Talk:Manhattan Project/Archive 1

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

message: Does anyone else think that the section up top about the selection of the civilian targets of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is misplaced?  The project was to produce bombs, not to select targets; that was the doing of Truman and the USAAF (if I remember correctly).  I just don't see how it's relevant to the discussion of (where, when, who, etc.) made the bombs which were later dropped.
:Well, Oppenheimer, Groves, Lawrence, Fermi, and Compton, I think, were all consulted on the question of using the weapons (on the basic question of use on "built up" targets as they were euphemistically called, or whether to just demonstrate them). Which is to say: I think it ought to be in the ideal article on the Manhattan Project, but at the moment this article doesn't even get that far through the chronology, so it is very awkward and out of place and ought to be on the page about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not the page about the Manhattan Project, which is struggling as it is to be useful as an article about the development of the first nuclear weapons. That's my take on it, anyway. --Fastfission 21:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should lose that paragraph completely from this article;it's just not that germane to this topic (which is length enough without bringing this in). Not that I'm saying we should ignore the issue, just that this isn't the right article for it. It more properly belonds in an article about the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, or in an article about the (continuing) arguments over whether they justified/etc. I would cut and paste it into the Talk: page so it's still available, if we eventually want some of it somewhere else. (I would have done but, but I didn't want to make that major a change on my first edits - I didn't know if y'all had come to some compromise over it.) Noel (talk) 15:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Targets 

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

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

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Italian navigator 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bold? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  UK invention of computers and Radar 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sick To Death 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1/6 of electrical power? 

message: 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:
#Developments in 1930s physics (done)
#WWII breaks out, British interest in bomb, Einstein letter, British motivate a few US scientists to get the ball rolling again. Take over project from Nat. Bur. Standards. (done)jghjghfjccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccu
-
Who was the original author anyway?
--Sci-Fi Dude (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving this page 

message: 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.
#Fission work at U of Chicago. Fermi's pile. Project given to Army. Becomes MED. Groves and his business style. Planning for Los Alamos. The University of California brought in.
#Construction for Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Hanford. Research at Berkeley. Emphasize scope and scale, number of sites. 
#Main difficulties of project: getting refined material, design issues. Uranium mined in Canada, US Southwest, Belgian Congo. Separation methods: electromagnetic, gaseous diffusion. Plutonium breeding at Hanford. Design goes on at Los Alamos and Project Alberta.
#Concerns about implosion. Discovery that Germans don't have the bomb. Trinity test. Truman informed, Potsdam.
#Little Boy and Fat Man, their differences and their ad hoc nature. Bombs moved to Tinian. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. End of war. Smyth Report. 
#MED's postwar actions. Operation Crossroads. The question of whether or not the bomb should be controlled by the military or a civilian committee. Atomic Energy Act of 1946. Dissolution of MED, creation of AEC. 
Suggestions/additions? Am I omitting anything or getting things mixed up? If these are all going to fit in a reasonably sized article, they should be only a few paragraphs each, which will be somewhat of a challenge, but is probably doable. --Fastfission 15:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''''MR AMERICA IS TALKING NOW'''''' 

message: Yes you are forgetting that any entry here should be supported by facts and not typical UK re-visionist history with no supporting evidence. Just because it is normal urban legend within the UK does not make it fact - even if it is anti-American
*I tried to start from scratch the other day, and found it too overwhelming. I instead have started Timeline of the Manhattan Project which ought to, by the time it gets a little more under way, cover the major events which should be mentioned in this article, and hopefully provide some structure for a narrative. Help is of course appreciated. --Fastfission 23:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''''MR AMERICA IS TALKING NOW''''' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Einstein letter photo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Keeping this article to a manageable size 

message: This site makes a mention that the Russian nuclear program was kick started by stealing from the Manhatten project. Should this get a mention? Or is it bunk? -> http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Sovwpnprog.html   ~ Si.
:It's in some other nuclear article; this article can't say everything, it's too big. The Russians didn;t inflitrate, people trusted in the project gave them the stuff. See Klaus Fuchs, German-born physicist, part of the British contingent , convicted after the war of giving secrets to an ally. (15 year sentence) Theodore Hall. Fuchs and Hall didn't know about each other, though both were at Los Alamos. Then some lower level guy, was it Greenglass ? Maybe others. One motivation was the fear of a fascist monopoly on the bomb. That is, the fear that the US would become fascist. GangofOne 23:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian spying? 

