Talk:Neutron activation

message: First I removed the sentence concerning the inability of alphas betas or gammas to induce activity. Photoactivation is possible, as well as, light particles activation. Proton activation for instance is a famous analytical technique.
I commented in the first paragraph, on the fact that the half life of the produced nucleus can be very short, but also very long.
I added a line in the first paragraph concerning the possibility to have particle emission after the capture of a neutron. This process would also lead to a possibly radioactive residual nucleus.
I changed the comment on neutron activation stating that it is the most sensitive method, and made it more neutral by writing "one of the most sensitive"
Made a small change in the two last sentences of the article, writing that the half life "may be short" and changing "Thus" into "In this sense" at the beginning of the last sentence.--Pgrouse 12:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made a few changes: 

message: I am removing the suggested merges to prompt gamma neutron activation analysis and neutron activation analysis. There has been no discussion about this for a while (ever?) and I think they are pretty clearly separate articles. This article is about the physical process, those articles are about an application of the phenomenon. -Cwenger (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing suggested merges 

message: Sorry as I am not (yet) an expert on this matter, but wouldn't the addition of a neutron to the nucleus of the Be-9 atom cause it to become Be-10? Holding the equation on the article to be true am I correct in assuming that the acceptance of the neutron causes the ejection of two neutrons (as a result of the free neutron's high energy) and thus the creation of the Be-8 and subsequent spontaneous fission of the atom? If this could be clarified here as well as on the article (if possible) I would greatly appreciate it. Ham Radio 02:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beryllium 8 Fission 

message: I removed a bizarre link to an FBI case story, where statistical analysis of the results of neutron activation analysis (Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis) in evidence used in a case appeared to be trying to discredit NAA.
The case relied on a statistical analysis of a box of bullets analysed for metal composition by NAA. However, the NAA analysis was not in question. The problem appeared to be the faulty use of statistical analysis of the NAA results to fraudulently implicate a defendant.
This could only possibly be of the most marginal benefit in understanding NAA. In fact, it's far more likely someone added the link to either a) imply that NAA was faulty in one case, and thereby bring into question NAA generally (which is a FAIL right there), or, more likely, b) push some personal agenda about the case itself, or a personal belief that the scientific basis of NAA somehow led to the false imprisonment of an individual. Which is another fail.
You'd have to be drawing an astronomically long bow to think the linked article added to the understanding of Neutron Activation Analysis!
Cephas Atheos (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistical analysis is not equal to activation analysis 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Neutron activation's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "NUBASE":
From Barium: 
From Thorium: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Neutron activation]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Neutron activation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060705214728/http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html to http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060705214728/http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html to http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I reverted the previous edit which was done in good faith but unfortunately got things backward: Baratol is not a neutron activation product but a component of the explosives used in the Trinity device.
Due to an error on my part my edit was saved before I entered the correct edit summary. Sorry for that :)
Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit of 17 July 2018 19:03 

message: This sentence in the first paragraph seems false when compared with the rest of the article "The excited nucleus decays immediately by emitting gamma rays, or particles such as beta particles, alpha particles, fission products, and neutrons (in nuclear fission)."
In addition to that sentence (apparently) being incorrect, the whole introduction has no citations. I suspect it should be replaced, or at least rewritten substantially. Sesquiannual (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "decays immediately"?