Results for “system thinking” — Page 31

NASA NTRS2000

AI's Philosophical Underpinnings: A Thinking Person's Walk through the Twists and Turns of Artificial Intelligence's Meandering Path

Few human endeavors can be viewed both as extremely successful and unsuccessful at the same time. This is typically the case when goals have not been well defined or have been shifting in time. This has certainly been true of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The nature of intelligence has been the object of much thought and speculation throughout the history of philosophy. It is in the nature of philosophy that real headway is sometimes made only when appropriate tools become available. Similarly the computer, coupled with the ability to program (at least in principle) any function, appeared to be the tool that could tackle the notion of intelligence. To suit the tool, the problem of the nature of intelligence was soon sidestepped in favor of this notion: If a probing conversation with a computer could not be distinguished from a conversation with a human, then AI had been achieved. This notion became known as the Turing test, after the mathematician Alan Turing who proposed it in 1950. Conceptually rich and interesting, these early efforts gave rise to a large portion of the field's framework. Key to AI, rather than the 'number crunching' typical of computers until then, was viewed as the ability to manipulate symbols and make logical inferences. To facilitate these tasks, AI languages such as LISP and Prolog were invented and used widely in the field. One idea that emerged and enabled some success with real world problems was the notion that 'most intelligence' really resided in knowledge. A phrase attributed to Feigenbaum, one of the pioneers, was 'knowledge is the power.' With this premise, the problem is shifted from 'how do we solve problems' to 'how do we represent knowledge.' A good knowledge representation scheme could allow one to draw conclusions from given premises. Such schemes took forms such as rules,frames and scripts. It allowed the building of what became known as expert systems or knowledge based systems (KBS).

Colombano, Silvano↗

DOE OSTI2016

Basic Research Needs Workshop on Synthesis Science for Energy Relevant Technology

The technology that lies at our fingertips becomes more powerful each day. Smartphones connect us instantly to family, friends, and co-workers around the globe; give us access to a limitless stream of information; control the heating in our homes; and serve as our cameras, calculators, flashlights, music players, boarding passes and, on occasion, our phones. Cars are ever more fuel-efficient, safer, semi-autonomous, and have more computing power than the systems that guided humankind to the moon. LED lighting and solar panels are becoming commonplace, replacing less efficient technologies and expanding the energy options available worldwide. Novel polymers and nanoparticles are playing a crucial role in enhanced oil recovery. None of these advances would have been possible without the discovery and development of, and ability to create, new materials and chemical processes. Now imagine what our world would be like if we could accelerate those discoveries a thousandfold. What if the only limit to synthesizing new forms of matter were the imagination? We could build complex assemblies of atoms and molecules with architectures and capabilities far exceeding those of materials found in nature—for example, develop catalysts that turn garbage into fuels, design solar cells to power our homes directly from sunlight, make batteries with the energy density of gasoline, and create one- and two-dimensional solids that transport charge hundreds of times faster than silicon or allow us to build quantum bits based on the spins of electrons or photons to realize the promise of “beyond Moore’s law” computing. Advances in synthesis science are required to bring about this future—we not only must know how to design new molecules and materials with desired functions and properties through theory and computational techniques; we also must be able to make the materials we envision. New approaches to discovering as yet unimagined matter require a sea change in the way we think about the science of synthesis. Chemical and materials sciences have traditionally focused on understanding structure–function relationships with the goal of predicting where the atoms should be placed to achieve a targeted property or process. Much less effort has been directed toward a predictive science of synthesis—understanding how to get the atoms where they need to go to achieve the desired structure. This report, which is the result of the Basic Energy Sciences Workshop on Basic Research Needs for Synthesis Science for Energy Technologies, lays out the scientific challenges and opportunities in synthesis science. The workshop was attended by more than 100 leading national and international scientific experts. Its five topical and two crosscutting panels identified four priority research directions (PRDs) for realizing the vision of predictive, science-directed synthesis.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

NASA NTRS2011

The Application of Lean Thinking Principles and Kaizen Practices for the Successful Development and Implementation of the Ares I-X Flight Test Rocket and Mission

