Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/X-10 Graphite Reactor


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

X-10 Graphite Reactor

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

The world's second nuclear reactor, after Chicago Pile-1/Chicago Pile-2. The X-10 Graphite Reactor was part of a plutonium semiworks, a pilot plant for for the larger production facility at the Hanford Site. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support I recently reviewed this article for GA, and consider it meets the A-Class criteria. I have reviewed the images, and consider they are all appropriately licensed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Support: Looks excellent to me. Not a lot leapt out. I made a couple of incredibly minor tweaks, and have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * images seem appropriately licenced (no action required);
 * coverage and referencing look ok to me (no action required);
 * "construct the first atomic bombs" (move the link for atomic bomb from here to the first mention in the previous section);
 * "clad in aluminium" --> In US English, should it be "clad in aluminum"?
 * caps: "creating an Implosion-type nuclear weapon" --> "creating an implosion-type nuclear weapon"?
 * in the Notes: "National Historic Landmark summary listing" --> "National Historic Landmark Summary Listing"?
 * in the References: is there a place of publication for the Holl, Hewlett & Harris work?
 * ✅ All points addressed. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments: As always, feel free to revert. I've copyedited down to Site selection and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Anotherclown (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - some minor points:
 * "Both Compton and the director of the Manhattan Project, Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves, Jr., proposed..." Groves is actually first mentioned by last name only in the paragraph above this so should probably be introduced with rank, surname etc there (per WP:SURNAME).
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "By March 1944, there were some 1,500 people working at X-10." Is March correct here, or should it be May? Its just in the previous sentence mentions the permanent staff beginning to arrive in April.
 * ✅ March 1944 is correct; the previous sentence should have said April 1943. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Possible typo here: "One of the most significant discovery...", consider instead "One of the most significant discoveries..."
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * First some minor non-blocking stuff:


