Structural Mimicry Drives HIV-1 Rev-Mediated HERV-K Expression
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
O'Carroll, Ina P.↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “ReC”
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.
Relativistic non-thermal particle acceleration in two-dimensional collisionless magnetic reconnection
Magnetic reconnection, especially in the relativistic regime, provides an efficient mechanism for accelerating relativistic particles and thus offers an attractive physical explanation for non-thermal high-energy emission from various astrophysical sources. I present a simple analytical model that elucidates key physical processes responsible for reconnection-driven relativistic non-thermal particle acceleration in the large-system, plasmoid-dominated regime in two dimensions. The model aims to explain the numerically observed dependencies of the power-law index $p$ and high-energy cutoff $\gamma _c$ of the resulting non-thermal particle energy spectrum $f(\gamma )$ on the ambient plasma magnetization $\sigma$ , and (for $\gamma _c$ ) on the system size $L$ . In this self-similar model, energetic particles are continuously accelerated by the out-of-plane reconnection electric field $E_{\rm rec}$ until they become magnetized by the reconnected magnetic field and eventually trapped in plasmoids large enough to confine them. The model also includes diffusive Fermi acceleration by particle bouncing off rapidly moving plasmoids. I argue that the balance between electric acceleration and magnetization controls the power-law index, while trapping in plasmoids governs the cutoff, thus tying the particle energy spectrum to the plasmoid distribution.
70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
Quadrupolar density structures in driven magnetic reconnection experiments with a guide field
Magnetic reconnection is a ubiquitous process in plasma physics, driving rapid and energetic events such as coronal mass ejections. Reconnection between magnetic fields with arbitrary shear can be decomposed into an anti-parallel reconnecting component and a non-reconnecting guide-field component, which is parallel to the reconnecting electric field. This guide field modifies the structure of the reconnection layer and the reconnection rate. We present results from experiments on the MAIZE pulsed-power generator (500 kA peak current, 200 ns rise time), which use two exploding wire arrays, tilted in opposite directions, to embed a guide field in the plasma flows with a relative strength b≡B g /B rec =0, 0.4, or 1. The reconnection layers in these experiments have widths that are less than the ion skin depth, d i =c/ω pi , indicating the importance of the Hall term, which generates a distinctive quadrupolar magnetic field structure along the separatrices of the reconnection layer. Using laser imaging interferometry, we observe quadrupolar structures in the line-integrated electron density, consistent with the interaction of the embedded guide field with the quadrupolar Hall field. Our measurements extend over much larger length scales (40d i ) at higher β (∼1) than previous experiments, providing an insight into the global structure of the reconnection layer.
70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
Mesh and model requirements for capturing deep-stall aerodynamics in low-Mach-number flows
Here, this work presents a comprehensive computational fluid dynamics investigation of the effects of grid resolution and turbulence-model choice for capturing the unsteady three-dimensional aerodynamic performance of NACA 0012 and 0021 airfoils, with specific focus on the deep-stall regime. At high angles of attack (α), wind turbine blades routinely experience vortex-induced vibrations, which can cause significant structural damages. Accurate predictions of post-stall aerodynamics can identify the frequencies at which such vibrations maybe triggered. In this context, the NACA 0012 airfoil simulations are conducted at a chord-based Reynolds number, Re c =2×10 6 , with the k-ω Shear-Stress Transport Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) and Improved Delayed Detached Eddy Simulation (IDDES) hybrid RANS-Large Eddy Simulation turbulence models. The effect of mesh resolution both in the wall-normal and spanwise directions is investigated. Only the IDDES model with a minimum spanwise resolution of 24 cells per chord length correctly predicts the aerodynamic forces. Spectral analysis shows the peak primary shedding frequency at α=30°, which signifies the end of the stall region. In the post-stall regime, both lift and drag frequencies drop asymptotically with increasing α. The Strouhal number, based on normalised chord length, remains nearly constant in this region. Based on this study, NACA 0021 airfoil runs are performed with IDDES for Re c =2.7×10 5 and 2.0×10 6 on the finest wall-normal mesh and three spanwise grids. Simulations conducted on the finer spanwise grids demonstrate grid independence and show good agreement with experiments. The effect of varying Rec on the airfoil frequency statistics is investigated. Additionally, comparison studies are presented to investigate the impact of airfoil thickness on the frequency content at Re c =2.0×10 6 . The results from the study provide guidance on the choice of mesh resolution with the IDDES model to accurately capture aerodynamic quantities for complex industrial applications.
