Talk:Little Boy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 17 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashspears6284 (article contribs).

More on postwar

So we have this:

Enough fissionable material was available by 1948 to build ten projectiles and targets, although there were only enough initiators for six. However, no actual fissionable components were produced by the end of 1948, and only two outer casings were available.

Which cites Hansen 1995 (vol 5), 116-118. Hansen's text says:

By the end of 1948, there were no stockpiled fissionable components for the LITTLE BOY and only two outer casings.[123]

There were no gun-type weapon uranium targets and projectiles in the national nuclear weapons stockpile again until 1949, although by the end of 1947, enough fissionable material had been assembled to build 10 projectiles and targets. There were only enough initiators on hand for six of these potential weapons.[124]

Footnote 124 is a document that I have, which is a report for the state of things as of December 31, 1947. It has a table relating to both FM and LB weapons, which has two columns, "Accepted" and "Under test." For LB, it has a row for "Fissionable material" and indicates 10 are "under test." It also says it has 6 initiators under test. And under "Other components (in terms of complete assemblies)" it has 0.

Footnote 123 cites an unpublished talk which seems not to be digitized anywhere (so impossible to check or use), as well as the familiar DOE stockpile report, which says 2 full non-nuclear assemblies and 0 "nuclear components."

Anyway, just documenting this. My reading of the 1947 document suggests they in fact did have 10 projectile/targets cast — I don't think "under test" means they hadn't tested them, I think it means they were in quality assurance or something like that. The document does not elaborate at all — it is just a one page table, nothing more.

I admit I am a little suspicious of the DOE stockpile numbers. The DOE numbers say that the US had 29 implosion non-nuclear components, and 13 nuclear components in 1947. But the report in question says that the AEC had _50_ implosion cores (9 "pure 49 Christy", 36 "composite Christy", and 5 "levitated composite") in the "accepted category" (with 11 "under test"), 63 initiators, 44 assembled HE components (28 unassembled), 104 "other components". I don't know how to reconcile those differences except to suggest that the DOE numbers are perhaps meaning something different than we might assume they mean. Or that there's some other confusion there — the DOE list says "Fiscal Year" where as the report is about components on hand in December 1947, which is not quite the same thing. So maybe they are rolling the December 1947 data into FY 1948 (which does list 50 implosion cores). In which case, the "0" for 1948 really means for FY 1948 and not "by the end of 1948." NuclearSecrets (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hansen cites are a little mixed up

So all of the Hansen cites claim to be for the 1995 edition of Swords. But from what I can tell they are actually the 2007 edition (version 2). At some point I will make them all the same version, because the page and volume numbers are not the same between them at all. Just a note. NuclearSecrets (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Units

My understanding is that on science-related articles the metric unit should come first in the conversion. John (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You are correct. The question then becomes whether this is a science-related article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it is. Nuclear fission was the very bleeding edge of science at the time. Nobel Prizes were awarded for it, and a new element was created for it. The folks who designed them were scientists. They even called it a "physics package". What do you reckon? John (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize for Chemistry for 1944 was awarded to Otto Hahn for the discovery of nuclear fission. I currently have the article on Hahn up for review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Otto Hahn/archive1. Comments welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)