 * I am still concerned that the naming of the reactor vs. the site is not sufficiently clear in the lede, in spite of it having been edited slightly. The key issue here is that the entire site is known as X-10, a fact that is hidden in non-bold text in the third paragraph. A single sentence at the end of the first para would clear all of this up: "The reactor was part of, and takes its name from, a prototype of a complete plutonium production line (or semiworks) given the code-name X-10." I contrast this with CP-1, where no such confusion exists between the reactor and, say, Stagg Field.
 * ✅ The plutonium project was X-10. This included the work done at Sites A, B and W as well as X. Added some words to the leads and the article to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of why the U slugs were canned.
 * ✅ Didn't think it was germane, but added the following to the article: The fuel slugs were canned primarily to protect the uranium metal from corrosion that would occur if it came into contact with water, but also to prevent the venting of gaseous radioactive fission products that might be formed when they were irradiated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "On February 2, 1943, DuPont began construction of the plutonium semi works"..."Construction work on the reactor had to wait until DuPont had completed the design. Excavation commenced on April 27, 1943". This is confusing at first glance, and could be clarified by placing the second right after it. Then the second para could start with "Excavation for the reactor commenced..." Additionally, it might be worth stating that in the first sentance, "Although the design of the reactor itself was not yet complete, on February 2, 1943..."
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "The facility was known as the Clinton Laboratories" Does this refer to X-10, some smaller part of X-10, or as the Clinton Engineering Works article suggests, the entire site? Did the naming change over time? If so, that should be mentioned there.
 * ✅ The plutonium semiworks became the Clinton Laboratories in April 1943. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "the reactor went critical on 4 November 1943 with about 30 short tons (27 t) of uranium. A week later the load was increased to 36 short tons (33 t), raising its power generation to 500 kW, and by the end of the month the first 500 mg of plutonium was created" but then two paras later... "The first batch of fuel slugs was received on December 20, 1943", which is contradictory.
 * ✅ Tried to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Modifications over time raised the power to 4,000 kW in July 1944." This statement is out of order, and should go further down the section, considering the next paras cover events taking place before this date.
 * ✅ Moved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The "Similar reactors" section fails to mention Windscale, which was similar in both design and purpose. Nor does the article contrast X-10 with the B Reactor, which followed it, and among other changes was water cooled.
 * The Windscale reactors were intended at production reactors, not prototypes. They were similar to the X-10 Graphite reactor in that they used natural uranium, a graphite moderator and air cooling. I am not going to catalog all the reactors ever built. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The same is true of Brookhaven, yet there it is. If one limits the list to air-cooled, graphite-moderated, plutonium producing reactors, unless I'm greatly mistaken, you have X-10 and Windscale, and that the later was deliberately based on the former after specifically rejecting the B design seems rater cogent in this article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Now the actual problem:
 * The article completely fails to mention how X-10 came about due to data flowing out of CP-1, and this, as I see it, is a serious FA-killing oversight.
 * Basically when the plans for chemical separation were first being drawn up, the calculated values for the breeding ratio suggested that acceptable rates of production could only be achieved with coolants with very low cross sections. This led to consideration of helium, supported primarily by Greenewalt, and heavy water, favored by Fermi's group. However, while early planning was still ongoing, data from CP-1 allowed Fermi to calculate k directly and found it to be a much higher value than expected. This meant that normal water (otherwise a reasonable moderator) as well as air became possible coolants. As an air-cooled design was conceptually very similar to helium, DuPont supported building both in parallel, suggesting that the much simpler air cooled version could provide valuable data while the more difficult to build helium version was still being constructed. It was assumed throughout that the Hanford production plants would be helium cooled.
 * However, as the value of k was so large that water cooling was a possibility, the Chicago team began work on such designs with an eye to building the Hanford site using them. DuPont still favoured helium and continued to press for the parallel construction of both. As the advantages of the new design became overwhelmingly apparent, Greenewalt was eventually convinced to abandon helium, which left the fate of air cooled design in the air. At this point the reactor design would offer nothing to the future designs, but instead of cancelling it the idea was modified to place far more importance on the semiworks. It was this part that eventually made the design too large to build at Argonne - had the original plans to build just a sample reactor and small production line been followed, especially the much higher density helium design, it would have easily fit at Argonne.
 * So it was not until very late in the process that the narrative in this article, and one assumes Rhodes, comes into play. The air cooled design was, by this time, considered relatively unimportant and with its larger size the arguments against Argonne were both more relevant, and in a way, less interesting. I think Met basically gave up on Argonne largely because they felt the water cooled design was the only important one moving forward, although that did not end well for them. The DoE's page on X-10 covers this in some depth, but another source with more detail would be useful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have plenty of sources. What you are saying is incorrect; the water-cooled design was adopted before CP-1 went critical. I will write something up. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Try this first. I too have plenty of sources, and they all say exactly what I state above. Specifically, page 30 of the official history states the move to a water cooled production design was taken in early 1943, as a direct result of the new k measurements. Rhodes says water cooling was rejected in July on page 411, and then on page 498 agrees that the decision to move back to water cooling was made after CP-1 ran on, noting Wigner's observation that "a production pile of pure uranium metal and high-quality graphite would find k higher yet - hiegh enough, Wigner calculated, to make water cooling practical." Later on the same page you see that Greenewalt "studied helium and water side by side until the middle of February" and that Wigner was angered that it "had taken Du Pont three months to see the value of a system he and his group judged superior in the summer of 1942." If you have any evidence to the contrary, by all means present it, but the evidence, and the physics, appears rather clear. As to the rest of the changes I have made, these are attempts to clarify much of the missing background story that covers the ultimate design of the semiplant, notably the changes in the physical separation process and the ultimate reactor design. Additionally I found the entire section on site selection rather confusing, and re-wrote this entirely. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the design section to meet your objections. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I notice that you are not using alt text, which is not a major issue here, I just want to confirm that this article's images are not suppose to have alt text because you haven't added them. The other issue (and this one is a potential deal breaker) is that the reflink checker reports one link to be iffy - likely a connection issue. Can you check and advise on the status of that link, and fix it if needed? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You should have a go at the sports articles. The links have a half-life of about six months. I've restored the link from Wayback, although it might only be a transient problem. Added ALT text too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.