Talk:Manhattan Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Military history WikiProject     (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject New Mexico (Rated B-Class)
Flag of New Mexico.svg This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the U.S. state of New Mexico 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Tennessee (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance)
Flag of Tennessee-vert.svg
Tennessee portal
Manhattan Project is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member.
[Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject History of Science (Rated B-Class, High-importance)
Kepler-solar-system-2.gif This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Physics / History (Rated B-Class, High-importance)
BlackHole.jpg
Physics portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by History Taskforce.
WikiProject Chicago (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance)
Chicago city seal.png
Chicago portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Nuvola apps date.svg A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on December 2, 2004, December 2, 2005, December 2, 2006, and December 2, 2007.

Archives
Archive 1
Crystal Clear app file-manager.png This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Sections with no replies in 90 days are automatically moved.

Contents

[edit] Personnel

In addition to those listed in the wikiarticle, Manhattan Project personnel included:

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)

[edit] early efforts section

This article needs an "early efforts" section, which covers 1939-1942:

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)

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)

[edit] Edits

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)

I have clarified this. The reference is here on the Atomic Heritage web site JMcC (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "(Obituary) Sheldon E. Frey 1921-2007: Manhattan Project Scientist". The Penn Stater. July/August 2008. 


Thank you!

--Sci-Fi Dude (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


Here's something new...'A coded phone call from Compton saying, "The Italian navigator [referring to Fermi] has landed in the new world, the natives are friendly" to Conant in Washington, D.C., brought news of the experiment's success.' I could not find this "Conant" anywhere in the article. Anyone know who he is?

--Sci-Fi Dude (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

I agree. --Sci-Fi Dude (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems incomplete. The history section begins but once it progresses to gun type and implosion type the article is over. I think there needs a section on the entirety of the progam. Perhaps I will read a book or two on the program and come back and contribute. 130.101.14.218 (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Implosion facts?

Shouldn't the very important fact that the Manhattan Project had failed to detonate a device until British engineers led by James L Tuck flew to the US to show the team they need an implosion rather than a explosion? (This was outside of the Tube Alloys contribution.)The measly sentence covering Tuck denies his crucial contribution to the project. Isn't it about time the British contribution was brought to the light of day.See British Scientists and the Manhattan Project: The Los Alamos Years ISBN: 0312061676 [User:Twobells|Twobells]] (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Tuck was an expert on hollow charges (developed in the UK for anti-tank use), and it was his expertise that was used in the design of the implosion lens. Tuck was also the reason that British-developed explosives were used in the resulting lenses. His character (or one based on him) appears in some US TV mini-series about the Manhattan Project from, IIRC, around the 1980s/1990s, but I can't remember the name of it.
Just checked, Tuck designed the explosive lenses for the Fat Man implosion bomb. [1]
I think the TV programme I mentioned above was The Shadow Makers.
Speaking of the UK contribution I should point out that until fairly recently the UK involvement in the Manhattan Project was positively ignored in most US histories until as late as the 1980s in some cases, and it wasn't helped by many US people in high places denying any UK involvement at all, so Wikipedia (and some of the US contributors on nuclear issues) is/are at least acknowledging more than was admitted previously. Penney for example, was one of the key players in the bomb project - Groves said as-much.
The British contribution to the Manhattan Project was, in the words of Robert Oppenheimer;
I think that the fact the the British were convinced very early by Simon and Peierls probably was the greatest single factor in getting the job done when it was ... If the British Government had not been committed we might have been very much slower in this country to put the necessary resources into it ... The British at Los Alamos were very valuable. If they hadn't been there it is hard to know who would have taken their place.
And Hans Bethe thought that the British contribution to his theoretical team's work had been; essential.
Another (unnamed) American scientist suggested that the UK team's involvement had; saved a year in the making of the bomb.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.151 (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] William Friedman patents

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 to atomic fission which have been issued to independent inventors before the emergency. The CHAIRMAN. Before we got into it as a country? Captain LAVENDER. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any patent applications giving the bomb-making details in those patent applications? Captain LAVENDER. Well, I think that I had better give you that in executive session if you are going into any details of it. The CHAIRMAN. Not what details there were, but whether there were any of the details given in the patent application. You don’t want to talk about that? Captain LAVENDER. Not any more than to say that the bombs are covered by applications. The CHAIRMAN. I wonder what is the necessity for covering the bomb itself by applications for patents?

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)Gordon Jenkins, 76 chemin du Village, Luskville, QC J0X2G0 CANADA70.52.212.244 (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_F._Friedman" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.212.244 (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manhattan_Project"