Jump to content

Talk:Fat Man: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tmayes1999 (talk | contribs)
277 edits
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Fat Man/Archive 1) (bot
 
(182 intermediate revisions by 82 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WPMILHIST
{{article history
|class= B
|action1=GAN
|importance=top
|action1date=21:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
|US-task-force=yes
|action1link=Talk:Fat Man/GA1
|Weaponry-task-force=yes
|action1result=listed
|WWII-task-force=yes
|action1oldid=576907642
}}


|action2=FTC
''An event mentioned in this article is an [[Template:August 9 selected anniversaries|August 9 selected anniversary]]''
|action2date=14:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
-----
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/History of the Manhattan Project/archive1
You put ''It'd be useful to explain why the bomb was dropped, and what happened after that...'' on the [[:Fat Man|Fat Man]] page. Not the right place at all. The page should be purely technical, the politics of the drop should be elsewhere and link to Fat Man and Nuclear weapon for the technical details.
|action2result=promoted
----
Yes, maybe. But, of course, the Fat Man and Little Boy pages should link to that page (about the politics). --[[:LMS|LMS]]


|ftname=History of the Manhattan Project
Re: "used in anger" is a well known expression in English, and the replacement with "used in war" whilst technically more precise doesn't have the same prose effect. Perhaps a differenct, less ambiguous (for foreign readers) expression could be substituted. [[User:Mintguy|Mintguy]] 21:53, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
|currentstatus=GA

|topic=Warfare
I really think it should be anger, because that includes things like terrotist attacks. I'm not going to keep on changing it back after people who don't understand the term revert it. I feel like I'm having an edit war with myself. [[User:Cgs|CGS]] 22:54, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC).
|otddate=2004-08-09|otdoldid=5290233|otd2date=2005-08-09|otd2oldid=20589703|otd3date=2006-08-09|otd3oldid=68522154|otd4date=2007-08-09|otd4oldid=150101245|otd5date=2008-08-09|otd5oldid=230769755|otd6date=2009-08-09|otd6oldid=307066459|otd7date=2010-08-09|otd7oldid=378045226|otd8date=2012-08-09|otd8oldid=506477258|otd9date=2016-08-09|otd9oldid=733658955|otd10date=2018-08-09|otd10oldid=854044470

|otd11date=2021-08-09|otd11oldid=1037832527
:"Used in anger" suggests (to me) Truman got really steamed at the Japanese one day, flew off the handle and ordered the bomb dropped, i.e., "in the heat of passion", rather than the meaning you intend. Change it, i would say. [[User:Graft|Graft]] 13:41, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|1=
:I've added a little explanation for people who don't understand. [[User:Cgs|CGS]] 19:48, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC).
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|US=y|Weaponry=y|WWII=y|Aviation=y}}

{{WikiProject United States|importance=mid}}
:'''cough''' How about "deliberately used on human beings"? That pretty much cuts through the <s>BS</s> euphemisms...
{{WikiProject Japan|importance=high|history=yes}}
----
{{WikiProject Engineering|importance=high}}
found this, it needs to be fitted somewhere...too many pages for me to decide
{{WikiProject Technology}}
:Although the US insists it emptied its nuclear arsenal with Nagasaki, some Japanese are convinced the US had another core en route to Tinian.[http://www.ask.ne.jp/~hankaku/english/np7y.html] (FWIW Nuclear Weapons Archive estimates no later than Aug 20 for another bomb to be ready.[http://gawain.membrane.com/hew/Nwfaq/Nfaq8.html#nfaq8.1.5])
{{WikiProject Aviation|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y}}

}}
==Gadget==
<!-- gravity bomb dropped by plane -->
What's "gadget"? [[User:Matt Crypto|&mdash; Matt]] 04:47, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config
*"Gadget" was the code-name for the plutonium bomb tested at the [[Trinity test|Trinity Site]] in 1945. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 04:09, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 250K
== Conflicting information? ==
|counter = 1

|minthreadsleft = 2
Quote,
|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:Fat Man/Archive %(counter)d
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Nagasaki
}}

{{Broken anchors|links=
" ... It exploded 1,540 feet (469 m) above the ground almost ... "
* <nowiki>[[Fat Man#Physics package|Physics Package]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Physics package) is no longer available because it was [[Special:Diff/574519747|deleted by a user]] before. <!-- {"title":"Physics package","appear":{"revid":68044993,"parentid":68023900,"timestamp":"2006-08-06T18:32:03Z","removed_section_titles":["The Gadget"],"added_section_titles":["Physics package"]},"disappear":{"revid":574519747,"parentid":574519522,"timestamp":"2013-09-25T21:53:46Z","removed_section_titles":["Physics package"],"added_section_titles":[]}} -->

}}
The article states it " ... detonated at an altitude of about 1,800 feet (550 m) over the city ... "

Could someone check this out in more detail?

