Talk:Fat Man/Archive 1

Archive 1

Allegedly?

The article says that the bomb was "allegedly" detonated by the United States over Nagasaki, which seems to imply a lack of proof. Perhaps someone could explain this word choice?

- ♚TopherBrink⚜ ✯(Talk)☯ 12:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Color

what color was the fatman and little boy? The first picture suggests black but the picture of the replica below suggests yellow with black strips. Jarwulf (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Nagasaki casualties - to be deleted

First this doesn't seem the right place to talk about victims. The rest of the page is purely technical. The effect of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be treated in a separate article only dealing with these two cases, with links between the related issues.

Than I think the chapter about Nagasaki casualties doesn't fulfil Wikipedia standards. To debunk all the studies on the aftermath of the atomic bombing with just one article of Der Spiegel is not appropriate. Even if Der Spiegel was very recommendable such a weekly journal's article cannot have the same quality and weight than scientific papers and studies, e.g. references 18 and 19. An assessment of the casualties should certainly rely on extensive documentation, if possible independent, i.e. neither from Japan nor the USA.

Given these two issues, inappropriate place and insufficient investigation and references, I suggest to delete this chapter from the article "Fat Man". Any comments, before I do it?

Just do it. --Basil II (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I recently altered the section to try and make it a little less dogmatic, but it could still do with more discussion. I did a little research myself, as I wasn't sure I trusted Der Spiegel as a source, but it does seem that the author's assertion about the lack of fallout is correct (though the tone was definitely out of line). I don't know enough about the subject to rewrite the whole section, unfortunately, but given that the other article (on the Hiroshima bomb Little Boy) has a section mentioning the bomb's effects as well, it should probably be kept if only for symmetry. It could probably do with a rewrite to make it a little more closely related to the more technical areas, though. --86.129.113.18 (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on reading this section of the talk page it seems like the section may be factually inaccurate as well. I haven't the expertise to rewrite it, and given that it seems out of place here anyway, it should probably be gotten rid of. I'll do the honours after three days if nobody voices any objections. --86.129.113.18 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. --86.129.113.18 (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

very old comments

You put It'd be useful to explain why the bomb was dropped, and what happened after that... on the Fat Man page. Not the right place at all. The page should be purely technical, the politics of the drop should be elsewhere and link to Fat Man and Nuclear weapon for the technical details.

---

Yes, maybe. But, of course, the Fat Man and Little Boy pages should link to that page (about the politics). --LMS

Re: "used in anger" is a well known expression in English, and the replacement with "used in war" whilst technically more precise doesn't have the same prose effect. Perhaps a differenct, less ambiguous (for foreign readers) expression could be substituted. Mintguy 21:53, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I really think it should be anger, because that includes things like terrotist attacks. I'm not going to keep on changing it back after people who don't understand the term revert it. I feel like I'm having an edit war with myself. CGS 22:54, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC).

"Used in anger" suggests (to me) Truman got really steamed at the Japanese one day, flew off the handle and ordered the bomb dropped, i.e., "in the heat of passion", rather than the meaning you intend. Change it, i would say. Graft 13:41, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've added a little explanation for people who don't understand. CGS 19:48, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC).

cough How about "deliberately used on human beings"? That pretty much cuts through the BS euphemisms...

---

found this, it needs to be fitted somewhere...too many pages for me to decide

Although the US insists it emptied its nuclear arsenal with Nagasaki, some Japanese are convinced the US had another core en route to Tinian.[1] (FWIW Nuclear Weapons Archive estimates no later than Aug 20 for another bomb to be ready.[2])

Gadget

What's "gadget"? — Matt 04:47, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• "Gadget" was the code-name for the plutonium bomb tested at the Trinity Site in 1945. --Fastfission 04:09, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Conflicting information?

Quote,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Nagasaki

" ... It exploded 1,540 feet (469 m) above the ground almost ... "

The article states it " ... detonated at an altitude of about 1,800 feet (550 m) over the city ... "

Could someone check this out in more detail?

And more, the intro says: "An estimated 40,000 people were killed outright by the bombing at Nagasaki," - but the main text says: "According to most estimates, about 70,000 of Nagasaki's 240,000 residents were killed instantly". ?

= Redundant?

Why "second and last of two"? Don't they mean the same thing?

Well, the "last" part implies that there were no more after it. But I think it is not entirely the best way to say that. --Fastfission 17:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Either way they are improvements on what was there before. The facts are it was the second nuclear bomb used in warfare and to date thankfully the last. As long as that is what is conveyed all is good. 'Second and last of two' is merely a vehicle to emphasise the fact that only 2 were used, this one being the second. I'm wasn't 100% happy with it when I wrote it to be honest. Redundant? Very possibly. I don't think my version was perfect and the version without 'and last' lacks a little impact for my liking. I think we'll all know when someone nails it though.--LiamE 09:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the current version with "second of the two" is much better, no worries. --Fastfission 12:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Drawing of Fat Man casing

I'm building a 1/48 scale model of Fat Man. The Nuclear Weapons Archive website has a dimensioned drawing of Fat Man here: [3] . However, the resolution is not high enough to read the dimensions on the drawing.

Does anyone have a larger image of the drawing, or a copy that can be scanned?

Please contact me at petero (at) metrocast (dot) net

Thanks!

65.175.224.202 19:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Let me see what I have and I'll try to get back to you on it. I might have a higher resolution copy somewhere around here. If not, I think there is likely a copy in The grand experiment at Inyokern by J.D. Gerrard-Gough (1978), if you can find a copy of that (at a library). I'll see if I can track one down.--Fastfission 00:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Also, depending on your interest, you can purchase posters of the blueprints from the National Atomic Museum online store. --Fastfission 01:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Gun type

It is theoretically possible to build a plutonium gun-type device, but it would need to be 19 feet long in order to allow the sub-critical masses to be fused into a critical mass before a fizzle occurs.

