Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “physical”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 433 records · Page 24
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2014

TH-E-9A-01: Medical Physics 1.0 to 2.0, Session 4: Computed Tomography, Ultrasound and Nuclear Medicine

Medical Physics 2.0 is a bold vision for an existential transition of clinical imaging physics in face of the new realities of value-based and evidencebased medicine, comparative effectiveness, and meaningful use. It speaks to how clinical imaging physics can expand beyond traditional insular models of inspection and acceptance testing, oriented toward compliance, towards team-based models of operational engagement, prospective definition and assurance of effective use, and retrospective evaluation of clinical performance. Organized into four sessions of the AAPM, this particular session focuses on three specific modalities as outlined below. CT 2.0: CT has been undergoing a dramatic transition in the last few decades. While the changes in the technology merits discussions of their own, an important question is how clinical medical physicists are expected to effectively engage with the new realities of CT technology and practice. Consistent with the upcoming paradigm of Medical Physics 2.0, this CT presentation aims to provide definitions and demonstration of the components of the new clinical medical physics practice pertaining CT. The topics covered include physics metrics and analytics that aim to provide higher order clinicallyrelevant quantification of system performance as pertains to new (and not so new) technologies. That will include the new radiation and dose metrics (SSDE, organ dose, risk indices), image quality metrology (MTF/NPS/d’), task-based phantoms, and the effect of patient size. That will follow with a discussion of the testing implication of new CT hardware (detectors, tubes), acquisition methods (innovative helical geometries, AEC, wide beam CT, dual energy, inverse geometry, application specialties), and image processing and analysis (iterative reconstructions, quantitative CT, advanced renditions). The presentation will conclude with a discussion of clinical and operational aspects of Medical Physics 2.0 including training and communication, use optimization (dose and technique factors), automated analysis and data management (automated QC methods, protocol tracking, dose monitoring, issue tracking), and meaningful QC considerations. US 2.0: Ultrasound imaging is evolving at a rapid pace, adding new imaging functions and modes that continue to enhance its clinical utility and benefits to patients. The ultrasound talk will look ahead 10–15 years and consider how medical physicists can bring maximal value to the clinical ultrasound practices of the future. The roles of physics in accreditation and regulatory compliance, image quality and exam optimization, clinical innovation, and education of staff and trainees will all be considered. A detailed examination of expected technology evolution and impact on image quality metrics will be presented. Clinical implementation of comprehensive physics services will also be discussed. Nuclear Medicine 2.0: Although the basic science of nuclear imaging has remained relatively unchanged since its inception, advances in instrumentation continue to advance the field into new territories. With a great number of these advances occurring over the past decade, the role and testing strategies of clinical nuclear medicine physicists must evolve in parallel. The Nuclear Medicine 2.0 presentation is designed to highlight some of the recent advances from a clinical medical physicist perspective and provide ideas and motivation for designing better evaluation strategies. Topics include improvement of traditional physics metrics and analytics, testing implications of hybrid imaging and advanced detector technologies, and strategies for effective implementation into the clinic. Learning Objectives: Become familiar with new physics metrics and analytics in nuclear medicine, CT, and ultrasound. To become familiar with the major new developments of clinical physics support. To understand the physics testing implications of new technologies, hardware, software, and applications. Identify approaches for implementing comprehensive medical physics services in future imaging practices.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Enhancing the Useability of the IAEA's Physical Model: An Analysis of User Feedback

This study presents the results of Physical Model user interviews conducted with 12 people who have International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards experience. The goal of this report is to provide additional context for policy makers when prioritizing the needs of the IAEA regarding support for enhancements to the Physical Model. The interviews covered the general usability of the Physical Model, its effectiveness as a technical reference, and the scope and utility of the Physical Model's indicators and content. The key conclusions from these interviews are as follows: 1) The Physical Model is difficult to find and not well advertised. 2) The Physical Model can be difficult to use due to its format, which makes searching for information difficult, and lack of visual content. Therefore, the Physical Model should be supported in multiple formats (print, PDF, web) to maximize its usability for different stakeholders. 3) The scope of the Physical Model's content and indicators is likely sufficient, and translating indicators into other languages is unlikely to be worth the effort. 4) Despite its inefficiencies and other issues, the Physical Model in its current form is a vital (albeit under-utilized) resource for key stakeholders. 5) Despite its broad use case the Physical Model is not a catch-all tool and force-fitting the Physical Model into functions for which it has not been designed for would likely diminish its value. 6) It can be difficult to disentangle challenges related to the Physical Model and its usability from broader challenges at the Agency, such as general issues with communication and coordination. Based on these conclusions and considering the results of past studies on the Physical Model funded by NA-241, the analysis team developed a list of recommendations and associated actions for IAEA consideration. These recommendations are prioritized based on the assessed level of difficulty for the IAEA to implement a recommendation, emphasizing low hanging fruit then building to more ambitious changes to the Physical Model's format and content.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2025

Progress in pedestal and edge physics: Chapter 3 of the special issue: on the path to tokamak burning plasma operation

This paper describes the extensive progress that has been made in the understanding of tokamak pedestal physics since the 2007 publication of ‘Progress in the ITER Physics Basis’ (Ikeda 2007 Nucl. Fusion 47 E01–S500). It serves as Chapter 3 of the 2025 Nuclear Fusion Special Issue titled ‘On the Path to Tokamak Burning Plasma Operation’ (Campbell et al 2025 Nucl. Fusion ). This review was compiled by the pedestal and edge physics (PEP) community affiliated with the International Tokamak Physics Activity organization. It attempts to collect in one place citations to the majority of published literature on the pedestal physics topics that will be most important for the operation of a future power producing burning plasma tokamak. These include citations to publications describing the physics of the pedestal plasmas in many operating tokamaks worldwide and the pedestal physics projections for several near-term future devices including ITER. Descriptions of experimental results, interpretive modeling and predictive extrapolations are integrated together and comprehensive references are provided. This review is organized around four primary technical sections, viz.: pedestal structure, edge localized mode (ELM) characteristics, ELM control and regimes without large ELMs. Key results from many of the references are described briefly and set into the tokamak burning plasma power plant context. In addition, different perspectives on pedestal physics topics that are currently under debate within the community are also described, to provide guidance on needs for future research. Finally, attempts are made to describe conclusions from all of this progress consistent with discussions by the pedestal physics community at this time. The goal of this review is to provide a useful reference document for pedestal physics researchers going forward toward operation of a burning tokamak fusion plasma.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2014

