Talk:Neutrino detector

Merger?
This article seems to be redundant with Neutrino telescope. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. Neutrino detectors are for studies of neutrino properties (particle physics), while neutrino telescopes are aimed at astronomy. They overlap, but cannot be merged (unless you want to merge all physics experiments into one article…). This article sounds like a stub though, it deserves extension. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I think about it, you may consider neutrino telescopes as a subcategory of neutrino detectors. But still, the main aim is different than that of most of other neutrino experiments. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Because of the high level of redundancy between the two articles, I proceeded with the merger. If this article grows too long, the topic can always be split off again in the future.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Opening Sentence to This Article
It's awful.

"A neutrino detector is a device designed to detect neutrinos." Well, a neutrino detector detects neutrinos, by the definitions of the words. It's redundant. So strip it down to "A neutrino detector is a device that is designed." But again, the definition of the word "device" implies that it has been designed.

So information in that sentence is: "A neutrino detector is a device." 208.127.93.29 (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * DIY ? Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have the expertise to mess with this article. But thanks to whoever waded in there. 208.127.93.29 (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't very artistic, but it is perfectly true. Besides, defining a term such as a "neutrino detector" without mentioning "neutrino" and "detect" seems like an unnecessary superhuman trick to avoid claiming what's inherently obvious in the construction of the phrase "neutrino detector". Natural science language very often sounds tautological like the current intro, and I think it is the best way, althought the artistic aspects of the article may suffer. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 15:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Radiochemical methods
The sentence "These radiochemical detection methods are useful only for counting neutrinos; no neutrino direction or energy information is available." is in the middle of the second paragraph. I think he refer to the complete section and should become a new paragraph.

PrinzQMP (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Re. RTSCs
Hi, its apparently feasible to detect neutrinos using a room-temperature superconductor. In this case the mechanism for detecting them is microquenches induced in the lattice by neutrino flux, obviously for this to work the system needs to be shielded and kept a few mK below the critical temperature so a handheld unit would be tricky at best.

I actually did some analysis suggesting that neutrinos from 40K could show up very clearly on such a scanner, and form the basis for a life signs detector. If the system detected moving sources then a small animal or human would show up clearly and by measuring flux over time would even show the health of the animal/human being scanned. It would also be handy for detecting buried mines/explosives as nearly all known variants use potassium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.39 (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Can we say neutrinos scatter from electrons
p2 says “Neutrinos interact in Borexino via elastic scattering off electrons. A small flash of light is emitted when electrons deposit the imparted kinetic energy in the scintillator, and is collected by the PMTs. The total number of detected photoelectrons and their arrival times are used to reconstruct the neutrino energy and its interaction point in the detector, respectively.”

Is this a charged current interaction as in the main article, or something else ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)