On October 28, 2009 the Ares I-X flight test rocket launched from Kennedy Space Center and flew its suborbital trajectory as designed. The mission was successfully completed as data from the test, and associated development activities were analyzed, transferred to stakeholders, and well documented. A positive lesson learned from Ares I-X was that the application of lean thinking principles and kaizen practices was very effective in streamlining development activities. Ares I-X, like other historical rocket development projects, was hampered by technical, cost, and schedule challenges and if not addressed boldly could have resulted in cancellation of the test. The mission management team conducted nine major meetings, referred to as lean events, across its elements to assess plans, procedures, processes, requirements, controls, culture, organization, use of resources, and anything that could be changed to optimize schedule or reduce risk. The preeminent aspect of the lean events was the focus on value added activities and the removal or at least reduction in non-value added activities. Trained Lean Six Sigma facilitators assisted the Ares I-X developers in conducting the lean events. They indirectly helped formulate the mission s own unique methodology for assessing schedule. A core team was selected to lead the events and report to the mission manager. Each activity leveraged specialized participants to analyze the subject matter and its related processes and then recommended alternatives and solutions. Stakeholders were the event champions. They empowered and encouraged the team to succeed. The keys to success were thorough preparation, honest dialog, small groups, adherence to the Ares I-X ground rules, and accountability through disciplined reporting and tracking of actions. This lean event formula was game-changing as demonstrated by Ares I-X. It is highly recommended as a management tool to help develop other complex systems efficiently. The key benefits for Ares I-X were obtaining unambiguous schedule margin, defining enabling options for risk reduction, and most importantly a stronger more unified team.

Askins, B. R.↗

NASA NTRS2011

The Application of Lean Thinking Principles and Kaizen Practices for the Successful Development and Implementation of the Ares I-X Flight Test Rocket and Mission

On October 28, 2009 the Ares I-X flight test rocket launched from Kennedy Space Center and flew its suborbital trajectory as designed. The mission was successfully completed as data from the test, and associated development activities were analyzed, transferred to stakeholders, and well documented. Positive lessons learned from Ares I-X were that the application of lean thinking principles and kaizen practices are effective in streamlining development activities. Ares I-X, like other historical rocket development projects, was hampered by technical, cost, and schedule challenges and if not addressed boldly could have resulted in cancellation of the test. The mission management team conducted nine major meetings, referred to as lean events, across its elements to assess plans, procedures, processes, requirements, controls, culture, organization, use of resources, and anything that could be changed to optimize schedule or reduce risk. The preeminent aspect of the lean events was the focus on value added activities and the removal or at least reduction in non-value activities. Trained Lean Six Sigma facilitators assisted the Ares I-X developers in conducting the lean events. They indirectly helped formulate the mission s own unique methodology for assessing schedule. A core team was selected to lead the events and report to the mission manager. Each activity leveraged specialized participants to analyze the subject matter and its related processes and then recommended alternatives and solutions. Stakeholders were the event champions. They empowered and encouraged the team to succeed. The keys to success were thorough preparation, honest dialog, small groups, adherence to the Ares I-X ground rules, and accountability through disciplined reporting and tracking of actions. This lean event formula was game-changing as demonstrated by the success of Ares I-X. It is highly recommended as a management tool to help develop other complex systems efficiently. The key benefits for Ares I-X were obtaining unambiguous schedule margin, defining enabling options for risk reduction, and most importantly a stronger more unified team.

Askins, B. R.↗

DOE OSTI2020

Latest Developments in PM Systems and Methods and their Application to WM Projects - 20364

How do you improve on an industry that is well established yet often misses the mark on key metrics demonstrating effective planning and execution of project scope, schedule and budget? With the increased complexity of DOE projects relative to either poorly kept records of what wastes are stored or the lack of specific knowledge relative to the waste concentrations/quantities, this is a question continually asked and investigated by many. In fact, in 2017, the GAO's report to Congress indicated that although the DOE has made some progress on its monitoring effectiveness and demonstrating progress criteria, these goals were not met and there needs to be more improvement and monitoring. This paper will offer some insights into the latest developments in project management methodologies and the possible application of these to waste management projects. Traditional data generated via a project schedule that utilizes critical path methodology (CPM) and additional earned value management (EVM) data needs to be accurate and enable the project manager to better understand the probability of project success. Although this data has readily been available on most large-scale projects, success as measured by various stakeholder groups including the client, project team, regulators, etc. is less than optimal. Therefore, an urgent need exists to explore how traditional project data (CPM and EVM) coupled with new methodologies allows for better planning and execution by the project team. Many new approaches/methodologies can even be used to predict the success of options prior to full implementation on the actual project. Three approaches/methodologies will be discussed: - Artificial Intelligence; - Change Management; - Blend of Traditional Management (Gantt chart) and Agile Methodologies. As market forces change, so will the direction of project management. The days of 'one size fits all' are no longer valid. A combination of predictive and adaptive approaches in the management of projects is essential to enable execution of project deliverables on time, under budget, and within the contractual scope. This paper is intended to provide the reader with insight to the close relationship of project management trends and business management trends, and to provoke critical thinking about what it means to align project management strategy with an environment of non-stop innovation. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2018

