Talk:Cowan–Reines neutrino experiment

It is requested that a mechanical diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

Name

I work in neutrino physics and I have never heard this experiment referred to as The Neutrino Experiment. Has this become standard nomenclature in some circles? If not, I suggest renaming the page to Cowan and Reines neutrino experiment. --Strait 17:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (TimothyRias (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I just removed it from the introductor sentence too.2001:468:913:2044:BC65:3C03:2571:1D5B (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content

The reaction mentioned for neutron capture is Cd108 to Cd109 which is an error. The reaction was Cd113 to Cd114* back to Cd113 with emission of a gamma. I have contacted the author of the link (Rod Nave) referenced in this page (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/cowan.html). He cited one book mentioning Cd109 (Rohlf's Modern Physics from a to z) and two mentioning Cd113 (Thornton & Rex - Taylor, et al.). The reason why Cd113 should be the correct one is also its huge cross-section plus de fact that it was used in nuclear power plants to control the neutron flux, so it is more likely that it was the reaction used by Reines & Cowan. Gegee66 (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 neutrinos per hour?

The article says the detection rate was three neutrinos per HOUR, but I want to point out that this is in conflict with what Dr. Cowans himself says in a lecture describing his classic experiment given many years later. His 57 min lecture describing the experiment is available on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYqEtm0X2Sc&feature=youtu.be

Near the end (around 54 minutes) he gives the detection rate of the experiment as three counts per DAY. Even though he is describing an experiment he did decades earlier, I would think Cowans would remember a key fact like the detection rate, but this is just my personal opinion. All I am doing is pointing out the conflicting rates, I have no idea which is right.

(update) There is still a different Cowans and Reines neutrino detection rate in a long and detailed accounting of their Savannah River experiment in Los Alamos Science, #25, 1997, one of the references to this page (http://library.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/getfile?00326606.pdf). This article gives the rate as: "about one reactor-associated event per hour". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.212.124 (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don Fulton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.212.124 (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked this - the 3 per hour number is given in the original paper reporting on the detection. It seems Clive was in error as to the units during his talk. Bdushaw (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shielding

Is this the experiment where the shielding was battleship armor left over from WWII? RJFJR (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Bdushaw (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

neutrinos or antineutrinos...

The article talks about the neutrino flux from a reactor, but the flux is of antineutrions, of course. It is convenient and expedient to call these neutrinos (and history of that usage dating back to Fermi's original paper), but the use is formally incorrect. Should the article continue this use, or should the language be reworked to be strictly correct? (it has to be antineutrinos, of course, given the stated reaction that was the basis of the experiment!) Bdushaw (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]