| Author | Message | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 345 Registered: 4-2002 |
Their informants told them about the breakthrough, but they misinterpreted the place where it was conducted (based on a true story). | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1243 Registered: 5-2009 |
Breakthrough: Literally the breaking through rock or earth? Any kind of tunnel relevant? A mine? The breach of some embankment? Some object breaking through? Or "breakthrough" as some kind of important success? Did the informants misinterpret the place? Or those told about the breakthrough? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 346 Registered: 4-2002 |
Breakthrough: Literally the breaking through rock or earth? Any kind of tunnel relevant? A mine? The breach of some embankment? Some object breaking through? Or "breakthrough" as some kind of important success? Yes. No to the other ones | ||
| Doriana (Doriana)
New member Username: Doriana Post Number: 2967 Registered: 12-2010 |
them = they = a group of people? If so, composed of H/A/M? H/A/F? mixed? Relevant how many people? If so, 2? less than 10? less than 100? more than that? the place where it was conducted = the country? state? city? street? institution? Is the place name in fact ambiguous (such as the US state of Georgia vs. the country of Georgia)? | ||
| Rogerchang (Rogerchang)
New member Username: Rogerchang Post Number: 96 Registered: 9-2012 |
Did they misinterpreted the place for the similarity of its name to another place? interpretation as a translation between languages? or like coding and decoding? Were informants legally got the information about the breakthrough? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 347 Registered: 4-2002 |
Doriana: them = they = a group of people? Yes If so, composed of H/A/M? H/A/F? mixed? Relevant how many people? If so, 2? less than 10? less than 100? more than that? Probably more than 10, but the number is unknown to me. It is hardly important the place where it was conducted = the country? state? city? street? institution? The country, state, city and institution was known, but not the street. Worth exploring. Good questions Is the place name in fact ambiguous (such as the US state of Georgia vs. the country of Georgia)? Sort of, yes Rogerchang: Did they misinterpreted the place for the similarity of its name to another place? I guess hte answer would be the same as the previous one interpretation as a translation between languages? or like coding and decoding? Language translation is relevant, yes Were informants legally got the information about the breakthrough? No it was obtained illegally | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 348 Registered: 4-2002 |
Doriana: I forgot to confirm that they were humans | ||
| Enjay (Enjay)
New member Username: Enjay Post Number: 1861 Registered: 4-2007 |
Is espionage involved? Does this take place during wartime? Was the breakthrough a scientific one? Were "they" somehow in conflict or competition with the people who had achieved the breakthrough? Were "they" journalists? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 349 Registered: 4-2002 |
Enjay: Is espionage involved? Yes Does this take place during wartime? No Was the breakthrough a scientific one? Yes Were "they" somehow in conflict or competition with the people who had achieved the breakthrough? Yes Were "they" journalists? No | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 350 Registered: 4-2002 |
Correction: It actually took place during wartime | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 2249 Registered: 9-2009 |
So they misinterpreted the name of the street? Was the location in Germany? Russia? Italy? Japan? US? UK? Some other country? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 351 Registered: 4-2002 |
Rbruma So they misinterpreted the name of the street? no - wrong assumption Was the location in Germany? Russia? Italy? Japan? US? US UK? Some other country? | ||
| Enjay (Enjay)
New member Username: Enjay Post Number: 1896 Registered: 4-2007 |
Did they think that the name of a street was actually the name of something else? Or that something else was the name of a street? Eg it took place on France street and they thought it happened in France, or vice versa. | ||
| Rogerchang (Rogerchang)
New member Username: Rogerchang Post Number: 103 Registered: 9-2012 |
they mistook the name of a place for the name of a, say, ship? a ship for a place? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 352 Registered: 4-2002 |
Enjay: Did they think that the name of a street was actually the name of something else? Or that something else was the name of a street? Eg it took place on France street and they thought it happened in France, or vice versa. Streets or street names are not relevant. It was another sort of place description. Explore Rogerchang: They mistook the name of a place for the name of a, say, ship? a ship for a place? No ships involved here. The name of the place is also hardly relevant. | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 3606 Registered: 2-2011 |
was the place a city? town? village? country? mountain? lake? river? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 353 Registered: 4-2002 |
Shez: was the place a city? town? village? country? mountain? lake? river? As stated before, it was in a city. No to the others | ||
| Rogerchang (Rogerchang)
New member Username: Rogerchang Post Number: 105 Registered: 9-2012 |
Is any resemblance relevant at all in this puzzle? Is all we have to know is that some misinterpretation existed? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 359 Registered: 4-2002 |
Is any resemblance relevant at all in this puzzle? Yes Is all we have to know is that some misinterpretation existed? Obviously not. There is more to this puzzle than that. Find out what that misinterpretation was. It is quite funny. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 4824 Registered: 9-2009 |
Were the spies Russians? Germans? Japanese? Was it during WWII? Earlier? Later? Pearl Harbor relevant? The atom bomb relevant? Does it help to know the languages involved in the translation? Is one of the languages American English? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 360 Registered: 4-2002 |
Were the spies Russians? Yes, no to the other ones Germans? Japanese? Was it during WWII? Yes Earlier? Later? Pearl Harbor relevant? No The atom bomb relevant? YES Does it help to know the languages involved in the translation? Is one of the languages American English? It is all about English (American or Ye Olde Engish) and a misinterpretation in that language | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 4835 Registered: 9-2009 |
Atomic bomb: Implosion bomb design? 100 ton test? Trinity test? Uranium refining? Plutonium production? Hiroshima bombing? Nagasaki? Is a specific scientist relevant? | ||
| Beachbum (Beachbum)
New member Username: Beachbum Post Number: 448 Registered: 2-2012 |
Manhattan project? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 361 Registered: 4-2002 |
I assembled the questions from both of you: Atomic bomb: Implosion bomb design? No 100 ton test? No Trinity test? No Uranium refining? Yope Plutonium production? No Hiroshima bombing? No Nagasaki? No Is a specific scientist relevant? Not for the solution itself, but a particular scientistŽs name is a part of the historical narrative. It is not essential to find it as part of the puzzle, though Manhattan project? Yes | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 370 Registered: 4-2002 |
This puzzle has gone a bit stale, so IŽll make a recap: During WWII, the Russian learned from some of their spies in US something related to the development of the Manhattan project, i.e. the process of creating nuclear energy and an atomic bomb. However, they never discovered where this took place since they misconstrued the meaning of the place description. What was their mistake? | ||
| Enjay (Enjay)
New member Username: Enjay Post Number: 1963 Registered: 4-2007 |
Was the place description they received: an address? A description of the building or facility itself? A description of where the location was, but not an address? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 371 Registered: 4-2002 |
Was the place description they received: an address? No A description of the building or facility itself? Partly FA. Depends among other things on what you mean with 'facility' A description of where the location was, but not an address? No | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 4922 Registered: 9-2009 |
A codename? A town name? County? State? Did they think the Manhattan project took place in Manhattan? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 410 Registered: 4-2002 |
A codename? A town name? County? State? Did they think the Manhattan project took place in Manhattan? None of these. They knew that the facility was located somewhere in or around a big US city, but the name of that city was not a part of the misinterpretation. And Manhattan was not a part of that misinterpretation either. | ||
| Redwine (Redwine)
New member Username: Redwine Post Number: 1691 Registered: 1-2011 |
Did they take a part of the description of the place for the proper name? Did their misinterpretation lead to the conclusion that the facility is located in another country? Another state? Did they misinterpret the name of the location for something else? Are differences between latin and russian alphabet relevant? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 412 Registered: 4-2002 |
Did they take a part of the description of the place for the proper name? FA Did their misinterpretation lead to the conclusion that the facility is located in another country? No Another state? No Did they misinterpret the name of the location for something else? FA, but you may be on the right track if you rephrase Are differences between latin and russian alphabet relevant? No | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 3693 Registered: 2-2011 |
was the confusion over the name of the street? the complex? laboratory? military base? | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 3694 Registered: 2-2011 |
was the confusion over the name of the street? the complex? laboratory? military base? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 413 Registered: 4-2002 |
was the confusion over the name of the street? the complex? laboratory? military base? All FA. Why? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 4943 Registered: 9-2009 |
Was there no name of anything? Were there coordinates? Driving directions? Some other way of finding a location? Confusion between units of measurement relevant? I don't know if the Russians use it, but here in Scandinavia, we have the word "mil" which means 10 kilometers, while the English "miles" mean 1.6 kilometers. This causes confusion sometimes. | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 414 Registered: 4-2002 |
Was there no name of anything? Were there coordinates? Driving directions? Some other way of finding a location? Confusion between units of measurement relevant? I cut this short by stating that there was no misinterpretation of any name, but a misinterpretation of the place description I don't know if the Russians use it, but here in Scandinavia, we have the word "mil" which means 10 kilometers, while the English "miles" mean 1.6 kilometers. This causes confusion sometimes. This is more in line with the kind of misinterpretation, but it was not about distances. BTW, Russian language does not employ the concept of "mil" (10 km), and "miles" is only used in an English-spoken context. Kilometers is the valid Russian distance unit in a context like that. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 4946 Registered: 9-2009 |
If not distance: altitude? Latitude? Longitude? Direction? Landscape type (i.e. "in the mountains", "by the river")? Borders relevant? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 415 Registered: 4-2002 |
If not distance: altitude? Latitude? Longitude? Direction? Landscape type (i.e. "in the mountains", "by the river")? Borders relevant? Noish to Yope for "landscape type", no to the rest | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 4950 Registered: 9-2009 |
Landscapeish: a natural feature? A manmade feature? Something on the ground? The ground itself? Something underground? Anything historical relevant? Such as "former site of [no longer existing object or feature]"? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 416 Registered: 4-2002 |
Landscapeish: a natural feature? A manmade feature? Yes, but beware of FA Something on the ground? The ground itself? Yope Something underground? Yes Anything historical relevant? Such as "former site of [no longer existing object or feature]"? Actually, yesish, but also beware of FA | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 4954 Registered: 9-2009 |
Underground: Tunnel? Underground complex? Mine? Crater? Bunker? Part of a dam? Is the feature in question manned? Was it manned earlier? Is it abandoned? Destroyed? Relevant how old it is at the time? If so, more than: 10 years? 50? 100? 200? 500? 1000? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 417 Registered: 4-2002 |
Underground: Tunnel? Underground complex? Sort of, yes. No to the other suggestions Mine? Crater? Bunker? Part of a dam? Is the feature in question manned? This was during WW2. Irrelevant if it is manned today Was it manned earlier? Yes Is it abandoned? Not sure Destroyed? Not sure Relevant how old it is at the time? It was new at that time (WW2) If so, more than: 10 years? 50? 100? 200? 500? 1000? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 4977 Registered: 9-2009 |
Was the feature secret? Public? Military? Natural caves put to human use? Did the Russians know its location? Was the misunderstanding in the location of this object? Or only in the location of the Manhattan project facility in relation to this object? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 418 Registered: 4-2002 |
Was the feature secret? This.. Public? Military? ..and partly this Natural caves put to human use? No caves Did the Russians know its location? No Was the misunderstanding in the location of this object? Yes Or only in the location of the Manhattan project facility in relation to this object? I didn't see the difference. It was a key part of the Manhattan project, and the Russians misinterpreted the location of it | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 4993 Registered: 9-2009 |
Did they think this object/feature was: somewhere else? Something else? Both? did they mistake it for another object/feature? Did they mistake it for another object/feature that was known to them? Decoys relevant? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 419 Registered: 4-2002 |
Did they think this object/feature was: somewhere else? Yes.. Something else? ..and yes,.. Both? ..so 'yes' to this too did they mistake it for another object/feature? Yes Did they mistake it for another object/feature that was known to them? No or noish. That is: they probably didn't know the actual feature/object Decoys relevant? No | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 5015 Registered: 9-2009 |
Was the other object (the one they thought it was): secret? Underground? Manmade? Military? | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 3725 Registered: 2-2011 |
did the object/feature description include a word which might indicate a different type of object/feature? hill? mount? bay? or a word which might describe such an object/feature? high? windy? oak? snowy? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 420 Registered: 4-2002 |
Galfisk: Was the other object (the one they thought it was): secret? Underground? Manmade? Military? I'll correct a possible misunderstanding here: the Russians knew what the object was. But they misinterpreted the location. Else, the answer is 'yes' to all your questions. Shez: did the object/feature description include a word which might indicate a different type of object/feature? no hill? no mount? no bay? no or a word which might describe such an object/feature? high? windy? oak? snowy? no to all | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 421 Registered: 4-2002 |
Blooper alert: did the object/feature description include a word which might indicate a different type of object/feature? Yesish. The location description given from the Russian spies included a word (even maybe two) that was construed to indicate a different kind of location. That's the essence of the whole puzzle. But what was it? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 5056 Registered: 9-2009 |
Did the word describe something underground? Cave? Silo? Tunnel? Room? Mine? Was it in Russian? In English? Would the misunderstanding be made more easily by non-native speakers? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 422 Registered: 4-2002 |
Did the word describe something underground? No. But there's a FA here. Try to find out what it is. Cave? Silo? Tunnel? Room? Mine? Could have been any of these. My guess is that the Russians thought the object was in a room or a silo, and very unlikely in a cave, tunnel or mine Was it in Russian? In English? This Would the misunderstanding be made more easily by non-native speakers? Definitely, yes | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 5119 Registered: 9-2009 |
Is the word a preposition? Noun? Verb? Adverb? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 423 Registered: 4-2002 |
Is the word a preposition? Noun? Verb? Adverb? Still a FA, but IŽll answer to it: there were two words, not one. Both nouns. | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 3761 Registered: 2-2011 |
so two nouns put together like forest heights or lake view? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 424 Registered: 4-2002 |
so two nouns put together like forest heights or lake view? In principle yes, but not these | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 5178 Registered: 9-2009 |
Do both nouns describe something underground? If not: only the first? Only the second? Neither? Did they misunderstand: the first one? The second? Both? Their relation to each other? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 425 Registered: 4-2002 |
Do both nouns describe something underground? No, not really. In accordance with the puzzle title and earlier given answers, it can be characterized as a description of the location as "under / beneath a .. X Y If not: only the first? Only the second? Neither? Did they misunderstand: the first one? The second? Both? Their relation to each other? They misunderstood both nouns, and the meaning of the combination of those two words. The biggest misunderstanding was related to the first of those words, though | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 5208 Registered: 9-2009 |
X: something natural? Manmade? A concept? An object? A landscape type? Such as forest? Or sand? A landscape feature? Such as a mountain? Same questions for Y. | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 426 Registered: 4-2002 |
Answers to these questions differ somewhat whether it is about what it actually was, and what the Russians thought it was. I will answer as to what it actually was: X: something natural? No Manmade? Yes A concept? No An object? Yes A landscape type? Such as forest? Or sand? A landscape feature? Such as a mountain? No to the rest Same questions for Y. Same answers as for X | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 427 Registered: 4-2002 |
..and to what the Russians thought it was: X: something natural? yes Manmade? Yope A concept? No An object? Yes A landscape type? Such as forest? Or sand? A landscape feature? Such as a mountain? No to the rest Y: something natural? Noish Manmade? Yes A concept? No An object? Yes A landscape type? Yesish.. Such as forest? Or sand? A landscape feature? Such as a mountain? ..but none of these | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 3810 Registered: 2-2011 |
is X the name of a tree? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 428 Registered: 4-2002 |
is X the name of a tree? No, but somewhat OTRT | ||
| Danielvs (Danielvs)
New member Username: Danielvs Post Number: 491 Registered: 9-2006 |
Real X: Size: hundreds of meters? some meters? Can people walk on/in/under/through it? In the normal position, is X mostly horizontal or vertical? Is X underground or above ground level? Water (lake/sea/river) relevant? Is X a plant (like power plant)? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 429 Registered: 4-2002 |
Real X: Size: hundreds of meters? some meters? Real X is smaller than that Can people walk on/in/under/through it? No In the normal position, is X mostly horizontal or vertical? Hard to answer.. the philosophical question is what a "normal position" is for X. You will understand when the puzzle is solved. Should I have to give an answer, I am inclined to answer horizontal Is X underground or above ground level? In this case, sometimes under ground level Water (lake/sea/river) relevant? Nope Is X a plant (like power plant)? No - good idea, though - but explore Hint: maybe it is a good idea to ask a few similar questions about Real Y as well as Thought X and Y | ||
| Danielvs (Danielvs)
New member Username: Danielvs Post Number: 504 Registered: 9-2006 |
Real X: 1-3 meters? 10 cm to 1 meter? Is it round like a ball? Elliptical? Made of metal? wood? fibers? cotton? Can people hold it with a hand? Is it hard? soft? Do people have it at home? Or it's only found in specific places/buildings? Has most people seen it already? Do people in general use it on the day to day life? Same questions for real Y. Thought Y: a name used in geography (marsh, land, dam, reservoir, etc)? A single object? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 430 Registered: 4-2002 |
Real X: Blooper alert: Real X is actually not a physical object, but the main feature of X is an object. I will answer related to that object in the following: 1-3 meters? 10 cm to 1 meter? About 1 m long Is it round like a ball? Elliptical? The object does not have a basic geometrical form, but there is an elliptical element in it Made of metal? wood? fibers? cotton? Can be both metal, wood and fibers, but not cotton Can people hold it with a hand? Yes Is it hard? Yes soft? Do people have it at home? Some do Or it's only found in specific places/buildings? It is normally kept in homes, but sometimes brought to specific places Has most people seen it already? A lot of people have never seen such an object, but a considerable minority has Do people in general use it on the day to day life? No, but some do Same questions for real Y. Much longer than 3 meters. Neither round nor elliptical. Not made of metal, maybe sometimes of wood, often fibers, but not cotton. It is hard, but normally with some softness. It can not be handheld nor kept at home. Regarding knowledge and use, the same answers as for X. Thought Y: a name used in geography (marsh, land, dam, reservoir, etc)? Yes, but none of these A single object? Noish or no | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 3820 Registered: 2-2011 |
real X - would you take it to school? church? the office? a sports venue? is it an item of sports equipment? a musical instrument? a guitar? violin? is Y wet? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 431 Registered: 4-2002 |
real X - would you take it to school? church? the office? a sports venue? This is it an item of sports equipment? Yes, this a musical instrument? a guitar? violin? is Y wet? No | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 3825 Registered: 2-2011 |
a racquet of some description? is real Y very large? more than 10 metres? is it a court? | ||
| Danielvs (Danielvs)
New member Username: Danielvs Post Number: 509 Registered: 9-2006 |
Real X: a club (like golf club)? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 432 Registered: 4-2002 |
IŽll state this initially: Real X is a sports game, and the "X object" is the main item used to play the game. IŽll answer to both of the two last contributors together: Real X: a racquet of some description? Yes a club (like golf club)? No is real Y very large? more than 10 metres? is it a court? Yes, it is a court. Good find! | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 3828 Registered: 2-2011 |
phew! can I stop now? is it tennis? squash? badminton? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 433 Registered: 4-2002 |
phew! can I stop now? Sure thing, as soon as we have discovered the whole solution. Getting real close now: is it tennis? squash? this badminton? So the real XY was "under a squash court". Shouldn't be so difficult to find the misinterpretation now, should it? | ||
| Danielvs (Danielvs)
New member Username: Danielvs Post Number: 515 Registered: 9-2006 |
So they thought "squash" referred to the plant? And they thought the secret object was under a place (court) where the squash plant was cultivated? | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 434 Registered: 4-2002 |
So they thought "squash" referred to the plant? Yes And they thought the secret object was under a place (court) where the squash plant was cultivated? Yes Spoiler will follow | ||
| Grainbeer (Grainbeer)
New member Username: Grainbeer Post Number: 435 Registered: 4-2002 |
********* SPOILER ********* True story: Chicago Pile-1 was the worldŽs first nuclear reactor. It was built during WW2 on a former squash court under the abandoned west stands of Alonzo Stagg Field stadium at the University of Chicago. The Soviet Union was well aware that the Americans were developing this nuclear reactor, and their spies and informants even discovered that is was taking place somewhere in or near Chicago. However, the Russians were not familiar with the game of squash at that time, and misinterpreted the concept of a "squash court" to be a "squash field" for cultivating vegetables. They even translated it into a "pumpkin field" as they also didn't discern between squash, zucchini and pumpkins at that time. One can wonder how a nuclear reactor came to be built in a risky and strange place like that squash court at the University of Chicaco. It was only in lack of a better solution. The reactor was planned to be built at the Argonne National Laboratory, but the construction there was prevented by a labor strike. The Chicago Pile-1 didn't stay in operation for a long time at the squash court, though. The worldŽs first self-sustained nuclear chain reaction took place on December 2, 1942, and the reactor was dismantled already in February 1943 and moved to another place and rebuilt as Chicago Pile-2. The Chicago Pile-1 was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1965, and is one of four Chicago Registered Historic Places since 1966. A Henry Moore sculpture, Nuclear Energy, commemorates the nuclear experiment. |
