Results for “TAP data” — Page 15

NASA NTRS1988

A methodology based on reduced complexity algorithm for system applications using microprocessors

The paper considers a methodology on the analysis and design of a minimum mean-square error criterion linear system incorporating a tapped delay line (TDL) where all the full-precision multiplications in the TDL are constrained to be powers of two. A linear equalizer based on the dispersive and additive noise channel is presented. This microprocessor implementation with optimized power of two TDL coefficients achieves a system performance comparable to the optimum linear equalization with full-precision multiplications for an input data rate of 300 baud.

Yan, T. Y.↗

NASA NTRS1994

YAV-8B reaction control system bleed and control power usage in hover and transition

Using a calibrated Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine and existing aircraft instrumentation and pressure taps, total and individual nozzle reaction control system (RCS) bleed flow rates have been measured on a YAV-8B Harrier during typical short takeoff, transition, hover, and vertical landing maneuvers. RCS thrust forces were calculated from RCS nozzle total pressure measurements, and control power was determined from the moments produced by these thrusts and the aircraft's moments of inertia. These data document the characteristics of the YAV-8B RCS with its basic stability augmentation system (SAS) engaged. Advanced control system designs for the YAV-8B can be compared to the original SAS based on the total bleed use and the percentage of available bleed used. In addition, the peak and mean values of the bleed and control power data can be used for sizing the reaction controls for a future short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft.

Borchers, Paul F.↗

NASA NTRS2003

Quantifying the Effect of Pressure Sensitive Paint On Aerodynamic Data

A thin pressure sensitive paint (PSP) coating can slightly modify the overall shape of a wind-tunnel model and produce surface roughness or smoothness that does not exist on the unpainted model. These undesirable changes in model geometry may alter flow over the model, and affect the pressure distribution and aerodynamic forces and moments on the model. This study quantifies the effects of PSP on three models in low-speed, transonic and supersonic flow regimes. At a 95% confidence level, the PSP effects on the integrated forces are insignificant for a slender arrow-wing-fuselage model and delta wing model with two different paints at Mach 0.2, 1.8, and 2.16 relative to the total balance accuracy limit. The data displayed a repeatability of 2.5 drag counts, while the balance accuracy limit was about 5.5 drag counts. At transonic speeds, the paint has a localized effect at high angles of attack and has a resolvable effect on the normal force, which is significant relative to the balance accuracy limit. For low speeds, the PSP coating has a localized effect on the pressure tap measurements, which leads to an appreciable decrease in the pressure tap reading. Moreover, the force and moment measurements had a poor precision, which precluded the ability to measure the PSP effect for this particular test.

Amer, T. R.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Measurement of Visual Reaction Times Using Hand-held Mobile Devices

Modern mobile devices provide a convenient platform for collecting research data in the field. But,because the working of these devices is often cloaked behind multiple layers of proprietary system software, it can bedifficult to assess the accuracy of the data they produce, particularly in the case of timing. We have been collecting datain a simple visual reaction time experiment, as part of a fatigue testing protocol known as the Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT). In this protocol, subjects run a 5-minute block consisting of a sequence of trials in which a visual stimulus appears after an unpredictable variable delay. The subject is required to tap the screen as soon as possible after the appearance of the stimulus. In order to validate the reaction times reported by our program, we had subjects perform the task while a high-speed video camera recorded both the display screen, and a side view of the finger (observed in a mirror). Simple image-processing methods were applied to determine the frames in which the stimulus appeared and disappeared, and in which the finger made and broke contact with the screen. The results demonstrate a systematic delay between the initial contact by the finger and the detection of the touch by the software, having a value of 80 +- 20 milliseconds.

reaction time↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Comparison of OVERFLOW Computational and Experimental Results of the CobraMRV Mars Entry Vehicle Concept during Supersonic Retropropulsion

The CFD solver Overflow was used to simulate the CobraMRV undergoing supersonic retropropulsion (SRP) in the Langley Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel as part of a CFD and wind tunnel integration effort. Selection of numerical methods and resulting comparisons to selected tunnel conditions of interest are detailed. Comparisons of mean pressures with static taps and pressure-sensitive paint are provided for multiple SST-based turbulence models. URANS predicitons of heat shield pressures at high thrust conditions are poor compared to TMRC and DES predictions. Comparisons to experimental measurements of pressure fluctuations indicate complex relationships between heat shield unsteadiness, flight Mach number, and engine thrust coefficient. Bow shock topology and shock cell structure between experimental and OVERFLOW data show good agreement in Schlieren imaging. Recommendations for future investigation into flow field unsteadiness and turbulence models are suggested.

