Talk:LHC sets new particle energy acceleration record

Review of revision 917780 [Passed]

Revision 917780 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 917780 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

...in order to avoid a repeat of the superconductive magnet quench and consequent six-tonne liquid helium leak catastrophe on September 19, 2008, nine days after the first start. The damage caused by the leak...

I would like to clarify; Although a magnet quench was a the start of the chain of events that led to the damage to the LHC, it was not the major reason for it. Quenches are unavoidable and expected. What failed was the system meant to protect against the effects of quenching. A heavy duty conductor meant to take over the current from the magnet had higher than permitted maximum resistance due to a faulty splice, and the resulting overheating melted the conducter, an electric arc developed and punched a hole through the various pressure vessels of the magnet assembly, and this lead the the helium leak. The major reason then was faulty construction, and a lack of failsafes to protect from this.