Talk:Tevatron

The name?

Am I the only one wondering what the name "Tevatron" means? I doubt it was a random jumble of letters, so why was this name chosen? Greek? Acronym? Or what? Nyh (talk)

Thinking about a possible explanation, I thought that maybe the name refers to the roughly one TeV of energy that particles can be accelrated to in the Tevatron? If this is true (or if there is another explanation), it probably belongs in the article.

Nyh (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It is true. It is a compound word originating from the TeV energy scale and synchrotron. -Fatka (talk · contribs) 05:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Superconductor cooling

"It maintains the coils of the magnets, which bend and focus the particle beam, in a superconducting state with a power consumption of 1/3 what it would be at normal temperatures"

If superconducting magnets have exactly zero resistivity, shouldn't the power consumption be zero (and therefore infinitely lower than what is would be at normal temperatures)? Or is this supposed to mean the power used by the cooling system is 1/3rd the power that would be used by using resistive magnets? 136.159.234.163 17:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with this bit too, the article on superconducting magnets states that a (non superconducting) electromagnet can achieve a field of no more than 2 Tesla. The idea behind the cryogenics isn't to improve efficiency, its to get that kind of strength out of a magnet at all. I'm putting a cite.70.79.214.193 (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Moats / Pools?

I noticed their are pools forming a ring around the accelerators, is their a reason for this? I couldn't find anything in the article. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

So I've just been told their for cooling, can anyone confirm that? --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Shutdown?

Numerous newspaper articles note that the Tevatron is scheduled to be shutdown? The article does not mention this. What is the reason for the shutdown? Is it being superseded by the LHC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodekeeper (talk • contribs) 19:50, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to know exactly why it would be "obsolete" because the LHC is larger and higher in power. Does this somehow mean that the Tevatron is suddenly useless for science just because it is the second largest accelerator in the world? By this logic we would shut down every telescope and observatory in the world each time a new, larger telescope were built. Perhaps some kind of explanation could be given as to why the world's second largest synchrotron is chopped liver. DrBuzz0 (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Particle speed

"320 km/h or %99.999956 of the speed of light" - should this not be 320 km/s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.202.120.40 (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

--Well, but 320km/s also doesn't make 99.999956% of c. Nor does 320000km/s (it's too large). There is something wrong with the numbers. One can obtain the speed basing on the given "980GEv" energy value and the proton mass, but i feel lazy with that. I'm going to delete the line from the article - it's better to have no data, then to have incorrect data. //Unregistered guest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.101.67 (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Negative ions from Hydrogen?

When you ionize Hydrogen you get positive ions i.e. protons and (negative) electrons, which I have never heard described as 'ions'. IMHO this should be fixed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slack1 more (talk • contribs) 12:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The recent (7th Sept 2008) change to positive makes no sense. A proton with two electrons is a negative ion, passing these through a thin foil can then strip off the electrons after acceleration. Will change the text back to 'negative'. Ambix (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Still the highest energy collider

Even though the LHC has beams running, it's not technically a collider until the collisions actually start. The Tevatron is still the highest energy collider on the planet, and will keep that position until the LHC's collisions start.

Actually, the LHC's beams are still running at 0.45TeV each, which is below the Tevatron's 0.96TeV per beam. So the Tevatron is still both the highest energy collider in operation and the highest energy particle accelerator in operation. Of course the LHC will blow it out of the water in a few months, but let's not jump the shark here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmbarros (talk • contribs) 17:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess 0.45 TeV is the energy of SPS and not LHC. --84.59.40.106 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

$120 million

That sounds like nothing compared to LHC. Is that firgure correct? --84.59.40.106 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)