[Frost] Material for deuteron runs

[Eugene Pasyuk]

If there is no other vendor who offers D36, then propanediol will do. 
Under the same conditions due to the dilution factor the uncertainty 
with propanediol will be factor of 1.2 larger.

-Eugene


On 5/28/10 1:16 PM, Christopher Keith wrote:
> An update on deuterated material for FROST:
>
> It is unlikely that the material will be d-butanol.  I have learned that
> there are two forms of the trityl radical commonly called "Finland".
> Finland D36 is soluble in butanol, and has been used at Bochum to
> polarize d-butanol to about 80%.  However, this version of Finland is
> not available from the US supplier, Oxford Instruments.  They offer
> Finland H36, but the solubility of H36 in butanol is questionable.  Don
> Crabb tried this combination at UVa recently and the results were
> disappointing -- no observed polarization at 5 Tesla and 1 K.
>
> Oxford also sells "OX63", a third trityl variant.  This is easily
> soluble in propanediol, and Bochum managed to polarize d-propanediol +
> OX63, once again to about 80%.
>
> Note that the dilution factor for d-propanediol is lower than d-butanol
> (19% versus 24%), but this is somewhat offset by a higher density (1.27
> g/cc versus 0.94 g/cc, numbers for non-deuterated versions).
>
> Unless someone has a better idea, my intention is to purchase OX63 and
> d-propanediol for the upcoming run.
> regards,
> Chris
>
>
> Christopher D. Keith wrote:
>> We have already purchased several grams of d-butanol.
>>
>> We have received a quote for the 'Finland' variant of the trityl radical.
>> This is the proper one to use with butanol.  I expect a requisition will
>> go out today.
>>
>> Chris Keith
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> What material do we have for the deutero runs?
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Igor Strakovsky<igor at va.gwu.edu>
>>> Date: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 12:53 am
>>> Subject: Re: [Frost] Two cents worth
>>> To: Michael Dugger<dugger at jlab.org>, Bill Briscoe<briscoe at gwu.edu>
>>> Cc: frost at jlab.org
>>>
>>>
>>>> Mike, it would be great if you can do that
>>>>
>>>> See you tomorrow, sorry today, Igor
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 25 May 2010 00:04:11 -0400 (EDT), Michael Dugger
>>>> <dugger at jlab.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yes: gamma n ->  pi- p. Thanks for catching that :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the best way to deal with this is to take this as an
>>>>>
>>>> extension of
>>>>
>>>>> g9b. This means that the extension would be calibrated with the g9b
>>>>>
>>>> data.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think there is enough manpower to treat the extension as a
>>>>> separate running period with separate cooks and calibrations.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we were to cook and calibrate the data as g9b data, I would like
>>>>>
>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>> analyze the gamma n ->  pi- p reaction. I am in good position to do
>>>>>
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>>> Any disagreements?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Michael
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 24 May 2010, Bill Briscoe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe you mean gamma n ->  pi- p. Yes, I believe that this is a
>>>>>>
>>>> unique
>>>>
>>>>>> opportunity that should not be lost. We should look for the best
>>>>>>
>>>> physics to
>>>>
>>>>>> get out of this in a short time. I agree with Barry that we should
>>>>>>
>>>> not hunt
>>>>
>>>>>> for peaks, but look where we are sure to see something. This might
>>>>>>
>>>> lead to
>>>>
>>>>>> the allocation of more time if that is possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: Michael Dugger<dugger at jlab.org>
>>>>>> Date: Monday, May 24, 2010 11:07 pm
>>>>>> Subject: [Frost] Two cents worth
>>>>>> To: frost at jlab.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Somewhat obvious stuff:
>>>>>>> * Running FROST with a deuteron target for three weeks without
>>>>>>>
>>>> having
>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> go through the PAC is a unique opportunity.
>>>>>>> * There is only enough time to run at one coherent edge energy.
>>>>>>> * We have to figure out the best possible physics motivation to
>>>>>>> determine
>>>>>>> the edge energy to run at.
>>>>>>> * At the lower energies we are almost guaranteed of getting a usable
>>>>>>> signal for gamma p ->  pi- p.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An issue we need to address: Who is going to analyze the data? There
>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>> real possibility that the person who does pi- p will be the only one
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> get any usable physics. Is that enough motivation for the effort of
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>> involved?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Michael
>>>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Frost mailing list
>>> Frost at jlab.org
>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/frost
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> Christopher D. Keith
>> Jefferson Lab, MS 12H                        email: ckeith at jlab.org
>> 12000 Jefferson Ave.                         ph: 757-269-5878
>> Newport News VA 23606                        fax: 757-269-5235
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Frost mailing list
>> Frost at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/frost
>>
>