REPORT OF RESEARCH ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND FUTURE GOALS HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

Caltech High Energy Physics (HEP) has a broad program in both experimental and theoretical physics. We are known for our creativity and leadership. The future is uncertain and we strive to be involved in all the major areas of experimental and theoretical HEP physics so no matter where the important discoveries occur we are well positioned to play an important role. An outstanding group of postdoctoral scholars, graduate students, staff scientists, and technical and administrative personnel support our efforts in experimental and theoretical physics. The PI’s on this grant are involved in the following program of experimental and theoretical activities: I) EXPERIMENTAL PHYSICS Our CMS group, led by Harvey Newman and Maria Spiropulu, has played a key role in the discovery and interpretation of the Higgs boson and in searches for new physics. They have important hardware responsibilities in both ECAL and HCAL and are also involved in the upgrades needed for the High Luminosity LHC. Newman's group also develops and operates Grid-based computing, networking, and collaborative systems for CMS and the US HEP community. The charged lepton (Mu2e) and quark BaBar flavor physics group is led by David Hitlin and Frank Porter. On Mu2e they have been instrumental in the design of the calorimeter. Construction responsibilities include one third of the crystals and associated readout as well as the calibration system. They also will have responsibility for a major part of the online system software. Although data taking ceased in 2008 the Caltech BaBar group is active on several new forefront analyses. The neutrino group is led by Ryan Patterson. They are central to NOvA's core oscillation physics program, to calibration, and to detector readiness being responsible for the production and installation of 12,000 APD arrays. They have key roles in neutrino appearance and disappearance analysis in MINOS and MINOS+. Sunil Golwala leads the dark matter direct detection effort. Areas of activity include: CDMS II data analysis, contributions to SuperCDMS Soudan operations and analysis, R&D towards SuperCDMS SNOLAB, development of a novel screener for radiocontamination (the BetaCage), and development of new WIMP detector concepts. Ren-Yuan Zhu leads the HEP crystal laboratory for the advanced detector R&D effort. The crystal lab is involved in development of novel scintillating crystals and has proposed several crystal based detector concepts for future HEP experiments at the energy and intensity frontiers. Its current research effort is concentrated on development of fast crystal scintillators with good radiation hardness and low cost. II) THEORETICAL PHYSICS The main theme of Sergei Gukov's current research is the relation between the geometry of quantum group invariants and their categorification, on the one hand, and the physics of supersymmetric gauge theory and string theory, on the other. Anton Kapustin's research spans a variety of topics in non-perturbative Quantum Field Theory (QFT). His main areas of interest are supersymmetric gauge theories, non-perturbative dualities in QFT, disorder operators, Topological Quantum Field Theory, and non-relativistic QFT. He is also interested in the foundations and possible generalizations of Quantum Mechanics. Hirosi Ooguri's current research has two main components. One is to find exact results in Calabi-Yau compactification of string theory. Another is to explore applications of the AdS/CFT correspondence. He also plans to continue his project with Caltech postdoctoral fellows on BPS spectra of supersymmetric gauge theories in diverse dimensions. John Preskill works on quantum information science. This field may lead to important future technologies, and also lead to new understanding of issues in fundamental physics John Schwarz has been exploring a number of topics in superstring theory/M-theory, supersymmetric gauge theory, and their AdS/CFT relationships. Much of the motivation for these studies is the desire to gain a deeper understanding of superstring theory and M-theory. The research interests of Mark Wise span particle physics, cosmology and nuclear physics. His recent work has centered on extensions of the standard model where baryon number and lepton number are gauged and extensions of the standard model that have novel sources of baryon number violation and new sources of charged lepton flavor violation

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2015

Designing a tokamak fusion reactor—How does plasma physics fit in?

Our work attempts to bridge the gap between tokamak reactor design and plasma physics. The analysis demonstrates that the overall design of a tokamak fusion reactor is determined almost entirely by the constraints imposed by nuclear physics and fusion engineering. Virtually, no plasma physics is required to determine the main design parameters of a reactor: a , R 0 , B 0 , T i , T e , p , n , τ E , I . The one exception is the value of the toroidal current I, which depends upon a combination of engineering and plasma physics. This exception, however, ultimately has a major impact on the feasibility of an attractive tokamak reactor. The analysis shows that the engineering/nuclear physics design makes demands on the plasma physics that must be satisfied in order to generate power. These demands are substituted into the well-known operational constraints arising in tokamak physics: the Troyon limit, Greenwald limit, kink stability limit, and bootstrap fraction limit. However, a tokamak reactor designed on the basis of standard engineering and nuclear physics constraints does not scale to a reactor. Too much current is required to achieve the necessary confinement time for ignition. The combination of achievable bootstrap current plus current drive is not sufficient to generate the current demanded by the engineering design. Several possible solutions are discussed in detail involving advances in plasma physics or engineering. The main contribution of this report is to demonstrate that the basic reactor design and its plasma physics consequences can be determined simply and analytically. The analysis thus provides a crisp, compact, logical framework that will hopefully lead to improved physical intuition for connecting plasma physic to tokamak reactor design.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Promoting Physical Activity During Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period

