1. Hall C Compton Polarimeter Preliminary Design by the Qweak Polarimetry Working Group S. Kowalski, M.I.T. (chair) D. Gaskell, Jefferson Lab R.T. Jones, K. Joo, U. Connecticut with modifications for Qweak collaboration meeting Boston, October 10-11, 2003 Hall C Polarimetry Workshop Newport News, June 9-10, 2003

2. 2 Outline Overview of Qweak Qweak plan for polarimetry Criteria for the Compton design The Compton chicane Pulsed vs. coincidence operation Monte Carlo simulation Laser options Detector options Outlook

3. 3 Overview of Qweak Precision measurement of proton weak form factor at low Q 2 At Q 2  0 interpretation is clean: running of sin 2  w Interesting proposals for New Physics show deviations from SM at the level 0.5% in sin 2  w Qweak of proton (1 - 4sin 2  w ) is a sensitive measure:  Q w /Q w = 5%  sin 2  w /sin 2  w = 0.5% Measuring Qweak to 5% requires measuring A LR in polarized electron scattering at the level 3%.

4. 4 Beam requirements for Qweak E = 1.165 GeV (1-pass) I = 180  A P = 80% (known to ±1%) A LR (proton) ~ 3·10 -7 at Q 2 ~.03 GeV 2 – beam position stability100  m(40 nm) – beam size stability --- (2  m) – beam angle stability100  r (60 nr) – beam energy stability 10 -3 (10 -8 ) – P expected to vary > 1% during run continuous monitoring of polarization 

5. 5 Qweak plan for polarimetry Design goal: 1% overall uncertainty on P Moller runs: measure P at fixed intervals – requires reduction in current to few  A – sufficient precision reached in short time (30 min.) – reliable for absolute measurement at 1% – can be used to calibrate the Compton Build a Compton polarimeter for Hall C – runs continuously – should be capable of 1% systematic error over periods between Moller runs

6. 6 Qweak plan for polarimetry, cont. Relevant parameter is average P over run – want luminosity-weighted average – corrections are second order in A LR Information from Hall A useful for monitoring stability and performing consistency checks. Qweak should be able to measure polarization and verify accuracy independent of what is going on in other halls.

7. 7 Criteria for the Compton design Measure luminosity-weighted average polarization over period of ~1 hour with combined statistical and systematic errors of 1.5% under Qweak running conditions Control systematic errors at 1% level Coexist with Moller on Hall C beamline Configurable for running at higher energies, up to 11 GeV.

8. 8 The Compton chicane 10 m 2 m D1 D2D3 D4 Compton detector Compton recoil detector D 4-dipole design accommodates both gamma and recoil electron detection small beam-laser crossing angle (~1 degree) – protects mirrors from direct synchrotron radiation – implies significant cost in luminosity – simplifies alignment

9. 9 The Compton Chicane, cont.

10. 10 The Compton Chicane, cont. Alex Bogacz (CASA) has found a way to fit the chicane into the existing Hall C beamline. – independent focusing at Compton and target – last quad triplet moved 7.4 m downstream – two new quads added, one upstream of Moller and one between Moller arms – fast raster moves closer to target, distance 12 m. – beamline diagnostic elements also have to move Focus with  = 8 m near center of chicane

11. 11 The Compton Chicane, cont.

12. 12 The Compton Chicane, cont. 3 configurations support energies up to 11 GeV Beam energy  bend B D  x e ( =514nm) (GeV)(deg)(T)(cm)(cm) 1.165 100.67 57 2.4 2.0 1.16 4.1 2.51.45 5.0 2.5 4.30.625 25 2.2 3.00.75 2.6 6.01.50 4.9 4.0 2.30.54 13 1.8 11.01.47 4.5

13. 13 Pulsed vs. coincidence operation Detect both gamma and recoil electron – two independent detectors – different systematics – consistency checks Two methods to reject background counts 1. gamma-electron coincidence – rates should not be a limitation – gets rid of some backgrounds 2. pulsed laser operation – backgrounds suppressed by duty factor of laser – gets rid of additional bg, eg. bremsstrahlung

14. 14 Illustration of pulsed-mode operation detector signal signal gate background gate laser output

15. 15 Advantages of pulsed-mode operation Two independent asymmetry measurements More flexible choice of high-power lasers Can provide high luminosity without the cost of a mode-locked cavity. – A resonant cavity design requires high-reflectivity mirrors which are sensitive to synchrotron light. – To shield the mirrors generally requires a crossing angle of a degree or so. – In general L ~ 1 /  cross  at such angles.

16. 16 Luminosity vs. crossing angle Assume a green laser = 514 nm Fix electron and laser foci  = 100  m Emittance of laser beam scaled by diffraction limit  = M (  / 4  Scales like 1/  cross down to scale of beam divergence.