17 WIND ENERGY↗
Assessment of filtered cameras for quantitative 2D analysis of divertor conditions during detachment in JET L-mode plasmas
We report that estimates for 2D distributions of electron temperature, T e , electron density, n e , and atomic deuterium density, n o , in the JET divertor volume have been inferred from deuterium Balmer line intensity ratios obtained from tomographic reconstructions of divertor camera measurements. This enables also investigation of ionization, S ion , and recombination, S rec , rates. The analysis shows a decrease of T e to 0.5–1.0 eV throughout the outer divertor during detachment in low-confinement (L-mode) plasmas. Simultaneously, the high-n e region and the n 0 distribution in the outer divertor are observed to elongate and shift from the outer strike point towards the X-point. The observations are in qualitative agreement and follow the same sequence with modelling predictions of EDGE2D-EIRENE simulations of a density scan. While the method was found to provide good representation of the evolution of volumetric recombination during detachment, in agreement with the simulations, the movement of the ionization front upstream could not be followed due to lack of spatial overlap between the ionization region and the necessary emission distributions. Consequently, the representation of the ionization conditions and the particle balance in the detached outer divertor are compromised.
70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
Structural basis for RNA-guided DNA cleavage by IscB-ωRNA and mechanistic comparison with Cas9
Class 2 CRISPR effectors Cas9 and Cas12 may have evolved from nucleases in IS200/IS605 transposons. IscB is about two-fifths the size of Cas9 but shares a similar domain organization. The associated ωRNA plays the combined role of CRISPR RNA (crRNA) and trans-activating CRISPR RNA ( tracrRNA) to guide double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) cleavage. Here we report a 2.78-angstrom cryo–electron microscopy structure of IscB-ωRNA bound to a dsDNA target, revealing the architectural and mechanistic similarities between IscB and Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Target-adjacent motif recognition, R-loop formation, and DNA cleavage mechanisms are explained at high resolution. ωRNA plays the equivalent function of REC domains in Cas9 and contacts the RNA-DNA heteroduplex. The IscB-specific PLMP domain is dispensable for RNA-guided DNA cleavage. The transition from ancestral IscB to Cas9 involved dwarfing the ωRNA and introducing protein domain replacements.
Science & Technology - Other Topics↗
Updated U.S. Low-Temperature Heating and Cooling Demand by County and Sector
This dataset includes U.S. low-temperature heating and cooling demand at the county level in major end-use sectors: residential, commercial, manufacturing, agricultural, and data centers. Census division-level end-use energy consumption, expenditure, and commissioned power database were dis-aggregated to the county level. The county-level database was incorporated with climate zone, numbers of housing units and farms, farm size, and coefficient of performance (COP) for heating and cooling demand analysis. This dataset also includes a paper containing a full explanation of the methodologies used and maps. Residential data were updated from the latest Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) dataset (2015) using 2020 census data. Commercial data were baselined off the latest Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) dataset (2012). Manufacturing data were baselined off the latest Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) dataset (2021).