CFD↗

DOE OSTI2025

Predicting the evolution of biomass bulk density through feedstock preprocessing: Discrete element modeling, regression analysis, and pilot-scale validation

Bulk density is an important material property of biomass feedstocks, influencing handling, storage, transport costs, and conversion efficiency. In this study, predictive regression models for loose and tapped bulk densities of Alamo and Cave-in-Rock switchgrass are developed using a comprehensive dataset generated via calibrated bonded-sphere discrete element method (DEM) simulations. Here, a key contribution of this study is the use of a DEM-based approach, which correlates density with moisture content and particle size distribution parameters and enables analysis across a continuous particle size range, overcoming limitations of purely experimental data. For comparison, regression models are also developed using only experimental data from pilot-scale runs at the Biomass Feedstock National User Facility at Idaho National Laboratory. Validation against pilot-scale data showed reasonable prediction accuracy for both model types, particularly for smaller particle sizes (post-secondary grinding). While the experimental model showed slightly better performance matching the validation data in some cases, the DEM-based model benefits from a much larger dataset, reduced predictor multicollinearity, and continuous parameter coverage, highlighting the utility of validated simulation models for developing robust predictive tools for biomass preprocessing applications.

09 - BIOMASS FUELS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Assessment of Potential Dose and Environmental Impacts from Proposed Testing at the INL Radiological Response Training Range

This assessment uses screening-level models to calculate potential environmental impacts from proposed tests at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Radiological Response Training Range (RRTR) site. Proposed tests could be conducted using 11 different radioactive material types that include K2O, LaBr3, KBr, Cu, Zr, F, Ga, Ga2O3, NaNO2, Ga-68, and Tc-99m. The tests could potentially release radioactive material to the atmosphere and radionuclides and other contaminants to the soil, which could leach into the unsaturated zone and migrate to the aquifer. Atmospheric transport of radionuclides to potential human receptors and time-integrated air concentrations were calculated with a Gaussian plume model and three years of hourly meteorological data. Potential surface-soil impacts were calculated with the computer program mixing-cell model (MCM). Groundwater impacts were calculated with the computer programs MCM and GWSCREEN. Radiological doses from potential atmospheric releases were calculated for public receptors off the INL Site and for workers at nearby INL facilities. Results were compared to regulatory dose limits. Maximum potential groundwater concentrations were estimated in the aquifer below the NSTR site and compared to drinking water standards or risk-based screening levels for resident tap water. Soil concentrations were calculated and compared to risk-based screening levels for workers and potential future residents. All impacts were estimated assuming 12 tests are conducted annually using all 11 material types for a period of 15 years. This document provides the resources to enable a subject matter expert in the field of environmental assessments to replicate the modeling and calculations. The methodology and parameters are presented in the text. All electronic files, including computer-code input, output, executable files, batch files, scripts, and spreadsheet files are contained in a zip file that can be accessed by selecting “Additional Information” (select Native File) in the INL Electronic Document Management System (EDMS). It is highly unlikely the test scenarios evaluated in this ECAR will adversely impact human health based on comparisons of calculated dose and concentration against regulatory standards and risk-based screening levels. Conservative estimates of dose to workers and the public from atmospheric transport of possible radionuclide releases are far below federal radiation protection standards. Conservative estimates of potential contaminant concentrations in groundwater are less than federal drinking water standards or screening levels. Predicted radionuclide concentrations in surface soils are below risk-based screening levels, except for Ge-68 (material Ga-68) for the worker. The Ge-68 soil concentration can be made less than the worker PRG, if the number of annual tests using Ga-68 is reduced from 12 to 6. However, the sum of ratios still exceeds one because of the high K-40 ratio. If the EF of the worker (number of days the worker is in the contaminated testing area) is reduced from 225 days/yr (default value for full time worker) to 112 days/yr, the Ge-68 ratio is less than one and the sum of ratios is less than one. Actual radiation doses and groundwater and surface-soil concentrations are likely to be much less than those calculated because of the conservative assumptions and parameters employed in the modeling. For example, atmospheric-transport calculations assume the entire inventory of each material type is readily released to the atmosphere and no plume deposition, depletion, or radioactive decay occurs during transport. The calculations also assume the same meteorological conditions (e.g., wind velocity, wind direction, stability class) that produce the maximum 95th percentile concentration (i.e., concentration representing the 95th percentile of a distribution of concentrations derived from 3 years of hourly meteorological data) at each receptor location are the same for all 12 tests during the year, and each receptor is assumed to be present during all 12 tests. The surface-soil assessment assumes the entire inventory of each test is deposited in the top 5 cm of soil. No atmospheric dispersal is assumed, and the radionuclides are subject only to leaching and radioactive decay. The groundwater-pathway modeling is conservative in that it is one-dimensional in the unsaturated zone (no lateral spreading/dilution) and assumes the entire inventory of contaminants infiltrates into the ground at the same location for every test. This is especially conservative for particulate radionuclides because they would have to dissolve or corrode first and some would be dispersed into the atmosphere. The groundwater receptor is also assumed to consume water directly from a hypothetical well positioned in the location of maximum concentration. In addition, conservative degradation rates were used, and volatilization was not considered for the nonradioactive chemical