A framework for the identification of full-field structural dynamics using sequences of images in the presence of non-ideal operating conditions

Recent developments in the ability to automatically and efficiently extract natural frequencies, damping ratios, and full-field mode shapes from video of vibrating structures has great potential for reducing the resources and time required for performing experimental and operational modal analysis at very high spatial resolution. Furthermore, these techniques have the added advantage that they can be implemented remotely and in a non-contact fashion. Emerging full-field imaging techniques therefore have potential to allow the identification of the modal properties of structures in regimes that used to be challenging. For instance, these techniques suggest that the high spatial resolution structural identification could be performed on an aircraft during flight using a ground or aircraft-based imager. They also have the potential to identify the dynamics of microscopic systems. In order to realize this capability it will be necessary to develop techniques that can extract full-field structural dynamics in the presence of non-ideal operating conditions. In this work, we develop a framework for the deployment of emerging algorithms that allow the automatic extraction of high-resolution, full-field modal parameters in the presence of non-ideal operating conditions. One of the most notable non-ideal operating conditions is the rigid body motion of both the structure being measured as well as the imager performing the measurement. We demonstrate an instantiation of the framework by showing how it can be used to address, in-plane, translational, rigid body motion. The development of a frame-to-frame keypoint–based technique for identifying full-field structural dynamics in the presence of either rigid body motion is presented and demonstrated in the context of the framework for the deployment of full-field structural identification techniques in the presence of non-ideal operating conditions. It is expected that this framework will ultimately help enable the collection of full-field structural dynamics using measurement platforms including unmanned aerial vehicles, robotic telescopes, satellites, imagers mounted in high-vibration environments (seismic, industrial, harsh weather), characterization of microscopic structures, and human-carried imagers. If imager-based structural identification techniques mature to the point that they can be used in non-ideal field conditions, it could open up the possibility that the structural health monitoring community will be able to think beyond monitoring individual structures, to full-field structural integrity monitoring at the city scale.

Dasari, Sudeep↗

NASA NTRS2016

Evidence Report: Risk of Performance Errors Due to Training Deficiencies

Substantial evidence supports the claim that inadequate training leads to performance errors. Barshi and Loukopoulos (2012) demonstrate that even a task as carefully developed and refined over many years as operating an aircraft can be significantly improved by a systematic analysis, followed by improved procedures and improved training (see also Loukopoulos, Dismukes, & Barshi, 2009a). Unfortunately, such a systematic analysis of training needs rarely occurs during the preliminary design phase, when modifications are most feasible. Training is often seen as a way to compensate for deficiencies in task and system design, which in turn increases the training load. As a result, task performance often suffers, and with it, the operators suffer and so does the mission. On the other hand, effective training can indeed compensate for such design deficiencies, and can even go beyond to compensate for failures of our imagination to anticipate all that might be needed when we send our crew members to go where no one else has gone before. Much of the research literature on training is motivated by current training practices aimed at current training needs. Although there is some experience with operations in extreme environments on Earth, there is no experience with long-duration space missions where crews must practice semi-autonomous operations, where ground support must accommodate significant communication delays, and where so little is known about the environment. Thus, we must develop robust methodologies and tools to prepare our crews for the unknown. The research necessary to support such an endeavor does not currently exist, but existing research does reveal general challenges that are relevant to long-duration, high-autonomy missions. The evidence presented here describes issues related to the risk of performance errors due to training deficiencies. Contributing factors regarding training deficiencies may pertain to organizational process and training programs for spaceflight, such as when training programs are inadequate or unavailable. Furthermore, failure to match between tasks on the one hand, and learning and memory abilities on the other hand is a contributing factor, especially when individuals' relative efficiency with which new information is acquired, and adjustments made in behavior or thinking, are inconsistent with mission demands. Thus, if training deficiencies are present, the likelihood of errors or of the inability to successfully complete a task increases. What's more, the overall risk to the crew, the vehicle, and the mission increases.

