[b1_ana] draft V3

[Dustin Keller]

Hi,

It is possible to use an additional loop to annihilate polarization, it is
similar to AFP, but different, not needing to go to negative polarization.
This would require an additional loop most likely on the outside of the
cup.

dustin

On Sat, 4 May 2013, Karl Slifer wrote:

> PPS : please note that in the overhead I assumed we would switch
> polarization states twice per day and I assumed 2 hours each time.  I think
> this would imply about 10 "buckets" of polarized counts and 10 "buckets" of
> unpolarized counts for each of our 3 x-points.   It is our dominant
> overhead at 5 days total.
>
> I think we may have a little room to move here.  Please see the attached
> plot from g2p data, where we depolarized the (proton) target by pumping
> with microwaves in less than 4 minutes.  The pump up is also very fast with
> the new fridge and blasting the wattage of the new microwave cavity the
> pump up is about 30 mins to the negative state.  I think polarizing in the
> positive state is usually a little faster.
>
> So, perhaps we can be a little more aggressive in our overhead estimate :5
> or 10 mins for depolarizing and 30 mins to polarize.  That would give us
> the flexibility to increase the number of "buckets" to say 10 or 12 total
> per day.  It will be a large overhead (about 12 days just for this), but oh
> well.  Would this be sufficient to control the known drifts?
>
> A little more radical would be to explore the idea of flipping from
> positive to negative tensor polarization rapidly with an AFP type flip,
> which I believe is near instantaneous.  This is essentially what happens
> with hole burning anyway I think.
>
> -Karl
>
>
>
> ---
> Karl J. Slifer
> Assistant Professor
> University of New Hampshire
> Telephone : 603-722-0695
>
>
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Karl Slifer <karl.slifer at unh.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've posted the updated draft at
>>
>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59933793/tensor_b1_v03.pdf
>>
>> There is some lagtime for implementation, but I think this reflects pretty
>> well where our discussion was about 24 hours ago.  However, we still need:
>>
>> -updated rates/kin plots from Ellie or Patricia and values for the table
>>
>> -some consensus on how to address Steve's comments.
>>
>> It seems we have three options with time running short.
>>
>> 1) List all possible factors that drift with time and atleast sketch a
>> plan to deal with them.
>>
>> 2) go back to difference of counts.
>>
>> 3) Cancel submission and work on this for next PAC.
>>
>> I lean to the first, Oscar leans to the second.  I'd very much like to
>> find some consensus on this.  Am I the only one still nerding it up in
>> front of my computer on this beautiful spring day?
>>
>> -Karl
>>
>> PS : If anyone makes suggestions for changes I would very much appreciate
>> that they be in a form that I can put into the document quickly.
>>
>> ---
>> Karl J. Slifer
>> Assistant Professor
>> University of New Hampshire
>> Telephone : 603-722-0695
>>
>