Introduction Physical activity is important for improving and maintaining overall health across the life span, including during and after pregnancy. Achieving recommended levels of physical activity can be challenging during pregnancy and the postpartum period. The US Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion sought to promote physical activity during and after pregnancy through the development of health education materials for the Move Your Way campaign. Research was conducted with pregnant and postpartum people to learn what types of messages and materials would encourage physical activity in these populations. Methods Participants were recruited from 3 regions of the United States to participate in 90‐minute virtual focus groups. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older and either pregnant or 6 weeks to 1 year postpartum. Participants were asked questions about their beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions about physical activity and prompted to provide feedback on health promotion messages and images. Sessions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for key themes. Results Twenty‐four focus groups were conducted with 48 pregnant participants and 52 postpartum participants. Sixteen sessions were conducted in English and 8 were conducted in Spanish. Most participants had questions about how much physical activity is recommended, and many cited their health care provider as a trusted source of information. Participants responded positively to materials that acknowledged the uniqueness of each pregnant or postpartum experience, referenced gradually increasing physical activity levels, highlighted the benefits of physical activity, focused on safety, addressed common barriers, and displayed realistic representations of physical activity. Discussion There is an opportunity to improve messaging about physical activity during and after pregnancy. To better promote physical activity, perinatal health care providers and other health professionals can share information about recommended amounts of physical activity, communicate the benefits, and promote realistic and achievable physical activity messages that address common barriers in these populations.

Nursing↗
DOE OSTI2015

SU-E-E-03: Shared Space Fosters Didactic and Professional Learning Across Professions for Medical and Physics Residents

Purpose: Medical Physicists and Radiation Oncologists are two professions who should be working as a team for optimal patient care, yet lack of mutual understanding about each others respective role and work environment creates barriers To improve collaboration and learning, we designed a shared didactic and work space for physics and radiation oncology residents to maximize interaction throughout their professional training. Methods: Physician and Physics residents are required to take the same didactic classes, including journal clubs and respective seminars. The residents also share an office environment among the seven physician and two physic residents. Results: By maximizing didactic overlap and sharing office space, the two resident groups have developed a close professional relationship and supportive work environment. Several joint research projects have been initiated by the residents. Awareness of physics tasks in the clinic has led to a request by the physician residents to change physics didactics, converting the physics short course into a lab-oriented course for the medical residents which is in part taught by the physics residents. The physics seminar is given by both residency groups; increased motivation and interest in learning about physics has led to several medical resident-initiated topic selections which generated lively discussion. The physics long course has changed toward including more discussion among residents to delve deeper into topics and study beyond what passing the boards would require. A supportive work environment has developed, embedding the two physics residents into a larger residents group, allowing them to find mentor and peers more easily. Conclusion: By creating a shared work and didactic environment, physician and physics residents have improved their understanding of respective professional practice. Resident-initiated changes in didactic practice have led to improved learning and joint research. A strong social support system has developed, embedding physics residents into a larger peer group.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-G-BRD-01: Quantifying the Effectiveness of the Physics Pre-Treatment Plan Review for Detecting Errors in Radiation Therapy

Purpose: Physics pre-treatment plan review is crucial to safe radiation oncology treatments. Studies show that most errors originate in treatment planning, which underscores the importance of physics plan review. As a QA measure the physics review is of fundamental importance and is central to the profession of medical physics. However, little is known about its effectiveness. More hard data are needed. The purpose of this study was to quantify the effectiveness of physics review with the goal of improving it. Methods: This study analyzed 315 “potentially serious” near-miss incidents within an institutional incident learning system collected over a two-year period. 139 of these originated prior to physics review and were found at the review or after. Incidents were classified as events that: 1)were detected by physics review, 2)could have been detected (but were not), and 3)could not have been detected. Category 1 and 2 events were classified by which specific check (within physics review) detected or could have detected the event. Results: Of the 139 analyzed events, 73/139 (53%) were detected or could have been detected by the physics review; although, 42/73 (58%) were not actually detected. 45/73 (62%) errors originated in treatment planning, making physics review the first step in the workflow that could detect the error. Two specific physics checks were particularly effective (combined effectiveness of >20%): verifying DRRs (8/73) and verifying isocenter (7/73). Software-based plan checking systems were evaluated and found to have potential effectiveness of 40%. Given current data structures, software implementations of some tests such as isocenter verification check would be challenging. Conclusion: Physics plan review is a key safety measure and can detect majority of reported events. However, a majority of events that potentially could have been detected were NOT detected in this study, indicating the need to improve the performance of physics review.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Final Technical Report for U.S.-Japan Hadronic Physics Exchange Program for Studies of Hadron Structure and QCD