It is not clear whether this applies for the purest plutonium (probably), or the kind that was available.--Patrick 01:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm, I don't know, but the added length would, I imagine, serve to allow the pieces to pick up speed. If they were fast enough, I assume they would be able to combine reasonably well before the reaction completed. --Fastfission 02:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Considering that the spontaneous fission rate depends very much on the purity of the plutonium, giving a precise figure like 19 feet without mentioning the purity is odd. The sentence by itself would suggest that what is meant is "for the purest possible plutonium", but in context it is suggested that it applies for the impure kind that was available. Any sources?--Patrick 08:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

After writing this I noticed that very pure plutonium was available (and used later), only not as pure as produced at Berkeley.--Patrick 03:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It was me that made that contribution. I don't have a source for the purity of the plutonium, but I can easily ask the guy who told me about the 19 ft length (and who worked in nuclear targetting research and therefore knows what he is talking about). I'll come back to you when I have the answer. David Newton 09:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

19 ft sounds to me like the right number for what they calculated during the war based on the Hanford plutonium, but I can check on that. --Fastfission 18:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a calculation, which would suggest that the last few centimeters would have to be travelled in preferably much less than 40 microseconds, i.e. a speed of "much" more than ca. 1000 m/s. Considering that muzzle velocity can be up to 1,800 m/s, it may indeed just be possible.--Patrick 00:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've got a preliminary answer. The exact values are classified (for good reason), although I would imagine that anyone with much of a background in nuclear physics could come up with a ballpark figure based on things like neutron cross-section fairly easily. The guy's going to find a public domain figure. Beyond that, he said that assuming that the grade of plutonium used in this hypothetical massive gun-type device would be the same as the grade used in an implosion-type device. David Newton 18:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No hilly terrain but US flight crew incompetence!

>Because of Nagasaki's hilly terrain, the damage was somewhat less extensive than that in relatively flat Hiroshima

This is bullshit. The reduced damage was because the B-29 crew badly messed up the targetting, they were in fact lucky to find Nagasaki at all. Eventually they dropped the A-bomb using radar aiming, not visuals due to clouds. They were a full nine kilometers (six miles) off course and pretty much dropped their nuke onto no-man's land! But the 21 kiloton bomb was so powerful it still managed to destroy much of Nagasaki and kill a hundred thousand people or more to this day. 195.70.32.136 10:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's true that the mission was practically botched, but the terrain did definitely play the primary factor in the focusing of the blast. --Fastfission 23:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The mission was fortuitously "botched". When the crew reached Okinawa, the first thing Ashworth, the weaponeer, did was to go to Gen. Doolittle's HQ to request to make a strike report. He was advised by Doolittle that "I'm sure that Gen. Spaatz (waiting on Tinian) will be happier that you dropped the bomb on the valley and not the city". The mission achieved its end, which was to detonate a second weapon on a Japanese city. The mistakes encountered--a malfunctioning fuel transfer pump, a change in cruising altitude, the forty minute wait for Hopkins, the three runs at Kokura--all conspired to create the fuel consumption crisis aboard Bockscar and were the grist of flying in combat. Things beak down and you adjust. They adjusted. Ashworth's decision to initiate a radar bomb run (in violation of the field order) instead of dropping Fat Man into the sea is to me one of the more unsung but critical decisions of the war.--Buckboard 02:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The crew of bocks car were not incompetant, and they did not botch the drop of fat man. Nagasaki is located amid mountians, and there was 100% cloud cover over nagasaki on August 9 th 1945. Targeting was done by instruments only when fat man was dropped. The mountians tended to contain the blast wave, and reduced its effectiveness. Likewise the cloud cover restricted the effectiveness of the thermal pulse from the firball.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmayes1999 (talk • contribs)

two pictures

Is it really necessary to have two pictures describing the interior of the bomb? --Jontsang 19:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• One illustrates the concept. The other illustrates how these sorts of things work out in practice. I think they have sufficiently different goals, and as a consequence look pretty different from one another at a functional level. --Fastfission 20:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture of drop?

The page for Little Boy has a picture of its drop and subsequent mushroom cloud. There exists a similar picture for Fat Man (found here[4]). Is there any specific reason it's not on this page? Vicious Blayd 08:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably because there isn't a lot of room for it. We'd have to remove the Bockscar image, I suppose. Personally I'm not opposed to it — a picture of an bomber is not as interesting to me. --Fastfission 13:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious about why there's an image of a model of the bomb? It's not the real thing which exploded in Nagasaki. 84.230.251.132 03:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpretting what "model" means here. It doesn't mean "miniature scale" or "false version", it means it is another "Fat Man" bomb produced postwar (they made a number of them). But yes, as it indicates it is not the same Fat Man which was dropped on Nagasaki (and has some slight design differences, i.e. it does not have contact fuses). In any case, this picture is the most classic of the bomb (it was the first released to the press in the 1960s), and is the best one we have on the Wiki at the moment. While there are some pictures of the actual Nagasaki Fat Man itself out there (i.e. [5]) most of them either have lots of half-naked guys running around them (which I find visually distracting) or are of a lower resolution (or have washed-out lighting). But I don't personally care too much, if others feel otherwise. --Fastfission 13:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The reader sees "Replica of the original weapon" and immediately starts searching for an explanation of why. Therefore you need to add an explanation directly after it in parenthesis. Jidanni (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The design of the Fat man type atomic bomb and the lens implosion system presented here in this article is not the exact & specific design of the device that exploded at Trinity on July 16, 1945 , nor is it the actual & specific design of the atomic bomb that destroyed Nagasaki.It does however do a fairly good job of showing the general principles, and concepts of solid core implosion type atomic weapon designs .*** The device in the picture is some what more like such later designs as the MK 4, the MK 5, & MK 6 then it is the design of the Origional Fat Man of history.Many post war varients , and improved re-designs of the Origional Fat man of history were made post war beginning in 1947-1948. Only a general & short summary version of the design of the 1945 Fat Man device of history is available from verifiable public sources , and not a specific, totally complete , & detailed version of it .tmayes1999 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Fat Man atomic bomb model design posted in the wickipedia article is probably a workable Lense implosion design if you do it the right way with enough precision, but it it is not the design that was used in the Trinity device on July 16,1945, and it it is not the design that was used in the Fat Man A-bomb that destroyed Nagasaki . The Fat Man design in the wickipedia model is probably based on the the 1948-1949 era post war atomic bomb designs .****************