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Assessment of Potential Dose and Environmental Impacts from Proposed Testing at the INL National Security Test Range

This assessment uses screening-level models to calculate potential environmental impacts from proposed tests at two locations at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) National Security Test Range (NSTR) site. Proposed tests could be conducted using 11 different radioactive material types that include K 2 O, LaBr 3 , KBr, Cu, Zr, F, Ga, Ga 2 O 3 , NaNO 2 , Ga-68, and Tc-99m. The tests could potentially release radioactive material to the atmosphere and radionuclides and other contaminants to the soil, which could leach into the unsaturated zone and migrate to the aquifer. Atmospheric transport of radionuclides to potential human receptors and time-integrated air concentrations were calculated with a Gaussian plume model and three years of hourly meteorological data. Potential surface-soil impacts were calculated with the computer program mixing-cell model (MCM). Groundwater impacts were calculated with the computer programs MCM and GWSCREEN. Radiological doses from potential atmospheric releases were calculated for public receptors off the INL Site and for workers at nearby INL facilities. Results were compared to regulatory dose limits. Maximum potential groundwater concentrations were estimated in the aquifer below the NSTR site and compared to drinking water standards or risk-based screening levels for resident tap water. Soil concentrations were calculated and compared to risk-based screening levels for workers and potential future residents. All impacts were estimated based on the assumption that 12 tests are conducted annually using all 11 material types for 15 years. This document provides the resources to enable a subject matter expert in the field of environmental assessments to replicate the modeling and calculations. The methodology and parameters are presented in the text. All electronic files, including computer-code input, output, executable files, batch files, scripts, and spreadsheet files, are contained in a zip file that can be accessed by selecting “Additional Information” (select Native File) in the INL Electronic Document Management System (EDMS). It is highly unlikely the test scenarios evaluated in this ECAR will adversely impact human health based on comparisons of calculated dose and concentration against regulatory standards and risk-based screening levels. Conservative estimates of dose to workers and the public from atmospheric transport of possible radionuclide releases are far below federal radiation protection standards. Conservative estimates of potential contaminant concentrations in groundwater are less than federal drinking water standards or screening levels. Predicted radionuclide concentrations in surface soils are below risk-based screening levels, except for Ge-68 (material Ga-68) for the worker. The Ge-68 soil concentration can be made less than the worker PRG, if the number of annual tests using Ga-68 is reduced from 12 to 6. However, the sum of ratios still exceeds one because of the high K-40 ratio. If the EF of the worker (number of days the worker is in the contaminated testing area) is reduced from 225 days/yr (default value for full time worker) to 112 days/yr, the Ge-68 ratio is less than one and the sum of ratios is less than one. Actual radiation doses and groundwater and surface-soil concentrations are likely to be much less than those calculated because of the conservative assumptions and parameters employed in the modeling. For example, atmospheric-transport calculations assume the entire inventory of each material type is readily released to the atmosphere and no plume deposition, depletion, or radioactive decay occurs during transport. The calculations also assume the same meteorological conditions (e.g., wind velocity, wind direction, stability class) that produce the maximum 95th percentile concentration (i.e., concentration representing the 95th percentile of a distribution of concentrations derived from 3 years of hourly meteorological data) at each receptor location are the same for all 12 tests during the year, and each receptor is assumed to be present during all 12 tests. The surface-soil assessment assumes the entire inventory of each test is deposited in the top 5 cm of soil. No atmospheric dispersal is assumed, and the radionuclides are subject only to leaching and radioactive decay. The groundwater-pathway modeling is conservative in that it is one-dimensional in the unsaturated zone (no lateral spreading/dilution) and assumes the entire inventory of contaminants infiltrates into the ground at the same location for every test. This is especially conservative for particulate radionuclides because they would have to dissolve or corrode first and some would be dispersed into the atmosphere. The groundwater receptor is also assumed to consume water directly from a hypothetical well positioned in the location of maximum concentration. In addition, conservative degradation rates were used, and volatilization was not considered for the nonradradioactive chemicals modeled. And finally, the calculations assume all 12 tests will be performed at the same place at both locations, and all 11 radioactive material types will be used for each test. This is conservative because it is anticipated that no more than two material types will be used per test.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2016