15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
Materials Data on Mn(FeO2)2 by Materials Project
MnFe2O4 is Spinel-like structured and crystallizes in the triclinic P1 space group. The structure is three-dimensional. there are ten inequivalent Mn2+ sites. In the first Mn2+ site, Mn2+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form MnO4 tetrahedra that share corners with two equivalent MnO6 octahedra and corners with ten FeO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 56–63°. There are a spread of Mn–O bond distances ranging from 2.06–2.09 Å. In the second Mn2+ site, Mn2+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form MnO6 octahedra that share corners with two equivalent FeO4 tetrahedra, corners with four MnO4 tetrahedra, and edges with six FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Mn–O bond distances ranging from 2.00–2.19 Å. In the third Mn2+ site, Mn2+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form MnO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three MnO6 octahedra and corners with nine FeO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 56–63°. There are a spread of Mn–O bond distances ranging from 2.05–2.08 Å. In the fourth Mn2+ site, Mn2+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form MnO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three MnO6 octahedra and corners with nine FeO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 56–60°. There are a spread of Mn–O bond distances ranging from 2.05–2.09 Å. In the fifth Mn2+ site, Mn2+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form MnO6 octahedra that share corners with three MnO4 tetrahedra, corners with three FeO4 tetrahedra, and edges with six FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Mn–O bond distances ranging from 2.01–2.24 Å. In the sixth Mn2+ site, Mn2+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form MnO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three MnO6 octahedra and corners with nine FeO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 55–64°. There are a spread of Mn–O bond distances ranging from 2.03–2.07 Å. In the seventh Mn2+ site, Mn2+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form MnO6 octahedra that share corners with three MnO4 tetrahedra, corners with three FeO4 tetrahedra, and edges with six FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Mn–O bond distances ranging from 2.08–2.25 Å. In the eighth Mn2+ site, Mn2+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form MnO4 tetrahedra that share a cornercorner with one MnO6 octahedra and corners with eleven FeO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 58–61°. There are a spread of Mn–O bond distances ranging from 2.06–2.10 Å. In the ninth Mn2+ site, Mn2+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form MnO6 octahedra that share corners with three MnO4 tetrahedra, corners with three FeO4 tetrahedra, and edges with six FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Mn–O bond distances ranging from 2.01–2.18 Å. In the tenth Mn2+ site, Mn2+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form MnO4 tetrahedra that share a cornercorner with one MnO6 octahedra and corners with eleven FeO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 58–62°. There are a spread of Mn–O bond distances ranging from 2.07–2.10 Å. There are twenty inequivalent Fe3+ sites. In the first Fe3+ site, Fe3+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with two equivalent FeO4 tetrahedra, corners with four MnO4 tetrahedra, edges with two equivalent MnO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 2.05–2.09 Å. In the second Fe3+ site, Fe3+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with six MnO4 tetrahedra, an edgeedge with one MnO6 octahedra, and edges with five FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 1.98–2.04 Å. In the third Fe3+ site, Fe3+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with two equivalent FeO4 tetrahedra, corners with four MnO4 tetrahedra, edges with two equivalent MnO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 2.03–2.08 Å. In the fourth Fe3+ site, Fe3+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three MnO4 tetrahedra, corners with three FeO4 tetrahedra, edges with two equivalent MnO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 2.00–2.14 Å. In the fifth Fe3+ site, Fe3+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three equivalent MnO4 tetrahedra, corners with three equivalent FeO4 tetrahedra, edges with two MnO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 2.02–2.08 Å. In the sixth Fe3+ site, Fe3+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three MnO4 tetrahedra, corners with three FeO4 tetrahedra, edges with two equivalent MnO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 1.99–2.15 Å. In the seventh Fe3+ site, Fe3+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form FeO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three MnO6 octahedra and corners with nine FeO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 55–63°. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 2.01–2.09 Å. In the eighth Fe3+ site, Fe3+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three MnO4 tetrahedra, corners with three FeO4 tetrahedra, edges with two equivalent MnO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 2.01–2.11 Å. In the ninth Fe3+ site, Fe3+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three equivalent MnO4 tetrahedra, corners with three equivalent FeO4 tetrahedra, edges with two MnO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 2.03–2.11 Å. In the tenth Fe3+ site, Fe3+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three MnO4 tetrahedra, corners with three FeO4 tetrahedra, edges with two equivalent MnO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 2.01–2.12 Å. In the eleventh Fe3+ site, Fe3+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form FeO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three MnO6 octahedra and corners with nine FeO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 53–61°. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 1.92–1.99 Å. In the twelfth Fe3+ site, Fe3+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three equivalent MnO4 tetrahedra, corners with three equivalent FeO4 tetrahedra, edges with two MnO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 2.00–2.09 Å. In the thirteenth Fe3+ site, Fe3+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three MnO4 tetrahedra, corners with three FeO4 tetrahedra, edges with two equivalent MnO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 2.02–2.09 Å. In the fourteenth Fe3+ site, Fe3+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form FeO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three MnO6 octahedra and corners with nine FeO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 58–61°. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 2.02–2.08 Å. In the fifteenth Fe3+ site, Fe3+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three equivalent MnO4 tetrahedra, corners with three equivalent FeO4 tetrahedra, an edgeedge with one MnO6 octahedra, and edges with five FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 2.04–2.08 Å. In the sixteenth Fe3+ site, Fe3+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share corners with three MnO4 tetrahedra, corners with three FeO4 tetrahedra, edges with two equivalent MnO6 octahedra, and edges with four FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 2.04–2.09 Å. In the seventeenth Fe3+ site, Fe3+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share a cornercorner with one FeO4 tetrahedra, corners with five MnO4 tetrahedra, and edges with six FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 2.01–2.03 Å. In the eighteenth Fe3+ site, Fe3+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form FeO4 tetrahedra that share corners with two equivalent MnO6 octahedra and corners with ten FeO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 55–62°. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 2.00–2.09 Å. In the nineteenth Fe3+ site, Fe3+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share a cornercorner with one FeO4 tetrahedra, corners with five MnO4 tetrahedra, and edges with six FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 2.05–2.10 Å. In the twentieth Fe3+ site, Fe3+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form FeO6 octahedra that share a cornercorner with one FeO4 tetrahedra, corners with five MnO4 tetrahedra, and edges with six FeO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Fe–O bond distances ranging from 2.04–2.08 Å. There are forty inequivalent O2- sites. In the first O2- site, O2- is bonded to two Mn2+ and two Fe3+ atoms to form distorted OMn2Fe2 tetrahedra that share corners with four OMnFe3 tetrahedra, corners with five OMnFe3 trigonal pyramids, and an edgeedge with one OMn2Fe2 trigonal pyramid. In the second O2- site, O2- is bonded to two Mn2+ and two Fe3+ atoms to form a mixture of distorted edge and corner-sharing OMn2Fe2 trigonal pyramids. In the third O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted rectangular see-saw-like geometry to two Mn2+ and two Fe3+ atoms. In the fourth O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Mn2+ and three Fe3+ atoms. In the fifth O2- site, O2- is bonded to two Mn2+ and two Fe3+ atoms to form distorted OMn2Fe2 trigonal pyramids that share corners with two equivalent OMnFe3 tetrahedra and corners with three OFe4 trigonal pyramids. In the sixth O2- site, O2- is bonded to four Fe3+ atoms to form distorted OFe4 trigonal pyramids that share corners with two OMnFe3 tetrahedra, corners with four OMn2Fe2 trigonal pyramids, an edgeedge with one OMn2Fe2 tetrahedra, and an edgeedge with one OMnFe3 trigonal pyramid. In the seventh O2- site, O2- is bonded to two Mn2+ and two Fe3+ atoms to form a mixture of distorted edge and corner-sharing OMn2Fe2 tetrahedra. In the eighth O2- site, O2- is bonded in a rectangular see-saw-like geometry to two Mn2+ and two Fe3+ atoms. In the ninth O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted rectangular see-saw-like geometry to two Mn2+ and two Fe3+ atoms. In the tenth O2- site, O2- is bonded in a rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Mn2+ and three Fe3+ atoms. In the eleventh O2- site, O2- is bonded in a rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Mn2+ and three Fe3+ atoms. In the twelfth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Mn2+ and three Fe3+ atoms to form distorted OMnFe3 trigonal pyramids that share corners with three OMnFe3 tetrahedra, corners with four OMn2Fe2 trigonal pyramids, an edgeedge with one OMn2Fe2 tetrahedra, and an edgeedge with one OFe4 trigonal pyramid. In the thirteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to two Mn2+ and two Fe3+ atoms to form a mixture of distorted edge and corner-sharing OMn2Fe2 trigonal pyramids. In the fourteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded in a rectangular see-saw-like geometry to four Fe3+ atoms. In the fifteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Mn2+ and three Fe3+ atoms to form distorted corner-sharing OMnFe3 tetrahedra. In the sixteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded in a rectangular see-saw-like geometry to one Mn2+ and three Fe3+ atoms. In the seventeenth O2- site, O2- is bonded in a rectangular see-saw-like geometry to two Mn2+ and two Fe3+ atoms. In the eighteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to two Mn2+ and two Fe3+ atoms to form a mixture of distorted edge and corner-sharing OMn2Fe2 trigonal pyramids. In the nineteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded in a rec
36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
Materials Data on Li2V3CoO8 by Materials Project
