Talk:Tube Alloys

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lupus-Lobo-Losa-Lykos.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Skylab1995.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
it forms a new isotope U-239, and this isotope's nucleus rapidly emits an electron decaying into new element with a mass of 239 and an atomic number of 93.

I'm pretty sure there are no electrons in the nucleus of a Uranium 239 atom. Somebody who knows what they're talking about needs to check the science behind this. 58.164.129.211 23:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

A nucleus can emit an electron. They are known as Beta particles. JMcC 13:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The US heavy water plant
If it was a US heavy water plant, why is it located in Trail, British Columbia? BC is a Canadian province. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.54.180.127 (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC).


 * IIRC heavy water requires access to lots of electric power, hence the predominance in areas of hydroelectric power (and Norway's early lead in the field), but I'm no physicist so i can't really say authoritatively. Pickle 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole Manhattan Project was a tri-national (US/UK/CAN) one - something that wasn't admitted in many US histories until comparatively recently, and so various parts of the project were carried in various places, sometimes overlapping in nationalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.192 (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Tube Alloys vs. TUBE ALLOYS
I've seen "Tube Alloys" spelled in all caps in a few other articles related to the Manhattan Project. Is there a difference? Is one way correct and the other incorrect??Jedi Shadow 03:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Much of my information comes from Richard Rhodes's Pulitzer Prize winning book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb". I regard it as definitive. In it, Tube Alloys has its two initial letters capitalised. However in correspondence at the time, it was sometimes all in lower case to give the impression that the subject was nothing more special than a generic material. The current title and its case is correct. However MAUD is correctly capitalised as if it was an acronym, but it did not stand for anything other than Bohr's sons' governess. I think the confusion arises because some people think that all projects should be in upper case. JMcC 07:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * From reading many essays and other books on the subject of military secret projects and operations it seems that the USA predominately spells out the name of secret projects and operations in upper case whereas Great Britain and other countries refer to the names in lower case to aid in confusing the enemy. eg "Tube Alloys" as opposed to "MANHATTEN PROJECT". TasDave 05:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Success Has Many Fathers
I have clarified the second paragraph, previously it gave far more weight than was due to French And German 'involvement.' Twobells (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Bloody Union Jack
I am pretty sure that is not the motto. I am not even sure that kind of thing would have a motto. Seems to be vandalism. Can someone confirm? 71.178.17.40 (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Synthetic?
"synthetic element plutonium"

I don't believe plutonium is synthetic, it's very rare in nature and I'm sure the plutonium used in the "Fat Man" bomb was harvested from a reactor, but the element it's self is naturally occurring. A small point perhaps but worth noting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.124.136 (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed, but not sure about the rest of the sentence either. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This new development was also confirmed in independent work by Edwin M. McMillan and Philip Abelson at Berkeley Radiation Laboratory also in 1940.
This is a significant claim. It needs a source to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.212.146 (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And it's got one.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Gowing et al? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.212.146 (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Look down the bottom of the page.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Shinkolobwe mine.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2020
The phrase "different isotopes of uranium are attracted to different temperatures." is not acceptable to any physicist that I know. I suggest replacing it with "different isotopes of uranium diffuse at different speeds because of the equipartition theorem. Elulofs (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Changed as suggested. Thanks for this. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How come this article is so targeted? It has nearly 50,000 views in the past thirty days? Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It was on the front page yesterday. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thumbs up. Makes sense. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Name Correction
Dr Roland Edgar Slade NOT Ronald Slade 109.146.246.230 (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Corrected. How did you know that? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)