message: because we wouldn't exist. GangofOne 23:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know you get it, it's only intended to be read by those who don't get it. As far as silly goes, I don't know, but unencyclopedic , yes, the hope is that it would cause thinking, and thus get more people   familiar with the sensation. GangofOne 03:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of an encyclopedia is to inform people, not pose little riddles to them. --Fastfission 03:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're being normative. GangofOne 03:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ignition of the atmosphere was impossible....  though if Bethe had been wrong, we would never know." 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Any interest in helping out with the [[Y-12 National Security Complex]] article? 

message: Maybe some note should be given to the fact that modern parallel processing concepts were developped at this time to efficiently do the required computations for the design of the bomb (though the 'computers' were still human at this point). Just a thought. -Mr. Tachyon
*Well, there's a lot of things that came out of the project that should be discussed but currently aren't, and that's definitely one of them... --Fastfission 18:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parallel Processing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  rv last 2 edits 

message: This might be an inaccuracy--I could be wrong. Wasn't Serber of Columbia University, not the University of Illinois? There is nothing in Serber's wikipedia article to suggest he was ever at U of I.
:Serber was a Columbia professor for many years until his retirement.  I believe he was there during the relevant period but I am not sure.
Looking at the preface Serber wrote to The Los Alamos Primer, suggests it is as follows: He got his PhD from Wisconsin, was going to take a postdoc at Princeton when he met Oppenheimer and instead went to California (Berkeley and Pasadena) where he stayed until 1938, at which point he went to work at U. of I. at Urbana until 1942, when he went to Berkeley and from there Los Alamos. I've added this information to his page here. --Fastfission 20:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serber? 

message: The road cannot accelerate, it's the movement on the road that accelerates 
85.11.148.60 09:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The road towards nuclear fission accelerated in the 1930s 

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

message: I've heard that this project involved several nations?
* See section called "Similar efforts", second paragraph. JMcC 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  which countries where involved besides USA? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This is Inaccurate 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What does this sentance mean? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  British Motives 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Similar Efforts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  90 Church Street? 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's just a stub now, but it could potentially expand into a full article.  I don't see much advantage to merging this, as it will send people looking for that topic to search through a very large article (only to be disappointed by how little information they will find).--ragesoss 05:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also oppose merger, as the tiny amount of information in the article would add nothing of value to the Manhattan Project article. Either expand Military Policy Committee to a meaningful article, or delete it. --Orlady 05:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: 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)
thread_title:  military police integration 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Highly purified?? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Los Alamos site land price 

message: 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)
thread_title:  J Robert Oppenheimer 

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

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

message: Mstare88 (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FDR did know about the bomb—he started the bomb project personally. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secretcy 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, it is not true. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Nuclear Test 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's not really controversial—only conspiracy theorists worry about it. It is well-addressed in the historical literature: 1. they didn't have enough U-235 to waste on a test bomb; 2. the physics of a U-235 bomb is relatively simple compared to the physics of a plutonium bomb, which they had tested; and 3. they had very precisely determined what happens when large chunks of uranium come into contact with one another by use of criticality experiments like the famous "Tickling the Dragon"—these are a very good indicator for how a bomb of this sort would perform (not so the case with a plutonium one, which requires implosion to make more sense of). As for the possibility of it not working—they were well aware of the possibility, which is one of the reasons they didn't announce the test ahead of time. If it had not detonated with much force they would have just dropped the plutonium one in a day or two—better to drop the most chancy one first before anyone is expecting it. There was, of course, some risk that the bomb would be recovered in a way usable by the Japanese but they no doubt felt that the drop itself would probably scatter the U-235 every which-way (esp. since it would surely detonate the chemical explosive) and anyway they would probably have dropped the Fat Man bomb on Hiroshima ASAP if that had happened. Anyway, yes it was somewhat dangerous, though less than you would think; no, they did not "forget", and no, they did not have others "do it for them". --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uranium bomb never tested? 