Li2V3CoO8 is Spinel-derived structured and crystallizes in the triclinic P1 space group. The structure is three-dimensional. there are eight inequivalent Li1+ sites. In the first Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form LiO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, and edges with six VO6 octahedra. There are three shorter (2.13 Å) and three longer (2.17 Å) Li–O bond lengths. In the second Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form LiO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three LiO6 octahedra and corners with nine VO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 54–66°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 1.98–2.01 Å. In the third Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form LiO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three LiO6 octahedra and corners with nine VO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 54–66°. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 1.98–2.01 Å. In the fourth Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form LiO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, and edges with six VO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 2.12–2.17 Å. In the fifth Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form LiO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, and edges with six VO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Li–O bond distances ranging from 2.13–2.17 Å. In the sixth Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form LiO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three LiO6 octahedra and corners with nine VO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 54–66°. There is one shorter (1.98 Å) and three longer (2.00 Å) Li–O bond length. In the seventh Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form LiO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three LiO6 octahedra and corners with nine VO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 54–66°. There is one shorter (1.98 Å) and three longer (2.00 Å) Li–O bond length. In the eighth Li1+ site, Li1+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form LiO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, and edges with six VO6 octahedra. There are three shorter (2.13 Å) and three longer (2.17 Å) Li–O bond lengths. There are twelve inequivalent V4+ sites. In the first V4+ site, V4+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form VO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four VO6 octahedra. There are a spread of V–O bond distances ranging from 1.89–2.04 Å. In the second V4+ site, V4+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form VO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four VO6 octahedra. There are a spread of V–O bond distances ranging from 1.88–2.05 Å. In the third V4+ site, V4+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form VO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four VO6 octahedra. There are a spread of V–O bond distances ranging from 1.88–2.04 Å. In the fourth V4+ site, V4+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form VO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four VO6 octahedra. There are a spread of V–O bond distances ranging from 1.88–2.04 Å. In the fifth V4+ site, V4+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form VO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four VO6 octahedra. There are a spread of V–O bond distances ranging from 1.88–2.03 Å. In the sixth V4+ site, V4+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form VO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four VO6 octahedra. There are a spread of V–O bond distances ranging from 1.88–2.04 Å. In the seventh V4+ site, V4+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form VO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four VO6 octahedra. There are a spread of V–O bond distances ranging from 1.88–2.04 Å. In the eighth V4+ site, V4+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form VO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four VO6 octahedra. There are a spread of V–O bond distances ranging from 1.88–2.04 Å. In the ninth V4+ site, V4+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form VO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four VO6 octahedra. There are a spread of V–O bond distances ranging from 1.88–2.04 Å. In the tenth V4+ site, V4+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form VO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four VO6 octahedra. There are a spread of V–O bond distances ranging from 1.89–2.04 Å. In the eleventh V4+ site, V4+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form VO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four VO6 octahedra. There are a spread of V–O bond distances ranging from 1.88–2.04 Å. In the twelfth V4+ site, V4+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form VO6 octahedra that share corners with three LiO4 tetrahedra, corners with three CoO4 tetrahedra, edges with two LiO6 octahedra, and edges with four VO6 octahedra. There are a spread of V–O bond distances ranging from 1.88–2.04 Å. There are four inequivalent Co2+ sites. In the first Co2+ site, Co2+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form CoO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three LiO6 octahedra and corners with nine VO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 56–64°. There are a spread of Co–O bond distances ranging from 1.97–1.99 Å. In the second Co2+ site, Co2+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form CoO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three LiO6 octahedra and corners with nine VO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 56–64°. There is three shorter (1.99 Å) and one longer (2.00 Å) Co–O bond length. In the third Co2+ site, Co2+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form CoO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three LiO6 octahedra and corners with nine VO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 56–64°. There is three shorter (1.99 Å) and one longer (2.00 Å) Co–O bond length. In the fourth Co2+ site, Co2+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form CoO4 tetrahedra that share corners with three LiO6 octahedra and corners with nine VO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 56–64°. All Co–O bond lengths are 1.98 Å. There are thirty-two inequivalent O2- sites. In the first