[b1_ana] LiD, Tensor Workshop Discussions, and Moving Forward
Elena Long
ellie at jlab.org
Mon Apr 14 11:11:56 EDT 2014
Good morning,
I think a lot of this conversation shows why a meeting this week is a
good idea -- to re-evaluate where we are after the tensor workshop, and
to focus on how we can use the resources available to meet the
challenges of making a b1 measurement a reality.
I've set up a SeeVogh (http://research.seevogh.com) meeting for us for
Thursday the 17th. You can join in either through the web at
http://research.seevogh.com/join?meeting=M2MvMB2D2IDDDs9e9iDM92 using
your JLab log-in or by calling in.
The call-in information is:
+1 626 395 2112
Phone Bridge ID: 690 1745
As per usual, please feel free to update any agenda items to
https://hallcweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/Working_Meetings
Take care,
Ellie
Elena Long, Ph.D.
Post Doctoral Research Associate
University of New Hampshire
elena.long at unh.edu
ellie at jlab.org
http://nuclear.unh.edu/~elong
(603) 862-5312
On Mon 14 Apr 2014 11:00:30 AM EDT, Karl Slifer wrote:
>
> Hi Dustin,
>
> I'm very glad that you'll be looking into the high field response for
> ND3; I agree that this is the logical place to start. I also believe
> it is reasonable and logical to keep LiD as an option considering the
> extended discussions of pros and cons we had at the workshop. Going
> back quite a few years, we initially vetoed LiD for two main reasons
> (as I recall):
>
> -The long time to thermalize and the issue of whether we can really
> treat 6Li as 4He+D
>
> The first point is just one consideration in calculating the overall
> FOM, which we can (and should) compare to ND3. This takes no new cool
> downs. And the theorists at the workshop were open to point 2, at
> least for DIS experiments like b1, although we would clearly need
> further theory support if we chose LiD. So there is no "shift to
> LiD" as I see it: LiD is an option, like ND3 is an option, like
> solenoid or open geometry magnet is an option. The pros and cons need
> to be evaluated, and most of the bigger issues can be considered to
> see if they justify the substantial resources needed for a cool down.
>
> best,
>
> -Karl
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:28 AM, <dustin at jlab.org
> <mailto:dustin at jlab.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I am not totally sure why the shift to LiD considering what we already
> know and understand about it. There was some concern about what
> can be
> achieve with ND3 during the meeting but unless I missed something its
> based on lack of research and data on ND3 and nothing else. LiD
> posses a
> lot of problems which is why we vetoed it to start with. Not to
> say that
> these problems don't have solutions but there maybe better places
> to put
> the time and focus for now. I will not be looking at LiD in the
> lab for a
> while. I am interested in what can be done with d-butenal (cause
> its easy
> and hold a lot of test potential) and ND3 (cause it hold the best
> experimental potential).
>
> >From what I recall the only reason LiD was even brought up was
> because we
> are not sure what ND3 will do under higher field. Given the right
> dose
> under warm irradiation there is good reason to believe it will perform
> quite nicely. This has yet to be shown, but its an easy test.
> Until we
> have these results there are probably better things to focus on
> than LiD.
> For example simulations and magnet field configuration. This is a
> large
> task but if there is the opportunity to buy a new magnet it will be an
> essential task. Results of systematics have a strong dependence
> on the
> configuration and understanding of acceptance for each
> configuration. I
> will not take this task on alone I'm very busy in the lab, but I am
> willing to help with tosca, design and communication with Oxford etc.
>
>
> dustin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi
> >
> > In advance of our meeting,
> > here<https://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/e161/target/cdrslacr3.pdf>is
> > the conceptual design report for the E159 solenoidal target
> using LiD.
> > I think this is a good reference to start with for considering
> some of
> > the
> > suggestions that emerged from the tensor workshop. In particular,
> >
> > - Fig 1 gives LiD spin up times at 5T and 6.5T which is on the
> order of
> > 30-40 hours. I think that with LiD, the polarization just keeps
> growing
> > when you put beam on it, so data taking does not necessarily
> need to wait
> > until max polarization is reached. T.E.s become a big time
> investment, and
> > we would probably need to seriously consider AFP to kill the
> polarization,
> > and maybe Josh's suggestion to simultaneously polarize the
> unused cell
> > (which is just outside the uniform region) by use of an extra
> compensating
> > coil.
> >
> > -Max polarizations look to be about Pz=62% and Pz=72%, which
> corresponds
> > to
> > about Pzz=30% and Pzz=40% respectively. I assume this curve is
> for 1K,
> > but
> > I can't access the original article (V. Bouffard et al J.
> Physique, 41,
> > 1447 (1981)).
> >
> > -the paper discusses using a transverse solenoid dipole for
> adiabatic
> > field
> > reversals
> >
> > -The proposed solenoid would have accomadated a 1cm diameter
> target, with
> > 5cm length in a 10E-4 uniform field, with a 20 cm (8 inch)
> diameter bore.
