This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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?
I think it should read
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
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.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
- Who was the original author anyway?
-- Sci-Fi Dude ( talk) 21:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
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.
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)
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'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
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)
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.
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)
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)
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.
because we wouldn't exist. GangofOne 23:21, 21 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)
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)
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
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)
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.
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 cannot accelerate, it's the movement on the road that accelerates 85.11.148.60 09:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
I've heard that this project involved several nations?
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)
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.
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
NO MERGE- WikiLuke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.208.190 ( talk) 09:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
In addition to those listed in the wikiarticle, Manhattan Project personnel included:
This article needs an "early efforts" section, which covers 1939-1942:
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)
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)
{{
cite magazine}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It's not just the commander. A number of other items in the infobox would be different:
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)
"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:
Hawkeye7 ( talk) 00:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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) |
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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?
I think it should read
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
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.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
- Who was the original author anyway?
-- Sci-Fi Dude ( talk) 21:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
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.
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)
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'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
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)
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.
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)
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)
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.
because we wouldn't exist. GangofOne 23:21, 21 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)
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)
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
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)
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.
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 cannot accelerate, it's the movement on the road that accelerates 85.11.148.60 09:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
I've heard that this project involved several nations?
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)
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.
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
NO MERGE- WikiLuke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.208.190 ( talk) 09:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
In addition to those listed in the wikiarticle, Manhattan Project personnel included:
This article needs an "early efforts" section, which covers 1939-1942:
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)
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)
{{
cite magazine}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It's not just the commander. A number of other items in the infobox would be different:
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)
"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:
Hawkeye7 ( talk) 00:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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) |
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)