Jump to content

Talk:Trinity (nuclear test)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


"Popular culture"

I have to admit a strong bias: I can't stand the "In popular culture" sections which become a hodgepodge for every time a major historical event or theme is mentioned in a TV show, movie, Japanese cartoon, rock song, or science fiction novel (the nuclear weapon entry suffers from this somewhat, and the mad scientist entry had to be have a separate list created because people glutted up the page in an attempt to to add in every instance in "popular culture" of a "mad scientist" character.. so useless). I removed the following text:

The HBO television series Carnivale makes frequent reference to the Trinity site, initially in the pilot episode and now setting up the testing as a possible culmination point for the series.

Is there a compelling reason to add this? Does it improve the article? Does it improve our understanding of the article? I think that the article for the show should mention that it talks about the Trinity test, and link back here. I don't think such links need to be reciprocal, though. But I understand this is just a matter of taste. Let me know if you seriously think this is really necessary for an understanding of what "Trinity site" is about. --Fastfission 17:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

leave it out. - Omegatron 19:55, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

There is one "popular culture" (though it's not so popular) item I'm now afraid to refer to: Infocom's Trinity, in which you ultimately visit the site and have to stop the explosion... or so you think. Seeing that everything included must improve our understanding of the article, I'm sure we can't let this vile pop culture pervade our pristine nuggets of condensed knowledge. :-P 82.92.119.11 8 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)

That's interesting, but the link should be from the video game here, not vice versa. The video game doesn't enhance our understanding of the Trinity test; the Trinity test enhances our understanding of the video game. --Fastfission 8 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)
I was sorta hoping to challenge the assertion that "X cannot mention Y unless Y enhances our understanding of X"—getting into what is supposed to be "enhancing" to begin with. It's all too fuzzy and ill-defined for me to bother with. You obviously would disapprove of such an addition, I have no logical arguments to defend myself with, so I'll go away now. 82.92.119.11 9 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
I've put a link to the game in a more appropriate page, nuclear weapons in popular culture, which is linked to from here. If we put in a link to that game, we'd have to put a link in to every movie, game, news article, etc. which ever mentioned the test. I think that's not very helpful on the whole. --Fastfission 20:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
The Infocom game does a damn sight more than "mention" the test, considering the player must traverse an accurate virtual map of the test site and the McDonald Ranch House in order to play through successfully. Whether reading about the game will aid understanding of the test, I'll not argue, but playing the game certainly aided mine. Reading this article (and the one on McDonald Ranch House) for the first time, I noted facts I had already learned from the Infocom game. --63.25.15.191 15:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Atmospheric ignition

Multiple sources have said that there were real fears of the blast triggering a Ice-9 type transition - in this case, igniting the atmosphere (!). If someone would be able to verify this as real or fake, it should make a very interesting addition... -- Kizor 21:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Nuclear explosion:
In 1945 there was some initial speculation among the scientists developing the first nuclear weapons that there might be a possibility of igniting the earth's atmosphere with a large enough nuclear explosion. This would concern a nuclear reaction of two nitrogen atoms forming a carbon and an oxygen atom, with release of energy. This energy would heat up the remaining nitrogen enough to keep the reaction going until all nitrogen were finished. This was, however, quickly shown to be unlikely enough to be considered impossible [1]. Nevertheless, the notion has persisted as a rumor for many years.
--Fastfission 00:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

"Betting pools were set up among the observers for the results of the test. Some predictions ranged from zero, a dud, to 18 kilotons of TNT (predicted by I. I. Rabi), to destruction of the state of New Mexico, to ignition of the atmosphere and incineration of the planet (fortunately, this result was calculated to be almost impossible beforehand, though for a while it caused some of the scientists some anxiety.."

How did those betting on "ignition of the atmosphere and incineration of the planet" plan to collect on their wager in the event of them being correct ????? 87.112.11.232 11:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I always thought that the fears of "atmospheric ignition" were about the oxygen in the air "buring" with the nitrogen. T.Neo (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppenheimer's hindu quote

The article states that ""Now I am become Death, the Destroyer of worlds." was a misquote by Oppenheimer. Can anyone say what the correct quote should have been? -Lethe | Talk 03:21, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the translation. But most of them do "I am become Time" rather than "Death", I believe. I added a reference to an article by Hiyija which goes into it in (a ton of) detail. --Fastfission 04:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I believe the quote should be, "Now I am become Shiva, the Destroyer of worlds." Shiva is the Destroyer. Shiva is also the Creator. It has been suggested the Oppenheimer intended the double meaning. e=mc^2 is just that. It destroys, but also creates.
Um, you can see the article referenced at the bottom by Hiyija for a full discussion of the quote. --Fastfission 06:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Test director Kenneth Bainbridge, in an attempt to be less poetic, or perhaps more so, was said to have replied, "Now we are all sons of bitches." According to Oppenheimer's brother, Frank, at the time of the test he simply said, "It worked."

This passage is ambiguous. Was it Oppenheimer or Bainbridge that according to Frank so simply expressed his relief? I still don't know...

Thanks for clearing that up (I think it's what most of us would have said, too!)

The examination of the precise translation and origin of a Bhagavad Gita quote by Oppenheimer is extraneous to this article. Oppenheimer's sentiments are captured sufficiently with the one line, regardless of what the text of more accurate translations may be or how similar other materials may be. I am removing it. --Soonercary 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Trinity anniversary!