Barshi, Immanuel↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of a Comprehensive Physics-Based Model for Study of NASA Gateway Lunar Dust Contamination

NASA is committed to landing the first woman and first person of color on the Moon by 2025 to begin a sustaining presence. A major component of this mission is NASA’s orbiting lunar outpost, Gateway, that will be subjected to the harsh environment of space during its 7-day orbit around the Moon. One aspect of this environment that is not well quantified is microscopic lunar regolith particles, or simply, lunar dust. As Apollo 17 Mission Commander Eugene Cernan said, “I think dust is probably one of our greatest inhibitors to a nominal operation on the moon. I think we can overcome other physiological or physical or mechanical problems except dust” [1]. These dust particles, most of which are smaller than the width of two human hairs and of highly irregular shape, are composed mainly of dielectric materials. Such characteristics can allow the dust particles to collect electric charge from the surrounding environment, resulting in electrostatic interactions between the dust, electromagnetic fields, and electrically charged surfaces [2-3]. Due to the nature of these fields, dust can collect on and contaminate charged surfaces. Lunar dust introduced into the Gateway environment by a lunar ascent vehicle element returning from the surface of the Moon presents risks to Gateway hardware such as radiators, solar arrays, antennae, and docking mechanisms. To quantify this risk and inform NASA, International Partner, and Commercial Provider stakeholders, Booz Allen, in partnership with NASA, is developing a toolset to model the interaction of charged lunar dust particles with the cis-lunar and deep-space environments. This includes a comprehensive physics model of the space plasma and solar radiation environment and electromagnetic interaction of spacecraft and lunar dust. Spacecraft charging and plasma environment are solved using the open-source code from The French Aerospace Lab (ONERA) and the European Space Agency (ESA), known as Spacecraft Plasma Interaction Software (SPIS) [4]. The physics of particle charging and motion is handled by a time-dependent implementation of Orbital-Motion-Limited (OML) theory which accounts for plasma flows and positive potential grains [5-7], using Siemens STAR-CCM+ as the framework. Model validation includes lab experiments by NASA experts and academia, as well as future on-orbit dust detecting payloads on the exterior of Gateway and Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) missions to the lunar surface [7-9]. The results and analyses will inform Gateway Program system owners at risk for lunar dust contamination.

Complex Plasma↗

DOE OSTI2021

Project Earthrise: Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference of in VIVO Planetary Health

The “Earthrise” photograph, taken on the 1968 Apollo 8 mission, became one of the most significant images of the 20th Century. It triggered a profound shift in environmental awareness and the potential for human unity—inspiring the first Earth Day in 1970. Taking inspiration from these events 50 years later, we initiated Project Earthrise at our 2020 annual conference of inVIVO Planetary Health. This builds on the emergent concept of planetary health, which provides a shared narrative to integrate rich and diverse approaches from all aspects of society towards shared solutions to global challenges. The acute catastrophe of the COVID-19 pandemic has drawn greater attention to many other interconnected global health, environmental, social, spiritual, and economic problems that have been underappreciated or neglected for decades. This is accelerating opportunities for greater collaborative action, as many groups now focus on the necessity of a “Great Transition”. While ambitious integrative efforts have never been more important, it is imperative to apply these with mutualistic value systems as a compass, as we seek to make wiser choices. Project Earthrise is our contribution to this important process. This underscores the imperative for creative ecological solutions to challenges in all systems, on all scales with advancing global urbanization in the digital age—for personal, environmental, economic and societal health alike. At the same time, our agenda seeks to equally consider our social and spiritual ecology as it does natural ecology. Revisiting the inspiration of “Earthrise”, we welcome diverse perspectives from across all dimensions of the arts and the sciences, to explore novel solutions and new normative values. Building on academic rigor, we seek to place greater value on imagination, kindness and mutualism as we address our greatest challenges, for the health of people, places and planet.

