Talk:List of accelerators in particle physics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Physics High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cyclotrons, synchrotrons[edit]

(talk) 20:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear main authors of this table, on June 28, 2012 I allowed myself to add PSI HIPA and, in that context form a new group of high intensity hadron accelerators. If anybody happens to have a strong opposition against my changes, please contact me on e-mail [email protected] such that we can find a convenient solution for all. Thanks! StefanRAAdam (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that cyclotrons (synchrocyclotrons and izochorn cyclotrons = alternating gradient cyclotrons) are in use and developed at the field of nuclear physics. And this type of cyclotrons are not early types of accelerators. Oh I see that in particle physics.

Synchrotrons: you mean weak focusing synchrotrons. I think colliders and storage rings are synchrotrons too?

I suggest the category: Direct Current accelerators. I don't know the exact english phrase, but Cocroft-Walton and van de Graaff belongs to it. It could be the first.

And betatrons shloud be there. -- Harp 15:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC) -- The NIMROD proton synchrotron at RAL,UK should be here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:12:10C0:F14B:968D:EEBB:E865 (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Bevalac-nine-lives.html to do HILAC, SUPERHILAC, (LBL) --GangofOne 05:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Hall of Science museum , next to LBNL, has exhibit of Lawrence. THe first cyclotron that worked was 5 inches, not 9; on display. --GangofOne 05:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for addition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSCL (two cyclotrons, a K500 and a K1200 coupled together)

Suggestion for addition: prices of the structures, to facilitate the discussion from a social point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.89.191 (talk) 09:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to also suggest the addition of the two superconducting cyclotrons at MSU/NSCL, i am still extremely new here and do not wish to risk editing something else out, though happy to see someone else has suggested it too. Coycate (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the Westinghouse Van de Graf accelerator in the Forest Hills (Pittsburgh area). Operated from 1936-1959, according to a recent public TV documentary. Supposedly very historically significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.221.163 (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for addition: Does GSI heavy ion accelerator belong on this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.199.92.128 (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text currently mentions CESR, the Cornell Electron Storage Ring (an electron-positron storage ring) but doesn't [yet] list its predecessor, the Cornell Electron Synchrotron, a fixed-target instrument which was later modified to become the accelerator and injector feeding CESR. The Cornell Electron Synchrotron has the same historical role as, e.g., CERN's PS and SPS, a previous-generation accelerator reused as a storage-ring feeder. 76.100.17.21 (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1970’s I was an engineer working for Dr. Bruce Murray at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, California. One day while walking through the corridoes I chanced upon a large room with a large number of lead (I assume) bricks and a lot of electronics equipment. A large hand printed sign identified it as a decommissioned particle accelerator of some type (I cannot remember the details). It said to keep everything for some number of years and then disassemble it. Part of the floor was disassembled revealing a very large mechanical object of some kind which looked like a motor. I asked someone there what it was and was told that it was a generator large enough to power a small municipality. I have never seen anything about this device in print and so if you do see something, please post it. Thanks. Mark Nelson, [email protected]

We're missing the MIT Synchrotron which ran at 300 MEV, in Building 24. Unfortunately I don't know when it was built. I know it was running in 1950 though. Anyone know when it was first run? Enrobsob (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page too restrictive?[edit]

I think the idea that a list of important accelerators should be restricted to particle physics is a bit silly. As others have observed, this leaves out important nuclear physics accelerators such as NSCL, RIKKEN and GSI. I would suggest renaming the article to "List of major accelerators."

Additionally, I think the taxonomy also needs work. There are cyclotrons doing important research today that shouldn't be listed under "early accelerators," and there are accelerators on the ostensibly modern list that haven't been operating since the 1960's.

Is there perhaps a consensus that we should simply redo the page solely by accelerator type, without reference to nuclear vs. particle, or arbitrary distinctions like "early" or "late?" PianoDan (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the list as it is has some problems, and I like your suggestion. The line between particle and nuclear physics is pretty vague these days anyway. The "fundamental symmetries" branch of nuclear physics is particle physics by a lot of people's definition. I would suggest we change the title to "accelerators used for fundamental physics" and include the machines you mentioned.Prebys (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about the Stanford Mark I, Mark II, and Mark III accelerators, the predecessors, or proof of concept, for SLAC. Gah4 (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible additions[edit]

I don't know much about particle accelerators, but I think that UNLV has a particle accelerator due to come online this year. I don't know what type it is, or I'd add it.

http://web.unlv.edu/accelerator/index.html
https://www.facebook.com/LVGEA/posts/10151676847203854
http://www.unlvrebelyell.com/2013/05/06/accelerating-unlvs-research-mission/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:2CD:FC00:8472:3A7A:ADFF:6E3D (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Isochronous cyclotron"?[edit]

There was an entry in the cyclotron table called "Isochronous Cyclotron", supposedly at LBNL. There has never been any cylotron there with the parameters in the table. I checked the reference (Chau and Tigner), and it appears that was a summary of the capabilities of several different isochronous cyclotrons, starting with one at LBNL. I removed the entry and the footnote.KaturianKaturian 21:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)