Talk:Chicago Pile-1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] bucket o' water

I heard that the fail-safe in case the reaction went out of control was a bucket of water. I want to include this in the article, but because it seems very unlikely, I wanted to put it in the discussion first. If anyone can confirm or deny this, let me know.

Thanks.

[edit] NO TWAS NOT A BUCKET O WATER

It was a cadmium salt solution because cadmium absorbs neutrons or somethin like that but i KNOW it was cadmium salt solution.


[edit] Merger

The following discussion is a concluded merger discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was AGAINST merger of Chicago Pile-1 into Stagg Field and AGAINST merger of Chicago Pile-1 with Metallurgical Laboratory.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I think a lot of this can be merged into Stagg Field, and if the nuclear part gets too long there it could become its own article under the title that the National Historic Landmarks Program uses, Site of first self-sustaining nuclear reaction. I can do it if folks would like, I just cleaned up Stagg Field and think it would be a great place for this stuff and the stuff from the other article. I am copying this to the other talk page as well.A mcmurray 04:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Why use the clunkly NHL name that nobody knows? Every history book lists this as Chicago Pile-1, I see no reason to list it under any other name. --24.147.86.187 12:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. That comment was three months ago though. IvoShandor 13:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that this should remain Chicago Pile-1. CP-1 isn't even located at "the site of the first self-sustaining nuclear reaction"--it was moved to the former site of Argonne National Laboratory, where it was reconstructed as CP-2 and where it's remains still reside today. CP-1 and that specific site are two separate concepts. Also, Stagg Field is NOT synonymous with the nuclear reactor--it has it's own history completely separate from both the lab and reactor. Squideshi 19:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this should remain at its current location and separate from Stagg Field.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I found this article, Metallurgical Laboratory, which is a near duplicate. Let's merge 'em. Speciate 02:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The Metallurgical Laboratory was a place and organization, and CP-1 was a nuclear reactor. These two topics are NOT synonymous. If you want to improve these articles, move the information about the reactor to this article and the information about the Metallurgical Laboratory to that article, and/or expand one or both. Squideshi 19:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I too feel the reactor should have a separate page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is a concluded merger discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Proposed Split of Chicago Pile-1

I have proposed that the section entitled Chicago Pile-1 be split into its own article. This is the world's first nuclear reactor, and it deserves its own article. I would also like to see similar freestanding articles for Chicago Pile-2 and Chicago Pile-3. Squideshi 00:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, no kidding! This is ABSURD the way it is set up. I am doing some editing of another article and was planning on creating a link to Pile 1, and it comes to this? Absolutely, yes, split of Chicago Pile-1 NOW. Unschool 03:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)