The 60th anniversary of the Trinity shot will be coming up on July 16, 2005 (two months from now). Let's try to get this article up to featured status by that time, as there are likely to be lots of news stories about the shot and lots of people searching google for more information! An ideal article on this might be structured like so:

  • Reason for the testing (two paragraph history of the Manhattan Project up to this point, uncertainty of the implosion method)
  • Preparation for the testing itself (finding the site, clearing out the locals, Jumbo, 100T pre-test, Laurence's letter, naming the test, etc.)
  • The test (the gadget, weather, assembling the bomb, the countdown, detonation)
  • Reactions to the test (scientists' reactions, Oppenheimer's quote, etc.)
  • Beyond the test (used by Truman at Potsdam, clearing out the rubble, Trinitite, the iconic photography)
  • Trinity today (atomic tourism, in culture, symbolism)

Let's work to put something like this together! I'm also thinking that we might want to rename it to "Trinity test" rather than just the "site", but I'm not sure it matters heavily. But it is a thought. --Fastfission 18:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

+Bethe's determination of the feasibility of the method? +Univ of Calif. workshop on the bomb? +Atomic everything (cocktail waitresses, etc. -- Lew Kowarski )? Would this be on a subpage? Ancheta Wis 01:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC) July 16, 1945 05:45:29 AM, Mountain War Time

Certainly the whole "it won't work/oh wait maybe it will" etc. problems would be a wonderful addition (plays up for drama well). I'm not sure the Berkeley workshop is entirely germane -- it is less connected with Trinity than it is the MP as a whole. I'm not sure "atomic everything" would apply except so much as it related to Trinity itself -- the famous "blob" picture (Brixner) and that one famous color one (Aeby), and the incessant quoting ("I am become Death"), etc. would be, though. And one thing I would add to the above list is the way it was released to the public: after Hiroshima, and pictures not until later. --Fastfission 01:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

+OK, sign me up. I'm going to a bookstore to get Bethe's memoir, and will get started on that aspect of it (unless someone wants to do this part). But the man who simply said "It worked" afterward also had afterthoughts which are germane to the present day. You might also send a note to the political scientists who might enjoy adding commentary, or at least a link to articles about the commentary. There might also be links to the exact section of the Bhagavad Gita#Revelation of the Supreme with the "Sunburst of a Thousand Suns" phrase, etc. Ancheta Wis 10:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The Carrizozo Malpais has a satellite picture of the location of Trinity site. There is a Map-it macro with some images of the site and terrain. This area is amazing, by the way. The White Sands, the Black Malpais, with Sierra Blanca overlooking the area (yes, you can ski there), the Apache reservation, I am not sure if the Stealth Fighter wing will get closed down (probably not). Sunspot NM -- there are 2 solar observatories about 50 miles away. Ancheta Wis 10:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd like an aerial view of the crater. I added the coordinates so it's veiwable on google satellite but i'm sure there's some public domain pictures available somewhere. - Omegatron 23:20, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the crater doesn't exist anymore -- it was bulldozed over a long time ago. However there are some common aerial photos juxtaposing the Trinity test explosion and the 100T explosion in terms of magnitude which I'm sure were taken during the Manhattan Project and in the public domain. I'll try to dig up a good picture for a good hi-res scan. --Fastfission 00:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, right afterwards wuold be better than this. - Omegatron 02:16, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
The basic one I am talking about is this one (also here) but I'm not happy with any of the copies I have seen online. I think I know where I can find a much higher resolution version, but it will take me a few weeks to get back in town where I can access it. The large black crater was the Trinity blast, the smaller explosion to the south-east of it was the crater of 100 tons of TNT. --Fastfission 04:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys, this looks pretty good! The only thing missing is a description of the actual test preparations itself -- Jumbo, hoisting the bomb to the top of the tower, problems in putting in the core, fear of the weather, leading up to the countdown. If someone has the time, there are a number of descriptions of this all over the internet... --Fastfission 14:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Whenever we get around to finding a place to stick it, I wasn't able to find a better crater picture but this one will do for now: Image:Trinity crater.jpg. --Fastfission 21:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


Well, I just came here from the link on the front page. Gotta say, you did a good job of making an interesting article. Well done. :) One small nitpick, though: you quote two figures for the yield of the device, 18.6kt and 19kt. I assume the 19 is rounded, but ideally the same figure should be used throughout the article. JulesH 22:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I fixed that up and went for a more "rounded" number (I don't trust "exact" numbers with things like this). --Fastfission 22:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


Contemporary News reports

I just heard on NPR that there were contemporary news reports. What did they say? The article just says The military reported it as an accidental explosion at a munitions dump, and the actual cause was not publicly acknowledged until the August 6 attack but more info would be great. --NealMcB 19:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, I don't know, I'll see if I can find any citations for those. I have in PDFs all of the original press releases which were to be released depending on whether or not anybody died in the test (alluded to in the article), but I can't recall what was actually reported. The major newspapers (NYT, Washington Post, WSJ) did not pick it up at all, I'm pretty sure (I did a search on that day for "explosion" in their archives and found nothing relevant). --Fastfission 19:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Tower leg shoes shown to this day

How come the basis of tower legs survived the explosion, including the steel bars in it? They were all inside the fireball. Shouldn't they atomize to plasma or entirely evaporate at least? I can understand how the big Jumbo jug survived 800 meters away, outside the fireball, but cannot get the tower legs.

The fireball does not supply an infinite amount of heat and the amount of heat is less at the edges. This is also why the fireball did not leave behind a perfectly spherically-shaped hole in the ground, as it could not atomize everything which it brushed. (SEWilco 18:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC))

Ethics matters

Though impeccably documented, at least from an historical perspective, I come to disagree with the original report. Its partial approach is perfectly reflected in the way it justifies the nuclear action overtaken by the US government. Yet in the dawn of the 21st century, I've just been horrified to read that 120,000 deaths were just a sort of collateral damage to avoid futher damages.I am afraid this is not only a frivolous and false remark, but a tremendous lack of respect for all the victims of that day, and a new prove that, unfortunately, history is written by winners. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.247.136.34 (talk • contribs) .