17. 17 How to “count” in pulsed-mode Cannot count individual gammas because pulses overlap within a single shot. Q. How is the polarization extracted? A.By measuring the energy-weighted asymmetry. Consider the general weighted yield: Then for a given polarization, the asymmetry in Y depends in general on the weights w i used.

18. 18 How to “count” in pulsed-mode What is the optimal weight to use when forming the asymmetry? The answer must depend on the Compton analyzing power where  ± ( k ) is shorthand for the polarized differential cross section, which depends on c.m. scattering angle or equivalently on lab scattered photon energy k.

19. 19 Problem can be solved analytically w i = A(k) Solution is statistically optimal, maybe not for systematics. Standard counting is far from optimal w i = 1 Energy weight is better! w i = k How to “count” in pulsed-mode

20. 20 Define a figure-of-merit for a weighting scheme How to “count” in pulsed-mode  f (ideal) f ( w i =1)> f ( w i = k ) 514  nm226090703160 248 nm 5502210 770 193 nm 3401370 480

21. 21 Systematics of energy-weighted counting – measurement independent of gain – no need for absolute calibration of detector – no threshold Can electron counter use a similar technique? – would need to be segmented – rate per segment should be < 1/shot – one scalar on each segment – weighting used when combining results from different segments How to “count” in pulsed-mode

22. 22 Monte Carlo simulations Needed to study systematics from – beam-laser misalignment – detector misalignment – beam-related backgrounds – crossing angle effects – detector nonlinearities Processes generated – Compton scattering from laser – synchrotron radiation in dipoles (with secondaries) – bremsstrahlung from beam gas (with secondaries) – standard Geant3 list of physical interactions

23. 23 Monte Carlo simulations Compton-geant : based on original Geant3 program by Pat Welch dipole chicane backscatter exit port gamma detector

24. 24 Monte Carlo simulations Several events superimposed Compton recoil electron not yet simulated, coming soon electron beam Compton backscatter (and bremsstrahlung)

25. 25 Monte Carlo simulations

26. 26 Laser options 1. External locked cavity (cw) – Hall A used as reference 2. High-power UV laser (pulsed) – large analyzing power (10% at 180°) – technology driven by industry (lithography) – 65W unit now in tabletop size 3. High-power doubled solid-state laser (pulsed) – 100W commercial unit available

27. 27 Laser options: comparison laser l P E max rate t (1%) option(nm) (W)(MeV)(KHz) (%)(min) Hall A10641500 23.7 4801.03 5 UV ArF 193 32119.8 0.85.42100 UV KrF 248 65 95.4 2.24.27 58 Ar-Ion (IC) 514 100 48.110.42.10 51 DPSS 532 100 46.510.82.03 54

28. 28 Detector options Photon detector – Lead tungstate – Lead glass Electron detector – Silicon microstrip – Quartz fibers

29. 29 Summary Qweak collaboration would like two independent methods to measure beam polarization. A Hall C Compton polarimeter would complement the Moller and measure the average polarization during the experiment. Concept for a chicane that imposes minimal disturbance to the present Hall C beamline has been worked out. Using a pulsed laser system is feasible, and offers advantages in terms of background rejection. Options now exist that come close to Qweak requirements with a green or UV laser, that use a simple one-pass setup. Monte Carlo studies are underway to determine tolerances on detector performance and alignment required for 1% accuracy.

30. 30 Addendum: recent progress

31. 31 Addendum: recent progress

32. 32 Addendum: laser choices High-power green laser (100 W @ 532 nm) – sold by Talis Laser – industrial applications – frequency-doubled solid state laser – pulsed design D. Gaskell: visit from Talis Laser reps June 2003 – not confident that they could deliver – product no longer being advertised (?)

33. 33 Addendum: laser choices High-power UV laser (50 W @ 248 nm) – sold by several firms – industrial applications: micromachining and lithography – excimer laser (KrF) – pulsed design R. Jones: visit from Lambda Physik reps Fall 2003 – sales team has good technical support – plenty of experience with excimer lasers – strong interest in our application

34. 34 Addendum: laser choices Properties of LPX 220i – maximum power: 40 W (unstable resonator) – maximum repetition rate: 200 Hz – focal spot size: 100 x 300 mm (unstable resonator) – polarization: should be able to achieve ~90% with a second stage “inverted unstable resonator” – maximum power: 50 W – repetition rate unchanged – focal spot size: 100 x 150 mm – polarization above 90%

35. 35 Addendum: laser choices two passes make up for losses in elements – small crossing angle: 1 ° – effective power from 2 passes: 60 W – mirror reflectivity: 97% – length of figure-8: 100 cm UV laser electron beam monitor

36. 36 Addendum: laser choices purchase cost for UV laser system – LPX-220i (list):175 k$ – LPX-220 amplifier (list):142 k$ – control electronics: 15 k$ – mirrors, ¼ wave plates, lenses: 10 k$ cost of operation (includes gas, maintenance) – per hour @ full power:$35 (single) $50 (with amplifier) – continuous operation @ full power:2000 hours