• • tmayes1999

Sorry buddy, but once again you seem to have no idea what you are talking about, and an amazing ability to spout total foolishness without once feeling the need to cite any sort of source to back up your claims. --24.147.86.187 00:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My source is a written summary version of the origional records of the Mahattan project which I obtained from Los Alamos in the 1980s .*** tmayes1999

re: section "Physics package"

Would someone please (gently) color code the explanations to match each parts of the diagram above? It would look ever so purty and would be a lot easier to read :) --geekyßroad^{. meow?} 06:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• No problem. --Fastfission 13:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Name

I remember being told as a child that Fat Man was named after Churchill and Little Boy after Truman, or that people associated the names with those two. The article lists a book as saying where the names really came from (which I can't access as I'm not in the States). Was this story just something an adult made up to satisfy a WhywhyWhywhyWhy kid, or is this a common misconception? Any info'd be great. Gaviidae 07:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• It is something which is sometimes said but I've never seen any good evidence of it (and am not sure where it originated from). Serber's book definitely says that is not the case, and as he was actually very close to the building of these bombs and to the project administration itself. --24.147.86.187 01:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not certian that the "soccor ball" high explosive configuration was actually used in the Fat Man Atomic Bomb .I have seen the actual Blue prints of the Fat Man Device. They show a hollow steel metal sphere filled with up to 2500 kg of preparation B being used to trigger the Fat Man. The instructions given to the technicians for assembly of the gadget:on July 16,1945 specificly instructed, the technicians to place a hypodermic needle in the dome cap and inject liquid high explosive (preparation B) into the 60 inch diameter steel hollow sphere.This was done to assemble the high explosive trigger.These Instructions also specificly instructed the technicians to place 32 high explosive detonators symmetricaly, on the outside of the steel sphere, and raise it on top of the 100 foot tower.This was done with a crane.The steel sphere had a handle on it for this. The steel sphere was assembled by bolting 7 steel sections together at the tower before injecting the high explosive into it and the sphere had two dome caps ..

"Soccor ball" configurations of interlocking plastic bonded explosives connected together by adhesives are used to trigger many modern nuclear weapons fission primarys.I think the "soccor ball", high explosive configuration was not used until the first PBXs were invented & used to trigger nuclear weapons after the year 1956.***In 1945 PBXS had not been invented yet & high explosive shaped charges using castable explosives were in fact only newly invented to make anti-tank shells as of the year 1942 . The first experimental Pbxs were introduced on ,or about the year 1947 , but they did not get developed to the point that their characteristics were satisfactory until the latter 1950s.

Sorry I don't think you know what the hell you are talking about! And judging by your talk page others agree with me! Take a look at any of the real historical sources (i.e. Hoddeson et als Critical Assembly) and you'll see that your proposed model not only has no historical records to back it up, but it doesn't even make any goddamn sense. In any case, on Wikipedia you have real sources, not supposed claims to have seen secret documents. --24.147.86.187 01:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What proposed model ? I did not offer or propose any model of The Fat Man A-Bomb of 1945. I simply said that the Fat Man atomic bomb model posted in the current fat Man wickipedia article is not historically correct.* tmayes1999

Seconded. There are actual published photos of Fat Man devices being assembled - they show the various segments being mounted into the geometric metal frame, inside the spherical aluminum casing (before the casing was bolted over the segments). See for example John Coster-Mullen's book "Atom Bombs: The Top Secret Inside Story of Little Boy and Fat Man", which has quite detailed photos and plans, including photos he took of the inside the casing of a (disarmed) post-war stockpiled Fat Man casing (explosives and fissile pit removed, but the framework is all there).Those pictures

may be of post war Fatman type weapons .* Georgewilliamherbert 02:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also... castable high explosives go back to WW I (artillery shell fillings); plain TNT is perfectly usable, just lower energy than Composition B. TNT was in use in shells from 1902, see TNT. The sphere isn't steel, it's aluminum, as is documented all over the place.

On the trinity device the sphere was made of steel. * On the Actual Fatman A-bomb the physics package was a steel ellipsoid armour egg , which was placed inside an aluminium metal outer casing. tmayes1999

Liquid explosives can't be used for precision implosion under most circumstances because any bubbles or density variation will cause uneven implosion.

It is in fact ,very difficult to make high explosive lenses of acceptable quality using castable high explosives That is the number one reason why the "Soccor Ball" high explosive Lense implosion model being shown in the Fat Man article in the Wickipedia is not historicaly correct.* That is also the number one reason why the NedderMeyer explosive Hollow sphere lense design ,using a 32 detonator multipoint electrical detonation system was most likely used in the Trinity Test device, and in the Fatman A-bomb of history . Tmayes1999

Castable explosives are injected into a mold as a liquid: then they harden into a plastic, or putty like solid high explosive charge when they cool down to room temperature. It is in fact very difficult to manufacture lenses containing castable high explosives that are of acceptable qaulity .* That is why the majority of the devices manufactured after the year 1955 used specially shaped segments of PBX "plastic bonded explosives )to trigger them.tmayes1999

Nor would a purely hollow sphere filled with homogenous explosive implode in an even manner; there's a reason the explosive lens assemblies were used. You clearly haven't seen any of the real blueprints which are out there, or you wouldn't have said any of the above.Your wrong about that.*

• Actually,in reality It really can be made to explode in an even, instantaneous ,& spherical manner ,by using Multi-point electrical detonation at up to 100 equidistant points on its surface.

