File talk:Fat man.jpg

Shadow
After several rounds of image manipulation from various users, the shadow now looks wrong - in fact it almost looks like an additional tail section. Maybe the original image wasn't pretty, but at least it was accurate. 94.195.116.163 (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Other
Fat man and little boy, two of the greatest but nasty bombs ever, er , a dropped. of freaks baybee. The dope question is this, the image of FAT MAN shows stablising fins, WHY?? The warhead (not the mother-in-law) is a ball of like material with a sphere of like material surrounding it, only one problem, the outer material doesn't like it's inner-cousin, pie shaped charges are arranged all around the sphere, the blast causes the two materials to combine, this gets the fight going and millions of atoms split causing a nasty "pop".

The funny thing is that it doesn't need to be stablised, anyway it was in aspect to the drop would have caused the same effect. thousands died, but not millions that would have died if "WE" had to flush the enemy at that time from their home country. so in a way it is like "Spock" said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.... MJB

Okay? I guess you're right, but how would the person who posted this know? ~Happyfacesrock:)


 * The stabilizing fins were definitely needed. They spent a good deal of time during WWII (in what was called Project Alberta) trying to come up with Fat Man shapes that woud not roll violently when dropped out of a bombers (which could have damaged the sensitive internal components), or go radically off target. As for your description of an implosion bomb, it is highly inaccurate, see nuclear weapon design. In any case, the Fat Man physics package is not perfectly symmetrical — as the Fat Man article illustrates, while the shaped charges are of course symmetrical the electrical equipment in the fore and aft of it give it an overall egg-like shape, which is clearly visible in the casing. --24.147.86.187 23:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)