Talk:Manhattan Project

Reading through the article I was confused by: "Briggs proposed spending 167,000ドル on research into uranium, particularly the uranium-235 isotope, and plutonium, which was discovered in 1940 at the University of California."

and then later:

"The properties of pure uranium-235 were relatively unknown, as were those of plutonium, which had only been discovered in February 1941 by Glenn Seaborg and his team."

In researching the source it appears clear that two seperate discoveries were made, the first being the actual substance, and the second being the subtance's properties. The first quote should be reconciled to the second and clarified by striking (削除) those (削除ここまで) and adding "the properties." TheRealStang (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

An error. They had evidence that Neptunium decayed to Plutonium, but Plutonium was not isolated until February 1941. I have corrected the text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Add Matthew Pascale Von Kolpakow from Эугвуэга Тришу фон Колпаков as page 58, line 9 says, "Мэтью Паскаль фон Колпаков работал над Манхэттенским проектом." Which translates to Russian to mean "This man. He. This man: Matthew Pascale Von Kolpakow: this. Worked on the Manhattan Project."

Could you please add this man to the Manhattan Project page? He worked between 1943 and 1944 before returning to Poland and prompting emigration of his son to Australia. And their child!

f(x) ~1,619,000,000,070,000,03 E(-e)=122445e7. KingdomofAustraliasKingSamuelI (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Aside from the fact that most Manhattan Project personnel are not notable-enough to be listed on this page (thousands of scientists and technicians worked on the Manhattan Project, and hundreds of thousands of other workers), I do not find any citations for this name at all, much less anything that confirms they work on the Manhattan Project. The source listed is unknown to me and gets zero Google hits, so even its most basic nature, or a basic citation, is impossible to discern. The name "Matthew Pascale Von Kolpakow" gets zero Google hits. The name is totally unknown to me and no searching for "Kolpakow" or "Kolpakov" or "Колпаков" among my many books and files turns up any hits of relevance. I don't know what's going on here, but this does not seem legit. If you have some clarification of the above, it might be considered, but even if the figure in question was assumed to exist and to have worked on the project (itself not established), they necessarily seem quite obscure and not warranting mention. --NuclearSecrets (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

add internal link to the name of Vannevar Bush in the final paragraph of == Origins == Nikamavrody (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

 Not done: He's already linked on his first appearance. PianoDan (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Turns out that the actual name was "Manhattan Engineer District." Many sources have it as having been called the "Manhattan Engineering District", but the more reliable sources all use "Engineer", not "Engineering" (e.g., Rhodes pp. 426-427: "Nichols' previous boss, Colonel Marshall, had worked out of an office in Manhattan (where in August he had disguised the project to build an atomic bomb behind the name Manhattan Engineer District)... On Saturday Groves drafted a letter in the name of Donald Nelson, the civilian head of the War Production Board, assigning a first-priority AAA rating to the Manhattan Engineer District";
or Gosling p. 13, "Part III: The Manhattan Engineer District."

Geoffrey.landis (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

"While the legal designation of the new district was Manhattan District, it was often referred to as the Manhattan Engineer District" Jones, Manhattan: The Army and the Atomic Bomb, p. 44 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I think the tables here should be included.

The first table is very important as the text does not adequately contrast the gap in African and North American ore production and quality. It could probably be improved by cutting the octoxide column.

The second table is understandably mostly unnecessary as these companies are defunct and mostly irrelevant to the article, but a two-row table with just compound totals is important, as it shows the relative scarcity of metal and hexafluoride which were most relevant to the program, and the more separate production of tetrachloride. Doeze (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

What if I create a new article on the Manhattan Project feed materials program? This article could then incorporate the two tables. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I think at least the first table should be included on this page, even cutting the site and company columns and Czechoslovak row. But the article is also a good idea, as it could incorporate the heavy water P9 project and the underrepresented nuclear graphite production. I would suggest Feed materials of the Manhattan Project in this case. Doeze (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have started work on the new article in my sandbox. It will be a few weeks before it is completed and I move it to the mainspace. Note that there is already an article on the P-9 Project Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't see the need for a detailed table in this overview article. If the relevant details they are meant to convey are just the orders of magnitude and U levels, those can be in the article text (and they are, in fact, although some is relegated to a note). If more specific trends are meant to be conveyed, then a graph would be better. --NuclearSecrets (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Doeze and NuclearSecrets: I have created the article on the Manhattan Project feed materials program. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]