interdependence↗

NASA NTRS2014

Dividing the Concentrator Target From the Genesis Mission

The Genesis spacecraft, launched in 2001, traveled to a Lagrangian point between the Earth and Sun to collect particles from the solar wind and return them to Earth. However, during the return of the spacecraft in 2004, the parachute failed to open during descent, and the Genesis spacecraft crashed into the Utah desert. Many of the solar wind collectors were broken into smaller pieces, and the field team rapidly collected the capsule and collector pieces for later assessment. On each of the next few days, the team discovered that various collectors had survived intact, including three of four concentrator targets. Within a month, the team had imaged more than 10,000 fragments and packed them for transport to the Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office within the ARES Directorate at JSC. Currently, the Genesis samples are curated along with the other extraterrestrial sample collections within ARES. Although they were broken and dirty, the Genesis solar wind collectors still offered the science community the opportunity to better understand our Sun and the solar system as a whole. One of the more highly prized concentrator collectors survived the crash almost completely intact. The Genesis Concentrator was designed to concentrate the solar wind by a factor of at least 20 so that solar oxygen and nitrogen isotopes could be measured. One of these materials was the Diamond-on-Silicon (DoS) concentrator target. Unfortunately, the DoS concentrator broke on impact. Nevertheless, the scientific value of the DoS concentrator target was high. The Genesis Allocation Committee received a request for approximately 1 cm(sup 2) of the DoS specimen taken near the focal point of the concentrator for the analysis of solar wind nitrogen isotopes. The largest fragment, Genesis sample 60000, was designated for this allocation and needed to be precisely cut. The requirement was to subdivide the designated sample in a manner that prevented contamination of the sample and minimized the risk of losing or breaking the precious requested sample fragment. The Genesis curator determined that the use of laser scribing techniques to "cut" a precise line and subsequently cleave the sample (in a controlled break of the sample along that line) was the best method for accomplishing the sample subdivision. However, there were risks, including excess heating of the sample, that could cause some of the implanted solar wind to be lost via thermal diffusion. Accidentally breaking the sample during the handling and cleaving process was an additional risk. Early in fiscal year 2013, to address this delicate, complicated task, the ARES Directorate assembled its top scientists to develop a cutting plan that would ensure success when applied to the actual concentrator target wafer; i.e., to produce an approximately 1 cm(sup 2) piece from the requested area of the wafer. The team, subsequently referred to as the JSC Genesis Tiger Team, spent months researching and testing parameters and techniques related to scribing, cleaving, transporting, handling, and holding (i.e., mounting) the specimen. The investigation required considerable "thinking outside the box," and many, many trials using nonflight wafer analogs. After all preliminary testing, the following method was adopted as the final cutting plan. It was used in two final end-to-end practice runs before being used on the actual flight target wafer. The wafer was oriented on the laser cutting stage with the 100 and 010 directions of the wafer parallel to the corresponding X and Y directions of the cutting stage. The laser was programed to scribe 31 lines of the appropriate length along the Y stage direction. The programed scribe lines were separated by 5 micron in the X direction. The laser parameters were set as follows: (1) The laser power was 0.5 watts; (2) each line consisted of 50 passes, with the Z position being advanced 5 micron per pass; and (3) 30 s would elapse before the next line was scribed to allow for wafer cool down from any possible heating via the laser. The ablated material that "stuck" in the "scribe-cut" was removed from the "cut" using an ultrasonic micro-tool. After all the ablated silicon was removed from the wafer, the wafer was repositioned in exactly the same orientation on the laser stage. The laser was focused using the bottom of the wafer channel, and the 31-line scribing pattern described above was reprogrammed using the Z position of the groove bottom as the starting Z value instead of the top wafer surface, which was used previously. Upon completion of the second set of scribes, the ultrasonic micro-tool was again used to clean out the cut. The wafer was remounted on the stage in exactly the same orientation as before. The laser was again focused on the bottom of the groove. This time, however, the laser was.programed to scribe only one line down the exact center of the channel. The final scribe line consisted of 100 passes with a Z advance of 5 micron per pass and with the laser power set at 0.5 watts. As mentioned above, the final cutting plan was practiced in two end-to-end trials using non-flight, triangular-shaped silicon wafers similar in size and orientation to the actual DOS 60000 target sample. The actual scribing of the triangular-shaped wafers required scribing two lines and cleaving (i.e. scribe-cleave, then scribe-cleave) to obtain the piece requested for allocation. Early in December 2012, after many months of experiments and practicing and perfecting the techniques and procedures, the team successfully subdivided the Genesis DoS 60000 target sample, one of the most scientifically important samples from the Genesis mission (figure 2). On December 17, 2012, the allocated piece of concentrator target sample was delivered to the requesting principal investigator.The cutting plan developed for the subdivision of this sample will be used as the model for subdividing future requested Genesis flight wafers (appropriately modified for different wafer types).