I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry. Try being a bit more coherent. --Fastfission 01:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Any such claims that you may have read probably reflect one of the arguments in favor of the bombs' deployment, and do not construe objective reality beyond that capacity. Such a rationale may be an offensive idea, but reporting on it is not a demonstration of bias. If you're talking about some other source or prior revision of some Wikipedia article of which I am unaware, perhaps I am mistaken as I don't know the exact wording of that about which you're talking. Dwringer (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Colorized explosion

Is this a colorized version of Image:trinity_explosion.jpg? I'm not sure that a digitally altered version of a historic photo is more appropriate for this article. --Yath 06:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we've got a revert war brewing. I don't think colorized versions of historic photos belong in an encyclopedia except possibly in very specific, justified circumstances. None of the recently added images here (Trinity test) or at LZ 129 Hindenburg improve the article, in my opinion. If someone can bring up reasons for including them, by all means do so. But I think they should go. --Yath 06:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think colorized images are a mistake as well. They sacrifice historical accuracy for showbiz pizazz. I suggest the black-and-white originals be returned. Blimpguy 12:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. If the original is black-and-white (and I'm almost positive it is), we shouldn't be adding non-original information. Avt tor 14:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll second that opinion. Colourised images smack of original research on the part of the colouriser.--chris.lawson 21:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Colorized versions of this sort are absolutely inappropriate. There is also no reason to think it was that hue of orange at all! --24.147.86.187 20:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fermi fast mind

Perhaps must be quoted the anecdote of how Enrico Fermi estimate the power of the bomb with throwing papers while the test. It can be linked to Fermi's problems as well.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Under the "Test results" section, the article currently says: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed at least 120,000 people outright and many more over time, but are claimed by many internationally credible sources to have saved many more lives in the Pacific Ocean theater of World War II.

The citing of anonymous "internationally credible sources" here adds an implicit POV judgment to the discussion; those who justify the bombings in this way are characterized as "internationally credible," encouraging the reader to subscribe to their claim to the detriment of their anonymous opponents. This is also a perfect example of weasel words.

Although, in my opinion, there are also "many internationally credible sources" on the other side of this debate, I figured a better solution would be to remove any value judgments whatsoever and add a more neutral statement about the continuing controversy over this issue. Doudja 03:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A conjecture on the name

The trinity device, Fat Man and Little Boy make three. Lycurgus 09:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Except at the time they didn't know it would be only three explosions. --Fastfission (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

??

Booooom today at this time many years ago Apupunchau 11:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thin Man

The plutonium gun bomb Thin Man nuclear bomb was found impractical in April 1944 not 1942 according to the Thin Man page Hugo999 (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN.

The following issues all need inline citations. The statements may be questioned by a reader for their verifiability, or may be a quote that always need inline citations directly after the statement.

  1. "From these results it was thought that the creation of a bomb was as simple as shooting one piece of fissile material into another to form a critical mass."
  2. "It was feared that the danger from radiation and fallout would be greatly increased by rain, and lightning had the scientists concerned about accidental detonation."
  3. "The shock wave was felt over 100 miles (160 km) away, and the mushroom cloud reached 7.5 miles (12 km) in height."
  4. "Test director Kenneth Bainbridge replied to Oppenheimer, "Now we are all sons of bitches." According to Oppenheimer's brother, Frank, Oppenheimer simply said, "It worked."" Quotes
  5. "News reports quoted a forest ranger 150 miles (240 km) west of the site as saying he saw "a flash of fire followed by an explosion and black smoke." A New Mexican 150 miles (240 km) north said, "The explosion lighted up the sky like the sun." Other reports remarked that windows were rattled and the sound of the explosion could be heard up to 200 miles (320 km) away."
  6. "The Manhattan Project's official journalist, William L. Laurence, had put multiple press releases on file with his office at The New York Times to be released in case of an emergency, ranging from an account of a successful test (the one which was used) to more macabre scenarios explaining why all of the scientists had perished in a single freak accident.[citation needed]" Address the inline citation tag.
  7. "Around 260 personnel were present, none closer than 5.6 miles (9 km). At the next test series, Operation Crossroads in 1946, over 40,000 people were present."
  8. "It could not be tested because there was only enough uranium-235 for one bomb."

Other issues:

  1. Expand the lead a bit more if possible to better summarize all of the sections in the article. For example, include information about the fact it is a tourist site now.
  2. If possible, expand the test results section with any other available information. It seems brief for such an important test. If no new information can be found with the sources available, expand on the current information there.
  3. There are a few single/two-sentence paragraphs that should either be expanded on or incorporated into another paragraph as they shouldn't stand alone. An example is "Around 260 personnel were present, none closer than 5.6 miles (9 km). At the next test series, Operation Crossroads in 1946, over 40,000 people were present."
  4. "The amount of exposure received during a one-hour visit to the site is about half of what a U.S. adult receives on an average day from natural and medical sources.[3]" Convert this external link to an inline citation.
  5. Consider removing some of the external links, there are quite a bit of them. See WP:EL for recommendations on what type of external links to include. Consider using these links for finding sources for the above "citation needed" statements if they are from reliable sources.
  6. This isn't required for GA status, but it would be beneficial for the readers/FA status if the external links all used the templates found at WP:CITET. The websites could include the author, date, access date, title, etc.