Nuclear physics explores the fundamental properties of matter -- how protons and neutrons emerge as quantum systems of elementary particles, how they form the atomic nuclei, and how they give rise to the wide variety of phenomena and applications at biological, technical, and astronomical scales. It is a global scientific effort centered around large-scale experimental user facilities (particle accelerators and detectors), advanced theoretical methods and concepts, and computational techniques and resources. Exchange of knowledge and ideas, scientific collaboration, and workforce development on a global scale are essential for the future of the field. The nuclear physics program envisaged in the 2023 DOE/NSF NSAC Long-Range Plan and pursued at the U.S. National Labs has strong synergies with programs at other facilities worldwide and will realize significant benefits from international collaboration. Nuclear physics is also recognized for promoting international cooperation in the broadest sense through joint construction and operation of experimental equipment, personal contacts between scientists, and education and training. The U.S.-Japan Hadronic Physics Exchange Program (USJPHE) supported collaborative scientific research in hadronic physics and quantum chromodynamics. USJHPE focused on subject areas related to the programs at current and future experimental facilities in the U.S.\ and Japan and supported both experimental and theoretical studies. USJHPE particularly aimed to realize synergies between the hadronic physics programs at Jefferson Lab 12 GeV and J-PARC resulting from the complementarity of electromagnetic and hadronic probes in the multi-GeV energy range. Subject areas of common interest included the quark-gluon structure of hadrons and nuclei, meson and baryon spectroscopy, strangeness and hypernuclear physics, and other related topics. USJHPE also supported research in hadronic physics and nuclear-physics-enabled tests of fundamental symmetries related to the programs at Brookhaven National Lab, Fermilab, KEK, Spring-8, and university-based facilities in the U.S. and Japan. USJHPE especially promoted collaboration between the U.S. and Japanese nuclear physics communities in developing the physics program and instrumentation for the future Electron-Ion Collider. USJHPE was intended to provide travel grants to U.S.-based scientists (primary institutional affiliation with a U.S.\ university, national laboratory, or other research center) to visit Japanese institutions and conduct collaborative research there. The program supported senior researchers, postdoctoral fellows, and students. Continuing the setup of the preceding grant period, J-PARC served as the Japanese “hub” for U.S. physicists for short- and long-term visits, and JLab served as the corresponding U.S. “hub”. The program was officially managed through the U. of Connecticut in Storrs, CT. Support for Japanese physicists visiting the U.S. was provided through funds from Japanese funding agencies. The USJHPE program promoted the scientific exchange and the collaborative spirit in hadronic physics between the two countries.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2012

Fundamental Physics at the Intensity Frontier: Report of the Workshop held December 2011 in Rockville, MD

Particle physics aims to understand the universe around us. The Standard Model of particle physics describes the basic structure of matter and forces, to the extent we have been able to probe thus far. However, it leaves some big questions unanswered. Some are within the Standard Model itself, such as why there are so many fundamental particles and why they have different masses. In other cases, the Standard Model simply fails to explain some phenomena, such as the observed matter-antimatter asymmetry in the universe, the existence of dark matter and dark energy, and the mechanism that reconciles gravity with quantum mechanics. These gaps lead us to conclude that the universe must contain new and unexplored elements of Nature. Most of particle and nuclear physics is directed towards discovering and understanding these new laws of physics. These questions are best pursued with a variety of approaches, rather than with a single experiment or technique. Particle physics uses three basic approaches, often characterized as exploration along the cosmic, energy, and intensity frontiers. Each employs different tools and techniques, but they ultimately address the same fundamental questions. This allows a multi-pronged approach where attacking basic questions from different angles furthers knowledge and provides deeper answers, so that the whole is more than a sum of the parts. A coherent picture or underlying theoretical model can more easily emerge, to be proven correct or not. The intensity frontier explores fundamental physics with intense sources and ultra-sensitive, sometimes massive detectors. It encompasses searches for extremely rare processes and for tiny deviations from Standard Model expectations. Intensity frontier experiments use precision measurements to probe quantum effects. They typically investigate very large energy scales, even higher than the kinematic reach of high energy particle accelerators. The science addresses basic questions, such as: Are there new sources of CP violation? Is there CP violation in the leptonic sector? Are neutrinos their own antiparticles? Do the forces unify? Is there a weakly coupled hidden sector that is related to dark matter? Do new symmetries exist at very high energy scales? To identify the most compelling science opportunities in this area, the workshop Fundamental Physics at the Intensity Frontier was held in December 2011, sponsored by the Office of High Energy Physics in the US Department of Energy Office of Science. Participants investigated the most promising experiments to exploit these opportunities and described the knowledge that can be gained from such a program. The workshop generated much interest in the community, as witnessed by the large and energetic participation by a broad spectrum of scientists. This document chronicles the activities of the workshop, with contributions by more than 450 authors. The workshop organized the intensity frontier science program along six topics that formed the basis for working groups: experiments that probe (i) heavy quarks, (ii) charged leptons, (iii) neutrinos, (iv) proton decay, (v) light, weakly interacting particles, and (vi) nucleons, nuclei, and atoms. The conveners for each working group included an experimenter and a theorist working in the field and an observer from the community at large. The working groups began their efforts well in advance of the workshop, holding regular meetings and soliciting written contributions. Specific avenues of exploration were identified by each working group. Experiments that study rare strange, charm, and bottom meson decays provide a broad program of measurements that are sensitive to new interactions. Charged leptons, particularly muons and taus, provide a precise probe for new physics because the Standard Model predictions for their properties are very accurate. Research at the intensity frontier can reveal CP violation in the lepton sector, and elucidate whether neutrinos are their own antiparticles. A very weakly coupled hidden-sector that may comprise the dark matter in the universe could be discovered. The search for proton decay can probe the unification of the forces with unprecedented reach and test sacrosanct symmetries to very high scales. Detecting an electric dipole moment for the neutron, or neutral atoms, could establish a clear signal for new physics, while limits on such a measurement would place severe constraints on many new theories. This workshop marked the first instance where discussion of these diverse programs was held under one roof. As a result, it was realized that this broad effort has many connections; a large degree of synergy exists between the different areas and they address similar questions. Results from one area were found to be pertinent to experiments in another domain.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-G-213-01: Roentgen and the Birth of Modern Medical Physics

