1 / 17

RHIC Polarimetery

This document presents the results and methodologies of the RHIC Polarimetry group from the Spin Collaboration meeting on May 1, 2009. It covers key aspects of polarimeter operations during the collision runs at √s=200 GeV, including energy calibration, measurement strategies, and simultaneous operation of all four polarimeters. The polarization results from various fills are discussed, showcasing consistent behavior among different detectors, as well as comparisons of spin horizontal components between 200 and 500 GeV runs.

bethan
Télécharger la présentation

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 May 1 (Friday), 2009

  2. pC: s=200 GeV run • The same setup as in the end of s=500 GeV run • Energy Calibration • Energy and ToF corrections • Targets • The same measurement strategy • Run all 4 polarimeters simultaneously (vertical and horizontal scans for each beam) • Monitor the system (excluding detectors) during measurements with generator pulses • So far no major issues

  3. pC Rate history s=200 GeV Smooth, no change

  4. pC measurements Online Polarization (%), not normalized (!) vs fill Fills 10616 (Apr 18) – 10682 (Apr 30) “Online” polarizations: 0.50-0.60 “Quite” consistent (relative) behavior of Pol-1 vs Pol-2 Pol-1 measure slightly lower than Pol-2: by ~5%

  5. pC-BluevsHJet Hjet/pC is stable over fills within (large) stat. errors (of HJet) HJet: <P>=54% (fills 10616-10668) HJet/Blue1  1.03 HJet/Blue2  0.97

  6. pC-Yellow vs HJet Hjet/pC is stable over fills within (large) stat. errors (of HJet) HJet: <P>=56% (fills 10616-10646) HJet/Yell1  1.05 HJet/Yell2  1.01

  7. More precise Hjet-pC comparison Hjet: fills combined in 3 periods Drop in polarization confirmed by Hjet in both blue and yellow pC-blue HJet pC-yellow HJet

  8. Pol. Profile Polarimeters 2 Polarimeters 1 Horizontal profile Vertical profile Vertical profile Horizontal profile Usual… R0.15 in previous years (100 GeV beams) R0.1  Experiments see 5% more polarization than Hjet

  9. Spin Horizontal Component s=200 GeV Horiz. Component: 0.065 (of ~0.55)  ~7 degrees 0.035 (of ~0.55)  ~3.5 degrees Consistent between Pol-1 and Pol-2

  10. Spin Horizontal Component s=500 GeV No spin horizontal component with 250 GeV beams

  11. Backups

  12. Rate history s=500 GeV

  13. C Mass

  14. P 2. Obtain R directly from the P(I) fit:    I R=0.290.07 pC: Polarization Profile Scan C target over the beam cross: pC 1. Directly measure I and P : P Polarization I Intensity Target Position Precise target positioning is NOT necessary

  15. pC Monitoring ToF Generator pulses Carbon Ekin

  16. 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

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

More Related