incorrect. The units don't even work. It's got length on the left and area on the right hand side. I can't seem to find the reference online, or I'd fix it myself. Could someone check this? Fcrary ( talk) 21:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Having just finished a biography of Meitner by Rife, one observation I had about the introductory paragraphs/sections is that the basic motivation behind the pile was the wartime panic and the thought that the Nazis would get an atomic bomb. This was a serious driving force behind the quick developments, together with a healthy dose of early self-censorship to keep the basic facts of nuclear processes away from the Nazis. Most of the immigrant scientists were Jewish (or in the case of Fermi had Jewish family) and knew both the science and the situation in Europe. The article could use a bit of development to indicate this panic, the pressure to develop a weapon first, and the need for secrecy. The Curies were asked not to publish their results, but they published on the chain reaction anyways in 1939 - perhaps the last open publication on that subject until after the war. Their lab was subsequently shipped wholesale to Germany, I believe.
The Hahn-Meitner story and fission is complicated, of course. The collaboration was still in place in December 1938, however, with Hahn repeatedly asking Meitner for help with interpretation. The theoretical analysis on fission was done in December 1938 (on a walk in the Swedish woods), but for awkward reasons, the beans were spilled and the paper's publication was delayed. So you had the Columbia experiment going already in January 1939 before the Meitner-Frisch paper appears (because Bohr had an advance copy of their paper that he had brought across the Atlantic on a ship, etc.) - the instant excitement in the U.S. was due to the Meitner-Frisch physical explanation that had been leaked. In any case, I think we should strive to show that Meitner gets proper credit for the discovery, Nobel Prize oversight notwithstanding.
The article I've been working on is Discovery of the neutron, which may warrant a "See also" from this article. Bdushaw ( talk) 10:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I've made some edits to the lead. The previous version had a lot of information that was not particularly relevant (e.g., weights of materials given in multiple units of measure), and lacked a lot of information that was needed in order to put the project in perspective and explain its significance. For example, it had lacked any mention of the fact that the uranium was not enriched.-- 76.169.116.244 ( talk) 05:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
If we need a note to the lead make a note about what occurred billions of years ago make a note, but not that undue digression for this article. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 22:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
So "fanboy" is a gratuitous insult, and reflects a parochial view that the only real reactors are those designed by nuclear engineers. In the scientific community (physics, geology), Oklo is well known as a natural reactor. I'm open to compromise on how to explain the qualification that CP-1 was the first artificial reactor, but the "see also" link is clearly insufficient because it is disconnected from the use of the term and its presence is unexplained. NPguy ( talk) 03:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Some explanation is needed. If you don't want it in a footnote to the lede (where is't not really that that prominent or distracting) and "see also" is insufficient, maybe you can suggest another place for it. NPguy ( talk) 02:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I recently made an edit to the page changing "University of California" to "University of California, Berkeley", because UC Berkeley is no longer referred to as the "University of California", which only refers to the university system. This edit was reverted by {u|EEng}.
Historically, UC Berkeley was referred to as the University of California, but since its renaming in 1958 and the founding of the University of California (the school system), Berkeley is no longer referred to as the University of California. Doing so is ambiguous and incorrect. This is why I made this edit.
The passage in question refers specifically to UC Berkeley because, at the time, the University of California was UC Berkeley. Emilio Segrè and Glenn Seaborg were not scientists in the UC system, they were scientists at UC Berkeley.
I know anecdotal evidence isn't suitable for an encyclopedia, but after living in California for 18 years, doing research with some of the UCs, applying to UC Berkeley itself, I can say for certain that UC Berkeley is not called the University of California. All of this can be verified by reading the sources, or knowing anything about the way the university system in California works.
{{u|
Rey_grschel}} {
Talk}
20:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Rey_grschel}} {
Talk}
21:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)its renaming in 1958 and the founding of the University of California (the school system). There is one president, one board of regents, and – though the phrase University system lends bureaucratically desirable ambiguity on the question of whether each campus is itself a "university" controlling its own affairs – one university. E Eng 20:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Rey_grschel}} {
Talk}
21:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Rey_grschel}} {
Talk}
21:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Rey_grschel}} {
Talk}
21:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Rey_grschel}} {
Talk}
21:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Rey_grschel}} {
Talk}
21:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Rey_grschel}} {
Talk}
23:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Rey_grschel}} {
Talk}
23:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Hallo!: If Neutrons are 'discrete' particles, meaning it exist in units, not in fractions of units: How can be said a Uranium atom emits in fission an average of 2.4 neutrons? You can indicate this type of figures as an average for a mass of several atoms, but from a single atom, simply, neutrons can not be fractioned, or exploded, or smashed or cut or broken. Could it? Blessings +