Its all about actually using very precise timing so that the time variance does not significantly differ when each of up to 100 equidistant & perfectly symmetrical detonators , & parts of the hollow sphere explodes . You would be correct about that however :if it was exploded at only a few points ,or at just one point on the explosive hollow sphere . This is actually because of the resulting difference in time.A 1,or 2 point detonation of any of the different parts of the hollow explosive sphere would result in an assymetrical implosion wave.An assymetrical implosive shock wave will fail to achieve the proper assembly of the pit in a device in that case . This is a very valuable method of achieving one or two point safety if a modern nuclear warhead is accidentally dropped or involved in a plane crash for example . This makes it impossible for it to accidentally create a full nuclear explosion if an accident occurrs while handling it.Also modern PBXs are of the highly shock resistant type, and they require special detonators to set them off.The explosive hollow sphere lense design ,I wrote about origionated with Seth Neddermeyer* in the manhattan project.If I remember correctly the Manhattan project records actually report that hundreds of test shots using the so called high explosive "soccor ball configuration type" high explosive lenses were made between 1943, and 1945 . These tests always, or almost always yielded unsatisfactory results .* For this reason, the decison to abandon work on the "soccor ball " type high explosive lenses was made on or about May, or April 1945. The testing of the Neddermeyer system using hollow spherical, and hollow cylidrical high explosive lense systems however consistantly gave good results. For This reason, the desison was made to use the NedderMeyer Hollow explosive Sphere lense design in the Trinity Test device on July 6, 1945 . This test was successful, and its lense design was used in the Fat Man A-bomb that destroyed Nagasaki according to the Manhattan Project records . The truth is that if a hollow high explosive sphere is simultaneously detonated at 32 to 100 or more symmetrical points on its outer surface, it can produce a good, and smooth spherical implosion wave . A hollow metal sphere , around a hollow sphere of high explosive is a spherical wave mirror that reflects all shock waves impinging on it to the central focus of the hollow sphere where the pit is . Its simply basic college physics in the way it works.High explosive shock waves when they are reflected off of a parobolic or spherical wave mirror are reflected to the focus of the mirror just like waves of light , and sound .I have verified this fact with 25 years of careful . research .*** —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmayes1999 (talk • contribs)

Please knock it off. You keep wasting everyone's time on these issues, and you haven't done a bit of homework on any of them. Georgewilliamherbert 02:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC). Its the other way around .*** I have done 25 years of homework on this in my life .

My information source is the origional records of the manhattan project which I obtained from the Los Alamos scientific laboratory in the past.**************************************

I said that shaped charges were not invented until world war 2 . I was not talking about castable high explosives. The first castable high explosives in U. S. were actually introduced by the union army during the cival war .I never said anything about liquid explosives at all .*

A castable explosive is a liquid explosive that hardens into a putty like solid mass of explosive when it cools after being poured into a mold .******************************* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmayes1999 (talk • contribs)

Tim... Please stop this. The blueprints for Fat Man are available. Pictures of Fat Man are availible. You clearly haven't bothered to look at them. You clearly haven't worked with explosives, or even studied an explosives engineering textbook. Basic college physics does not teach you what you say it does, and doesn't explain explosives engineering's actual technology and science either; they're more advanced and specialized. You're making yourself look foolish. Do your homework or go away. Georgewilliamherbert 00:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

ALL kinds of waves in the universe including high explosive shock waves obey the same universal physical laws that describe the refraction,behavior , and reflection of all other kinds of waves in the universe . ** Waves interact with both lenses, and wave mirrors .

I know exactly how high explosive shaped charges work , and I understand their principles. I have seen the fat man blue prints that have been published . These are scketchy and incomplete . They do however show a spherical lense implosion , system . and a design for the 32 detonators

or possibly 36 detonators that were used to trigger it . The information available to the public realm is not specific enough, and detailed enough to decisively say whether the explosive hollow sphere used in the Fatman, and the Trinity device was cast in one spherical piece, or in up to 100 pieces.*** Either is possible: & both methods can be made to work if you do it right with enough precison.The 1946 Smith report to congress on the other hand showed a 3 layer hexagonal-conical lens implosion design for the fat man . The published fat man blue prints are not complete enough, and detailed enough to decisively show what the specific & exact lens implosion design actually used was . The truth is no one in the public realm actually knows for sure and certian what it was.

That is why Wickipedia can not correctly state for sure and certian what exact & specific configuration of high explosives was used to trigger the Origional Fat Man of the year 1945 . There are multiple contradictory accounts of the fat man high explosive lense design out there that have variable credibility . There are reasonable speculations out there but no decisive detailed information about this . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmayes1999 (talk • contribs)

Spelling errors aside, you are completely full of shit, as usual. The Smyth Report has no discussion of implosion technology whatsoever. The solid plutonium-core "Christy gadget" is discussed extensively in the public and declassified literature — Hoddeson et al's Critically Assembly, which was based on classified sources, discusses it at great length. You have no idea what you are talking about, when you do discuss sources you get them totally wrong, you show no knowledge about what you speak. Give it up already. --24.147.86.187 00:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)The origional 1946 version of the Smith report has a detailed discussian of implosion in it . The current public version may not have this because more then 50 % of it has

been blacked out since the late late 1990s . I have seen the origional uncensored version of it . tmayes1999

Riiiiiggghhhttttt. You can buy first editions of the Smyth Report on eBay; even copies of the original mimeographed "reports" handed out to the press in 1945 are not uncommon. There is no mention of implosion whatsoever, it was not as a concept declassified until the early 1950s. --00:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have actually read the origional uncensored 1946 version of it that was given to congress, in 1946 . Tmayes1999 11:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In the 1990s the Clinton administration reclassified from 50-60 % of the complete contents of the origional 1946 version of it because of concerns about Nuclear weapons proliferation. This is why the current public versions of it do not show the parts of it I was talking about . In them they are blacked out .Tmayes1999 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmayes1999 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Smyth Report was released to the public in 1945. There was no 1946 edition released to Congress that I have ever heard about or have seen any citation to. I will dispute your claim that such a thing exists, as you have not provided any evidence of it.

The current editions of the Smyth Report are virtually identical to the one released days after the bombing of Nagasaki. All that was censored—and the censorship happened in 1945—was a few lines about Xenon poisoning of reactors which are missing from the Princeton University Press editions. You are wrong in thinking that there was anything about implosion in the Smyth Report—it was intended to be a totally non-classified report on the Manhattan Project, and the explosive lenses were classified until 1951 (they were declassified during the Rosenberg Trial in order to introduce David Greenglass's evidence).

