Particle acelerators and detectors, an introduction to experimental physics df elementary particles
AbstractThe history of particle acelerators is one of the classical examples of the spetacular advances in modern science. From the very modest machines of Lawrence and Cockroft-Walton vast laboratories have grown and many of the most important scientific discoveries in the last decades have been made using huge particle accelerators. Two distinct lines of progress have been followed, one started by J. Cookroft and E.T.S. Walton resulted in Iinear accelerators. The other school led by later E.O. Lawrence who developed the ciclotron resulted in magnetic confinement machines, whose modern version is the sincrotron with particle storage ring and collider. The devices described, (accelerators and detectors) in this work are dated but the principles they illustrate are still being applied in the most modern machines despite the use
of modern technologies like superconductor magnets.
COCKROFT, J.D., WALTON, E.T.S. Proc. Roy. Soc. (London), A129, 477(1930); 136A, 619(1932).
LAWRENCE, E.O., EDELFSEN, N.E. Science, 72, 376(1930); LAWRENCE, E.O., LIVINGSTONE, M.S., Phys. Rev., 37, 1707(1931); 38(1931).
RUTHERFORD ,E., Phil. Mag. S6, vol 37, 537-583(1919).
FRITZSCH, H. Quarks The Stuff of Matter, Penguin Books, England (1984).
LATTES, C.M.G., at all, Nature, 160, 455-488(1947).
GELL-MANN, M. Phys. Letters, B, 214(1964).
NEAL, R.B., The Stanford Two-mile Accelerator, Benjamin Reading, Mass. (1968).
LBL News Magazine, 6, 3, 6(1981).
BLEWETT, J.P. Advan. Eletron. Phys., 29, 233(1970).
WILSON, R.R., Scientific American, 242(1), 42-55(1980).
Laboratório Nacional Sincrotron. Campinas, 1989, 12, CNPQ, MCT.
CERN Courrier, 6, 127(1966).
KNOLL, G.F. Radiation Detection and Measurement, John Wiley, US, (1979).
How to Cite
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.