Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S-50 (Manhattan Project)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2017 [1].


S-50 (Manhattan Project)

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the S-50 Project. It was an effort to produce enriched uranium using by liquid thermal diffusion. Pilot plants were built at the Anacostia Naval Air Station and the Philadelphia Navy Yard, and a production facility at the Clinton Engineer Works in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This was the only production-scale liquid thermal diffusion plant ever built. It could not enrich uranium sufficiently for use in an atomic bomb, but it could provide slightly enriched feed for the Y-12 calutrons and the K-25 gaseous diffusion plants. It was estimated that the S-50 plant had sped up production of enriched uranium used in the Little Boy bomb employed in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima by a week.

Now for the elephant in the room. This article was deleted back in 2006. You can read the weighty deliberations here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

image review

Sources review

edit

A tiny formatting point: in refs 11 and 17 the p. should be pp. Otherwise sources look impeccable. Brianboulton (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by caeciliusinhorto

edit
  • "Fears that a German atomic bomb project would develop nuclear weapons first, especially among scientists who were refugees from Nazi Germany and other fascist countries, were expressed in the Einstein-Szilard letter." this reads awkwardly to me; additionally, as I understand it, the Einstein-Szilard letter was concerned with the possibility that Nazi Germany would develop nuclear weapons at all. I think removing the word "first" would improve the flow.
    Sure. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because their status as enemy aliens precluded their working on secret projects like radar." this is a wonderful little detail!
  • "when a mixed gas passes through a temperature gradient, the heavier one tends to concentrate at the cold end and the lighter one at the warm end": grammatically, "one" in this sentence really refers to "a mixed gas". Either change that to "a mixture of gases" and keep the "heavier one... lighter one" construction, or change "heavier one" to "heavier constituent".
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was able to achieve some separation factor": is this correct? it seems to me like it should be "a separation factor", but I'm not a chemist...
    Yes. Chaged to "a". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of the dangers of handling uranium hexafluoride, all handling of it": can this be reworded so the article doesn't use "handling" twice in such close proximity?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lower hot wall temperature due to the reduced steam pressure was compensated for by the ease of operation." hang on, which lower temperature? Presumably this means that the boilers supplied by the navy could produce less heat than those originally planned, but this should be explicitly noted in the article because as it is it took me three readings of this to work out what was meant...
    Yet somehow you overlooked that the pilot plant ran on 1,000 pounds per square inch (6,900 kPa). Made this explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hoffman ran through the toxic cloud to rescue them": was Hoffman harmed by this?
    He suffered burns. Added this. He went on to become a professor of materials science at the University of Maryland and Johns Hopkins University, and director of its national measurements laboratory at the National Bureau of Standards. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these few comments, the article looks good, at least on my first pass through. For an unavoidably technical subject, it's made commendably clear to the non-scientific reader. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to leave a note to say that I haven't forgotten about this review. I will probably support, but as it's such a technical article I wanted to go through it one last time; I haven't had an opportunity yet though. I will probably be able to do so Friday evening UK time. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat later than anticipated, support. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "for a fortnight from" - US language article, "two weeks" is much more appropriate.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The S-1 Executive Committee" - thus begins a very long and confusing sentence. Suggest breaking this up.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in Chicago, although he" - sentence break here.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resist corrosion by the uranium hexafluoride respectively" - confusing, why would two different materials be needed respectively for a single chemical? Is there a part missing here?
    Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Groves therefore turned down a request" - confused here too, I assume that's because they had already provided more than 236 pounds? Scanning upward I don't immediately see a number. If that is the case, repeating it seems like a good idea, but if that's not the case this needs to be explained.
    Yes. Reworded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the army agreed to fulfil the order" - what is "the order"? And what is "the production process"? If that refers to liquid diffusion in general, I'm not sure what this statement is trying to say.
    No, the process for producing uranium hexafluoride. Reworded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "enriched to 0.86 percent uranium-235" - so did it fail to meet its goal of 6%, or did they just not do that for some reason? This is barely enriched, from .71 to 0.86, and it seems the idea was to go further but there is no explanation.
    For reasons explained below, the racks were run in parallel instead of in series, producing more uranium to a lower enrichment. In theory, using feed enriched to 0.86 will save Log (0.86/0.71)/Log (1.0043) ≈ 44 cascades at K-25. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nearly 0.9% uranium-235 would cost $3.5 million" - this seems like an almost direct copy of the statement above it, do we need two? And Tolman is repeated. How about "Murphee, Tolman and Cohen estimated that such a plant would require 1,600 columns and cost $3.5 million."
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "structures in the S50 area" - "S-50 area"?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "contract was terminated on 15 February" - is terminated the right word? It just "completed", no?
    It's the correct legal term. Large numbers contracts were terminated around the end of the war. See Smith, The Army and Industrial Mobilization (1959), pp. 635-666 for a description of termination and settlement procedures. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 2 September 1944" - this should be part of the next para, not this one.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were given two weeks' notice" - that their employment would be ending?
    Yes. In Australia our work contracts usually specify a certain notice period be given before employment contract termination. Two weeks' notice is normal (I think it's the legal minimum), but four weeks is fairly common and longer periods are not unknown. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article on Two Weeks Notice points to a movie with Hugh Grant and Sandra Bullock. (The absence of the apostrophe did not pass unnoticed.) Is there a more common term in the US? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The S-50 plant reopened in May 1946" - this section is unclear, what exactly opened? Was it just used as a building? Wouldn't much of it still be filled with equipment?
    Just the buildings. Added. Remember that they included laboratories, a cafeteria, machine shop, warehouses etc Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some follow ups:

