This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 14:09, November 27, 2013 (JST, Heisei 25) (Refresh)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
No more units of the Little Boy specific detailed design were fully assembled for use. Gun type bombs in general is a wider category, which was used. Hope this clears it up some. Georgewilliamherbert 01:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Second paragraph reads: "Additionally, the weapon design was conceptually simple enough that it was only deemed necessary to test the gun-type assembly (known during the war as "tickling the dragon's tail"). " Should it read "test the implosion type".
I think what it meant was laboratory test (not test detonate), so I've tried to correct it. --Fastfission 14:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
No. It reads correctly. They would have no doubt tested the gun-type uranium bomb if there had been enough uranium-235 around to test, but given the shortage of U-235, they were sufficiently convinced by the "dragon's tail" experiments to drop the damn thing untested. I'm not saying their decision was wrong. On the other hand, they really needed to test the plutonium implosion weapon, not because they were unconvinced of its fissionability, but because they were unsure that the complex implosion, compressing the plutonium to critical mass, would work. Oppenheimer was aware that a full implosion test (with a dummy plutonium core) had recently misfired, but shortly before the Trinity test, he got a call from Hans Bethe who assured him that the failure was only due to a wiring problem. OutRIAAge 02:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem is that "test" is such a vague term. The gun-type mechanism *was* tested, multiple times, without the fissile U-235 core, by using dummy cores. Testing demonstrated that the critical mass was assembled sufficiently quickly, and that the massive steel casing which received the projectile would hold together under the impact. I don't know how many test firings there were, beyond a vague "at least three", but when the bomb developers found quality problems among some of the steel components delivered to them, they selected an item which had already survived multiple test firings for use in the actual combat weapon because it was of a higher quality than the alternatives on hand. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I am assuming that the sentence that started this bit was:
"Although occasionally used in later experimental devices, the gun design was only used once as a weapon because of the danger of accidental detonation."
The gun design was used only once to devastate a city and its population, as was the implosion design. Two devices used as weapons, one might argue, one of each type, and let's try and keep it that way. Lots of bombs manufactured, of course, overwhelming majority being implosion devices, almost all of them arguably weapons, none of them used intentionally to kill people or destroy their property. The quoted statement is incorrect, but just why it is incorrect depends on what you infer from "used as a weapon".Moletrouser (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
This sentence is in the Construction and Delivery section of this article:"This launched the uranium projectile towards the other end of the gun barrel at an eventual muzzle velocity of 600 feet per second (300 meters per second)." Is 600 feet really 300 meters? I thought it would come out to something more like 200 meters because a meter is about three feet. Am I wrong? Bobhultin (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of standard vs metric measurements, since Little Boy was an American invention, made in America, by American scientists who used the standard system, why is everything cited in metric first, and then converted to standard measurements? Or was this weapon made in France or Germany? Isn't this English Wikipedia, where most people are accustomed to standard measurements? Even the illustration-chart in the "Assembly details" section uses standard measurements. Press '1' for English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Why are you referring me to bias pages? I made reference to what English speaking people are mostly accustomed to. 'When in Rome ...' Here's a page you might want to review.
It was not built by Americans, but by an international team that included scientists from many countries. And yes, the Los Alamos Laboratory did use metric, as was customary in laboratories of the time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Not by Americans? None? Seems to me if they wanted to keep the project a secret they would have made efforts to use as many American scientists as possible. Easier to check their backgrounds. This is not a scientific text, or a how to fix it manual. The illustrated chart on the page uses standard measurements so wouldn't it be best if the rest of the article was consistent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
I think this article is best described as a "science" article as it pertains to WP:UNITS. Right now, the article inconsistently flips between using imperial units first and using SI units first, with some non-SI metric units such as centimeters thrown in. I suggest making the article consistent in the format "1 meter (3.3 feet)". Sound ok? VQuakr (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Not really. The article is best described as a military history article, which makes reference to some science on a superficial level. Since the illustrated chart uses standard measurements so should the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
There are few duplicate links in the article which should be removed per WP:OVERLINK. Those are: nuclear fission (in the lead), cordite, and Trinity nuclear test.
Y Removed duplicated links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Checklinks reports no problems with external links (no action required)
There are no duplicate links in the article (no action required)
All images are properly licenced and have suitable captions (no action required)
The article is stable (no action required)
Article prose is fully referenced (no action required)
At the image of the plugs, the caption says "The plug on the left may have been used in the bomb which was dropped on Hiroshima." Is there a source for that? Maybe a label at the exhibit?
I've asked Nick. They definitely are Little Boy arming plugs. Removed the claim about Hiroshima for now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
In It consisted of a stack of 9 uranium rings, each 6.25-inch (159 mm) with a 4-inch (100 mm) bore of a total length of 7 inches (180 mm), pressed together into the front end of a thin-walled projectile 413 millimetres (16.25 in) long. I'm not quite sure what the 6.25 in measurement refers to. I assume it is the diameter, but I simply cannot tell.
Y Correct. Re-worded to: "It consisted of a stack of 9 uranium rings, each 6.25-inch (159 mm) in diameter with a 4-inch (100 mm) bore in the center, and a total length of 7 inches (180 mm)" Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Name Little Boy appears 35 times in the article, 8 times enclosed in quotes and 27 times without them. I could not deduce a rule for those though. Should those be made more consistent perhaps?
Y Removed the quotes Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
There is also a mix of date formats, eg. "July 23, 1945" and "29 July" - please select one and apply it consistently.
Reading the article I got an impression that a total of 32 bombs were made: 1 dropped on Hiroshima, 6 made in Sandia and 25 by the Bureau of Ordnance, yet the infobox states 1 was built. Were the 31 made in the post-war period somehow incomplete or different, or should the infobox figure be updated?
They were incomplete. They were assemblies, but there were no uranium cores. When we talk about nuclear weapons in the 1940s and 1950s, we are really talking about bomb parts rather than bombs. They had to be assembled, because the lead-acid car batteries that powered the electronics would go flat after a few days, and the polonium in the detonators had a half life of only 138 days. (initially it was thought that this meant that they had a shelf life of four months, but Operation Sandstone in 1948 showed that older initiators could still be effective.) For legal, safety and security reasons, the cores were stored separate from the assemblies. On reflection, I have changed the number built to 32. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Great article, I thoroughly enjoyed reading and reviewing it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
All points addressed. I always like to hear that someone enjoyed reading an article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Good to go then.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)