And more, the intro says: "An estimated 40,000 people were killed outright by the bombing at Nagasaki," - but the main text says: "According to most estimates, about 70,000 of Nagasaki's 240,000 residents were killed instantly". ?

=== Redundant?==
Why "second and last of two"? Don't they mean the same thing?

:Well, the "last" part implies that there were no more after it. But I think it is not entirely the best way to say that. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 17:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

::Either way they are improvements on what was there before. The facts are it was the second nuclear bomb used in warfare and to date thankfully the last. As long as that is what is conveyed all is good. 'Second and last of two' is merely a vehicle to emphasise the fact that only 2 were used, this one being the second. I'm wasn't 100% happy with it when I wrote it to be honest. Redundant? Very possibly. I don't think my version was perfect and the version without 'and last' lacks a little impact for my liking. I think we'll all know when someone nails it though.--[[User:LiamE|LiamE]] 09:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

:::I think the current version with "second of the two" is much better, no worries. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 12:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

== Drawing of Fat Man casing ==

I'm building a 1/48 scale model of Fat Man. The Nuclear Weapons Archive website has a dimensioned drawing of Fat Man here: [http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Med/Lbfm.html] . However, the resolution is not high enough to read the dimensions on the drawing.

Does anyone have a larger image of the drawing, or a copy that can be scanned?

Please contact me at petero (at) metrocast (dot) net

Thanks!

[[User:65.175.224.202|65.175.224.202]] 19:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

*Let me see what I have and I'll try to get back to you on it. I might have a higher resolution copy somewhere around here. If not, I think there is likely a copy in '' The grand experiment at Inyokern'' by J.D. Gerrard-Gough (1978), if you can find a copy of that (at a library). I'll see if I can track one down.--[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 00:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

*Also, depending on your interest, you can purchase posters of the blueprints from the [http://www.atomicmuseum.com/store/ProductItem.cfm?Category=7 National Atomic Museum online store]. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 01:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

==Gun type==
:'' It is theoretically possible to build a plutonium gun-type device, but it would need to be 19 feet long in order to allow the sub-critical masses to be fused into a critical mass before a fizzle occurs.''

It is not clear whether this applies for the purest plutonium (probably), or the kind that was available.--[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] 01:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

*Hmm, I don't know, but the added length would, I imagine, serve to allow the pieces to pick up speed. If they were fast enough, I assume they would be able to combine reasonably well before the reaction completed. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 02:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

::Considering that the [[spontaneous fission]] rate depends very much on the purity of the plutonium, giving a precise figure like 19 feet without mentioning the purity is odd. The sentence by itself would suggest that what is meant is "for the purest possible plutonium", but in context it is suggested that it applies for the impure kind that was available. Any sources?--[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] 08:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

::::After writing this I noticed that very pure plutonium was available (and used later), only not as pure as produced at Berkeley.--[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] 03:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

:::It was me that made that contribution. I don't have a source for the purity of the plutonium, but I can easily ask the guy who told me about the 19 ft length (and who worked in nuclear targetting research and therefore knows what he is talking about). I'll come back to you when I have the answer. [[User:David Newton|David Newton]] 09:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

::::19 ft ''sounds'' to me like the right number for what they calculated during the war based on the Hanford plutonium, but I can check on that. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 18:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::I added a calculation, which would suggest that the last few centimeters would have to be travelled in preferably much less than 40 microseconds, i.e. a speed of "much" more than ca. 1000 m/s. Considering that [[muzzle velocity]] can be up to 1,800 m/s, it may indeed just be possible.--[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] 00:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