Lauer, H. V., Jr.↗

DOE OSTI2020

Stakeholder-Engaged Structured Decision Making for the Los Alamos Legacy Cleanup Mission - 20501

The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) environmental legacy cleanup program requires decisions to be made for environmental remediation, decommissioning and disposal or management of radioactive waste. This legacy cleanup program was established to address groundwater contamination, material disposal areas (MDAs) that have been used to dispose of radioactive and other waste material, and 'aggregate areas' that might produce radioactive or other chemical waste as a result of remediation activities. The LANL site is regulated for environmental concerns under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). However, some parts of LANL, such as material disposal area G (MDA G), have disposed of radioactive waste under DOE Order 435.1, and are subject to other regulations. For example, decommissioning the remote-handled TRU material stored in 33 shafts at MDA G falls under EPA's 40 CFR 191. Collectively, the regulations are all aimed in the same direction of finding the best solution, either through constructs such as 'as low as reasonably achievable' (ALARA), considering balancing factors as opposed to only cost and human health risk, and, under EPA regulations such as RCRA and NEPA, evaluating impact from all chemicals and both human health and ecological endpoints. Despite the basic goals and objectives of the regulations or their guidance, the main challenge is in their implementation. Arguably perhaps, but really in principle, all of these (and similar) regulations are asking for a decision analysis to be performed. Implementation challenges encountered have included lack of understanding of decision analysis in the industry, lack of effective stakeholder engagement in the decision analysis process, and lack of appreciation of the need to separate value judgments from science, the latter leading to developing conservative, or protective, science-based models. Conservative models lead to poor solutions, lack of effective stakeholder engagement leads to long drawn out protracted approaches to finding a solution (which also might never be found with this approach), and lack of understanding of decision analysis and Bayesian statistics causes poor models to be built, which creates unfortunate situations of 'garbage in, garbage out' becoming the basis for decision making. Stakeholder-engaged structured decision making (SDM) is an approach to solving problems that relies on the theory of decision science to involve stakeholders in the decision-making process. This approach incorporates stakeholder values using a scientifically rigorous methodology that separates value judgments from science in a way that helps avoid the pitfalls of biased, protective, or conservative modeling. This approach has its foundation in Keeney's 1992 treatise on value-focused thinking [1]. Keeney advocated a paradigm shift in decision making based on the idea that the standard way of thinking about decisions is backwards. The standard approach of focusing first on identifying alternatives rather than on articulating values results in a reactive approach with the emphasis on mechanics and fixed choices instead of the core values that have meaning to stakeholders. This paradigm shift effectively engages all stakeholders in the decision-making process while using a values focused thinking approach that can lead to the identification of decision opportunities and the creation of better alternatives. The intent is to be proactive and generate solutions that are related directly to values and objectives as identified by stakeholders. There are, perhaps, two overarching reasons why SDM can be used to benefit LANL's environmental legacy cleanup. Some of LANL's remaining waste management and environmental management problems are challenging and complex (for example, the Cr and RDX plumes, and MDAs) and while the traditional approach has, arguably, worked well for relatively simple risk-based problems, it cannot, or should not, be applied to more complex problems if the most effective and efficient solutions are desired. The second reason is cost. This has perhaps become more critical since publication of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that DoE's environmental liability is considered a high-risk concern for the nation [2]. The focus of SDM is on structuring solutions to decision risk problems by first addressing stakeholder and decision maker values and subsequently developing decision objectives and ways to measure those objectives, preference weighting across objectives, identifying decision alternatives that best achieve those values, and characterizing uncertainty in predictions of the measures. Because a complete decision model is created using SDM, it can be evaluated to find the main elements of the model that drive, or predict, the best solution. This approach creates complete decision models that are transparent, traceable, reproducible and technically defensible. The science behind SDM, or decision analysis, is well founded, yet it is not unusual to see ad hoc approaches to decision making implemented under various environmental regulations that are pertinent to the LANL site, including NEPA, RCRA and DOE Order 435.1. Such ad hoc approaches are often not transparent or traceable, and lack reproducibility and technical defensibility. The LANL legacy cleanup program has embarked on using SDM to address the complex problems that remain. Stakeholder meetings have been held, and a prototype version of the stakeholder value system has been developed. Further meetings are expected in the future to address specific project needs. This is a long-term endeavor considering the complex environmental problems faced by DOE EM in Los Alamos (EM-LA), and careful planning, consideration of stakeholder value systems, and engagement with stakeholders throughout the SDM process is expected to lead to a successful endpoint. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2015

Environmental cleanup of the East Tennessee Technology Park - Year three - A status report - 15522