O2- site, O2- is bonded to two Li1+ and two V4+ atoms to form distorted OLi2V2 trigonal pyramids that share a cornercorner with one OV3Co tetrahedra, corners with eleven OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids, and edges with three OLi2V2 trigonal pyramids. In the second O2- site, O2- is bonded to two Li1+ and two V4+ atoms to form distorted OLi2V2 trigonal pyramids that share corners with twelve OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids and edges with three OLi2V2 trigonal pyramids. In the third O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+ and three V4+ atoms to form distorted OLiV3 trigonal pyramids that share a cornercorner with one OV3Co tetrahedra, corners with eleven OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids, and edges with three OLi2V2 trigonal pyramids. In the fourth O2- site, O2- is bonded to two Li1+ and two V4+ atoms to form distorted OLi2V2 trigonal pyramids that share a cornercorner with one OV3Co tetrahedra, corners with eleven OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids, and edges with three OLiV3 trigonal pyramids. In the fifth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+, two V4+, and one Co2+ atom to form distorted OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids that share corners with eleven OLi2V2 trigonal pyramids and edges with three OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids. In the sixth O2- site, O2- is bonded to three V4+ and one Co2+ atom to form distorted OV3Co trigonal pyramids that share corners with twelve OLi2V2 trigonal pyramids and edges with three OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids. In the seventh O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+, two V4+, and one Co2+ atom to form distorted OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids that share corners with twelve OLi2V2 trigonal pyramids, an edgeedge with one OV3Co tetrahedra, and edges with two OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids. In the eighth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+, two V4+, and one Co2+ atom to form distorted OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids that share corners with twelve OLi2V2 trigonal pyramids, an edgeedge with one OV3Co tetrahedra, and edges with two OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids. In the ninth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+, two V4+, and one Co2+ atom to form distorted OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids that share a cornercorner with one OV3Co tetrahedra, corners with ten OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids, and edges with three OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids. In the tenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+, two V4+, and one Co2+ atom to form distorted OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids that share a cornercorner with one OV3Co tetrahedra, corners with ten OLi2V2 trigonal pyramids, and edges with three OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids. In the eleventh O2- site, O2- is bonded to three V4+ and one Co2+ atom to form a mixture of distorted edge and corner-sharing OV3Co tetrahedra. In the twelfth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+, two V4+, and one Co2+ atom to form distorted OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids that share a cornercorner with one OV3Co tetrahedra, corners with eleven OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids, an edgeedge with one OV3Co tetrahedra, and edges with two OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids. In the thirteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to two Li1+ and two V4+ atoms to form distorted OLi2V2 trigonal pyramids that share a cornercorner with one OV3Co tetrahedra, corners with eleven OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids, and edges with three OLi2V2 trigonal pyramids. In the fourteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+ and three V4+ atoms to form distorted OLiV3 trigonal pyramids that share corners with two OV3Co tetrahedra, corners with ten OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids, and edges with three OLi2V2 trigonal pyramids. In the fifteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to two Li1+ and two V4+ atoms to form distorted OLi2V2 trigonal pyramids that share corners with two OV3Co tetrahedra, corners with ten OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids, and edges with two OLiV3 trigonal pyramids. In the sixteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to two Li1+ and two V4+ atoms to form distorted OLi2V2 trigonal pyramids that share a cornercorner with one OV3Co tetrahedra, corners with eleven OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids, and edges with two OLiV3 trigonal pyramids. In the seventeenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to two Li1+ and two V4+ atoms to form distorted OLi2V2 trigonal pyramids that share a cornercorner with one OV3Co tetrahedra, corners with ten OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids, and edges with three OLi2V2 trigonal pyramids. In the eighteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to two Li1+ and two V4+ atoms to form distorted OLi2V2 trigonal pyramids that share corners with two OV3Co tetrahedra, corners with ten OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids, and edges with three OLi2V2 trigonal pyramids. In the nineteenth O2- site, O2- is bonded to one Li1+ and three V4+ atoms to form distorted OLiV3 trigonal pyramids that share corners with two OV3Co tetrahedra, corners with ten OLiV2Co trigonal pyramids, and edges with two OLi2V2 trigonal pyramids. In the twentieth O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted rec
36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
elci_to_rem
A Python package to convert the static generation mix from the electricity baseline (i.e., ElectricityLCI) to a residual mix by removing generation amounts from the mix that were used for voluntary renewable electricity certificate (REC) sales.