message: In addition to those listed in the wikiarticle, Manhattan Project personnel included:
* Frey, Sheldon E.; chemist (Manhattan & Oak Ridge)
:It included around 200,000 people... we aren't going to list them all in one article. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personnel 

message: This article needs an "early efforts" section, which covers 1939-1942:
*The Einstein-Szilard letter
*The Advisory Committee on Uranium
*The comparative UK efforts
*The frustration amongst US scientists, urging from UK scientists
*Push to accelerate from an on-paper stage to a production-stage
At the moment it jumps from Einstein to the last stage, omitting the important intermediary stages. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support The earlier versions of this article (eg May 2007) had long sections (perhaps overlong) on this period. However I suppose it depends when the Manhattan Project itself actually started. Perhaps two articles are needed with the one about the early phase and one about the project starting in 1942. However it is done, an article in this series should at least mention the S-1 committee, Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls, the MAUD Committee, Mark Oliphant and Lyman Briggs. JMcC (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  early efforts section 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  William Friedman  patents 

message: 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)
replies: text: The article is titled "Manhattan Project". Its scope is wider than the MED. I think the infobox should reflect the article, not a rigid adherence to the fact that it is a MED infobox. Can't we just list Groves first as "Leslie Groves (overall Manhattan Project commander)" and then "Kenneth Nichols (District Engineer)"? (Or something less verbose that indicates the difference.) Wouldn't that be both complete and clear? We could even put a footnote there that makes it very clear, should anyone be confused. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added Groves to the infobox but retained Nichols. I think that should handle it. The article can explain their respective roles. It is correct that this article is about the overall project, not the MED per se. If this was about the MED only, then perhaps Nichols alone would be cited as commander. Perhaps the infobox should be titled "Manhattan Project" to make it consistent with the article. I think that may be the root of the problem. Figureofnine (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Appreciate your clarifying this. I think it would be helpful in the article to better distinguish between the two. I must say that I've read quite a bit on this subject and the differences between the Manhattan Project and MED never occurred to me. They tend to be treated as synonymous. Figureofnine (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reason we can't have a footnote that just explains the above in a concise form? --Mr.98 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable commanders 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Huge improvements! 

message: 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)
replies: text: I assume it is in reference to Operation Alsos, and the fact that MED officers were sent into Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the war? --Mr.98 (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's right. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now the infobox engagements include: Allied Invasion of Italy, Allied Invasion of France, Allied Invasion of Germany, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Allied Occupation of Japan. Apart from the bombings (obviously), the only one that seems justified is the occupation of Japan, and that seems tangential I don't see how Alsos figures into the invasions of France, Germany and Italy. Figureofnine (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Alsos teams participated in those campaigns. The claim to participation in the atomic bombings arises because MED personnel were crew members on board the aircraft. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly. They had some operations after Italy, France and Germany were secured. The infobox reference is confusing as it makes it seem as if members of the project were actively involved in the invasion of those countries. Figureofnine (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They were. Alsos operations were conducted before those countries were secured, while the fighting was ongoing, and at times behind enemy lines. (It looks like the Alsos article needs to be overhauled. But see Groves, Jones and Goudsmit for details.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I think that point needs to be clarified in this article too. Figureofnine (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Engagements" in Infobox 

message: "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)
replies: text: Yes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roosevelt, and  Bush? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "The use of the bombs"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Corrected the text. Thankyou. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bombing/Enola Gay Maneuvers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some interesting connections to other articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: The other option might be to move it up in article, and I guess call out more of the general features that apply to that section (like the river, the town, etc.).  And then for this section, what I would love to have is a plan view diagram that shows the four different numbered parts of a given separations plant.  I also want to buff up the technical description of the PROCESS (very mildly and it will make it tell a little more of an explanatory story, reads too much like words we don't quite uderstand now).  An alternative might just be a graphic of the steps in the process itself (simple flow diagram).  Something sort of like the diagrams we have for the bomb types (that shows how it works).  I think this is an image we have to make ourselves, but I can work on it.  (not trying to be unreasonable, given how stunning this article is and how much work you've done already).TCO (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked FS to work on the Hanover map.  Can see what he comes up with.  I think we might end up moving it into "site" section.  Which is pretty bare.  But can call out features like the railroad and the river, mentioned in adjacent text.  I still have on my plate to do a process flow diagram.  Gotta help out the A330 FAC though.  Yours is going to pass no problem.TCO (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hanford site map