Talk:MAUD Committee

Maud Ray was not Bohrs old girlfriend. She was a housekeeper at a place he'd lived when he studied in Britain under Rutherford. And he didn't ask for her - he told them to tell her.

OK I have amended the article, but with your detailed sources, you might have done a better job.JMcC 09:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've got it down "as his children's former governess", on p15 Pierre, Andrew J『Nuclear Politics : The British Experience With An Independent Strategic Force, 1939-1970』(1972), and he is citing Gowing, Margaret “Britain and Atomic Energy, 1939-1945” (1964) - which is the "offcial" history of the UK bomb project. Pickle 12:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why is there discrepency between MAUD and Maud. Which is it? And if it's MAUD, what does that stand for? Rukky 19:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I think we should move it to Maud Committee. It was named after someone called Maud, so it is not an abbreviation. Anyone disagree? JMcC 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thats the point of the annecdote! - It does and dosen't stand for anything!!! However looking in Margaret Gowing's offcial history of the british nuclear weapons project sereis of book (all 3 are very thick!), its is reffered to as Maud rather than MAUD. (This was in the field of my BA dissertation) Pickle 01:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

It actually stands for: Military Application of Uranium Detonation which is why in the original document (shown as the lead image) the word is in block capitals and punctuated by full stops, i.e., M.A.U.D.

The Maud Ray Kent anecdote was probably theorised by someone not privy to this correct meaning, as this would have been highly secret at the time, as including the word 'Detonation' it fairly obviously refers to an explosion, i.e., a bomb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

This page claims that the "Maud Ray" telegram was from Bohr. Richard Rhodes claims that the telegram was sent by Lise Meitner (though the message was presumably behalf of Bohr). The full sentence is: "MET NIELS AND MARGRETHE RECENTLY BOTH WELL BUT UNHAPPY ABOUT EVENTS PLEASE INFORM COCKCROFT AND MAUD RAY KENT." I'd like to fix the article. Any objections? Asrabkin (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I too read about the supposed Meitner telegram in Rhodes. According to him, she sent it (presumably from Sweden) to someone she knew in England, who sent it to Cockroft, who in turn sent it to famous physicist James Chadwick with the attempt to solve the supposed anagram. Hexmaster (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

From the very beginning Melitta Norwood, a Communist, was Secretary of the Committee. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/spy-scandal-the-double-life-of-a-quiet-old-lady-1117939.html

It seems unlikely that it took until 1943 for the Russians to "obtain" anything. In fact she was keeping them informed in real time.

This seems to be normal operating procedure, of course, just like the CIA running the Soviet air defense system in the 1970s.

Now then, can somebody bring me up to speed on just what Hitler's "my Jew," Milch, the head of German aviation research, did to produce a useful air force as opposed to a bravura array of technological wonders?

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The result of the move request was: Cannot read a consensus for the move after 2+ weeks. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

MAUD Committee → Maud Committee – "Maud" is a codename, not an acronym, and we don't usually capitalise codenames. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 17:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose: It is an acronym; see above. This "Maud" spelling needs to be corrected to "MAUD" throughout the article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

  The above is incorrect. It is not an acronym. However, it was always written "M.A.U.D." and not "Maud". See Gowing, p. 45. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Neutral for now. The only source I have access to uses all-caps. How do the other sources handle it? Whatever style is chosen, there should be a section about how and if the name is capitalized, based on sources. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

• MAUD(Military Application of Uranium Detonation): Wikipedia should be renewed after the controlled information had been freed. The claim about British "Maud", is based on the source written by an official historian of the History of the Second World War: United Kingdom Civil Series and published in the USA in the Cold War era. However my editing about British "MAUD", is based on the source edited by a Senior Research Analyst at the World Nuclear Association and published in the UK in 2016. The source says "in the second British MAUD(Military Application of Uranium Detonation) report in July 1941"^[1].ナルドの香油 (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

That source has no footnotes. We need a better source than that to override the official historian. Currently the consensus among historians is summed up here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

• British civil servants have used "M.A.U.D." as an acronym for Military Application of Uranium Detonation. There is an acronym "M.A.U.D." in the first page of the MAUD Committee report in March 1941 as real historical sources. And it is explained by “Clouds of Deceit Deadly: Legacy of Britain's Bomb Tests” written by Joan Smith in 1985 as below^[2].

