1. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 1 Tensor Target Polarization at TRIUMF 1929-2014 Erich Vogt TRIUMF director 1981-1994 G. Smith, JLab

2. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 2Nomenclature

3. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 3 Some Basic Formulas

4. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 4Plots Dilution refrigerator 3He refrigerator Not much to work with!

5. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 5 SIN LAMPF SIN LAMPF

6. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 6 How to resolve this?

7. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 7

8. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 8 T 20 First Results SIN t 20 LAMPF t 20 TRIUMF t 20 TRIUMF T 20 Full calc No P 11 abs

9. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 9 Conditions:

10. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 10 Area & R techniques rely on assumptions: –D quadrupole moment contribution negligible 20 kHz vs 16 MHz @ 2.5 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 ± 0.3 MHz @ 2.5 T) p zz is abstract. Can we trust it?

11. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 11 Novel DIRECT msr of p zz

12. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 12 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 = -1.28 ± 0.03 after accounting for ±2.5º angular acceptance

13. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 13 Analyzed πd  2p data using: –TOF: p zz = 0.098 ± 0.024 –Coplanarity: p zz = 0.100 ± 0.022 Using NMR techniques: –NMR Areas: p zz = 0.083 ± 0.008 –NMR peak ratios: p zz = 0.095 ± 0.008 RF pedestal burning msrd in frozen spin mode (no μw) over 18h after burning. NMR p zz unknown: –TOF: p zz = 0.10 ± 0.017 –Coplanarity: p zz = 0.11 ± 0.018 –Consistent with unburned Either no enhancement, or relaxation times too short Benchmarking p zz Results p zz ? ? ? ok

14. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 14 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-86-027 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

15. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 15 TRIUMF Tgt Grp

16. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 16 Next: T 21

17. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 17 How to get at T 21 ?

18. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 18 Choice of Euler Angles Determines the Observables

19. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 19 Small at back angles C 4 D 9 OD C 4 H 9 OH p z =0.47 TE p zz =0.17

20. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 20 More on T 20 & T 21 p zz 0.10 up to 0.17 p z =0.47

21. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 21 Better without the P 11 ! Some Results Full 3 body (Flinders) Same, but w/o P 11

22. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 22 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

23. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 23 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 150h @ 0.83T

24. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 24 Extraction Method 2: Fitting T 20

25. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 25 Extraction Method 3: Matrices Diagonal matrix elements & result = weighted avg Column averages Row averages 294 MeV, θ π =151°

26. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 26 -48.2% +41.7% 134º 76º 400h @ 2.5T

27. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 27 134º 76º

28. Tensor Polarized Targets at TRIUMF G. Smith, March 2014 28Summary