Overall, the article was an interesting read and it's great there are so many free images. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not know the origin of the name, or that Oppenheimer picked it. It could be a nice touch to link the two aspects of poetic description: Trinity, and "I have become death".
Finding a cite might be a challenge, but Fermi's experiment of dropping pieces of paper to measure the yield is an interesting aside.
There are definitely more details about the test, such as what happened to the Jumbo container, no longer needed. Most details would be anecdotal, because there are things we'd look for today that were not known at the time. Several effects required a higher burst altitude to have significant effect, such as EMP and the Mach effect. Have you gone through Carey Sublette's pages? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to remember to get my big fat book on the subject tomorrow. Most of the quotes should be in it. Someone else will have to convert the citations; the kangaroo court said I can't help. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If all of the above issues are addressed, I have no problem converting the citations myself. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, more work being delegated based on the whims of another unknown person... I confess to finding these sorts of things wearying—from "Be Bold" we have turned to "Be Scholastic".
Anyway, I don't have any time to devote to this, I'm afraid, but most everything can be found somewhere in Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb, of course. The bit about Laurence comes, I believe, from Spencer Weart's Nuclear Fear. Frank's quote is originally in the Jon Else documentary, but can also surely be found elsewhere (bad pun?). A good cite for the "from these results" bit might be the Los Alamos Primer itself. --Fastfission (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Rhodes is what I have. I found some other sources too, and added bullet points above in addition to editing the article. I'm done, I think. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Eew, other things you find while looking at stuff... I'm not going to add "For observers standing from six to ten miles away, the site was fearsome." because those six miles away probably did fear the site, and probably didn't like the sight either. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review for WP:NRHP

I see that WP:NRHP is listed on this Talk page, and I appreciate your notice to Talk page of WP:NRHP re this GA review. But, I don't see anything in the article justifying it being included in WP:NRHP. From the NRIS system, there does exist a "White Sands National Monument Historic District" which is a NRHP, but there is no redirect from that name to this article. There's nothing in the article about the historic district established, the date of NRHP listing, or anything else. There are no NRHP sources, such as the official NRHP Inventory-Nomination document which is included in many NRHP site articles as a source. I think probably it is best to remove WP:NRHP from this article. A separate article could be created about the NRHP district, later, if a New Mexico WP:NRHP wikipedian would like to do so. (Often, it is helpful to have a separate article about a site, separate from an event like this is or from a historic person who was associated with a site). But, for now for NRHP standards, I would have to rate this article as merely a STUB, and certainly not a Good Article in terms of describing the NRHP site that is associated with the event. doncram (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Added NRHP infobox, and linked to NPS info next to NRHP/NHL dates. Is the article correct, that the NHL date is before the NRHP date? The dating in the lists is confusing. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The National Historic Landmark program predates the National Register of Historic Places. The first NHLs were designated in 1960. When the NRHP was created in 1966, the NHLs were automaticaly listed in the NRHP. Thus, for many properties there are two dates - one for NHL designation, the other for listing in the NRHP. Einbierbitte (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The NRHP infobox, NHL webpage link, and NRHP text PDF link added by SEwilco definitely help, thanks and glad you had energy to do this. I refined those somewhat, adding an NRIS footnote, adding the 10 pic NRHP photo set to the NRHP text PDF link, and using footnote names to invoke the 3 references elsewhere in the article. Now it does seem that this should stay in WP:NRHP. Some more development in the article now about the 36000(?) acre area that is covered in the landmarking, based on the NRHP text, would be helpful. doncram (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps review: failed

Although many of the issues I raised were addressed, various statements are still lacking citations and the other issues section weren't fixed. Because of this, I have delisted the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the issues are fixed, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Good job on fixing some of the issues so far and keep it up. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Location

  • It would be more accurate to say that the Trinity Site was between the towns of Carrizozo and San Antonio, New Mexico. The latter is the closest town to the site.
  • Could somebody verify the coordinates of test side? The article says the test side is at 33°40'38.21"N 106°28'31.34"W . Shouldn't it be: 33°36'14.31"N 106°35'25.23"W ??
I followed the link in the article to the Google satellite map, which lands in the center of the circle which I have been using as the marker for the site. In other words, the article coordinates look good to me. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Jumbo"

I would like to see a picture of "Jumbo" as it looks today. Does anyone have one he could add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.145.146.129 (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

date

maybe somewhere the date ' July 16, 1945' should appear......Borisvonolin (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on the page

The History section of the page (right under "Main article: Manhattan Project") has been vandalised. This page needs protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.96.203.197 (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Potsdam Conference

The article claims that Truman used news of the bomb as leverage against Stalin at the Potsdam conference with no citation. I am under the impression that Truman casually mentioned it to Stalin and Stalin showed no real interest but recommended the US use the bomb against the Japanese. (As per American Prometheus by Kai Bird) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.42.25 (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppenheimer quote and Trinity name

I have begun to clean up the Oppenheimer quotation regarding the source of the Trinity name (see WP:QUOTE and WP:MOSQUOTE) but I am unclear on which words are exactly Oppenheimer's and which are Donne's or Rhodes's. If someone has the Rhodes source on hand, note that the quotation should be of Oppenheimer's correspondence exactly (which it should cite, via Rhodes or whatever source), and should not be adjusted to any edition of Donne. Citations of Donne are probably unnecessary and possibly inappropriate, and any other commentary or expansion should appear here or in the article (outside of the quote template). /ninly(talk) 23:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


Richard Feynman, not Ernest Lawrence

The scientist who claimed to be the only one to see the fireball directly (through the windshield of a truck) was Richard Feynman, not Ernest Lawrence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.199.3.140 (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

wounded

Do we have info on the effects of the nuclear explosion (long term and short term effect, occurrences of cancer for example) on the people that were there the day of trinity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.242.106 (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ratliff "Hot Canyon" Ranch

There was a ranch that was not evacuated, accidently, an elderly couple and around 200 goats lived through the event and if my memory serves me right it was around 6 miles away?!? I have read about this books and there is only a little reference to it on the internet, but the goats had burned backs from the radiation burns from the fallout. The ranch was visited many times my AEC/DOD employees over the years, but I don't think the documents on it have ever been released. Does anyone have any information on it? JhanJensen (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Reactions?

