Talk:Spallation Neutron Source

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Neutron intensity[edit]

I think that currently the SNS is not the most intense neutron source, actually never was. The ILL (reactor base neutron source) provides a more intense beam, and I think that is not true even for the spallation sources (but not sure). Nowadays ISIS TS2 may have the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.144.179.151 (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed that is true, the ILL is the most intense reactor neutron source, however the article states that the SNS is the most intense pulsed neutron source, which is true, even taking into account TS2. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The GBR source says In 2008 it could produce a beam intensity of 4.8x10¹⁶ neutrons per second. - but presumably that was during a very short pulse (how long?) - or was it the total over a whole second ?

Do all the neutrons hit the samples from the same direction, or from a wide range of angles from the surrounding moderator ? - Rod57 (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

Isn't the article name misleading? "Spallation Neutron Source" sounds like a general article on spallation neutron sources, but it is actually about a specific institution. Alternatively, the article name could be taken as implying that there is only one spallation neutron source. As an alternative name, I suggest: "Spallation Neutron Source, ORNL, USA" --Anthony Duff 03:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine, note the use of caps. There are potentially other Relativistic Heavy Ion Colliders and Large Hadron Colliders, no? I would put general info under spallation neutron source, neutron spallation, or just spallation. - mako 09:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the spallation article serves well as the generic one discussing the process, this one (with caps) is specific to the US SNS, and, as far as I know, this name is unique. The only possible confusion I can see would be with the Japanese Spallation Neutron Source (JSNS), which currently doesn't have an article (hmm, I'll see what I can do about that). -- Kaszeta 14:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ISIS neutron source was called "Spallation Neutron Source" or SNS in its initial phase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberatus (talk • contribs) 13:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the name is misleading, and it is so despite the caps. Anyone who types "spallation neutron source" in lowercase will get this article here as an answer. The Wikipedia software just does not handle upper and lower case the same way we possibly do.

A clarification note like This article is about the # # #. For other uses, see # # # is desirable.

--Liberatus (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So why wasnt this done? I came here looking for info on "a spalllation neutron source" Billlion (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemy?[edit]

I removed this:

The liquid Mercury target of the SNS will be transmuted into Gold , Platinum and Iridium which are lower in atomic number on the periodic chart of elements.

I suppose it's possible, but SNS's site doesn't make mention of it. Rather, it says: "When a high-energy proton bombards a heavy atomic nucleus, causing it to become excited, 20 to 30 neutrons are expelled." The other contribs of 24.164.121.106 (talk · contribs) are also in the same vein. - mako 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully addressing some of the above issues[edit]

I've obviously made major revisions to this article. To the best of my understanding, this page is intended to be about the SNS facility in Oak Ridge, rather than a general discussion of spallation sources and neutron sources in general. There is a lot of good information out there on that already. My intention is to provide useful information about what SNS is, its purpose, and why it was built. Much of the information in the previous version was incorrect, regarding both the description of SNS and of how it works (under heading "Spallation").

While I like the "Science with neutrons" template that was developed and is used on many neutron-related sites, I don't think it's the best fit for this site. Most of the information referenced in the box is included in the text I've submitted or is available through the "see also" and "external links" sections. I did copy some of the links from the template and incorporate them into the text and references materials wherever it seemed appropriate. Again, I don't want to dismiss the the value of that material or the thought that went into its development--it's an informative tool.

I hope what I've done makes sense and look forward to discussion on improvements. One question I pose for discussion is the technical level of the text. Some of it, particularly in the science bits, gets into some scientific jargon. I'd be interested in whether the level of difficulty seems appropriate for Wiki. Snscom (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please read WP:COI and declare any conflict of interest that you have in developing this article (i.e. do you work for or represent the SNS?). Some of the content that you added in Recent Studies reads like an advertisement and doesn't appear to conform to our policies on neutral point of view.Polyamorph (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same concern about that text and was going to rewrite it. I do work at SNS, so I'm very familiar with the work there; however, my interest in contributing to Wikepedia is to present accurate information, not advertise or promote. I recognize that that's not the purpose of Wikepedia. I've added a few sentences to the research paragraph that I think would be considered acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snscom (talk • contribs) 15:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Accelerator" Disambiguation[edit]

This page was identified as including a disambiguation error based on the term "Accelerator".

In order to resolve this problem I have removed the wikilink from the term as I am unable to determine, from the context, what the term is referring to. If you wish to restore the link please ensure that the term and the link are fully resolved. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Observation of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering[edit]

Nothing about this subject ?

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1708/1708.01294.pdf#:~:text=Abstract%3A%20The%20coherent%20elastic%20scattering,all%20low%2Denergy%20neutrino%20couplings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.197.117 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]