Roentgen and the Birth of Modern Medical Physics – Perry Sprawls Wilhelm Roentgen is well known for his discovery of x-radiation. What is less known and appreciated is his intensive research following the discovery to determine the characteristics of the “new kind of radiation” and demonstrate its great value for medical purposes. In this presentation we will imagine ourselves in Roentgen’s mind and follow his thinking, including questions and doubts, as he designs and conducts a series of innovative experiments that provided the foundation for the rapid growth of medical physics. Learning Objectives: Become familiar with the personal characteristics and work of Prof. Roentgen that establishes him as an inspiring model for the medical physics profession. Observe the thought process and experiments that determined and demonstrated the comprehensive characteristics of x-radiation. The AAPM Award Eponyms: William D. Coolidge, Edith H. Quimby, and Marvin M.D. Williams - Who were they and what did they do? – Lawrence N. Rothenberg William David Coolidge (1873–1975) William Coolidge was born in Hudson, NY in 1873. He obtained his BS at the Massacusetts Institute of Technology in 1896. Coolidge then went to the University of Leipzig, Germany for graduate study with physicists Paul Drude and Gustave Wiedemann and received a Ph.D. in 1899. While in Germany he met Wilhelm Roentgen. Coolidge returned to the US to teach at MIT where he was associated with Arthur A. Noyes of the Chemistry Department, working on the electrical conductivity of aqueous solutions. Willis R. Whitney, under whom Coolidge had worked before going to Germany, became head of the newly formed General Electric Research Laboratory and he invited Coolidge to work with him. In 1905, Coolidge joined the staff of the GE laboratory and was associated with it for the remainder of his life. He developed ductile tungsten filaments to replace fragile carbon filaments as the material for electric light bulb filaments. Until that innovation light bulbs had a notoriously short life. He later incorporated the ductile tungsten as a filament material for a hot cathode, fully evacuated x-ray tube, first described in 1912, which allowed higher current and x-ray output, and greater reliability than had previously been possible. These “Coolidge x-ray tubes” were far superior to the cold cathode, partial pressure gas x-ray tubes that had been in use since Roentgen’s discovery of x-rays in 1895. The Coolidge tube with incremental developments is now the key component for x-ray production in all of our modern x-ray imaging devices, such as CT scanners, interventional radiology systems, and mammography units. Coolidge was also involved in the development of sectional x-ray tubes for research and treatment that were initially designed to reach 800 kV. Additional improvements led to 1 MV and 2 MV devices. In 1932 Coolidge became director of the General Electric Research Laboratory, and in 1940, was made Vice-President and Director of Research. In 1945 he retired and was named Director Emeritus of the laboratory. Coolidge held 83 patents and was recognized for these and many other achievements by election to the National Academy of Engineers, a place in the Engineering Hall of Fame and the National Inventor’s Hall of Fame. The AAPM’s highest honor, the Coolidge Award, was named after him. He accepted Honorary Membership in the AAPM and was the first recipient of the AAPM Coolidge Award, which was presented to him in a special ceremony in Schenectady, NY in 1972 when he was 100 years old. Edith Hinckley Quimby (1891–1982) Edith Quimby was born in Rockford, IL in 1891. She graduated from Whitman College in Walla Walla, WA with a B.S. in 1913, and then obtained a masters degree from the University of California at Berkeley. Later in her career, after many significant achievements, Quimby was awarded honorary doctorates by Whitman College and Rutgers University. Edith Quimby was hired by Giacchino Failla as a radiation physicist at Memorial Hospital for Cancer in New York City. Failla had studied with Madame Curie and obtained his doctoral degree in her laboratory. After many groundbreaking medical physics studies from 1919 until 1942, they both moved to Columbia University. Dr. Quimby developed a widely employed dosimetry system for single plane implants with radium and radon seeds, and a dosimetry methodology for internal radionuclides. She was author of more than 75 scientific publications, and of significant textbooks including the first comprehensive physics textbook for radiologists “Physical Foundations of Radiology”, which was co-authored with Otto Glasser, Lauriston Taylor and James Weatherwax in the first edition, with Russell Morgan added for the second edition and Paul Goodwin for the fourth edition. With Sergei Feitelberg, M.D. she published two editions of “Radioactive Isotopes in Medicine and Biology: Basic Physics and Instrumentation”. Quimby became a renowned examiner for the American Board of Radiology when the third ABR examination, given in 1936, added physics. She served as President of the American Radium Society, received the RSNA Gold Medal, and also numerous prestigious awards given to women in science. Edith Quimby was a Charter Member of AAPM. The AAPM Lifetime Achievement Award was renamed the Edith H. Quimby Lifetime Achievement Award in her honor in 2011. Marvin Martin Dixon Williams (1902–1981) Marvin Williams was born in Walla Walla, WA in 1902, and attended the same college as Edith Quimby, graduating from Whitman College in 1926. He was greatly influenced to go into medical physics by her accomplishments. During his early career, Williams worked with James Weatherwax in Philadelphia while he was working toward an M.S. from the University of Pennsylvania. In 1931 Williams was awarded a Ph.D. in Biophysics from the University of Minnesota, with the work actually performed at the Mayo Clinic Graduate School of the University. While completing his Ph.D. studies, Marvin met Dr. Paul Hodges who had returned from the Peiping Union Medical College in Peiping (now Beijing), China. Hodges suggested that a physicist be sent to Peiping to install x-ray therapy equipment and a radon plant. Williams accepted the position and, in 1931, he and his wife Orpha left for China. Before going to China, Williams had spent time with the physics group at Memorial Hospital to learn about the operation of a radon plant. In China, he constructed the radon plant, employing 0.25 g of radium, and also installed the x-ray therapy unit. Williams and his wife returned to the US in 1935, and he accepted a research position at the Mayo Clinic. In 1950, he became Professor of Biophysics at Mayo, where he taught physics and biophysics until his retirement in 1967. Williams was also very active in the American Board of Radiology where, from 1944 through 1977, he examined over 3000 radiologists and 250 physicists. Marvin Williams was a Charter member of AAPM, served as the fourth President of AAPM in 1963, and was the fourth recipient the AAPM Coolidge Award in 1975. The Marvin Williams Award was originally established as the highest award of the American College of Medical Physics. When various functions of the ACMP were absorbed into the AAPM in 2012, the Marvin M D Williams Professional Achievement Award became one of the AAPM’s highest honors. Learning Objectives: Become familiar with the persons in whose honor the three major AAPM Award are named Learn about the achievements and activities which influenced the AAPM to name these awards in their honor.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-G-213-00: History Symposium: Radiological Physics Pioneers: Roentgen and the AAPM Award Eponyms - William Coolidge, Edith Quimby, and Marvin Williams - Who Were They and What Did They Do?