  • I'm still confused about the UF6 supply issue. It appears that the initial production was at the NRC, and that Harshaw and DuPont set up their own production based on this process. So far so good? Ok but now we get to the part a little down the page where it says "The S-1 Executive Committee decided that no more uranium hexafluoride would be allocated to the NRL, although it would exchange enriched uranium hexafluoride for regular uranium hexafluoride". This confuses me for several reasons:
  1. ) didn't NRL still have their own line?
    Much too small to supply the much larger needs of the pilot plant. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ) "decided that no more uranium hexafluoride would be allocated to the NRL" - this language suggests that at some point in late 1942 or early 1943 that the NRL was allocated "an order" of UF6. If that is the case, no mention is made of this. But perhaps the UF6 came from the NRLs own line? I think this is the key problem, but it goes on...
    The decision was taken in September 1943. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ) "Between February and July 1943 the Anacostia pilot plant produced 236 pounds" - I assume this was produced using "the order"? It is definitely not clear where the raw material came from.
    The feed was previously given to the NRL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ) "Groves turned down a request for additional uranium hexafluoride over and above that in October" - which October? 42 or 43?It is not clear in context which it would be, and either seems possible. And because of the placement of the "in October" it is not specific, do you mean "Groves turned down additional material beyond what was delivered in October" or "In October, Groves turned down..."
    Groves informed the NRL in October 1943. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ) "army reluctantly agreed to fulfil the order" - the text above this suggests "the order" was fully delivered by this point, but this statement suggests it was not completed by this point? And when is this, October?
    The October 1943 request for more feed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of this would be made clear if there is some text about "the order", from who, two whom, and when it was placed.
Slightly altered the wording to: "In September 1943, the S-1 Executive Committee decided that no more uranium hexafluoride would be allocated to the NRL, although it would exchange enriched uranium hexafluoride for regular uranium hexafluoride. Groves turned down an order from the NRL for additional uranium hexafluoride in October 1943. When it was pointed out that the navy had developed the production process for uranium hexafluoride in the first place, the army reluctantly agreed to fulfil the order." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A minor follow-up on another issue "given two weeks' notice" - I suggest expanding this to "given two weeks' notice that their employment would be ending."
Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Large numbers contracts were terminated around the end of the war" - but this means two possible things. Simply put, was the construction of the plant completed in February? Then it should simply say "construction was completed in February."
"The construction contract was terminated on 15 February, and the remaining insulation and electrical work was assigned to other firms in the Oak Ridge area. They also completed the auxiliary buildings, including the new steam plant. The plant became fully operational in March 1945." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The S-50 plant buildings reopened in May 1946" - I'd like some clarification here. If they used the other buildings that you mention, it should be mentioned here - or alternately that the main diffusion plant was not used.
The entire area was turned over to NEPA. It needed some space, and the S-50 area was available. A similar situation occurred in the Y-12 area. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query: Maury Markowitz, have you anything further to add here? I'd like to wrap this one up if we can. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry yes, support. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Peacemaker67

Closing comments: The Bowen image is the only one without alt text, so it might be worth adding that after promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/S-50_(Manhattan_Project)/archive1&oldid=1143877299"