Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March Tensor Target Polarization at TRIUMF Erich Vogt TRIUMF director G. Smith, JLab

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March Nomenclature

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March Some Basic Formulas

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March Plots Dilution refrigerator 3He refrigerator Not much to work with!

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March SIN LAMPF SIN LAMPF

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March How to resolve this?

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March T 20 First Results SIN t 20 LAMPF t 20 TRIUMF t 20 TRIUMF T 20 Full calc No P 11 abs

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March Conditions:

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March Area & R techniques rely on assumptions: –D quadrupole moment contribution negligible 20 kHz vs T –Boltzmann dist. (equal spin temps) Kiss that goodbye with RF burning –p zz deduced from msrd p z –p zz is bloody small… –NMR system linear over a wide range In gain (~3 orders of magnitude) In frequency too (16.6 ± T) p zz is abstract. Can we trust it?

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March Novel DIRECT msr of p zz

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March Msrd A yy in pp  πd Fadeev Our PSA beam C 4 D 9 OD C 4 H 9 OH (bkg) foreground minus bkg BKG: QF abs on 12 C Since no abs on H, this is a perfect bkg tgt! Flinders PSA p zz Experiment Took T 20 = ± 0.03 after accounting for ±2.5º angular acceptance

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March Analyzed πd  2p data using: –TOF: p zz = ± –Coplanarity: p zz = ± Using NMR techniques: –NMR Areas: p zz = ± –NMR peak ratios: p zz = ± RF pedestal burning msrd in frozen spin mode (no μw) over 18h after burning. NMR p zz unknown: –TOF: p zz = 0.10 ± –Coplanarity: p zz = 0.11 ± –Consistent with unburned Either no enhancement, or relaxation times too short Benchmarking p zz Results p zz ? ? ? ok

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March Saw no effect –Within our uncertainties –Also none from holding field –But p zz was very small –Hazy on what NMR predicted burned p zz was I think it was Δp zz ~ 0.05 (see TRI-PP by Delheij, Healey & Wait) –Really no effect? Msrd burned/unburned = 1.08 ± 0.30 A larger ratio if comparing burned to NMR… grasping at straws though –After burning, msrd average polarization over an 18h period Did not investigate shorter time periods Was frozen spin the problem? –May have had better rslts with MUCH higher B (longer relaxation times) Need to know p zz during the entire physics msrmnt –Problematic if burned p zz (time) is hard to msr More on Burning NMR πd  2p unburned Avg of πd  2p burned 2.5 T burned 1.25 T burned

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March TRIUMF Tgt Grp

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March Next: T 21

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March How to get at T 21 ?

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March Choice of Euler Angles Determines the Observables

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March Small at back angles C 4 D 9 OD C 4 H 9 OH p z =0.47 TE p zz =0.17

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March More on T 20 & T 21 p zz 0.10 up to 0.17 p z =0.47

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March Better without the P 11 ! Some Results Full 3 body (Flinders) Same, but w/o P 11

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March The P 11 Phase Shift NN – πNN system: hard to couple to 2 body cuz π can absorb on one N and be emitted by the other. –Soln: treat abs. via the P 11 πN interaction 3-body calculations sensitive to cancellation of the pole (true π absorption) & non-pole (multiple scattering w/o absorption) in the P 11 πN phase shift. –Problem: cacl’s w/o the P 11 generally compare better to data! –Soln (Jennings, PLB205, 187 (1988): Pole term Pauli blocked. Missing diagrams (different time ordering) cancel ones responsible for the Pauli blocking & improves agreement! cancels 1b & 1c missing

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March Propandiol: C 3 D 6 (OD) 2 & C 3 D 6 (OH) 2 92% deuterated, doped with Cr V –1 mm beads in a 0.1 mm thick 5x18x18 mm 3 brass cell –4 mW cooling power –50 mK dilution fridge –Up to p z =-0.48 (p zz =0.18) after 12 h Back to SIN/PSI 0.83T

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March Extraction Method 2: Fitting T 20

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March Extraction Method 3: Matrices Diagonal matrix elements & result = weighted avg Column averages Row averages 294 MeV, θ π =151°

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March % +41.7% 134º 76º 2.5T

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March º 76º

Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March Summary