On August 1, 2011, URS - CH2M Oak Ridge LLC (UCOR) began its five-year, $1.4 billion cleanup of the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP), the former Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant, located on the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Oak Ridge Reservation (Reservation) in Tennessee. Under the contract, the base period scope of work to be completed by 2016 includes demolition of both the K-25 and K-31 gaseous diffusion buildings and all demolition waste dispositioned, initiation of demolition on the remaining K-27 gaseous diffusion building, safe storage of transuranic (TRU) waste for eventual transfer to the Transuranic Waste Processing Center, previously designated -No-Path-To-Disposition Waste- dispositioned to the extent possible, and completion of design and engineering of a mercury treatment system to be installed at the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12). UCOR will have also managed DOE Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management (OREM)-owned facilities at ETTP, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and Y-12 in a safe and cost-effective manner. Since assuming responsibilities as the ETTP and Oak Ridge Reservation cleanup contractor, UCOR has completed its life-cycle Performance Measurement Baseline; received its Earned Value Management System (EVMS) certification; completed the deactivation and demolition (D and D) of the 44-acre K-25 gaseous diffusion building; removed and disposed of a contaminated underground storage tank (Tank W-1A) at ORNL; dispositioned mercury-contaminated storage tanks at Y-12; completed closure of the Toxic Substances Control Act Incinerator; disposed of more than 158,000 cubic yards of cleanup waste while managing the on-site Environmental Management Waste Management Facility (EMWMF); and conducted operations, surveillance, and maintenance activities at 180 DOE EM facilities at ETTP, ORNL, and Y-12 in a safe and cost-effective manner. In 2014, UCOR completed the removal and disposal of all of the K-25 demolition debris; completed the removal of asbestos-laden transite siding on the K-31 gaseous diffusion building and began demolition of that 17-acre building; advanced the characterization and deactivation of the K-27 gaseous diffusion building, readying the building for the start of demolition in 2015; advanced the design and engineering of a Mercury Treatment Facility to be located at Y-12; continued the cost-effective and safe disposition of all cleanup wastes; and readied ETTP for Voluntary Protection Program Star Status Assessment in 2015. Project performance as of December 31, 2014, continued to be excellent: - Cost Performance Index - 1.12 - Schedule Performance Index - 1.02 At the same time, since safety is the foundation of all cleanup work, UCOR's safety record goes hand-in-hand with its excellent project performance. Through calendar year 2014, UCOR's recordable injury rate was 1.04 occurrences per 200,000 work hours, and the lost workday case rate was 0.52. This performance continues to be due, in large part, to the people and processes URS and CH2M HILL, the parent companies of UCOR, brought to the project. Key enablers included: - Selected and deployed experienced staff in key leadership positions throughout the organization, continually re-energizing the organization with new leaders - Implemented previously successful safety programs and initiatives from other DOE sites, such as DOE's Voluntary Protection Program - Brought fresh thinking and innovation to tackling tough project issues, such as the deactivation of the Technetium-99-contaminated areas of K-27, applying lessons learned from the D and D of K-25; and implementing a -waste factory- approach to cleanup - Maintained continuing alignment between UCOR's contract with DOE and its Performance Measurement Baseline - rapidly addressing contract changes when they arose - Maintained a readiness both from a process as well as experienced personnel perspective to support DOE OREM in performing other significant Oak Ridge Reservation cleanup activities. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2025

Assessing the cumulative effects of nearshore habitat restoration actions for multiple populations of juvenile salmon in Whidbey Basin, Washington: foundation and approach for synthesis and evaluation

Ecosystem restoration is a common tool for re-establishing ecosystem processes, structures, and functions to improve biodiversity and services in coastal and estuarine ecosystems. In the Salish Sea, salmon habitats have been fragmented, reduced in size, and diminished in quality, and the ecosystem processes that form and sustain these habitats have been degraded and disrupted as well. This loss is especially prevalent in estuaries, where up to 90% of former salmon habitat has been lost or compromised. Salmon species are integral to the identities and cultures of people in the Pacific Northwest, yet salmon abundances remain at historic lows, especially in urbanized areas. Recent investments in restoration are creating rearing habitat and repairing lost ecosystem function. However, restoration efforts in this region have largely proceeded at the site scale, with less attention to big-picture thinking regarding how restoration will effectively recover degraded or lost habitats for target species. As a result, no landscape-scale evaluation program exists, and the cumulative benefits of multiple interventions are unknown. We describe innovative methods for science synthesis related to the evaluation of cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration for Pacific salmon, using years of existing, but disparate data. Building from previous work on cumulative effects evaluation and incorporating a hierarchy of hypotheses approach, we propose using causal inference across numerous hypotheses in a framework to assess the cumulative benefits to Pacific salmon from multiple estuarine restoration projects. We present the framework as a method that can be used to address many complex questions and provide examples from the Salish Sea where the approach is being implemented. The framework draws on science synthesis from numerous fields and uses a hierarchy of hypotheses, causal analysis at multiple scales, and a new hierarchy of synthesis for assessing multiple lines of evidence documenting restoration effects on Pacific salmon. We propose causal inference to synthesize dissimilar data streams, in our case, to identify various manifestations of cumulative effects of restoration and benefits to salmon, and to further inform restoration and recovery planning. A unifying framework would allow for the detection of thresholds at which restoration provides measurable improvement and would greatly advance understanding of the effects of restoration on ecosystems.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS2015