Thyroid antagonists and thyroid indicators in U.S. pregnant women in the Vanguard Study of the National Children's Study

The sodium iodide-symporter (NIS) mediates uptake of iodide into thyroid follicular cells. This key step in thyroid hormone synthesis is inhibited by perchlorate, thiocyanate (SCN) and nitrate (NO{sub 3}) anions. When these exposures occur during pregnancy the resulting decreases in thyroid hormones may adversely affect neurodevelopment of the human fetus. Our objectives were to describe and examine the relationship of these anions to the serum thyroid indicators, thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) and free thyroxine (FT4), in third trimester women from the initial Vanguard Study of the National Children's Study (NCS); and to compare urine perchlorate results with those in pregnant women from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES). Urinary perchlorate, SCN, NO{sub 3}, and iodine, serum TSH, FT4, and cotinine were measured and a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was administered to pregnant women enrolled in the initial Vanguard Study. We used multiple regression models of FT4 and TSH that included perchlorate equivalent concentration (PEC, which estimates combined inhibitory effects of the anions perchlorate, SCN, and NO{sub 3} on the NIS). We used multiple regression to model predictors of each urinary anion, using FFQ results, drinking water source, season of year, smoking status, and demographic characteristics. Descriptive statistics were calculated for pregnant women in NHANES 2001–2012. The geometric mean (GM) for urinary perchlorate was 4.04 µg/L, for TSH 1.46 mIU/L, and the arithmetic mean for FT4 1.11 ng/dL in 359 NCS women. In 330 women with completed FFQs, consumption of leafy greens, winter season, and Hispanic ethnicity were significant predictors of higher urinary perchlorate, which differed significantly by study site and primary drinking water source, and bottled water was associated with higher urinary perchlorate compared to filtered tap water. Leafy greens consumption was associated with higher urinary NO{sub 3} and higher urinary SCN. There was no association between urinary perchlorate or PEC and TSH or FT4, even for women with urinary iodine <100 µg/L. GM urinary perchlorate concentrations in the full sample (n=494) of third trimester NCS women (4.03 µg/L) were similar to pregnant women in NHANES (3.58 µg/L). - Highlights: • Limited biomonitoring data are available in pregnant women. • We found no effect of perchlorate and related anions on thyroid indicators in third trimester women. • Leafy green vegetables were a dietary source for perchlorate, nitrate, and thiocyanate.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Chlamydomonas cells transition through distinct Fe nutrition stages within 48 h of transfer to Fe-free medium