AS↗
The Need for Nb3Sn Coated Cu Cavities for Future Accelerators
Based on current efforts in the U.S. on the novel concept of parallel-feed RF accelerator structures, and in the U.S. and abroad in producing Nb3Sn films on either Cu or bronze, we rec-ommend that the Particle Physics community foster R&D in Superconducting Nb3Sn coated Cu RF Cavities instead of costly bulk Nb. The paper includes methods to process the coated cavi-ties at temperatures consistent with Cu retaining its shape. A devoted global effort in develop-ing Cu cavity structures coated with Nb3Sn would make the ILC or Higgs factories more afforda-ble and more likely to be built. Not only do parallel-feed RF structures enable both higher ac-celerating gradients and higher efficiencies, but they would be applicable to both Cu and Nb3Sn coated Cu cells. Increased effort on these two techniques would synergize expenditures to-wards progress, which will converge on the choice of technology for the RF of an ILC or any fu-ture accelerator. The current methods of Nb3Sn coatings on Cu or bronze can be geared also towards standard cavity cells. In conclusion, the use of distributed coupling structure topology within improved performance parameters together with Nb3Sn coating technology can lead to a paradigm shift for superconducting linacs, with higher gradient, higher temperature of opera-tion, and reduced overall costs for any future collider.
43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
Calculating Average Hot Water Mixes of Residential Plumbing Fittings Using the ANSI 301-2019 Hot Water Draw Model and National Residential Data to Estimate Hot Water Use in Showerheads and Lavatory Faucets
Available studies of hot water use percentages may not necessarily be generalized to a national level given regional differences, varying methodological approaches, and limited sample sizes. While some publicly available usage data, reports, and surveys estimate actual household usage, a lack of water use data specific to end uses make more precise savings calculations difficult. Additionally, most hot water draw models tend to focus on overall household use and may not readily estimate lavatory fixture use. However, reviewing more recent studies and standards enables the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense program to update its estimates for hot water use and consumers’ corresponding energy and monetary savings to better reflect realworld conditions. This report specifically focuses on improving hot water use and savings estimates of lavatory faucets and showerheads. To estimate the hot water use of lavatory faucets and showerheads, we employed the 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Surveys (RECS) microdata alongside the ANSI 301-2019 Hot Water Draw Model. These estimates account for regional differences in hot water use, including regional cold water inlet temperatures. As a result, the refinements presented in this report are more robust, more recent, and better describe the geographic variation than previous inputs used by the WaterSense program. In addition, the approach described in this paper can be updated over time or tailored to regionally specific needs given available inputs. We conclude that hot water percentages for showers and faucets calculated using publicly available national data are close to the percentages found by regional studies and are consistent with household-level models of water use.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
Dishwashers in the Residential Sector: A Survey of Product Characteristics, Usage, and Consumer Preferences
Data on consumer purchasing decisions, usage, and behaviors relating to residential appliances help to inform technical and economic analyses related to the energy and water used by those appliances, including dishwashers. Existing publicly available data for dishwashers include two regularly conducted national surveys that describe dishwasher ownership and usage. The United States (US) Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Information Administration’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) records the presence of a dishwasher in the home, the numbers of times per week the dishwasher is operated, and the dishwasher age, along with household demographic characteristics. The US Census Bureau’s American Housing Survey (AHS) also records the presence of a dishwasher in the home along with household demographic characteristics.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
Who is participating in residential energy efficiency programs? Exploring demographic and other household characteristics of participants in utility customer-funded energy efficiency programs
