Talk:Tube Alloys

message: it forms a new isotope U-239, and this isotope's nucleus rapidly emits an electron decaying into new element with a mass of 239 and an atomic number of 93.
I'm pretty sure there are no electrons in the nucleus of a Uranium 239 atom. Somebody who knows what they're talking about needs to check the science behind this. 58.164.129.211 23:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: If it was a US heavy water plant, why is it located in Trail, British Columbia? BC is a Canadian province. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.54.180.127 (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC heavy water requires access to lots of electric power, hence the predominance in areas of hydroelectric power (and Norway's early lead in the field), but I'm no physicist so i can't really say authoritatively. Pickle 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole Manhattan Project was a tri-national (US/UK/CAN) one - something that wasn't admitted in many US histories until comparatively recently, and so various parts of the project were carried in various places, sometimes overlapping in nationalities.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.192 (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The US heavy water plant 

message: I've seen "Tube Alloys" spelled in all caps in a few other articles related to the Manhattan Project. Is there a difference? Is one way correct and the other incorrect??Jedi Shadow 03:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From reading many essays and other books on the subject of military secret projects and operations it seems that the USA predominately spells out the name of secret projects and operations in upper case whereas Great Britain and other countries refer to the names in lower case to aid in confusing the enemy. eg "Tube Alloys" as opposed to "MANHATTEN PROJECT". TasDave 05:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tube Alloys vs. TUBE ALLOYS 

message: I have clarified the second paragraph, previously it gave far more weight than was due to French And German 'involvement.' Twobells (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Success Has Many Fathers 

message: I am pretty sure that is not the motto. I am not even sure that kind of thing would have a motto. Seems to be vandalism. Can someone confirm? 71.178.17.40 (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloody Union Jack 

message: "synthetic element plutonium"
I don't believe plutonium is synthetic, it's very rare in nature and I'm sure the plutonium used in the "Fat Man" bomb was harvested from a reactor, but the element it's self is naturally occurring. A small point perhaps but worth noting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.124.136 (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthetic? 

message: This is a significant claim.  It needs a source to stay.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.212.146 (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's got one.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean Gowing et al?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.212.146 (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Look down the bottom of the page.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This new development was also confirmed in independent work by Edwin M. McMillan and Philip Abelson at Berkeley Radiation Laboratory also in 1940. 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The phrase
"different isotopes of uranium are attracted to different temperatures."
is not acceptable to any physicist that I know.
I suggest replacing it with
"different isotopes of uranium diffuse at different speeds because of the equipartition theorem. Elulofs (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed as suggested. Thanks for this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: How come this article is so targeted? It has nearly 50,000 views in the past thirty days? Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It was on the front page yesterday. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thumbs up. Makes sense. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2020 

message: Dr Roland Edgar Slade NOT Ronald Slade 109.146.246.230 (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected. How did you know that? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Correction