> > The price tag in 2001 was 230K. Inflation adjustment puts that
> at about
> > $320K today. The EIO tube ($95K) and Roots pumps(93K) in 2001
> dollars
> > inflates to about another $250K today. These are not the only
> expenses,
> > but they would be the main ones summing to 570K. There's plenty
> of other
> > smaller expenses, so maybe 800-900K for a complete solenoid system?
> >
> > (For reference our UNH solenoid is 7T with 10E-4 uniformity over
> a 5 cm
> > DSV, with a clear bore of 4 inches,and is about 14inches long.)
> >
> >
> > -Karl
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Elena Long <ellie at jlab.org
> <mailto:ellie at jlab.org>> wrote:
> >
> >> Good afternoon,
> >>
> >> Thank you all for filling out the poll. Based on it, let's have our
> >> next meeting on Thursday, April 17 at 2pm.
> >>
> >> The things that I would like to discuss are new rates calculations
> >> using LiD and He2D (where Li is assumed to be HeD), I want to
> make sure
> >> that we take the time close enough to the Tensor Workshop to
> hash out
> >> any remaining discussions left over from the Workshop before
> they slip
> >> from our minds, and to revisit our plan for achieving our condition
> >> particularly given the pessimistic viewpoints that were raised
> during
> >> the target session. I welcome any other agenda topics as well.
> >>
> >> Take care,
> >> Ellie
> >>
> >> Elena Long, Ph.D.
> >> Post Doctoral Research Associate
> >> University of New Hampshire
> >> elena.long at unh.edu <mailto:elena.long at unh.edu>
> >> ellie at jlab.org <mailto:ellie at jlab.org>
> >> http://nuclear.unh.edu/~elong
> >> (603) 862-5312 <tel:%28603%29%20862-5312>
> >>
> >> On Fri 04 Apr 2014 11:57:55 AM EDT, Oscar Rondon-Aramayo wrote:
> >> > Hi Ellie and all b1 people,
> >> >
> >> > I filled the poll, but I'm not sure about the reason for the
> meeting.
> >> > Is there something time sensitive that we should discuss, such as
> >> > communications with the PAC or the like? It would be a good
> idea to
> >> > circulate a tentative agenda of the items that would be covered.
> >> >
> >> > Otherwise, it may be more effective to just share ideas and
> proposals
> >> > by email, which also serves to document the process.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> >
> >> > Oscar
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 17:14:10 -0400
> >> > Elena Long <ellie at jlab.org <mailto:ellie at jlab.org>> wrote:
> >> >> Good evening,
> >> >>
> >> >> Please take a moment to fill out the scheduling poll below by
> >> >> tomorrow at 1pm so that we can schedule the next b1 meeting.
> >> >>> http://doodle.com/4ytu2b3b5gqqaz7d
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Take care,
> >> >> Ellie
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Apr 2, 2014, at 1:45 PM, "Elena Long" <ellie at jlab.org
> <mailto:ellie at jlab.org>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Good afternoon,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Since it looks like a number of people aren't able to make
> it next
> >> >>> week, let's postpone to the following week. Since I imagine our
> >> >>> schedules have changed a bit since our last meeting, please
> fill out
> >> >>> the Doodle poll below by Friday afternoon so that we can
> schedule
> >> >>> the next b1 meeting.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://doodle.com/4ytu2b3b5gqqaz7d
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thank you,
> >> >>> Ellie
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Elena Long, Ph.D.
> >> >>> Post Doctoral Research Associate
> >> >>> University of New Hampshire
> >> >>> elena.long at unh.edu <mailto:elena.long at unh.edu>
> >> >>> ellie at jlab.org <mailto:ellie at jlab.org>
> >> >>> http://nuclear.unh.edu/~elong
> >> >>> (603) 862-5312 <tel:%28603%29%20862-5312>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On 04/01/2014 11:07 AM, Long, Elena wrote:
> >> >>>> Good morning,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Since we last had a b1 meeting, a lot has happened. I was
> wondering
> >> if
> >> >>>> we could schedule a meeting to re-group and plan a path
> forward,
> >> >>>> particularly given the target discussions that happened
> during the
> >> >>>> Tensor Workshop. Would next Thursday (4/10) at 1:30pm work for
> >> >>>> everyone?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Take care,
> >> >>>> Ellie
> >> >>>
> >> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> b1_ana mailing list
> >> >>> b1_ana at jlab.org <mailto:b1_ana at jlab.org>
> >> >>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> b1_ana mailing list
> >> >> b1_ana at jlab.org <mailto:b1_ana at jlab.org>
> >> >> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> b1_ana mailing list
> >> b1_ana at jlab.org <mailto:b1_ana at jlab.org>
> >> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > b1_ana mailing list
> > b1_ana at jlab.org <mailto:b1_ana at jlab.org>
> > https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b1_ana mailing list
> b1_ana at jlab.org <mailto:b1_ana at jlab.org>
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b1_ana mailing list
> b1_ana at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
More information about the b1_ana
mailing list