Talk:Very Large Hadron Collider

PDF

PLEASE NOTE: the attached pdf seems to have a problem with it, at least on my Solaris machine, my pdf viewer complained that it had a "corrupted EOF" and was not able to open the doc. Thx for checking into this. March 16,2006

It worked fine on my Windows machine, but I don't know what you'r problem is, Snailwalker | talk 16:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It works well with evince in Linux as well. -- Harp 13:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

CERN

Why is this article in the category CERN? -- Harp 13:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As a related question, this is distinct from the Super Large Hadron Collider, yes? Perhaps the differences could be explicitly noted in the article, along with some discussion of just how speculative this hypothetical machine is. I personally have never heard of it before; all the excitement I've seen in terms of hypothetical future colliders seems to be about the ILC. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 23:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

SLHC, as the article notes, is an upgrade to the LHC. Very briefly, the SLHC is planned to have a much higher collision rate, but the same energy and mostly the same magnets. VLHC would be much larger, with a much higher energy. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD

By the way, the sources turned up while I was asleep. Otherwise, I would certainly have retracted my "delete" in the AfD. I have no intention to see this article deleted now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Image

Wouldn't some other image be better? Perhaps a picture of the LEP ring, or the CERN logo? 70.55.85.177 (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a CERN project. Maybe one of the sources has a usable image...? -- SCZenz (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion removed with no reason

Could you please provide your reason for removing the proposed deletion as encouraged by WP:PROD? "not how this works" is not a reason, and this is how this works. This article is just an entirely outdated term for the FCC, of which an article already exists which includes everything in this article. There is no reason for this article to still exist. At the very most the FCC article should be updated to mention it used to be referred to as the VLHC, but is not anymore. Keeping this article is the exact same as if there were 2 articles for Windows XP, Whistler and windows XP, just because Windows XP was originally referred to as Whistler. 80.194.4.6 (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

VLHC is a more general concept for anything that is significantly beyond the LHC, FCC is one specific proposal for such a collider. If the US suddenly decides to build a larger proton collider then it would be a VLHC realization but not the FCC. It's similar to Extremely large telescope vs. Extremely Large Telescope. --mfb (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not. The VLHC is a specific hadron collider (as every citation that is in this article makes very clear), that was originally planned to be at fermilab, however very long ago it was realised this was not possible and it was decided to merge the VLHC designs into the FCC. The VLHC is a specific collider, not any collider (again as every citation that is in this article makes very clear), that is now the FCC. 80.194.4.6 (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

There are just two references in the article, and I don't see either of them backing your claim. --mfb (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I am unsure how you don't see them backing my claim, both of them are clear throughout the entire article that the VLHC is a specific collider (which at the time the articles were written was distinct and had not merged into the FCC yet). e.g. "CERN is developing its own plans for a collider that is similar to the VLHC. CERN accelerator physicist Michael Benedikt is leading a study of a ‘very high energy large hadron collider’ that would pass under Lake Geneva. It would have the same key parameters as the suggested VLHC:" could not be more clear that the VLHC is a specific collider. Both articles are clear throughout that the VLHC is a specific collider, not a class of colliders. 80.194.4.6 (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The VLHC is a specific collider (planned originally to be in fermilab that is now defunct with the team moved largely to work on the FCC), **not** a class of hadron colliders.

I am very confused how this seems to be pushed back on. Both references that are used in this article are extremely clear the VLHC is a specific collider, not a class of colliders. e.g. "CERN is developing its own plans for a collider that is similar to the VLHC. CERN accelerator physicist Michael Benedikt is leading a study of a ‘very high energy large hadron collider’ that would pass under Lake Geneva. It would have the same key parameters as the suggested VLHC:"

Here is something else clear on it https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/test-tm/2000/fermilab-tm-2048.pdf , which repeatedly refers to the VLHC as a specific collider in fermilab, same here https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/test-tm/2000/fermilab-tm-2149.pdf . This is one of the most recent papers (which is about the HE-LHC) that include the VLHC, https://cds.cern.ch/record/1403041/files/Wienands-p28.pdf , which also refers to the VLHC as a specific defunct collider in fermilab. If you search the CERN document server for :

articles with: VLHC in the title 42 results are returned

articles with: VLHC in the title AND fermilab in the body 25 results are returned

Of the 17 that do not explicitly mention fermilab,

1 is an image, that has fermilab mentioned in the image

7 are just a title of a presentation at a conference, does not have any text other than the title

2 are a list of proceedings which refers to fermilab but with a hyphen in

1 is not about the VLHC but about a machine "VLHC-like"

4 refers to the VLHC in a reference that refers to the VLHC as a collider at fermilab

1 has a diagram of fermilab showing it as the location of the VLHC.