Roentgen and the Birth of Modern Medical Physics – Perry Sprawls Wilhelm Roentgen is well known for his discovery of x-radiation. What is less known and appreciated is his intensive research following the discovery to determine the characteristics of the “new kind of radiation” and demonstrate its great value for medical purposes. In this presentation we will imagine ourselves in Roentgen’s mind and follow his thinking, including questions and doubts, as he designs and conducts a series of innovative experiments that provided the foundation for the rapid growth of medical physics. Learning Objectives: Become familiar with the personal characteristics and work of Prof. Roentgen that establishes him as an inspiring model for the medical physics profession. Observe the thought process and experiments that determined and demonstrated the comprehensive characteristics of x-radiation. The AAPM Award Eponyms: William D. Coolidge, Edith H. Quimby, and Marvin M.D. Williams - Who were they and what did they do? – Lawrence N. Rothenberg William David Coolidge (1873–1975) William Coolidge was born in Hudson, NY in 1873. He obtained his BS at the Massacusetts Institute of Technology in 1896. Coolidge then went to the University of Leipzig, Germany for graduate study with physicists Paul Drude and Gustave Wiedemann and received a Ph.D. in 1899. While in Germany he met Wilhelm Roentgen. Coolidge returned to the US to teach at MIT where he was associated with Arthur A. Noyes of the Chemistry Department, working on the electrical conductivity of aqueous solutions. Willis R. Whitney, under whom Coolidge had worked before going to Germany, became head of the newly formed General Electric Research Laboratory and he invited Coolidge to work with him. In 1905, Coolidge joined the staff of the GE laboratory and was associated with it for the remainder of his life. He developed ductile tungsten filaments to replace fragile carbon filaments as the material for electric light bulb filaments. Until that innovation light bulbs had a notoriously short life. He later incorporated the ductile tungsten as a filament material for a hot cathode, fully evacuated x-ray tube, first described in 1912, which allowed higher current and x-ray output, and greater reliability than had previously been possible. These “Coolidge x-ray tubes” were far superior to the cold cathode, partial pressure gas x-ray tubes that had been in use since Roentgen’s discovery of x-rays in 1895. The Coolidge tube with incremental developments is now the key component for x-ray production in all of our modern x-ray imaging devices, such as CT scanners, interventional radiology systems, and mammography units. Coolidge was also involved in the development of sectional x-ray tubes for research and treatment that were initially designed to reach 800 kV. Additional improvements led to 1 MV and 2 MV devices. In 1932 Coolidge became director of the General Electric Research Laboratory, and in 1940, was made Vice-President and Director of Research. In 1945 he retired and was named Director Emeritus of the laboratory. Coolidge held 83 patents and was recognized for these and many other achievements by election to the National Academy of Engineers, a place in the Engineering Hall of Fame and the National Inventor’s Hall of Fame. The AAPM’s highest honor, the Coolidge Award, was named after him. He accepted Honorary Membership in the AAPM and was the first recipient of the AAPM Coolidge Award, which was presented to him in a special ceremony in Schenectady, NY in 1972 when he was 100 years old. Edith Hinckley Quimby (1891–1982) Edith Quimby was born in Rockford, IL in 1891. She graduated from Whitman College in Walla Walla, WA with a B.S. in 1913, and then obtained a masters degree from the University of California at Berkeley. Later in her career, after many significant achievements, Quimby was awarded honorary doctorates by Whitman College and Rutgers University. Edith Quimby was hired by Giacchino Failla as a radiation physicist at Memorial Hospital for Cancer in New York City. Failla had studied with Madame Curie and obtained his doctoral degree in her laboratory. After many groundbreaking medical physics studies from 1919 until 1942, they both moved to Columbia University. Dr. Quimby developed a widely employed dosimetry system for single plane implants with radium and radon seeds, and a dosimetry methodology for internal radionuclides. She was author of more than 75 scientific publications, and of significant textbooks including the first comprehensive physics textbook for radiologists “Physical Foundations of Radiology”, which was co-authored with Otto Glasser, Lauriston Taylor and James Weatherwax in the first edition, with Russell Morgan added for the second edition and Paul Goodwin for the fourth edition. With Sergei Feitelberg, M.D. she published two editions of “Radioactive Isotopes in Medicine and Biology: Basic Physics and Instrumentation”. Quimby became a renowned examiner for the American Board of Radiology when the third ABR examination, given in 1936, added physics. She served as President of the American Radium Society, received the RSNA Gold Medal, and also numerous prestigious awards given to women in science. Edith Quimby was a Charter Member of AAPM. The AAPM Lifetime Achievement Award was renamed the Edith H. Quimby Lifetime Achievement Award in her honor in 2011. Marvin Martin Dixon Williams (1902–1981) Marvin Williams was born in Walla Walla, WA in 1902, and attended the same college as Edith Quimby, graduating from Whitman College in 1926. He was greatly influenced to go into medical physics by her accomplishments. During his early career, Williams worked with James Weatherwax in Philadelphia while he was working toward an M.S. from the University of Pennsylvania. In 1931 Williams was awarded a Ph.D. in Biophysics from the University of Minnesota, with the work actually performed at the Mayo Clinic Graduate School of the University. While completing his Ph.D. studies, Marvin met Dr. Paul Hodges who had returned from the Peiping Union Medical College in Peiping (now Beijing), China. Hodges suggested that a physicist be sent to Peiping to install x-ray therapy equipment and a radon plant. Williams accepted the position and, in 1931, he and his wife Orpha left for China. Before going to China, Williams had spent time with the physics group at Memorial Hospital to learn about the operation of a radon plant. In China, he constructed the radon plant, employing 0.25 g of radium, and also installed the x-ray therapy unit. Williams and his wife returned to the US in 1935, and he accepted a research position at the Mayo Clinic. In 1950, he became Professor of Biophysics at Mayo, where he taught physics and biophysics until his retirement in 1967. Williams was also very active in the American Board of Radiology where, from 1944 through 1977, he examined over 3000 radiologists and 250 physicists. Marvin Williams was a Charter member of AAPM, served as the fourth President of AAPM in 1963, and was the fourth recipient the AAPM Coolidge Award in 1975. The Marvin Williams Award was originally established as the highest award of the American College of Medical Physics. When various functions of the ACMP were absorbed into the AAPM in 2012, the Marvin M D Williams Professional Achievement Award became one of the AAPM’s highest honors. Learning Objectives: Become familiar with the persons in whose honor the three major AAPM Award are named Learn about the achievements and activities which influenced the AAPM to name these awards in their honor.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2012