Why are there lists of reactions from various countries about the test when the nuclear test is executed by other countries but not when it is done by the U.S?66.183.58.186 (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Crazy-ass reference

A recent paper (P.P. Parekh (2006). "Radioactivity in Trinitite six decades later". Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. 85 (1): 103–120. doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2005.01.017. PMID 16102878. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)) reports the levels of long-lived radioisotopes in the trinitite. The trinitite was formed from feldspar and quartz melted by the heat. The 152Eu and 154Eu was mainly formed by the neutron activation of europium in the soil; it is clear that the level of radioactivity for these isotopes is highest where the neutron dose to the soil was larger. Some of the 60Co is generated by activation of the cobalt in the soil, but some was also generated by the activation of the cobalt in the steel (100 ft) tower. This 60Co from the tower would have been scattered over the site, reducing the difference in the soil levels.

The 133Ba and 241Am are from the neutron activation of barium and plutonium inside the bomb. The barium was present in the form of the barium nitrate in the baratol explosive used in the explosive lenses, while the plutonium was the fissile fuel used.

The 137Cs level is higher in the sample which was farther away from the ground zero point; this is thought to be because the precursors to the 137Cs (137I and 137Xe) and the cesium to a lesser degree are volatile. The natural radioisotopes in the glass are about the same in both locations.


It's a lot of text, i felt bad just deleting it though it doesn't belong in the citation text. Dumping here in case it should be incorporated into the article. Larryisgood (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

reference #31 appears to be dead

  1. 31 The Trinity Test: Eyewitnesses returns a 404. Could anyone find the material the reference linked to originally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.15.13.176 (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Focus of article

The article has too much on the weapon and the Manhattan Project, duplicating what is in other articles, but not enough on the test itself. For example, there is nothing about the cover story that the Trinity test was an ammunition dump blowing up. Would anyone object to my doing some major cuts? I know about BRD, but this one has been stable for quite a time. Figureofnine (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it is full of superfluity. If we removed all the stuff from Manhattan Project, Fat Man, Nuclear weapon design and Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the article could be cut at least in half. This would then allow major improvements to the article. Bomazi (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Two Sections named explosion

Sections 3 and 4 are both named explosion, which is clearly undesirable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.101.6 (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Presence of Richard Feynmann at Trinity test

Richard Feynmann, qv, not only viewed the Trinity test, he did so without goggles. He not only participated in the Manhattan Project, he was the envoy sent to observe the first chain reaction (squash court, Chicago) and report back to project leaders. He is now known as one of the greatest physicists of our time. His direct contributions to the Manhattan Project and his later developments in quantum theory suggest STRONGLY that his presence,and eyewitness account of Trinity, be AT LEAST briefly included, with a link to your eponymous article.

Thank you for your consideration!

2605:6000:630A:A800:38BD:FBC6:69D2:E61A (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

John Carl Harper jharpersa@aol.com

It is already there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Grammar

User:JuanRiley Even though the wording was different, it still seems to not be on the side to be considered an error, all you did was simplify the wording. (N0n3up (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC))

The "test was of" vs "test used" was changed a day or two ago. I made the change because the test was not of any nuclear bomb design but was quite specifically a test of the complicated implosion design. The change though seemingly small is not grammatical but logical. Juan Riley (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
But it was of a particular design: Fat Man. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Fireball or Pressure Wave?

The picture at the top of the page states that the image is of the fireball from detonation. Now, I'm not disputing this, but it seems a bit big, not to mention remarkably smooth and symmetrical? To grow 600 feet across within 16 milliseconds, and so perfectly round and smooth? Also, the trees in front of the fireball should be in full blaze from the radiant heat in front of the fire? I would think it's more likely to be the pressure wave, as it has been stated in several diffrent sources that the blast compressed the air until it was visible to the naked eye, something which would also make a smooth and symmetrical 'ball' as the pressure grew in all directions at once. However, I do not KNOW, so if someone could answer/prove me wrong, please do. 85.230.41.75 (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed a picture of the fireball. The pressure front initially grows more slowly than the fireball, then overtakes it and detaches from it. You can see this clearly in Trinity_Test_Fireball_62ms.jpg. Bomazi (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

General Patton

"A Mojave Desert Army base near Rice, California was considered the best location, but was opted against because General Leslie Groves, military head of the project, did not wish to have any dealings with Gen. George S. Patton, commander of the base, whom he disliked.[19] "

The base would be Rice Army Airfield. Terry Thorgaard (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

According to Patton's wikipedia article, in 1944-5, Patton was very busy in Europe - what would he be doing commanding a base in the USA? 86.26.121.213 (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it seems odd, and I noticed that myself. But it is reliably sourced to the National Atomic Museum in Albuquerque. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not reliable if it isn't true. Patton was in Europe fighting the Germans from 1942 to after the Trinity tests. He came home briefly in 1945, but only to visit, then returned to Europe where he served in the occupation forces before being relieved of his command. He died of complications from an automobile accident in late 1945. The Atomic museum is not a military history, so not sure why this is being cited as "reliable". Recommend a second source be sought for this. It's mostly gossip at this stage.198.161.2.241 (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's another reference with the same statement. LouScheffer (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Earlier in the war, Patton personally set up a training base for desert warfare. Although he was obviously not personally running it later in the war, I'd guess it was possible he was the supervisor of the guy who was. In this case he might still need to be consulted. Surely military records would indicate if this was the case, but I have no idea how to check. LouScheffer (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I have verified that the ultimate source of all of these is Ferenc Szasz's The Day the Sun Rose Twice, p. 28. Now I need to locate a copy or this book and look up where he got it from. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
It may be that Groves was worried Patton might somehow get wind of the test, from "his people" at that base, and didn't want to answer any inquiries from Patton about it. At the time, Patton would not have had any supervisory ties to the base, as his command was elsewhere in Europe. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Code name

Well, with all respect to Oppenheimer, I think he made up that poetic answer in order to give it relevance and depth. I think that the name "Trinity" sounds very much like the first letters in "trinitrotoluene" (TNT), not to be a hypothesis to consider. Remember that the explosive yield of nuclear devices began to be expressed in kilotons and megatons of TNT around that time, and the term was probably used on a daily basis during design and trials. They may even use "Trinity" as an informal apocope for the entire name of the explosive. Later, Oppenheimer could find that naming something so trascendent after an inner joke may sound frivolous and inappropriate, and chose to offer a deeper and gloomily inspirational explanation for the code name.