1 is about the vLHC not the VLHC.

There is nothing on the CERN document server that refers to anything as the VLHC, other than the defunct collider at fermilab.

In fact, same with everything I can find. There does not seem to be anything that refers to the VLHC as anything other than a specific collider in fermilab, other than this wikipedia page (of which all the references in it also refer to the VLHC as a specific collider in fermilab). If you wish to revert the changes, please find *anything* that refers to any collider other than the defunct collider in fermilab as the VLHC.

80.194.4.6 (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the corrections this article without actually providing anything that supports your point. All references on this page (and the 2 external links) disagree with you. On top of that, I've gone through every paper in the CERN document server that mentions the VLHC in the title and classified them for you.

42 mention the VLHC in the title. 2 of these are not about the VLHC (one is about a "VLHC-like" machine and 1 is about the vLHC). Of the 40 remaining 7 are just titles of presentations, the presentation themselves being lost.

Of the 33 remaining 100% explicitly say that the VLHC is a collider at fermilab. There is not a single mention of any other collider being referred to as VLHC in a single one of the 42 articles in the CERN document server that mention the VLHC in the title. I do not know how much more clear you need this to be made. If you want to revert these changes, please actually back up your point.

80.194.4.6 (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing this article with false information and actually support your point in the talk page, as you have requested me to do but refuse to do yourself. The article you are now insisting is referring to the VLHC as something other than a collider at fermilab (https://cds.cern.ch/record/1091537/files/care-conf-07-011.pdf), is not. It is about the vLHC which is *NOT* the VLHC. Of course capitalisation matters, there is a reason that the article on multiple occasions refers to the vLHC (they did not just randomly decide to not capitalise a single letter in it).

Infact, the article explicitly defines both vLHC and VLHC as seperate things.

1) "a higher-energy hadron collider (“vLHC”)"

2) "The 2001 design study of a Very Large Hadron Collider (VLHC) [15] with a circumference of 233 km foresees a staged construction." then looking at [15] https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/test-tm/2000/fermilab-tm-2149.pdf , which explicitly refers to the VLHC as a collider at fermilab "This report presents the results of a design study for a new collider at Fermilab". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.4.6 (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion Request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. Creating an account rather than editing as an IP is highly recommended, for good or ill IP editors often don't get the consideration that logged-in editors do. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

Once again, another request for you to comment on the Talk page. And once again, having to correct you that the vLHC is not the Very Large Hadron Collider (VLHC) and has no relevance to the VLHC. The reference you provide even makes this explicit.

1) "a higher-energy hadron collider (“vLHC”)"

2) "The 2001 design study of a Very Large Hadron Collider (VLHC) [15] with a circumference of 233 km foresees a staged construction." then looking at [15] https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/test-tm/2000/fermilab-tm-2149.pdf , which explicitly refers to the VLHC as a collider at fermilab "This report presents the results of a design study for a new collider at Fermilab".

If you wish to make a page on the vLHC, please go ahead and do so, but it has nothing to do with this page (though before you do, please read up on it and realise that it was just an extremely preliminary name for the HE-LHC).

Do not edit this page again without responding on Talk.80.194.4.6 (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You know what: I don't care that much. You absolutely need to remove every mention of anything else than the Fermilab concept: Fine, whatever. But can you please stop blindly reverting unrelated changes? There are a couple of improvements (or in some cases just keeping the old text) that you revert every time that have nothing to do with the discussion what exactly is called VLHC/vLHC or whatever. Can I add them back in, or will this be reverted again just because you'll revert everything without looking? And you'll need a reference that the VLHC plan was abandoned completely, otherwise that will get a citation needed template followed by removal. --mfb (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You can edit or remove that if you like, as I've already made clear I would prefer this article just to be deleted entirely as it is nowhere near notable. It is a long defunct extremely small project that never even got off the ground; a couple dozen papers over a span of a few years before being quietly forgotten is not 'encyclopedia-worthy' (there are thousands of similar future colliders, and even future colliders a huge amount more notable, e.g. HE-LHC, the Gamma Factory Project, etc). so I'm perfectly happy for any of the correct claims I've put in the article to be removed. So long as the article doesn't include false claims that the VLHC refers to anything other than plans for a specific fermilab, change anything else you like. If you would have actually visited the talk page before being forced to I wouldn't have had to 'blindly reverting unrelated changes'.80.194.4.6 (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I visited the talk page, as you can see if you scroll up a bit. Anyway, done. --mfb (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)