[Redesign of the Spacesuit Long Life Battery and the Personal Life Support System Battery]

This fall I was working on two different projects that culminated into a redesign of the spacesuit LLB (long life battery). I also did some work on the PLSS (personal life support system) battery with EC. My first project was redlining the work instruction for completing DPAs (destructive physical analysis) on battery cells in the department. The purpose of this document is to create a standard process and ensure that the data in the same way no matter who carries out the analysis. I observed three DPAs, conducted one with help, and conducted two on my own all while taking notes on the procedure. These notes were used to write the final work instruction that will become is the department standard. My second project continued the work of the summer co-op before me. I was testing aluminum heat sinks for their ability to provide good thermal conduction and structural support during a thermal runaway event. The heat sinks were designed by the summer intern but there was not much time for testing before he left. We ran tests with a heater on the bottom of a trigger cell to try to drive thermal runaway and ensure that it will not propagate to adjacent cells. We also ran heat-to-vent tests in an oven to see if the assembly provided structural support and prevented sidewall rupture during thermal runaway. These tests were carried out at ESTA (energy systems test area) and are providing very promising results that safe, high performing (greater than 180 Wh/kg) designs are possible. My main project was a redesign of the LLB battery. Another summer intern did some testing and concluded that there was no simple fix to mitigate thermal runaway propagation hazards in the current design. The only option was a clean sheet redesign of the battery. I was given a volume and ideal energy density and the rest of the design was up to me. First, I created new heat sink banks in Creo using the information gathered in the metal heat sink tests from the summer intern. After this, I made capture plates to hold the cells in place and I worked on nickel bussings for the electrical connections between the cells. Finally, I designed the test box enclosure that included sections for flame arresting materials. The battery brick design, which is the heart of the battery, promises to become the first for a manned spacecraft application to achieve greater than 180 Wh/kg. My work in redlining the DPA work instructions will also be used in selecting the cells for the battery. We had a few options of cells that would provide the necessary power output and needed to make a choice. We repeatedly charged and discharged cells for around a month until they went through 100 lifecycles. The plan is to compare the DPA results on fresh and cycled cells from each manufacturer to see if cycling introduces any differences. After the complete LLB design was approved, the parts were ordered and testing should begin the first week of December. Some of my side projects included working on the CAD data for the PLSS with EC and attending the NASA Aerospace Battery Workshop in Huntsville. I was also a member of the Tours and Lectures Committee for the USRA and Pathways interns. I coordinated Apollo Evening and was on the committee for touring KSC and seeing an Atlas 5 launch. I really enjoyed my time at JSC and I would like to continue working for NASA or another aerospace company in the future. I have worked other internships prior to this, but I think the heavy research and development focus is the best fit for me. I originally thought I would need to go to grad school to work in an environment like this, but I now see it is possible with a bachelor’s degree and hard work. I would like to go into the workforce and maybe continue my education with night classes.

Scharf, Stephanie↗

DOE OSTI2026

Controversy and consensus: common ground and best practices for life cycle assessment of emerging technologies

This manuscript explores six controversial topics regarding LCA of emerging technologies: (1) appropriate use of LCA, (2) uncertainty assessment, (3) comparison with incumbents, (4) adopting standards, (5) system scale-up, and (6) stakeholder engagement. These topics encompass key issues vigorously debated during a series of workshop-style discussions convened by the LCA of Emerging Technologies Research Network (currently hosted by ACLCA). This paper represents the main points of support and opposition for a declarative resolution representing each topic, along with points of consensus, held amongst research network of LCA practitioners and experts. These debates and associated open questions are intended to build awareness amongst practitioners and decision-makers of the common challenges associated with assessing emerging technologies, while fostering evidence-based and context-informed discussions that are both transparent and impactful for the broader community.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

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 OSTI2015

WE-G-213-02: The AAPM Award Eponyms: William D. Coolidge, Edith H. Quimby, and Marvin M.D. 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↗