In addition to benefiting all customers by reducing the total electric system cost, utility customer-funded energy efficiency programs provide direct benefits to the participants. Understanding the current demographic and household characteristics of participants will help assess the extent of inequities in program participation and figure out what characteristics need to be targeted to achieve equitable outcomes. This report describes how 11 demographic and household characteristics including income, race and ethnicity, and education affect participation in residential utility customer-funded energy efficiency programs. It compiles previous work on this topic and adds new primary analysis of four datasets with different levels of detail from the Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), two New England states, and a Midwestern state.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
AERMOD Screening Dispersion Factors for INL Facilities
This engineering calculations and analysis report (ECAR) documents the calculation of screening level air dispersion factors (DFs) for use in identifying Idaho National Laboratory (INL) air pollutant sources that would not be of concern relative to state of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) significant impact levels for toxic air pollutants (IDAPA 2020). A DF (in units of s/m 3 ) is the maximum time-averaged model-predicted air concentration (g/m 3 ) at an ambient-air receptor location divided by a unit source release or emission rate (1 g/s). DFs were calculated for a generic pollutant released from facilities at the INL Site and the Idaho Falls Research Education Campus (REC) using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-recommended AERMOD air-dispersion model (EPA 2019a) and site-specific meteorological data. The use of AERMOD for air quality analyses is specified by EPA in Appendix W of 40 CFR Part 51, Guideline on Air Quality Models, and by DEQ in their air modeling guidance (DEQ 2013). DFs were calculated for 1-hour, 3 hour, 8-hour, 24-hour, monthly, and annual averaging times.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
ResStock 2024.2 Dataset [Slides]
In the ResStock 2024.2 dataset, ResStock runs are used to create "what-if" scenarios including energy efficiency measures such as heat pumps, envelope improvements, and electrification of appliances. This dataset release includes 15 measure packages across two weather years and incorporates ResStock improvements in variable speed heat pump modeling, geothermal heat pump modeling, and housing characteristic data updates from RECS 2020.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
Renewable Energy Contracting Options and Renewable Energy Certificates
Virtual Trainings are the online version of the multi-day workshops known as In-Plants (INPLTs) offered by the DOE Better Plants program. ORNL has a 6-session weekly training on Renewable Energy Contracting Options and RECs starting August 5th 2025 (10 am ET) focused on options and resources for the manufacturing sector. This session is earmarked for Tuesday, August 26th, 10 AM ET.
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
Energy Technology Proving Ground Program Plan
New methods of energy production and distribution are required to meet clean energy goals and demands across all U.S. energy sectors. Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL) Integrated Energy Systems (IES) initiative is enabling clean energy research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) activities. To date, IES demonstration programs have been limited by distributed infrastructure and a lack of large-scale facilities to accommodate industry-scale research of Technical Readiness Level (TRL) 6-8 technologies. The IES initiative plans to eliminate these constraints by establishing a new research complex at INL known as the Energy Technology Proving Ground (Proving Ground) to be led by the Energy and Environment Science and Technology Directorate. The Energy and Environment Science and Technology (EES&T) directorate, one of five Idaho National Laboratory (INL) RD&D organizations, focuses on clean energy technologies that anchor the industry-enabling research of the Proving Ground. The Proving Ground will combine diverse clean energy systems into lean integrated test bed of independent multiscale capabilities available to the government and commercial industries to perform research; and will enable INL’s goal of becoming a Net-Zero entity by 2031. This program encompasses existing and new research space at both the in-town Research and Education Campus (REC) and the Arco desert site (the Site). The Proving Ground will support the maturation of IES technologies from TRL 1 through 8 by providing the infrastructure and capabilities needed to sustain a continuum of RD&D from basic science to industry-scale. To establish The Proving Ground and meet INL’s net-zero goals by 2031, nine research program areas have been identified within the IES initiative that require expanded and new capital infrastructure. This program plan provides guidance for establishing the Proving Ground at the Site for plug-and-play pilot testing and proofing of integrated energy system functionality including fission and renewable energy sources for industry driven application platforms.
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