1 / 14

RHIC Polarimetery

RHIC Polarimetery. A.Bazilevsky for RHIC Polarimetry group RHIC Spin Collaboration Metting April 10 (Friday), 2009. pC measurements. Online Polarization (%), not normalized (!) vs fill. Fills 10300 (Mar6) – 10522 (Apr 9) Pol-1 measure systematically lower than Pol-2

caden
Download Presentation

RHIC Polarimetery

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RHIC Polarimetery A.Bazilevsky for RHIC Polarimetry group RHIC Spin Collaboration Metting April 10 (Friday), 2009

  2. pC measurements Online Polarization (%), not normalized (!) vs fill Fills 10300 (Mar6) – 10522 (Apr 9) Pol-1 measure systematically lower than Pol-2 Blue1/Blue2  1 from Fill 10476 Yell1/Yell2  1 from Fill 10505

  3. Rate history Runs in reasonable conditions (below 3 MHz) Blue-1: since fill 10476 Blue-2 : Ok Yellow-1: since fill 10505 Yellow2: since fill 10414

  4. pC-BluevsHJet Hjet/pC is stable over fills within (large) stat. errors (of HJet) HJet: <P>=32% (fills 10402-10508) HJet/Blue1  0.960.04 (before target change, fill10476) HJet/Blue1  0.840.04 (after target change , fill10476) HJet/Blue2  0.820.02

  5. pC-Yellow vs HJet Hjet/pC is stable over fills within (large) stat. errors (of HJet) HJet: <P>=36% (fills 10439-10508) HJet/Yell1  1.020.03 (before target change, fill10505) HJet/Yell1  HJet/Yell2 (after target change , fill10505) HJet/Yell2  0.840.03

  6. Another APEX exercise: Polarization, “rate” corrected Fill 10508 • Energy correction assumed to be an offset (baseline shift) – should be confirmed • If so, it may explain the “rate” effect (target dependence and pol1/pol2 difference) • Plans: • Put pulses in other bunches (now only in bunch0) • Vary pulse amplitude Before correction After correction 2/NDF=24/9 2/NDF=12/9 Very thick targets (very high rate, >5MHz)

  7. Backups

  8. pC Monitoring ToF Generator pulses Carbon Ekin

  9. pC monitoring Low rate example: 10429.013 High rate example: 10346.007 Event rate vs time Pulse rate vs time Pulse amplitude vs time Pulse ToF vs time

  10. AN vs energy Ebeam = 100 GeV Any shift in energy measurements lead to a shift in AN (asymmetry)

  11. FastOffline vs Online From Xuan Li Flattop FastOffline: Use “deadlayer” concept to correct energy: all energy shifts are attributed to change in Si DeadLayer Online: Yell1/Yell20.8 Offline: Yell1/Yell20.9 Corrects about half of “rate effect”

  12. FastOffline vs Online From Xuan Li Injection FastOffline: Use “deadlayer” concept to correct energy: all energy shifts are attributed to change in Si DeadLayer Online: Yell1/Yell20.89 Offline: Yell1/Yell20.96 Corrects about half of “rate effect”

  13. FastOfflinevs Online From Xuan Li Flattop Online: Blue1/Blue20.86 FastOffline: Use “deadlayer” concept to correct energy: all energy shifts are attributed to change in Si DeadLayer Offline: Blue1/Blue20.88

  14. FastOfflinevs Online Injection Online: Blue1/Blue20.93 FastOffline: Use “deadlayer” concept to correct energy: all energy shifts are attributed to change in Si DeadLayer Offline: Blue1/Blue20.93

More Related