Dux Corvan (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

With no disrespect intended, what you personally think is irrelevant to the article. If you're suggesting it as a change to the article, I would ask you to provide RS that indicate this (otherwise it's original research at best, pure speculation at worst). If you're just posting it to discuss the idea, please keep in mind that these talk pages are [NOTAFORUM]. They are solely for discussion of proposed changes to the article.Jbower47 (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Alamogordo

I believe that Alamagordo in the text should be Alamogordo. Ae1083t (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC) David Adamson

That's right, but I'm not finding an incorrect spelling in the text. Figureofnine (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

who was there?

can some one tell me who was at the site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.114.97 (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Citations

Tweaked up the format of a couple of the citations. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Where was Oppenheimer?

The article currently states: "Two bunkers were set up to observe the test. Oppenheimer and Brig. Gen. Thomas Farrell watched from a bunker ten miles (16 km) from the detonation, while Gen. Leslie Groves watched at a bunker seventeen miles (27 km) away.", First of all, this does not match this map: http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/images/trmap2.gif Additionally this page on the DOE website suggests Oppenheimer watched the explosion with Kistiakowsky at the south shelter only 10,000 yards from ground zero, while Groves watched from the 10-mile base camp: http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/trinity.htm (go back to any time prior to 2011, because the page disappeared in early 2011)

Actually, the distances are off by a factor of about 1.6, suggesting that somebody may have gotten sloppy in copying distances in kilometers into this Wikipedia article and saying they were miles, while the new additional conversion to kilometers may have been added later by another editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.33.23 (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", an excellent reference, has Oppenhiemer at 10,000 yards (9.1km, 5.7 miles) and Groves at base camp (10 miles, 16 km). I changed the article... LouScheffer (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

One pool or many

The bit talking about betting pools starts of saying there were multiple pools (suggesting there was a culture of gambling around it) but ends talking about one specific pool. Which one is it? I don't know, but perhaps someone who knows can make this section consistent?

Lucaswilkins (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, clarified this using info from Rhodes, "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", a very solid (and readable) reference. LouScheffer (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I have a copy of Rhodes here (paperback edition, 1986). Quote from page 656:
"The senior men arranged a betting pool with a $1 entry fee, wagering on the explosive yield. Edward Teller optimistically picked 45,000 tons of TNT equivalent. Hans Bethe picked 8,000 tons, Kistiakowski 1,400. Oppenheimer picked a modest 3,300 tons. Norman Ramsey picked a cynical zero. When I. I. Rabi arrived a few days before the test the only bet left was 18,000 tons; whether or not he believed this to be the Trinity yield, he picked it."

Page 664:

"With the weather [on the night before the 5:00 AM scheduled firing] turning from stagnant to violent, and everyone short of sleep, moods swung at base camp. The occasion of Fermi's satire that evening made Bainbridge furious. It merely irritated General Groves:

'I had become a bit annoyed with Fermi; ...when he suddenly offered to take wagers from his fellow scientists on whether or not the bomb would ignite the atmosphere, and if so, whether it would merely destroy New Mexico or if it would destroy the world. ....'
"Bainbridge was furious because Fermi's "thoughtless bravado" might scare the soldiers, who did not have benefit of the knowledge of thermonuclear ignition temperatures and fireball cooling effects. But a new force was about to be loosed on the world, no one could be absolutely certain -- Fermi's point -- of the outcome of the debut."
It would appear that there was at least two separate betting incidents, one of them a mock teasing possibly with a more serious point, the other a straight numbers pool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkoreKeep (talk • contribs) 07:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Expansion

I have begun the process of expansion of the article to bring it up to FAC. It will be unstable for a couple of weeks. Most of the sections of the article will be greatly expanded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Silver or Nickel?

Comes Goldsilver5979 with the assertion that the Trinity core was plated with nickel, in opposition to references. He provides a link in the change comment, not in the text, to a metallurgist's interview who worked on the core - very interesting reading. Anyway, he says in one place they plated the core with silver, then in another place, he says, "At first, we electroplated it and then we used a carbonated nickel coating.". This is not a statement that the electroplated the core with nickel, but rather the electroplated it with whatever (silver, as stated in the other passage) and then coated it with a nickel salt. The coating is not the plating; you can't plate anything with nickel carbonate (well, I have to take that back a bit - you would use a nickel salt to electroplate it, but that is obviously not what the metallurgist says). Perhaps the nickel salt coating was to keep the silver from tarnishing. I think he is right in both places, did not misspeak or was mistaken by the interviewer. I think he said exactly what he meant, and that was that silver was used, it blistered, they fixed it, and thereafter used nickel which didn't (as far as I know) blister. It is a great reference to the fact and I'll incorporate it into the text. SkoreKeep (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I've re-checked the sources, and Hawkins et al are clear about the Trinity gadget being electroplated with silver. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Modern image of physics package.