:::I've got a preliminary answer. The exact values are classified (for good reason), although I would imagine that anyone with much of a background in nuclear physics could come up with a ballpark figure based on things like neutron cross-section fairly easily. The guy's going to find a public domain figure. Beyond that, he said that assuming that the grade of plutonium used in this hypothetical massive gun-type device would be the same as the grade used in an implosion-type device. [[User:David Newton|David Newton]] 18:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

== No hilly terrain but US flight crew incompetence! ==

>Because of Nagasaki's hilly terrain, the damage was somewhat less extensive than that in relatively flat Hiroshima

This is bullshit. The reduced damage was because the B-29 crew badly messed up the targetting, they were in fact lucky to find Nagasaki at all. Eventually they dropped the A-bomb using radar aiming, not visuals due to clouds. They were a full nine kilometers (six miles) off course and pretty much dropped their nuke onto no-man's land! But the 21 kiloton bomb was so powerful it still managed to destroy much of Nagasaki and kill a hundred thousand people or more to this day. [[User:195.70.32.136|195.70.32.136]] 10:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

:It's true that the mission was practically botched, but the terrain did definitely play the primary factor in the focusing of the blast. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 23:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The mission was fortuitously "botched". When the crew reached Okinawa, the first thing Ashworth, the weaponeer, did was to go to Gen. Doolittle's HQ to request to make a strike report. He was advised by Doolittle that "I'm sure that Gen. Spaatz (waiting on Tinian) will be happier that you dropped the bomb on the valley and not the city". The mission achieved its end, which was to detonate a second weapon on a Japanese city. The mistakes encountered--a malfunctioning fuel transfer pump, a change in cruising altitude, the forty minute wait for Hopkins, the three runs at Kokura--all conspired to create the fuel consumption crisis aboard Bockscar and were the grist of flying in combat. Things beak down and you adjust. They adjusted. Ashworth's decision to initiate a radar bomb run (in violation of the field order) instead of dropping Fat Man into the sea is to me one of the more unsung but critical decisions of the war.--Buckboard 02:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

== two pictures ==

Is it really necessary to have two pictures describing the interior of the bomb? --[[User:Jontsang|Jontsang]] 19:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

*One illustrates the concept. The other illustrates how these sorts of things work out in practice. I think they have sufficiently different goals, and as a consequence look pretty different from one another at a functional level. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 20:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

== Picture of drop? ==

The page for Little Boy has a picture of its drop and subsequent mushroom cloud. There exists a similar picture for Fat Man (found here[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nagasakibomb.jpg]). Is there any specific reason it's not on this page? [[User:Vicious Blayd|Vicious Blayd]] 08:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

:Probably because there isn't a lot of room for it. We'd have to remove the Bockscar image, I suppose. Personally I'm not opposed to it — a picture of an bomber is not as interesting to me. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 13:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious about why there's an image of a model of the bomb? It's not the real thing which exploded in Nagasaki. [[User:84.230.251.132|84.230.251.132]] 03:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

:I think you're misinterpretting what "model" means here. It doesn't mean "miniature scale" or "false version", it means it is another "Fat Man" bomb produced postwar (they made a number of them). But yes, as it indicates it is not the same Fat Man which was dropped on Nagasaki (and has some slight design differences, i.e. it does not have contact fuses). In any case, this picture is the most classic of the bomb (it was the first released to the press in the 1960s), and is the best one we have on the Wiki at the moment. While there are some pictures of the actual Nagasaki Fat Man itself out there (i.e. [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/fat-man-1.jpg]) most of them either have lots of half-naked guys running around them (which I find visually distracting) or are of a lower resolution (or have washed-out lighting). But I don't personally care too much, if others feel otherwise. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 13:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

== re: section "Physics package" ==


== Assembly section contradiction? ==
Would someone please (gently) color code the explanations to match each parts of the diagram above? It would look ever so purty and would be a lot easier to read :) --[[User:Geekybroad|<font color="#1E9229">''geekyßroad''</font>]][[User talk:Geekybroad|<sup><font color="#6B3E99">. meow?''</font></sup>]] 06:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