I'm not sure how you got turned around on this, but unless you can come up with at least one independent citation for your assertions, there is really no point in continuing any sort of dialogue. --24.147.86.187 19:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Allegedly, the two originally envisaged bomb types were nicknamed Fat Man after Winston Churchill and Thin Man after Franklin D. Roosevelt, (Truman wasn't President at the time the names were decided) however the Thin Man bomb was later found impracticable and the later Little Boy design was substituted instead. Serber may be right, but the two nation's Leaders physical characteristics would have been appropriate names for the two intended weapons, considering that they had done the most to bring the atomic bomb to fruition.

Who thought of using explosive lenses?

The question

The article states that John von Neumann thought of explosive lenses, and some sources agree. Other sources say James Tuck thought of it. Man with two legs 08:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The Los Alamos site contradicts itself saying here [6] that Von Neumann thought of it and here [7] that it was Tuck. My guess (I have no evidence) would be that Tuck thought of it in principle and Von Neumann figured out exactly what shape the lenses should be. Man with two legs 08:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tuck designed the explosive lenses for the Fat Man implosion bomb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.8 (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Things that don't seem to answer it

No none has to rely on my word or any one elses word to answer a question , or address an issue about anything . I invite all persons to go do further research and dig and dig through all the information, and disinformation out there to seek to find and verify the true facts for them selves . I have done this already for many years in many places about many subjects.Have a good day everybody . Tmayes1999.

Don't worry, I don't think we'll rely on your word. --24.147.86.187 00:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My word is much more reliable, and credible then that of everyone else here . I garuntee that fact . But those who will not listen, will never get it completely right . I do not expect anyone to take my word on faith. I know that if any objective person digs into the facts, deeply enough in sufficient detail that they will dicover beyond a reasonable doubt that I am right in the great majority of cases, but I am also not infallible . tmayes199

Really, you're not infallible? Who would have thought? I mean, with such a strong "garuntee" and all. --24.147.86.187 00:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

High explosive shaped charges are based on the use of the Monroe effect which was discovered in the 1880s .In the Monroe effect the cylindrical , spherical, hemispherical, or conical outer casing of the shaped charge is the wave mirror , or "wave shaper" that I wrote about . When the explosive explodes: the wave shaper directs the high explosive shock wave in the form of a jet of hot gases to the geometric focus of the wave shaper. Then the inner liner of the charge collapses and becomes a jet aimed at the geometric focus of the wave shaper. When a shaped charge is used to detonate an implosion type atomic bomb: the outer casing of the charge is the wave shaper which directs the shock wave to its geometric focus . Then the tamper around the atomic pit , or the hollow pusher sphere around the atomic pit , or in some cases the atomic pit itself is the inner liner that collapses, and it is directed to the geometric focus of the outer casing of the charge which is the wave shaper.If you want to verify this information go look up these things on the military net . Tmayes1999 08:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The most we can reasonably infer from public information is that the world war 2 Fatman A-bomb of history:either had a hollow sphere of preparation B detonated by 32 detonators which were called "high explosive lenses" on its outer surface or it had three layers of over lapping high explosive pyramidal blocks that were detonated by 32 detonators on its outer surface . If in fact the high explosive pyramidal block system was used in the fat man as it is claimed by Rhodes in his book "The making of the Atomic Bomb " Then it would have to use three layers of overlapping charges to work. If it used three layers of pyramidal block charges that did not overlap, or a single layer of three part pyramidal charges that did not overlap, then the fat man would have either failed to explode at all, or it would have had a fizzle yield. This is because the core would have disassembled prematurely by jetting at the zones of shock wave interference between the individual high explosive charges. The contents of the uncensored version of the 1946 Smith Report to congress do show a pyramidal block high explosive configuration, being used in the fat man that is similar but not totally indentical to the one shown by Rhodes in his book "the Making of the Atomic bomb . Tmayes1999 08:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is untrue that the Smyth Report discussed the use of high explosive lenses. The Smyth Report, which was never classified (and came out in 1945, not 1946), omits any discussion of implosion of any sort. HE lenses were not disclosed to congress as a whole, and were considered "restricted data" until 1951. The details of the development of the Fat Man lenses are discussed in many historical publications (again, see Critical Assembly in particular) and can be traced back to interviews as well as original documents. I think you are a bit confused on your facts. --24.147.86.187 19:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Deaths from "Nuclear Fallout"

I intend deleting or amending the erroneous sentence in the third paragraph that currently states "Many thousands more would die later from related injuries, and radiation sickness from nuclear fallout". The Fat Man bomb was an air burst, there was no cratering and therefore no nuclear fallout produced. Subsequent deaths were as a result of initial injuries from the bomb's effects, which may have included Initial Radiation but certainly not fallout effects, that are only present in a ground burst. Any comments before I rewrite the sentence? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not true that air bursts do not cause fallout. See the Wikipedia article on fallout. The Nagasaki bomb DID cause fallout, as did the air burst over Hiroshima. For some details, see for instance the FAQs at http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa12.html which give some figures for fallout levels in certain districts of Nagasaki. Theeurocrat (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The article you quote is erronious and appears to be glibly terming the bombs' initial radiations as "fallout" which they were not. I was not proposing that there was no radiation produced by the bursts, there patently was, but it was short lived initial radiations. Radioactive fallout is specifically dirt and debris lifted from the ground when the fireball is in a close enough proximity, ionised and distributed downwind. Neither the Hiroshima or Nagasaki burst were detonated low enough to touch or interact with the ground and no "fallout" was generated. If they had done so the sites would be as contaminated today and as dangerous as the Trinity and Easter Island sites still are (and will be so many years into the future). Contemporary Japanese reports confirm that radiation levels at the bomb sites had decayed to near background within weeks and months of the detonations and that firmly confirms the absense of any localised fallout.

The ionised hot particles from the japanese bursts would have been dissapated high in the stratoshere and distributed globally. By the time they returned to earth many months or years in the future they would be indistinguishable from background radiations. The radon from your house's foundations and cellar would be more dangerous.

A good army friend of my father was a POW in Japan and was standing on a beach, wearing nothing but shorts, just four miles from the epicentre of the Nagasaki burst. He was blown off his feet and received minor burns to his upper body and legs, but he is still alive and well, living in Glasgow at the age of 76.