Low iron (Fe) bioavailability can limit the biosynthesis of Fe-containing proteins, which are especially abundant in photosynthetic organisms, thus negatively affecting global primary productivity. Understanding cellular coping mechanisms under Fe limitation is therefore of great interest. We surveyed the temporal responses of Chlamydomonas (Chlamydomonas reinhardtii) cells transitioning from an Fe-rich to an Fe-free medium to document their short- and long-term adjustments. While slower growth, chlorosis and lower photosynthetic parameters are evident only after one or more days in Fe-free medium, the abundance of some transcripts, such as those for genes encoding transporters and enzymes involved in Fe assimilation, change within minutes, before changes in intracellular Fe content are noticeable, suggestive of a sensitive mechanism for sensing Fe. Promoter reporter constructs indicate a transcriptional component to this immediate primary response. With acetate provided as a source of reduced carbon, transcripts encoding respiratory components are maintained relative to transcripts encoding components of photosynthesis and tetrapyrrole biosynthesis, indicating metabolic prioritization of respiration over photosynthesis. In contrast to the loss of chlorophyll, carotenoid content is maintained under Fe limitation despite a decrease in the transcripts for carotenoid biosynthesis genes, indicating carotenoid stability. These changes occur more slowly, only after the intracellular Fe quota responds, indicating a phased response in Chlamydomonas, involving both primary and secondary responses during acclimation to poor Fe nutrition. Overall design: Sampling of Chlamydomonas CC-4532 cells cultivated photoheterotrophically (TAP) under Fe-starvation condition (0 uM Fe-EDTA). Samples were collected at multiple timepoints from biological duplicate cultures after washing in TAP medium lacking Fe. Two time courses were collected. A short time course with t=0 (pre-wash), 0 (post-wash), 5, 10, 15, 30, 60, 120, and 240 min. A long time course with t= 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 24 and 48 hours. Please note that, for long time course, the GSE44611/PRJNA190650 samples were re-used/re-analyzed together with the short time course data: GSM1087792 C.reinhardtii_Fe_Long_0_hours SRX245324 SAMN01924672 GSM1087793 C.reinhardtii_Fe_Long_0.5_hours SRX245325 SAMN01924673 GSM1087794 C.reinhardtii_Fe_Long_1_hours SRX245326 SAMN01924674 GSM1087795 C.reinhardtii_Fe_Long_2_hours SRX245327 SAMN01924675 GSM1087796 C.reinhardtii_Fe_Long_4_hours SRX245328 SAMN01924676 GSM1087797 C.reinhardtii_Fe_Long_8_hours SRX245329 SAMN01924677 GSM1087798 C.reinhardtii_Fe_Long_12_hours SRX245330 SAMN01924678 GSM1087799 C.reinhardtii_Fe_Long_24_hours SRX245331 SAMN01924679 GSM1087800 C.reinhardtii_Fe_Long_48_hours SRX245332 SAMN01924680

Source record↗

DOE OSTI2020

Cyber Secure Sensor Network for Fossil Fuel Power Generation Assets Monitoring

The energy sector is undergoing digital transformation which is to say more and more power generation assets have become automated and connected to the internet. The connected sensors can tap into plants to monitor the health of assets and manage fleets remotely. These are just some of the benefits digitalization is bringing to the power industry. Within a power plant, control systems are no longer concerned with one system or one piece of equipment, but rather whole fleet of assets inter-connected with smart sensors which have the function of continuously monitoring and transmitting real-time operational data to operators. These connected systems will form a part of the industrial internet of things (IIoT). The big data scenarios provide benefits of performing system prognostics and optimization which is a key selling point of power plant digitalization.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-00: Medical Physics Workshop: An Update On the Journal’s Improvement Activities and Guidance On Writing and Reviewing Papers

