[Frost] Target polarization questions

[Michael Dugger]

Chris,

Thanks for the explanation :)

Now, if we are using the equation P = c_{LF1}*A, where A is measured 
using the LF coil throughout the run, then there needs to be some sort of 
modification to the equation for P. Unfortunately, this will result in the 
average polarization being lower then what we have now, and I very much 
would like it to be higher :(

This should be figured out because it is not a small effect. If what you 
propose is correct, then the high field data is to be trusted and need 
only a single calibration constant, whereas the low field data will have 
a c_{LF1} value that changes throughout the run.

Unless, of course, I don't understand how the polarization data we use is 
put together and the equation we use is NOT P = c_{LF1}*A !

Take care,
Michael


On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Christopher D. Keith wrote:

> Michael,
> It's important to remember that different coils were used for the high
> field and low field NMR systems, and it is unlikely that they sampled the
> equal parts of the target with equal weight.  The LF system was intended
> to only be a monitor of the polarization during the beam-on, frozen spin
> runs.  Unlike the HF system it was never accurately calibrated in a
> dedicated set of polarization measurements.  Instead, it was cross
> calibrated against the HF measurements prior to, and following each frozen
> spin run.  These are the type 2 and 3 measurements you describe.
>
> Ideally these cross-calibrations should have been consistent, ie
> c_{LF1}/c_{LF2} = 1.  This is the same as saying A(1)/A(4)=A(2)/A(3).
> Why aren't they more consistent?  It's my belief that forward-going
> charged particles produced by the photon beam depolarized the downstream
> part of the target faster than the upstream.  The geometry of the LF coil
> was such that it sampled the downstream part of the target a little more
> heavily than the upstream.  So it "registered" more polarization loss
> following a frozen spin run (type 3 measurement) than did the HF coil
> (type 4).
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> Chris
>
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm trying to understand the target polarization and have a couple of
>> questions.
>>
>> Here is what I understand. Please correct me if I am wrong:
>>
>>> From what I can tell by looking at the "Target Polarization" web page at
>> http://clasweb.jlab.org/rungroups/g9/wiki/index.php/Target_Polarization
>> To find the calibration constants for the polarization by cutting the
>> data up into 4 types:
>>
>> 1) High B-field after polarization and just before going to low B-field
>>
>> 2) Low B-field right after the switch between low and high B-field
>>
>> 3) Low B-field right before the switch between low and high B-field
>>
>> 4) High B-field just after switch from low B-field and just before
>> repolarization
>>
>> We assume that the polarization can be calculated in the form p = c*A,
>> where p is the polarization, c is a calibration constant, and A is the
>> area under the peak of a frequency deviation plot. The c calibration
>> constant is determined using only high B-field data. For low field data,
>> the equation is p = c_{LF1}*A, where the c_{LF1} calibration constant is
>> determined by using the c calibration constant and comparing the area A
>> between the type 1 and type 2 data (i.e. c_{LF1} = c*A1/A2).
>>
>> There is a calculation made for c_{LF2}, where c_{LF2} = c*A4/A3. There
>> are some measurement where c_{LF2} are deemed as "anomalous", but even
>> where the anomalous distinction is not made, there are fairly large and
>> systematic differences between c_{LF1} and c_{LF2}. The values of the
>> ratio between c_{LF1} and c_{LF2} (for non-anomalous measurements) are
>> given as:
>> 1.025
>> 1.036
>> 1.093
>> 1.080
>> 1.037
>> 1.171
>> 1.030
>> 1.074
>> 1.049
>> 1.013
>>
>> These value of c_{LF1}/c_{LF2} are systematically high and have an average
>> value of 1.061.
>>
>> Question: We are using c_{LF1} and the area A throughout the low B-field
>> data to determine the polarization, so I must assume that the High-B field
>> type 4 determination of P is not as accurate as type 1. Am I looking at
>> this wrong?
>>
>> Question: Do we use both high B-field types (types 1 and 4) to determine
>> c? If so, how is it possible to have a systematic uncertainty in c be only
>> 1.6% when the c_{LF1}/c_{LF2} ratio is systematically high by 6.1% ?
>>
>> Thanks for your time.
>>
>> -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
> ______________________________________________________________________
>