I've added an image of a mockup of the physics package. The image is from the US Government's official nuclear weapons training school's museum and is likely constructed from actual spare weapon's parts.Kylesenior (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it because it's redundant to photos we have of the actual beast. EEng 07:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Add subsection about Atmosphere Ignition Hypothesis

The LA-602 report (cited but not enhanced) and its previous motivation (supposed Edward Teller's 1942 preliminar calculations ref) must be explained as encyclopedic issue. Krauss (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Federation of American Scientists (FAS):
Rept. No. LA-602
Title Ignition of the atmosphere with nuclear bombs
Author Konopinski, E. J. (Emil J.)
Description 20 p.
Published Aug. 14, 1946.
LANL URL http://lib-www.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/getfile?00329010.pdf
Local PDF 00329010.pdf
PDF size 1.6MB

And yes, this is worth explaining. When I’ve heard mention in the past of a hypothesised risk of igniting the atmosphere, I’ve always misunderstood it - as some notional risk of a *O2 + N2 —> NO* reaction: ie a chemical reaction, and a pretty fanciful idea. It seemed obviously an artefact of journalism or controversy. It is of encyclopaedic significance tht (1) the fear was of a nuclear runaway, and (2) the perceived risk was substantial enough to be evaluated carefully. (There’s also a reasonably notable application of the precautionary principle in the text - Section 1 (Introduction), third para.)

- SquisherDa (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
That paper is already cited in the article, with an explanation. However, since you misunderstood it, I have added a note that the reaction Teller was most concerned with was: 14
7N
 + 14
7N
 → 24
12Mg
 + 4
2He
 (alpha particle) + 17.7 MeV.
For a detailed discussion of the matter See [4] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

100-ton test

Apparently some people can't understand that:

  • The yield of the explosion was about 100 tonnes of TNT equivalent, hence the name of the test.
  • The actual explosive used was composition B, as seen in the video.
  • One tonne of composition B is equivalent to 1.33 tonne of TNT, a relationship that was known at the time.

So if a source mentions TNT, since we know they really used composition B, then they must be talking in terms of tonnes of TNT equivalent, and not in tonnes of TNT.

I hope we can correct the current version of this section which is simply wrong. 100 tonnes of composition B would have released much more energy than what was measured. Bomazi (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I've re-checked the source and that's what it says. You need to provide us with a reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


I am using the following source:

However, by scaling the results of the 100-ton test (108-tons TNT equivalent neglecting any effects of wood boxes) one has...

— Kenneth Bainbridge, Trinity, 1976, p.58

Now, to be consistent, all values given in this section must come from the same line in the following table:

Composition B [tonne] Composition B [short ton] TNT (equivalent) [tonne] TNT [short ton] Energy [gigajoule]
74 81 98 108 410
81 89 108 119 450
98 108 130 144 545
108 119 143 158 600

According to this source, the correct values are those given by the second line (TNT equivalents are always given in metric tons, not short tons). Note also that these values are consistent with the energy measurement of 450 gigajoules given in the article.

Since the video shows they used Composition B, then yes, they used 81 tonnes of it, not 108. If using an unsourced number (81 tonnes) is a problem a formulation like: the test used an amount of Composition B equivalent to 108 tonnes of TNT is acceptable.

I won't make any edit to the article because I don't have the time nor the inclination to fight obtuse people. Hopefully someone will come along and use this information to fix this section. Bomazi (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved
 – I've made the change to the article, using the supplied reference, and invoking WP:CALC: Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

building on site?

There is a rectangular structure at the Trinity site, about 120 yards from the obelisk. Anyone know what this was used for? Any photos? (The McDonald Ranch House is about 2 miles away.) Elsquared (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm seeing some links added to my message, and I don't know where they're coming from....I don't see them on the editing page. Elsquared (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
There are multiple structures on the site, left over from the test. [5] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I think he may be referring to the shed on the burst site, put there to protect some virgin ground (or perhaps the trinitite scrapings) from when the Army bulldozed the site. It's 100 yards NW of GZ and the only building within 200 yards. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Comparison with later tests

I think comparisons to later tests would improve the article by giving readers the ability to see video of devices of similar yield detonated at similar height of bursts. As due to the lack of good video, how the trinity test really might have looked is a bit of a black box to those uninitiated - and this is an issue even that many who were in attendance at the trinity test have, as they were told to keep their backs to it until the intense flash was over, with only Teller and Feynman reportedly really getting to look at it.

I added the following, but it was removed as un-sourced, sadly no one else appears to have stated that any of these later tests were similar to Trinity, otherwise I would have attached such a source, although personally I don't think we need this redundant corroboration as it is plain to see that they were very similar, in fact probably the most similar tests to Trinity ever conducted. -

Video of shot MET (Military Effects Test) of Operation Teapot, fired on 15 April 1955, with a yield of 22 kilotons, was approximately of the same yield and height of burst as the Trinity test device/"Gadget" detonated in 1945.
This night shot of Upshot-Knothole Annie was televised and gives a rare record of both the sound and appearance of an actual nuclear device of similar yield and ambient brightness to the Trinity test.[1]

Apart from Joe-1 in 1949, the Soviet Union's first nuclear test, and due to its atomic espionage, it was almost identical to the Trinity Gadget. Although it was a daytime shot and not a darkly lit dawn shot like Trinity, the 1955 US Military Effects Test of Operation Teapot was another nuclear device with a slightly higher yield(22 kt) and atop a tower with moderately taller dimensions(120 m) to the Trinity test.

A closely paired night test with a similar yield to the trinity test was Upshot-Knothole Annie which produced a yield of 16 kt. 178.167.206.24 (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

They are off-topic in the Trinity article, but they are their own articles, which are liked at the bottom of the page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
They aren't really off topic, considering they are all nuclear tests. If this comparisons section was added to the very end of the article as you appear to be suggesting, then it would no doubt increase the educational value of this article.
178.167.206.24 (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Operation Upshot-Knothole Shot Annie, Youtube.com, retrieved October 27, 2013
I'm afraid I agree these comparisons are too far afield. Archiving. EEng 18:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Stimson's home

Because Stimson's summer home at High Hold was on Long Island and Harrison's farm near Upperville, Virginia, this indicated that the explosion could be seen 200 miles (320 km) away and heard 50 miles (80 km) away.[122]

This part, while induced in the source, is badly written the the source, and just confusing without the context of the full article, and should be removed. What it is trying to do is explain how far 200 miles actually, is. It is probably unnecessary.

