Talk:Bevatron

message: I lately added some material to the page, which I think is all more or less common knowledge among particle physics folks, but with no references beyond a link to the AGS page.  Since there is no question in my mind that the material is substantially factually correct and does add content, I wonder if is this useful or proper, vs the alternatives of missing or wrong (eg, it was previously said to be an electron accelerator) information?  I am new to editing Wiki, and still a bit vague on such things.  Also, practically speaking, tracking down a full set of references is more than I can typically undertake, unfortunately.
Also, with the information added, I wonder if the page qualifies to be a level up from just a stub?  I'm not sure just how to do this (I do see what looks like the place, as "particle-stub", in double braces), and if that is something I should do.  Thanks Wwheaton 19:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No no, it's definately a start class now (which I've change in the template on this page, |class=Start up there...). As for the particle-stub with curly braces, that means it links to a template, in this case :template:particle-stub. Really, article classification is just to help people find articles to expand, and stubs are the only things that have templates. Oh, and nice edits! --Falcorian (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still a stub? 

message: The kinetic energy needed is considerably larger than the mass of the antiproton, due to the requirement to conserve both momentum and energy, since the products cannot be produced at rest.  On the other hand, in collisions with multi-nucleon nuclei, considerable advantage may be taken from the fact that the nucleons bound in nuclei are in motion, with energies up to about 7 MeV.  A more accurate threshold, commonly cited,  is 6.2 GeV. Wwheaton (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threshold energy required to create antiprotons 

message: I got here through from the Bevalac redirect. First time I hear this name, but if it was in use (or still is), it should probably be mentioned in the article IMO.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They're the same instrument (but different phases) it seems.  It should certainly be expanded to include that. --Falcorian (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact the article says; "It received a new lease on life in the 1971, when it was joined to the SuperHILAC linear accelerator as an injector for heavy ions. The combination was known as the Bevalac." :-) --Falcorian (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

text: The Bevalac phase of its life was notable and should certainly be covered to complete our article.  I just don't know enough about it to add anything.  Wwheaton (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bevalac? 

message: Does anyone have an idea how to get permissions for the pix here, or in here?  The former is interesting (& kind of sad, being of the Grand Old Girl at the end of her life), while the pix in the Lofgren pdf are especially useful. I think the one on p.12 should really go as the lead, showing it just completed in all its naked glory, and the one on p.13, nearing completion, is very good too.  My guess is that these latter ones in the Lofgren talk are almost certainly out of copyright, or made as US Government work and thus in public domain, but I can't prove it and I am ignorant of these intellectual property issues on Wikipedia (and I also don't know how to extract a good photo from a pdf).  Thanks...  Wwheaton (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A recent article from "Wired" here also has good photos, ancient and recent, and some interesting details.  It confirms that the older pix are from LBL, so they must be either in the public domain, or else University of California Board of Regents property. I see that the guy who took the big collection of recent pix (among the external links) probably also put the Wired article together.  Wwheaton (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some good pix 

message: I don't see any reason for the "out of date" tag.  Nothing new has happened with the accelerator in quite some time, after all. Removing. PianoDan (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of Date?