At the bottom of the color key in the Assembly section is a note that indicates the uranium tamper contributed up to 20 percent of the weapon's final yield. A paragraph following then seems to contradict this saying the uranium tamper contributed 30 percent. Is this a misread on my part, a broad approximation, or something else? Each seems to cite a difference source. Even if I misread it still seems confusing. Maybe this could be generalized into "20-30%" kind of compromise? [[User:StrontiumDogs|StrontiumDogs]] ([[User talk:StrontiumDogs|talk]]) 22:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
*No problem. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 13:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
: Checked both sources in case it was a typo. Both are correctly cited. But Wellerstein cites a more recent and comprehensive source, so used the 30% figure. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 23:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


== Edit request for the "Bombing of Nagasaki - Assembly" section ==
==Name==
I remember being told as a child that Fat Man was named after Churchill and Little Boy after Truman, or that people associated the names with those two. The article lists a book as saying where the names really came from (which I can't access as I'm not in the States). Was this story just something an adult made up to satisfy a WhywhyWhywhyWhy kid, or is this a common misconception? Any info'd be great. [[User:Gaviidae|Gaviidae]] 07:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
____________________________________________________________________________________________
It is not certian that the "soccor ball" high explosive configuration was actually used in the
Fat Man Atomic Bomb .I have seen the actual Blue prints of the Fat Man Device. They show a hollow
steel metal sphere filled with up to 2500 kg of preparation B being used to trigger the Fat Man.
The instructions given to the technicians for assembly of the gadget:on July 16,1945 specificly instructed, the technicians to place a hypodermic needle in the dome cap and inject liquid high explosive (preperation B) into the 60 inch diameter steel hollow sphere.This was done to assemble the high explosive trigger.These Instructions also specificly instructed the technicians to place 32 high explosive detonators symmetricaly, on the outside of the steel sphere, and raise it on top of the 100 foot tower.This was done with a crane.The steel sphere had a handle on it for this. The steel sphere was assembled by bolting steel sections together at the tower before injecting the high explosive into it.


I propose the line "The cores were transported to North Field" in the first paragraph of this section should be changed to "The assemblies were transported to North Field". There was only one plutonium core involved, addressed earlier in the paragraph. This part refers to the three pre-assemblies with no fissile material, for which I believe the term "core" to be inaccurate. I'm making the request here due to the article being protected. [[Special:Contributions/88.193.155.226|88.193.155.226]] ([[User talk:88.193.155.226|talk]]) 05:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
"Soccor ball" configurations of interlocking plastic bonded explosives connected together by adhesives are used to trigger many modern nuclear weapons fission primarys.I think the "soccor ball", high explosive configuration was not used until the first PBXs were invented & used to trigger nuclear weapons after the year 1956.***In 1945 PBXS had not been invented yet & high explosive shaped charges using castable explosives were in fact only newly invented to make anti-tank shells as of the year 1942 .
Timothy J Mayes
__________________________________________________________________________________

Latest revision as of 12:09, 8 October 2024

Good articleFat Man has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Featured topic starFat Man is part of the History of the Manhattan Project series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 12, 2013Good article nomineeListed
May 29, 2018Featured topic candidatePromoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 9, 2004, August 9, 2005, August 9, 2006, August 9, 2007, August 9, 2008, August 9, 2009, August 9, 2010, August 9, 2012, August 9, 2016, August 9, 2018, and August 9, 2021.
Current status: Good article

Assembly section contradiction?

[edit]

At the bottom of the color key in the Assembly section is a note that indicates the uranium tamper contributed up to 20 percent of the weapon's final yield. A paragraph following then seems to contradict this saying the uranium tamper contributed 30 percent. Is this a misread on my part, a broad approximation, or something else? Each seems to cite a difference source. Even if I misread it still seems confusing. Maybe this could be generalized into "20-30%" kind of compromise? StrontiumDogs (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checked both sources in case it was a typo. Both are correctly cited. But Wellerstein cites a more recent and comprehensive source, so used the 30% figure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request for the "Bombing of Nagasaki - Assembly" section

[edit]

I propose the line "The cores were transported to North Field" in the first paragraph of this section should be changed to "The assemblies were transported to North Field". There was only one plutonium core involved, addressed earlier in the paragraph. This part refers to the three pre-assemblies with no fissile material, for which I believe the term "core" to be inaccurate. I'm making the request here due to the article being protected. 88.193.155.226 (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fat_Man&oldid=1250088031"