It has become increasingly commonplace for journalists and even some scientists in recent years to refer to all radiation effects of nuclear bursts as fallout, the article you referred to is one of many such. For those of us whose lives may have depended on operating in a post nuclear environment the 'dumbing down' of the science is frustrating to say the least.

I have spent most of my adult lifetime involved professionally with Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare with the RAF and whatever jounalist wrote the claptrap you referred to is talking out of a different orifice. And even the initial radiation levels they state of 0.2 - 0.4 Gray is miniscule and has to be incorrect. In 1950 you could have received a greater personal dose from your illuminous wristwatch.21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you. If you really feel that I am wrong, you might like to amend the wikipedia article on nuclear fallout, according to which "a nuclear weapon detonated in the air, called an air burst, will produce less fallout than a comparable explosion near the ground. Less particulate matter will be contaminated by an air burst". which clearly indicates that air bursts do produce fallout, although obviously less so than surface bursts. I am also puzzled that you consider that only material swept up from the ground would constitute fallout; a definition which would exclude fission products and "unused" PU-239.

I assume that your abusive remark about talking out of different orifices would also apply to the scientists who wrote this obvious example of claptrap: http://www.journalarchive.jst.go.jp/jnlpdf.php?cdjournal=jrr1960&cdvol=16&noissue=SUPPLEMENT&startpage=35&lang=en&from=jnlabstract." along with many other articles showing that fallout, including both long- and short-lived isotopes, fell in the Nishiyama district of Nagasaki, 3km from the hypocentre, as a result of the wind. Clearly less fallout was present that would have been the case for a surface burst, but fallout occurred nonetheless.

Finally, you might like to write to the residents of Easter Island, who might be surprised to discover that their little patch of land was dangerously contaminated.158.169.131.14 (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Blushes* brain temporarily disconnected there for a minute, having a senior moment, of course I meant Christmas Island (Kiritimati), not Easter Island. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Production Figures

To be more consistent with the various subsequent Mark # weapons, starting with Mark 4, the Fat_Man/Mark 3 page should list product figures include those devices used at Bikini. This also needs to be done with Mar 1 Little Boy devices (for which more than one was made). --enm 198.123.50.119 (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Photograph of Bomb Replica

I have a professional-quality photograph of the Fat Man replica in the National Museum of the United States Air Force which I thought would improve the article, since right now it only provides photographs of mock-ups and related bombs. I am the copyright holder of the photograph, and I'm quite willing to use it thus.

However, uploading and attaching the picture seems to be a fairly daunting task. I don't have the time to figure it out. Any thoughts or suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuartzMMN (talk • contribs) 21:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can put it in the article once its on commons. Here's the Upload link. --Zvn (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! Article now features my photograph. I would like to humbly propose that it get switched with the picture at the top, since it seems more relevant than a photograph of an early mock-up. But I'm not sure - mine is, after all, just a replica. I will leave this up to others. QuartzMMN (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, it also looks like the picture lands in an awkward place on the page and causes rendering errors in some browsers. I'm not sure how to fix this. QuartzMMN (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Brief article semiprotection

Due to a small spree of ongoing IP vandalism today I have semiprotected the article for 3 days. Established editors can continue to edit normally, and anonymous IP editors and new editors can return to editing it after the 3 days are up. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Transportation to Tinian

Sorry if this is off-topic but does anyone know how the parts for Fat Man were transported to Tinian for assembly? Everyone knows the sad story of the USS Indianapolis, which was sunk after transporting the pieces of Little Boy, but I've had no luck in finding out what ship was involved in transporting Fat Man. Not a big deal, just curious is all. Anyone know? Sector001 (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark 3 Mark 4

The entry for the Mark IV Fat Man links back here. The C class blimp also does. But there is no description of Mark 1, Mark 2 and Mark 3 here. When were these types made and what differences were there ?Eregli bob (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Flash X-Ray Animation

Found this to be incredibly distracting whilst reading the main article. Should either be removed or started manually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.198.87 (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That unfortunate mass-energy conversion thing

One of the problems with E=mc² is that its simplicity is partly superficial. The equation means that mass and energy are the same thing. The mass being defined as invariant mass in COM frame or relativistic mass in any inertial frame. The equation means that mass and energy can be viewed in either terms, merely using the conversion factor. It does NOT mean, however, that mass can be "converted to energy" or vice versa. It means that all energy HAS mass, and that all mass IS a form of energy. However, system mass (by any definition you like) and energy (by any definiton you like) are separately conserved over time, and both remain the same during any reaction, either chemical or nuclear (including blowing up a nuclear weapon). See mass-energy equivalence for a detailed discussion.

Unfortunately, another process in physics is that matter (a poorly defined word, but generally taken as "the stuff that makes up ordinary objects") CAN be converted to "energy" in the form of electromagnetic radiation, kinetic energy, and the various kinds of thermal energy. An example is antimatter and matter combining to form pure gamma radiation. However, in such a process, the mass of the system does not change. Likewise, in the inverse process, two gamma rays can combine to form matter and antimatter particles, but the mass of these doesn't just appear and start generating gravity!

When an atom fissions in a nuclear weapon (or indeed when atoms fuse in thermonuclear weapons) no real particles (things like protons, neutrons, or electrons) are destroyed. Instead, what is transformed is a part of the "matter" of the weapon (the weighable atoms), This part is the various types of potential energy locked up in the electromagnetic and nuclear forces in the atoms, and which show up on a scale as binding energy. These fields are turned into other kinds of energies (86% kinetic energy at first, and 4% gamma radiation-- see nuclear fission), but the total mass remains the same, because kinetic energy has mass in special relativity and so do photons (in a system). The system of a bomb does not weigh less until the parts have cooled down (so notes Richard Feynman), and for that to happen, the light and heat which escape the system, have carried away the "missing mass". It isn't missing at all. The mass doesn't disappear, it simply moves to something else which absorbs it and gets heavier (for a 21 kiloton bomb, the light and heat have a mass of about a gram). So it isn't that a 21 kt bomb converts a gram of mass into light and heat, but rather that gram of rest mass is turned into a gram of light and heat, which escape and deposit that mass into whatever absorbs them. Mass, like energy, cannot be destroyed in any reaction, but it can be transformed, and moved. The same considerations apply to chemical reactions also-- their heat retains its mass.