First time making a comment, I don't really know how to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.247.35 (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You got it right. Well done. The sequence in question actually serves a number of different purposes. Firstly, the reder is reminded that senior officials were at the Potsdam Conference. Second, millennial reader may assume that someone picked up a mobile phone and called Potsdam. It is noted that the report took time to reach Potsdam. Third, the chain of command is illustrated, the message being passed from Harrison to Stimson, the Secretary of War, and not directly to the President. And finally, the quote is famous, because it refers to Little Boy, which was already en route to Tinian. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Trinity (nuclear test). 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trinity (nuclear test). 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Trinity (nuclear test). 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Trinity (nuclear test). 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trinity (nuclear test). 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Could someone look at the "External links" section for trimming? Sometimes things just creep in and 3-5 might be an acceptable limit but 19 links might be considered a good definition of link farming. Otr500 (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Georgia Green

An Associated Press article quoted a blind woman 150 miles (240 km) away who asked "What's that brilliant light?" These articles appeared in New Mexico, but East Coast newspapers ignored them.[117]

Snopes says the quote was "What was that?" (which sounds a lot more plausible than "what's that brilliant light?"), and also says she was only 50 miles away, and it also makes clear she could see light and dark. This should be fixed or better sourced. The Lansing Lamont book seems to have involved actual interviews with Ms. Green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.200.129 (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed this. While it's dramatic to say that the blind woman saw and the lame were healed, it appears she was merely legally blind, but could tell light from dark, so no surprise she saw the flash. EEng 18:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Some questions about geography of trinity site

The phrase Jornada del Meurto, tho poetic, is not one that is used a lot in those parts of NM--at least as far as I have ever heard. No matter. However, it is not a valley or basin but a trail--most of which stretches far south of trinity site. As a matter of fact the section in the vicinity of trinity (no poesy intended) is also in the Tularosa basin. Thus the statement: "Eight candidate sites were considered: the Tularosa Valley; the Jornada del Muerto Valley; the area southwest of Cuba, New Mexico, and north of Thoreau;..." hardly makes sense. I just kinda think these things should be cleared up or less ambiguous language used. Juan Riley (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I see on perusing the Bainbridge report that this is the language he used...i.e., "Jornada del Muerto Valley". Still it is an ambiguous wording. Sigh. We now have to know what Bainbridge meant by "Tularosa valley" and "Jornada del Muerto Valley". Sigh. If only I had known to ask him 40 years ago when he laughed at me for being afraid of thorium pellet.Juan Riley (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Technically I see now as I google more that some folk do refer to the area of the Tularosa basin to the west of Oscuro Mts as the Jornada del Muerto Valley. So please disregard. Still 'tis a wee bit confusing. Juan Riley (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Using a better photo

This photo is kind of an unfortunate choice:

  • It is actually pretty low-resolution, full of chunky pixels
  • It has been colorized and modified as part of the "Trinity and Beyond" film

The first is by itself is a good reason not to use it. The second possibly involves a copyright issue (colorization and modification is copyrightable, even if the base image is in the public domain).

Why not just use an original government photo, one of the few non-colorized ones?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.200.129 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Although the color exposed photo replacement by Jack Aeby was used, this image also falls into the 'low resolution' problem due to it being photographed by an older camera device at the time and is thus, no different. In such cases, why should the one by Jack Aeby be used for the above mentioned reason if slightly better versions of the detonation exists for use? In addition, the image of the detonation in overall proportion to the image is small and details are difficult to define.
  • Second reason is somewhat arbitrarily subjective. Although it may be colorized and restored by the T&B:tABM production team, the image has not been modified and or made unique enough from the original product to be solely claimed for copyright, by the production staff or otherwise. In this case, if someone can get any image from the internet without the publisher's permission, be it copyrighted or otherwise, and placed a simple iPhone color filter over it with no other modification, the copyright to the newly modified image is still not unique enough for the image modified to claim copyright by the person who modified it.

Correct me if I'm wrong. If so, a simple correction would be to reduce image color to black-and-white as the video would have been prior to it's restoration/colorization (July 1945) to eliminate possibility of any copyright claim.

Placing Jack Aeby's imag in gallery

NotLessOrEqual (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Fallout map

Fallout around the Trinity site in Röntgens. The radioactive cloud moved towards the northeast with high radiation levels within about 100 miles (160 km).

I find the fallout map quite puzzling and therefore dubious. For starters, I would expect fallout to be measured in units of curies per unit area, and not in roentgens. Furthermore, I would expect a time after the test to be given, such as integrated dose measurements one year after the explosion, or suchlike. Some of the doses given seem very high for such a broad area. For instance, the dose for >5.0 roentgens seems to cover a very large area, and I would expect the death rate for such does (i.e. on the order of 5000 millirem) to quite noticeable, but no mention is made of deaths due to fallout in the article.

Lastly and most importantly, no pedigree is given for these numbers. Are they measurements? If so, where is the primary reference for the data? Are they calculations? Again where is the primary reference for them? Does WP:OR apply here? If not, how do we know? Rwflammang (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Ha, ha, I had the exact same concerns. I didn't read your views until I removed the suspect graphic. As to the 5 R region on the map, 5 R is not a major issue as far as causing deaths per se. People don't typically die from radiation sickness until they receive the equivalent of 200 to 800 R in an acute dose. 500 R is the accepted LD50 dose.
So here is the dud map. It needs some work, but it could be useful if cleaned up. I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trinity_(nuclear_test)/Archive_1&oldid=1170731605"