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-01: Vision for Medical Physics and Status of Current Initiatives

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-02: Improving Manuscript Quality Via Structured Reviews, Enhanced Scientific Category Taxonomy, and Outreach

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-03: Writing Good Scientific Papers and Responding to Critiques

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Investigation of Key Electronic States in Layered Mixed Chalcogenides With a d 0 Transition Metal as Li-Ion Cathodes

Lithium-rich transition metal chalcogenides are witnessing a revival as candidates for Li-ion cathode materials, spurred by the boost in their capacities from transcending conventional redox processes based on cationic states and tapping into additional chalcogenide states. A particularly striking case is Li 2 TiS 3-y Se y , which features a d 0 metal. While the end members are expectedly inactive, substantial capacities are measured when both Se and S are present. Using X-ray absorption spectroscopy, it is shown that the electronic structure of Li 2 TiS 3-y Se y is not a simple combination of the end members. The data confirm previous hypotheses that, in Li 2 TiS 2.4 Se 0.6 , this behavior is underpinned by concurrent and reversible redox of only S and Se, and identify key electronic states. Moreover, wavelet transforms of the extended X-ray absorption fine structure provide direct evidence of the formation of short Se–Se units upon charging. The study uncovers the underpinnings of this intriguing reactivity and highlights the richness of redox chemistry in complex solids.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

DOE OSTI2023

Toward a Diverse Next-Generation Energy Workforce: Teaching Artificial Photosynthesis and Electrochemistry in Elementary Schools through Active Learning

Artificial photosynthesis is a promising approach to generate commodity chemicals using abundant chemical feedstocks and renewable energy sources. Despite its importance, affordable and effective hands-on classroom activities that demonstrate artificial photosynthesis and teach key concepts, especially for primary school students, are lacking. Educating young students on this topic is a critical step in the development of the next-generation energy workforce, especially one that is diverse in race and gender. Here, we hypothesize that an effective approach to educate a broad range of young students on the topic of artificial photosynthesis is through the use of an active learning-based lesson plan that employs cheap and accessible materials. This hypothesis is confirmed by evaluating the understanding of fifth grade students with a survey before and after a lesson plan on artificial photosynthesis that uses active-learning techniques and uses safe and highly accessible materials (baking soda, tap water, plastic jars, Ni coil, alligator clips, and a solar cell) to perform solar-powered water splitting. The lesson plan and survey questions are designed to align with the educational outcomes for fifth grade classrooms in California and to address four general learning objectives: (1) Motivations of Artificial Photosynthesis, (2) Applications of Artificial Photosynthesis, (3) Inputs and Outputs of Artificial Photosynthesis, and (4) Engineering Design for Artificial Photosynthesis. The survey data demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in overall student understanding from the lesson plan. Importantly, the data show that the lesson plan presented here is effective at narrowing the performance gap between minority students and overly represented groups.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

DOE OSTI2022

UAE6 - Wind Tunnel Tests Data - UAE6 - Sequence V - Raw Data

Sequence V: Tip Plate (F) This test sequence used an upwind, rigid turbine with a 0° cone angle. The wind speed ranged from 5 m/s to 25 m/s, and the yaw angle was held at 0°. The blade pitch angle was 3°. The rotor rotated at 72 RPM. Blade pressure measurements were collected. The five-hole probes were removed and the plugs were installed. Plastic tape 0.03-mm-thick was used to smooth the interface between the plugs and the blade. The teeter dampers were replaced with rigid links, and these two channels were flagged as not applicable by setting the measured values in the data file to –99999.99 Nm. The teeter link load cell was pre-tensioned to 40,000 N. During post-processing, the probe channels were set to read -99999.99. The standard tip blocks were replaced with a tip plate to simulate the effect of an undeployed tip-mounted aerodynamic brake as shown in Appendix A. Note that the blade radius was not changed during post-processing so the pressure tap locations are at the same radial location, but the reference to 30% represents 30% of 5.029 m, not 4.943 m. Throughout this report, references to the blade span are made for the 5.029- m radius, not the 4.943-m radius.

17 WIND ENERGY↗