High Energy Physics at Tufts University Final Report

In this Final Report, we the researchers of the high energy physics group at Tufts University summarize our works and achievements in three frontier areas of elementary particle physics: (i) Neutrino physics at the Intensity Frontier, (ii) Collider physics at the Energy Frontier, and (iii) Theory investigations of spin structure and quark-gluon dynamics of nucleons using quantum chromodynamics. With our Neutrino research we completed, or else brought to a useful state, the following: Data-taking, physics simulations, physics analysis, physics reporting, explorations of matter effects, and detector component fabrication. We conducted our work as participants in the MINOS, NOvA, and LBNE neutrino oscillation experiments and in the MINERvA neutrino scattering experiment. With our Collider research we completed or else brought to a useful state: Data-taking, development of muon system geometry and tracking codes, software validation and maintenance, physics simulations, physics analysis, searches for new particles, and study of top-quark and B-quark systems. We conducted these activities as participants in the ATLAS proton-proton collider experiment at CERN and in the CDF proton-antiproton collider experiment at Fermilab. In our Theory research we developed QCD-based models, applications of spin phenomenology to fundamental systems, fitting of models to data, presenting and reporting of new concepts and formalisms. The overarching objectives of our research work have always been: 1) to test and clarify the predictions of the Standard Model of elementary particle physics, and 2) to discover new phenomena which may point the way to a more unified theoretical framework.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2014

TU-C-18C-01: Medical Physics 1.0 to 2.0: Introduction and Panel Discussion

Medical Physics 2.0, a new frontier in clinical imaging physics: Diagnostic imaging has always been a technological highlight of modern medicine. Imaging systems, with their ever-expanding advancement in terms of technology and application, increasingly require skilled expertise to understand the delicacy of their operation, monitor their performance, design their effective use, and ensure their overall quality and safety, scientifically and in quantitative terms. Physicists can play a crucial role in that process. But that role has largely remained a severely untapped resource. Many imaging centers fail to appreciate this potential, with medical physics groups either nonexistent or highly understaffed and their services poorly integrated into the patient care process. As a field, we have yet to define and enact how the clinical physicist can engage as an active, effective, and integral member of the clinical team, and how the services that she/he provides can be financially accounted for. Physicists do and will always contribute to research and development. However, their indispensible contribution to clinical imaging operations is something that has not been adequately established. That, in conjunction with new realities of healthcare practice, indicates a growing need to establish an updated approach to clinical medical imaging physics. This presentation aims to describe a vision as how clinical imaging physics can expand beyond traditional insular models of inspection and acceptance testing, oriented toward compliance, towards team-based models of operational engagement addressing topics such as new non-classical challenges of new technologies, quantitative imaging, and operational optimization. The Medical Physics 2.0 paradigm extends clinical medical physics from isolated characterization of inherent properties of the equipment to effective use of the equipment and to retrospective evaluation of clinical performance. This is an existential transition of the field that speaks to the new paradigms of value-based and evidence-based medicine, comparative effectiveness, and meaningful use. The panel discussion that follows includes prominent practitioners, thinkers, and leaders that would lead the discussion on how Medical Physics 2.0 can be actualized. Topics of discussion will include the administrative, financial, regulatory, and accreditation requirements of the new paradigm, effective models of practice, and the steps that we need to take to make MP 2.0 a reality. Learning Objectives: To understand the new paradigm of clinical medical physics practice extending from traditional insular models of compliance towards teambased models of operational engagement. To understand how clinical physics can most effectively contribute to clinical care. Learn to identify strengths and weaknesses in studies designed to measure the effect of low doses of ionizing radiation To recognize the impediments to Medical Physics 2.0 paradigm.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2014

TH-D-16A-01: Medical Physics Workshop: Editorial Vision and Guidance On Writing and Reviewing Papers