As a result of the frisch-Peierls Memorandum a subcommittee of the committee for the scientific survey of Air Warfare was set up. The sub-committee, whose brief was to look into the possibility of a Uranium bomb, was given an uninformative title-MAUD Committee. The name, deliberately intended to obscure its activities, was based on a misreading of a telegram from Niels Bohr to Otto Frisch. Bohr sent the telegram to England as Germany invaded Denmark; it ended with the curious phrase, 'Tell cock croft and Maud Ray Kent'. The reference to John Cockcroft, a science working in the Ministry of Supply, was comprehensible, but the last part of the message was a puzzle. Frisch and Cockcroft worked out that it might be a garbled anagram of Radium Taken, a message that the Germans has snatched Denmark's radium stocks. For this reason, former governess called Maud Ray, who lived in Kent, never received the reassuring message Bohr had sent her about the safety of his family. The phrase preyed on the scientists' minds, however, and the committee ended up with the name Maud.(Much later, it turned out that the name had been ingeniously interpreted by civil servants as an acronym for Military Application of Uranium Detonation.)

And a phrase "Military Application of Uranium Detonation" as "MAUD" is also used in the obituaries (memoirs) of Gowing published by the British Academy^[3].ナルドの香油 (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 10:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Lead and infobox;
  • Please introduce "Rudolf Peierls and Otto Robert Frisch"; nationality and profession.

     Y Noted that they were refugee physicists. Nationality is tricky; Peierls was German, but a naturalised British citizen; Frisch was Austrian, but not yet nationalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • the potential military feasibility a nuclear bomb; I cant't get the flow I think you've missed something before "a nuclear bomb"

     Y Added missing "of". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • "Use of Uranium for a Bomb" and "Use of Uranium as a source of power"; "B" in bomb is to be de-capitalized, or put on initial capitals for "source of power"

    While I agree that the capitalisation makes no sense, that's the way it appears in the actual titles. [1][2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Why was it called MAUD Committee? What is the abbreviation of MAUD?

     Y Added to the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Can infobox be added?

    Which one do you have in mind? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Section 1;
  • Link Rome

     Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • John A.Wheeler -> John A. Wheeler

     Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • if he were was able

     Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Use conversion template for "5 kilogram" "one kilogram"

    Normally a precious metal would be converted into troy ounces, but the Imperial/US customary unit for fissile materials is kilograms. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Frisch and Peierls produced the Frisch–Peierls memorandum in March 1940; please brief of the contents in a line or two

    "They reported that a five kilogram bomb would be the equivalent to several thousand tons of dynamite, and even a one kilogram bomb would be impressive. Because of the potential radioactive fallout, they thought that the British might find it morally unacceptable." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

More to come. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Section 2;
  • A Committee was created; Why is "C" capitalized?

     Y No good reason. De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

  • It held its first meeting on 10 April 1940 -> The first meeting was held on 10 April 1940

    Why use the passive? People usually want me to remove it, not put it in. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • in the ground floor main committee room; Do you think that this detail is necessary?

    Yes; it is remarked on in many accounts. Someone doing a tour can view the actual place. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • y with an i -> "y" with an "i"; to make it clear

     Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • British born scientist; I think it is to be "scientists"

     Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Its meeting were; "meetings" or "meeting was"?

     Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Section 3; Very-well written
  • The "That" was based on the fact

     Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Section 4;
  • conversion for 1,800 tons

    This is part of a quote, so I don't want to do that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • conversion for 1 kg

    Again, there is no conversion for fissile materials. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Section 5;
  • to the president; isn't capital needed for "p"?

      Done = Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • His report was issued "on" 17 May 1941

      Done = Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • a talented an experimentalist

      Done = Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • 25 million dollars -? US$25 million

    Again, it is part of a quote, so I don't want to change it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

    The official exchange rate was $4.03 = £1, so about £6 million. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • Britain did not have the money or the manpower -> Britain neither had the money nor the manpower; please ignore if the bit was said by Allison

    Part of a quote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • Link "James B. Conant"; James Bryant Conant

      Done = Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • its atomic spies Klaus Fuchs; lastname

      Done = Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • Lavrenty Beria's report to Stalin of March 1942; Mention "Stalin" in full, and link, as it is the first mention

      Done = Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • with the deliberately misleading name of Tube Alloys; to mislead who, the enemies, or for security purposes?

     Y For security purposes, Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • "Imperial Chemical Industries"; already defined in the last para of section 2

     Y Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

• 58.1% confidence, violation likely. But I understand that it is mainly due to the quotation, so no issues.

• Images; Create proper sections for description and licensing of File:Sir_Mark_Oliphant.jpg, File:MAUD_Report.jpg
• No dabs found, external link OK.

Loved reading the article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a(prose, spelling, and grammar):  b(MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a(reference section):  b(citations to reliable sources):  c(OR):  d(copyvio and plagiarism):  

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a(major aspects):  b(focused):  

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:  

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:  

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a(images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b(appropriate use with suitable captions):  

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:  

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

"The major part of the chain reaction would be completed in about 10×10⁸ s sec." I know nothing, but should that not be a negative exponent: 10×10⁻⁸ s?Globbet (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have corrected the text according to the source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply