Reader’s Note
The best of them.
by@ivor_stackWritten 20 August 2026Read 21 August 2026
Five weeks, thirty to forty pages an evening, and I was sorry when it stopped. There's no other book I've read that handles this much technical material without either flattening it or hiding behind it.
What it gets right, and almost nothing else in the genre does: the engineering is treated as the story rather than as an obstacle between the interesting parts. The barrier problem at Oak Ridge, the metallurgy, the sheer industrial scale of separating a substance from itself when the two versions differ by less than one percent in mass — those chapters are given the room they need. Somebody in that project had to specify a valve, and this book knows it.
The opening is the finest thing in it. A man stands at a traffic light in Bloomsbury in 1933, the light changes, and he steps off the kerb having just understood how a chain reaction would work. I have gone back to that page more than once.
And the moral argument is not bolted on at the end, which is the usual arrangement. It runs alongside from the beginning and gets heavier as the machine gets closer to working.
Ten. I have given three copies away. Two came back.
About this book
The Making of the Atomic BombRichard RhodesThe Reading Room
More from @ivor_stack
Project Hail Mary reviewed by @ivor_stack
The problem-solving I enjoyed enormously; the jokes I could have done without about a hundred times. Seven, and most of it is for the chapter where he works out the units.7 out of 10Project Hail Mary
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions reviewed by @ivor_stack
I lived through one of these. Permissible stress gave way to limit state design over about a decade, and the older men never converted; they simply retired. He has the mechanism right and nearly everything else vague. Eight.8 out of 10The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Midnight in Chernobyl reviewed by @ivor_stack
The reactor is explained properly, which is more than most manage.9 out of 10Midnight in Chernobyl
2 readers agree with this review