On January 1, 2014, editorial leadership of Medical Physics passed from esteemed long-time Editor Bill Hendee to a collective editorial group composed of the three presenters listed above. In this presentation, we would like to 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. Vision for Medical Physics and current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief We cannot improve on Dr. Hendee's succinct vision statement “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 s the preeminent forum for electronic 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; or (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities we face are: are electronic-only and open access publishing; 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. To address these issues over the next 3 years, we have reduced the size of our Editorial Board and focused its efforts on improving the Journal's impact through 4 working groups (WGs): WG-1: Review process quality and selectivity Creation of 120 member Board of Associate Editors to improve review uniformity by placing Ms. management in fewer hands New reviewer guidelines and templates Answer: “what is the scope of medical physics research?” Recursive taxonomy for tagging review expertise and article contents WG-2 Improving reader experience Redesigning http://MedPhys.org to host interactive features and gateway to electronic issue archive Experimentation with interactive features beginning with “Point/Counterpoint” Data mining and Journal quality evaluation Find out who are audiences are Identify characteristics of high impact articles Measure effectiveness of innovations Outreach to related communities Special issues presenting high-impact work in designated subcommunities Addressing the needs of new research constituencies: engineers, biophysicists, clinicians Guidelines and templates for reviewers and associate editors: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor We will discuss the Med. Phys. review process and a new initiative to create review templates that attempts to address current shortcomings. Template design is informed by the literature on of the review process effectiveness and practices of other journals. Its goals are to provide authors more constructive criticism to improve the manuscript; quantifying perceived importance and potential impact; and providing structured sections that prompt the reviewer to addresses important technical and editorial elements. While the template is recommended to be used, reviewers could alternatively enter their comments in the older free-form style. The expectations of the template are that it will enable consistently thorough, high quality reviews that accurately separate acceptable vs. substandard submissions but continue our tradition of helping authors to enhance papers with high potential. Ultimately, the goal is to reduce variability and subjectivity in the peer-review process, in turn leading to articles with higher research and clinical impact. We will also discuss interesting perspectives from several journals on aspects of the peer-review process such as public input via comments, influence of author-suggested reviewers, and bias in reviewer selection. 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, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics Ms. must include a clear and concise statement of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of their work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; or first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Authors must also include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail that the work can be reproduced by others; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate their hypothesis, how it compares to; is distinct from, and improves upon others' work; and the limitations of their study. When the authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-bypoint response to each comment. We now ask that the authors' rebuttal include the text of the original criticism, the authors' response, and the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. We also ask that the new text be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. These changes and others will be discussed. Their purpose is to facilitate the review process.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2016

TH-E-201-01: Diagnostic Radiology Residents Physics Curriculum and Updates

The ABR Core Examination stresses integrating physics into real-world clinical practice and, accordingly, has shifted its focus from passive recall of facts to active application of physics principles. Physics education of radiology residents poses a challenge. The traditional method of didactic lectures alone is insufficient, yet it is difficult to incorporate physics teaching consistently into clinical rotations due to time constraints. Faced with this challenge, diagnostic medical physicists who teach radiology residents, have been thinking about how to adapt their teaching to the new paradigm, what to teach and meet expectation of the radiology resident and the radiology residency program. The proposed lecture attempts to discuss above questions. Newly developed diagnostic radiology residents physics curriculum by the AAPM Imaging Physics Curricula Subcommittee will be reviewed. Initial experience on hands-on physics teaching will be discussed. Radiology resident who will have taken the BAR Core Examination will share the expectation of physics teaching from a resident perspective. The lecture will help develop robust educational approaches to prepare radiology residents for safer and more effective lifelong practice. Learning Objectives: Learn updated physics requirements for radiology residents Pursue effective approaches to teach physics to radiology residents Learn expectation of physics teaching from resident perspective J. Zhang, This topic is partially supported by RSNA Education Scholar Grant.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2016

TH-E-201-02: Hands-On Physics Teaching of Residents in Diagnostic Radiology

The ABR Core Examination stresses integrating physics into real-world clinical practice and, accordingly, has shifted its focus from passive recall of facts to active application of physics principles. Physics education of radiology residents poses a challenge. The traditional method of didactic lectures alone is insufficient, yet it is difficult to incorporate physics teaching consistently into clinical rotations due to time constraints. Faced with this challenge, diagnostic medical physicists who teach radiology residents, have been thinking about how to adapt their teaching to the new paradigm, what to teach and meet expectation of the radiology resident and the radiology residency program. The proposed lecture attempts to discuss above questions. Newly developed diagnostic radiology residents physics curriculum by the AAPM Imaging Physics Curricula Subcommittee will be reviewed. Initial experience on hands-on physics teaching will be discussed. Radiology resident who will have taken the BAR Core Examination will share the expectation of physics teaching from a resident perspective. The lecture will help develop robust educational approaches to prepare radiology residents for safer and more effective lifelong practice. Learning Objectives: Learn updated physics requirements for radiology residents Pursue effective approaches to teach physics to radiology residents Learn expectation of physics teaching from resident perspective J. Zhang, This topic is partially supported by RSNA Education Scholar Grant.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2016

TH-E-201-03: A Radiology Resident’s Perspectives of Physics Teaching

The ABR Core Examination stresses integrating physics into real-world clinical practice and, accordingly, has shifted its focus from passive recall of facts to active application of physics principles. Physics education of radiology residents poses a challenge. The traditional method of didactic lectures alone is insufficient, yet it is difficult to incorporate physics teaching consistently into clinical rotations due to time constraints. Faced with this challenge, diagnostic medical physicists who teach radiology residents, have been thinking about how to adapt their teaching to the new paradigm, what to teach and meet expectation of the radiology resident and the radiology residency program. The proposed lecture attempts to discuss above questions. Newly developed diagnostic radiology residents physics curriculum by the AAPM Imaging Physics Curricula Subcommittee will be reviewed. Initial experience on hands-on physics teaching will be discussed. Radiology resident who will have taken the BAR Core Examination will share the expectation of physics teaching from a resident perspective. The lecture will help develop robust educational approaches to prepare radiology residents for safer and more effective lifelong practice. Learning Objectives: Learn updated physics requirements for radiology residents Pursue effective approaches to teach physics to radiology residents Learn expectation of physics teaching from resident perspective J. Zhang, This topic is partially supported by RSNA Education Scholar Grant.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