High Luminosity Hall Mini-Review

• Review A/C spectrometer configurations MAD + HRS, SHMS + HMS, MAD + HMS, SHMS + HRS

• Four example experiments 1) Pion form factor 2) Hadron form factors to highest possible Q2 3) Flavor decomposition in SIDIS 4) Few body form factors

• Mini-Review in Jan. 4-5. Committee: R. Holt (chair), H. Blok, S. Rock

MAD/HRS/HMS/SHMS Summary

MAD HRS SHMS HMSCentral P(GeV) 1~8 0.4~4.3 2.5~11 0.4~7.3P acceptance (%) -20~+40 +-5 -15~+25 +-10P resolution (%) 0.1 0.01 <0.2 0.10~0.15 Angle range (O) 5~90 6~135 5.5~25 10.5~90Y acceptance (cm) 50 10 50 10H acceptance (mr) +-38 +-30 +-18 +-32V acceptance (mr) +-190 +-60 +-50 +-85Solid Angle (msr) 6-24 6 2 or 4 8.1H resolution (mr) 0.3~0.4 0.1 2~4 0.8V resolution (mr) 0.7~1 0.3 1~2 1Y resolution (cm) 0.4~0.7 0.2 0.2~0.6 0.3

Pion Form Factor

• Team Rob Feuerbach, Paul Ulmer (Hall A) Dave Gaskell, Garth Huber (Hall C)

• Pion Form Factor extraction: for fixed Q2, W, measure L in a range of –t,

then extrapolate to pion pole (t=m2)

need L/T separation, and minimize TT, LT contributions

• Kinematics Q2 ~ 1- 6 GeV2, at W ~ 3.3 GeV measure L for –t from –tmin to ~3*(-tmin)

• HRS/HMS for e, MAD/SHMS for small angle crucial• Rate high, systematic uncertainties more important

Kinematics

and Rate

• SHMS setups

Will optimize for

MAD settings

• 50uA,

8cm target

• Rate fast

~0.4 -16.2 h/pt

10000 events

Pion Form Factor Summary

• rate high, statistical uncertain not dominating

• HRS/HMS for e: a factor of 2 in rate (not that important)

• noQuad MAD or normal tune noQuad MAD better p coverage, but limited –t range • Point-to-point angle offsets might be a problem?

• Systematic uncertainty with angle/momentum variations to be done

MAD/HRS and SHMS/HMS no big difference?

Hadron Form Factors at High Q2

• Team:

Ron Gilman, Doug Higinbotham (Hall A)

Dipangkar Dutta, Mark Jones (Hall C)

• Experiments:

GEp, (CT, N-

D with FPP for p + calorimeter for e Compare with HMS/SHMS for p + calorimeter for e

GEp Status

• RG estimate for MAD + calorimeter

• Kinematic/rate: limitation

Q2=15 GeV2,

MAD@ 12.4o, 9 GeV/c for p

Rate ~ 1 Hz

Statistical uncertainty similar to

HMS/SHMS + calorimeter option

(within a factor of 2)

GEp Systematic Uncertainties

• Estimated with 1st order matrix elements/resolutions

• Q2=12 GeV2, 12o: dR ~ 0.01

dp ~ 0.07%, d ~0.6 mr, d ~ 0.5 mr, dy ~ 4.6 mm

• Q2=14 GeV2, dR ~ 0.05

• Reality could be larger

significantly smaller than statistical uncertainties

Flavor decomposition in SIDIS

• Team

Xiaodong Jiang, Jian-ping Chen (Hall A)

Donal Day, Antje Bruell (Hall C)

• SIDIS: (e,e’p+/-) and (e,e’K+/-)

• Unpolarized: on H and D dbar/ubar (systematics)

• Longitudinally polarized: NH3, LiD and 3He (statistics)

u, d, ubar, dbar, s=sbar (LO)

or: uv, dv, dbar-ubar (NLO)

Kinematics and Comparison

• Kinematics: x: 0.07 – 0.65 (~0.4 for sea), Q2: 1.2 – 4.4 GeV2

z ~ 0.5, W > 2 GeV, W’ > 1.5 GeV e: 10-15o, 2-6 GeV/c (MAD/HMS) /K: 6-10o, 3-4 GeV/c (HRS/SHMS) good PID required• Unpolarized: relative systematic: p/d, pi+/pi-• Polarized: measuring A1N

+/-, A1NK+/-, , and/or ratios

• Simulation is on going

MAD+HRS slightly better than HMS+SHMS for polarized?

Few Body Form Factors

• Team Javier Gomez, Makis Petratos (Hall A) Betsy Beise, Ingo Sick (Hall C)

• Earlier projections of form factor A(Q2) with MAD + calorimeter deuteron: Q2 up to 10 GeV2

3He: Q2 up to 5.7 GeV2

• No new information from the team

MAD + calorimeter better than HMS + calorimeter by a factor of 2?

Summary

• Four groups of experiments MAD/HRS/SHMS/HMS

• Pion Form Factor: Rate fast, systematic more important NoQuad MAD+HRS similar to HMS/SHMS?

• GEp (CT, N->) : Statistic more important?

MAD+HRS similar to HMS+SHMS?

• Flavor decomposition in SIDIS: dbar/ubar: systematics dominating, similar? u, u, ubar, dbar, s, statistic dominating, MAD+HRS better?

• A(Q2) for D and 3He: statistic dominating, MAD+calorimeter better?