Nuclear reactions aren't special in somehow converting mass to energy. Rather, they convert so much matter into energy (such a large fraction of what is weighed) that the lost energy is weighable after the reaction (not possible yet in chemistry). But that is all. And matter is not the same as mass.

To avoid all this, I'm simply going to note that in these early bombs, a certain amount of matter (a bit less than a gram) is converted to heat and radiation. It's not mass that disappears in the conversion, it's matter-- for the light and radiation have the "missing" mass. Then I will refer to mass-energy equivalence. Then I'll add a note to future authors who want to insert the high school view of Einstein's equiation into this article on a nuclear weapon. SBHarris 00:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Fat Man vs Fat Boy

This page is taking a lot of vandalism today. I have changed as much as I can but this really isn't a subject I know much about. There seem to me lots of changes of Fat Man to Fat Boy all thoughout the page but not consistantly. Seeing as there was a 'Little Boy' as well I am not sure if these are corrections or just further vandalism. If someone could look over this for me it would be great. Lady of the dead (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There are some who have referred to this weapon as Fat Boy, however the Los Alamos documents from the Manhattan Project era refer to it as Fat Man and that has been its official designation since 1945.Atomicjohn (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

"The original blueprints of the interior of both Fat Man and Little Boy have recently been declassified"

This seems unlikely to me, if not outright false? The exteriors have long been declassified, and lots of miscellaneous information about the interiors can be deduced from declassified documents, but I'm pretty sure "the original blueprints of the interior" are still classified. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Blueprints no, but reasonably complete and accurate original diagrams of various Fat Man predecessor, the 1561 design, and follow-on units (Mark 7, Mark 13) are included in John Coster-Mullen's book "Atom Bombs". Everyone seriously working on this article should probably go buy a copy of the book; it is $50, but it's worth it. Voluminous original source material, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. But that's not the same thing as the "original blueprints" being declassified. I'm going to change the statement in the article to something more accurate. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

John Goodman

Any relation to John Goodman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.244.108 (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Safety issues with the article?

I realize Wikipedia is generally against censorship, but is it at all dangerous to post detailed schematics of a (admittedly an old one)bomb? Isn't this basically giving the instructions for how to make one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.40.131.242 (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No. All this information and far more is freely available on the internet and in the sources cited. The building of atomic bombs is prevented not by not knowing how to do it (that is easy) but by problem of obtaining the raw materials (fissile materials), which is hard. SBHarris 23:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Fat Man edit reverted (the dimensions of the Slotin/Parahito assembly vs. Fat Man's metallic core

I have reverted your edit to Fat Man at least for the time being. You asserted (without reference) in putting that image and caption in that the Slotin assembly was the same size as the Fat Man core. I know of no sources that say that. The detailed writeups I saw indicated a clear understanding that the components involved, Be hemispheres and core, were sized for experimental purposes and not to match any Fat Man dimensions.

If you have a source that the Slotin accident assembly was in fact Fat Man sized particularly, please provide it...

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's see your sources. The Daghlian/Slotin "demon core" was used AS a core for an atom bomb test, so there's good reason to think it was standard issue. In fact the Daghlian incident took place such a short time after the end of WW II, when cores and Pu were in very short supply, that the best guess is it actually WAS the core that would have been used in Japan bomb #3, that was never dropped. That one would have been a Pu bomb like Fat Man, of course. That core was in San Francisco waiting to go, when the war ended. You can also see that core in the Daghlian article, and it's pretty clearly the same size core you see in halves in the Slotin photo.

So far as the rest, look at the Slotin recreation. Those are a bunch of not-very-clean crates and an empty coke bottle in 1946 (drinking coke in a rad lab?). Not a lot of money is being spent here. It's not a cleanlab with white coats-- it's the way things were in 1946. If you think people would have specially made replacement things to replace off-the shelf multiply-produced bomb components, you're dreaming. You can SEE the outer pieces are the same sizes, to within your ability to disciminate. And we know the core was the standard 6.2 kg Pu core. They didn't use a uranium tamper, since it wasn't needed for this experiment. So it was replaced by a Be reflector. But there was certainly no reason not to use everything else, just as it was in the bomb, and that includes the large outer aluminum sphere. What metal DO you think that's made of? Not beryllium.SBHarris 19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Later. Okay, the radiomedical report (declassified 1951) on the Slotin accident (then called the "Paharito accident" for the "Little Bird Plateau" where these experiments were carried out), states on page 23 that the hand-controlled hemisphere was a "9 inch Be tamper". That's the hemisphere with the thumb-hole. Clearly it's not functioning as a tamper here, but as neutron reflector. However, it's essentially the same dimensions as the 8.75 inch (222 mm) natural uranium tamper sphere that DID have that place in the Fat Man bomb, as a tamper. That means these critical dimensions are the same, just as I had suspected. It also means that the hole in the larger hemisphere of metal (that holds this like a cup) also must be 9 inches in diameter. Do you have any doubt that this outer larger sphere with the 9 inch hole in it, is a standard aluminum pusher from a Fat Man assembly? Your intuition is starting to look very bad here. We've already established that it's the same Pu core, and that the "tamper shell" size is the same (though the material is changed). There's even a natural explanation for why the U tamper is a quarter-inch thinner than the Be reflector made to stand in its place: the missing 1/4" is the thin boron plastic liner that was being omitted from Fat Man bombs by 1946. Probably the hole in the outer (largest) aluminum pusher was always 9 inches in diameter. SBHarris 00:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Jim Sanborn's 2003 re-creation, Critical Assembly. The bottom hemisphere of the pusher, with pieces of the boron shell, tamper, pit, and urchin.

A re-creation of the fatal Louis Slotin criticality accident of 1946, which used an assembly of the same dimensions as the "fat man" implosion bomb core. The upper half of a 9 inch diameter beryllium shell, which replaces the 8.75 inch uranium tamper sphere, is grasped by a thumbhole. The plutonium core is not visible, but the two small half-spheres resting next to the assembly closely resemble halves of the nickel-plated plutonium pit. The larger outer metal sphere is the aluminum pusher sphere.

(sbharris copied this from his talk page)

There is an element of original research here, but the source giving dimensions agrees with the Fat Man pit components. For illustrative purposes and with an improved caption I am ok with returning the other image. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fat Man/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 11:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly - this only makes sense after the Little Boy review.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• No disambiguation links found (no action required)
• Checklinks reports no problems with external links (no action required)
• Copyvio Detector reports no problems regarding copyright violations (no action required)
• The article contains duplicate links which should be removed per WP:OVERLINK. Those are: Nuclear weapon design (piped from "implosion-type" in the lead), Critical mass, and Nagasaki

  Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Images:

What is the source used for Fat Man External.svg image?

Y Added this. I've never seen one before that tried to source itself. Cute. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

All image licencing and captions are fine (including fair-use rationale for one) (no action required)

• Prose referencing appears in order (no action required)
• Some instances of Thin Man, Fat Man and Little Boy are given in quotation marks and other are not - perhaps it would be the best to make use of quotation marks (or lack thereof) consistent throughout the article

  Y Fixed this. Only the first use is in quotation marks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• According to Hansen the bomb was constrained to a maximum length of 8 to 10 feet (2.4 to 3.0 m), width of 66 inches (1,700 mm) and weight of 6,000 pounds (2,700 kg) in order to fit into a B-29 bomb bay. Also accroding to Hansen, the bomb was 128 inches (3,300 mm) long, 60 inches (1,500 mm) in diameter, and weighed 10,300 pounds (4,700 kg). This makes Silverplate modifications encompass accommodation of not only heavier payload but also longer weapons. At present the article specifies weigth-related modification only (assuming the figures are correct).

  I have re-read the source, and have corrected the text to read: For logistic and nationalistic reasons, the B-29 was preferred, but this constrained the bomb to a maximum length of 132 inches (3,400 mm), width of 60 inches (1,500 mm) and weight of 20,000 pounds (9,100 kg). Removing the bomb rails allowed a maximum width of 66 inches (1,700 mm). Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

  Good to go then! Nice work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Great article! I see you have already addressed almost every issue above, and only one thing stands in the way of GA pass. --Tomobe03 (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

New video released

Here is some new video of the prep and dropping of Fat Man that may be useful as an EL. (actually, as a govt work, it may be suitable for inclusion into commons) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9v5sW6t0zI Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. It would be suitable for Commons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Mass-energy equivalent

The mass energy equivalent for the detonation is listed as 1g. This is not possible if the other energy values listed are correct. One of the other energy values listed is 88TJ which equals 88,000,000,000,000J. However, when that number is plugged into the mass-energy equivalency formula it does not equal 1g.

88,000,000,000,000=kg*(299,792,458^2)

88,000,000,000,000=kg*(8.987551787E16)

9.791320494E-4=kg

In other words, if the listed value for joules is correct, the listed value for mass-energy equivalent should be 980mg (maintaining significant figures from 88TJ.)

I am aware that the difference is only 2%, however that 2% is a staggering 1,760,000,000,000J and should therefore be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.130.134 (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fat Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150723042220/http://k1project.org/explore-health/hiroshima-and-nagasaki-the-long-term-health-effects to http://k1project.org/explore-health/hiroshima-and-nagasaki-the-long-term-health-effects

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

From Russia with love.

This is one very detailed 8-min technical video on the Fat Man, created in 3D-CGI by some russians on a fundraiser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2cmOZGRIew 193.91.93.31 (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The Lancaster could not carry the "Fat Man" bomb!

The critical dimension of the fat man bomb was 60.5" plus the thickness of the bomb bay doors and or the fuselage side walls. Since there was not enough clearance to carry the bomb inside the plane and still have the landing gear touch the ground to allow take off, it was physically impossible for the Lancaster to carry the fat man bomb! It's not a question of weight, but of critical dimension, weight and balance once the weight was attached, however temporarily to the plane. The bomb bay doors can not close on the 34" diameter "Tallboy" bomb so a special streamlined fairing would have to be constructed. But the gear still have to roll to let the plane take off. Thus the Lancaster can not carry the fat man bomb which must be suspended from the center of aerodynamic pressure at approximately the 25% wing cord point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3230:ECD0:8D0A:3CC2:7FB1:D583 (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

So you checked the source and what did it say?

The only existing Allied bomber aircraft which could, without major modifications, carry a device of these dimensions were the U.S. Boeing B-29 and the British Avro Lancaster. The Lancaster had longer range than the B-29, and would require fewer modifications to carry nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, the B-29 was selected as the bomb carrier, partly because maintenance problems would have made the British bomber impractical to operate from American bases and partly because General Groves wanted the first atomic bomb to be delivered by an American aircraft.

— Hansen, p. 120

Letter dated 25 March 1944 to Major General L. R. Groves from Norman F. Ramsey, Jr.; memorandum dated 18 May 1944 to W. S. Parsons from N. F. Ramsey, subject: Matters for Discussion by Military Use Committee. The B-29 bomb bay suspension equipment used to carry the FAT MAN was essentially British “F and G” equipment, which had been developed to carry 12-ton bombs in Lancaster bomb bays. (Relation Between the Various Activities of the Laboratory, Samuel K. Allison, LA-1006, December 23, 1946, Volume 0, Chapter 3, p. 3. Hoddeson, et. al., p. 379; NOW IT CAN BE TOLD: THE STORY OF THE MANHATTAN PROJECT, Lt. Gen. Leslie R. Groves, USA, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1962, p. 254.

Hansen cites Hoddeson: "The British had a candidate that could have been modified for bomb use, the Lancaster. Capable of carrying the largest British bomb, (the 12,000 Grand Slam blockbuster), the Lancaster's bomb bay was rough as long as the plutonium gun bomb [Thin Man], but had a smaller diameter." (p. 379)

And Groves: "I said that if the B-29 could not be used, we would have to consider the use of a British plane, the Lancaster." (p. 120)

What sources do you have? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

picture

This is the one at the White Sands Missile Range Museum:

Fatman-WSMR

in case anyone wants to add it to the article. Gah4 (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)