Engineering topics
Publications and source records attributed to Morrison, William H..
Impedance testing devices, circuits, systems, and related methods are disclosed. A method may include exciting a device coupled to a load, and capturing a response of the device. The method may further include adjusting the response based on an estimated load response of the device, and estimating an impedance of the device based on the adjusted response.
Impedance testing devices, circuits, systems, and related methods are disclosed. A Device Under Test (DUT) is excited with a multispectral excitation signal for an excitation time period while the DUT is under a load condition from a load operably coupled to the DUT. A response of the DUT is sampled over a sample time period. The sample time period is configured such that it includes an in-band interval during the excitation time period and one or more out-of-band intervals outside of the in-band interval. A response of the DUT to the load condition during the in-band interval is estimated by analyzing samples of the response from the one or more out-of-band intervals. Adjusted samples are computed by subtracting the estimated load response during the in-band interval from the samples from the in-band interval. An impedance of the DUT is estimated by analyzing the adjusted samples.
Real-time battery impedance spectra are acquired by stimulating a battery or battery system with a signal generated as a sum of sine signals at related frequencies. An impedance measurement device can be used to interface between the battery system and a host computer for generating the signals. The impedance measurement device may be calibrated to adapt the response signal to more closely match other impedance measurement techniques. The impedance measurement device may be adapted to operate at mid-range voltages of about 50 volts and high-range voltages up to about 300 volts.
Battery impedance testing devices, circuits, systems, and related methods are disclosed. An impedance measurement device includes a current driver configured to generate an excitation current signal to be applied to a test battery responsive to a control signal, and a processor operably coupled with the current driver. The processor is configured to generate the control signal during an auto-ranging mode and a measuring mode. The auto-ranging mode applies the excitation current signal to the test battery over a plurality of different amplitudes to measure a response to the excitation current signal at each amplitude. The measuring mode applies the excitation current signal to the test battery for an amplitude responsive to the results of the auto-ranging mode. Improved sensitivity and resolution may be achieved for low impedance batteries with a rapid measurement time.
Energy storage cell impedance testing devices, circuits, and related methods are disclosed. An energy storage cell impedance measuring device includes a sum of sinusoids (SOS) current excitation circuit including differential current sources configured to isolate a ground terminal of the differential current sources from a positive terminal and a negative terminal of an energy storage cell. A method includes applying an SOS signal comprising a sum of sinusoidal current signals to the energy storage cell with the SOS current excitation circuit, each of the sinusoidal current signals oscillating at a different one of a plurality of different frequencies. The method also includes measuring an electrical signal at a positive terminal and a negative terminal of the energy storage cell, and computing an impedance of the energy storage cell at each of the plurality of different frequencies using the measured electrical signal.
Purpose: Reirradiation of head and neck (H&N) cancer is a clinical challenge. Proton radiation therapy (PRT) offers dosimetric advantages for normal tissue sparing and may benefit previously irradiated patients. Here, we report our initial experience with the use of PRT for H&N reirradiation, with focus on clinical outcomes and toxicity. Methods and Materials: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients who received H&N reirradiation with PRT from April 2011 through June 2015. Patients reirradiated with palliative intent or without prior documentation of H&N radiation therapy were excluded. Radiation-related toxicities were recorded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 4.0. Results: The conditions of 60 patients were evaluated, with a median follow-up time of 13.6 months. Fifteen patients (25%) received passive scatter proton therapy (PSPT), and 45 (75%) received intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Thirty-five patients (58%) received upfront surgery, and 44 (73%) received concurrent chemotherapy. The 1-year rates of locoregional failure–free survival, overall survival, progression-free survival, and distant metastasis–free survival were 68.4%, 83.8%, 60.1%, and 74.9%, respectively. Eighteen patients (30%) experienced acute grade 3 (G3) toxicity, and 13 (22%) required a feeding tube at the end of PRT. The 1-year rates of late G3 toxicity and feeding tube independence were 16.7% and 2.0%, respectively. Three patients may have died of reirradiation-related effects (1 acute and 2 late). Conclusions: Proton beam therapy can be a safe and effective curative reirradiation strategy, with acceptable rates of toxicity and durable disease control.
Purpose: We hypothesized that patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated with intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) would have lower symptom burdens, as measured by patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys, than patients treated with intensity modulated photon therapy (IMRT). Methods and Materials: Patients were treated for oropharyngeal cancer from 2006 to 2015 through prospective registries with concurrent chemotherapy and IMPT or chemotherapy and IMRT and completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for Head and Neck Cancer (MDASI-HN) module at various times before treatment (baseline), during treatment (acute phase), within the first 3 months after treatment (subacute phase), and afterward (chronic phase). Individual symptoms and the top 5 and top 11 most severe symptoms were summarized and compared between the radiation therapy modalities. Results: PRO data were collected and analyzed from 35 patients treated with chemotherapy and IMPT and from 46 treated with chemotherapy and IMRT. The baseline symptom burdens were similar between both groups. The overall top 5 symptoms were food taste problems (mean score 4.91 on a 0-10 scale), dry mouth (4.49), swallowing/chewing difficulties (4.26), lack of appetite (4.08), and fatigue (4.00). Among the top 11 symptoms, changes in taste and appetite during the subacute and chronic phases favored IMPT (all P<.048). No differences in symptom burden were detected between modalities during the acute and chronic phases by top-11 symptom scoring. During the subacute phase, the mean (±standard deviation) top 5 MDASI scores were 5.15 ± 2.66 for IMPT versus 6.58 ± 1.98 for IMRT (P=.013). Conclusions: According to the MDASI-HN, symptom burden was lower among the IMPT patients than among the IMRT patients during the subacute recovery phase after treatment. A prospective randomized clinical trial is underway to define the value of IMPT for the management of head and neck tumors.
Purpose: To review our 15-year institutional experience using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to reirradiate patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC) and identify predictors of outcomes and toxicity. Methods and Materials: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 227 patients who received head and neck reirradiation using IMRT from 1999 to 2014. Patients treated with noncurative intent were excluded. Radiation-related acute and late toxicities were recorded. Prognostic variables included performance status, disease site, disease-free interval, chemotherapy, and RT dose and volume. Correlative analyses were performed separately for surgery and nonsurgery patients. Results: Two hundred six patients (91%) were retreated with curative intent, and 173 had HNSCC histology; 104 (50%) underwent salvage resection, and 135 (66%) received chemotherapy. Median follow-up after reirradiation was 24.7 months. Clinical outcomes were worse for HNSCC patients, with 5-year locoregional control, progression-free survival, and overall survival rates of 53%, 22%, and 32%, respectively, compared with 74%, 59%, and 79%, respectively, for non-HNSCC patients. On multivariate analysis, concurrent chemotherapy and retreatment site were associated with tumor control, whereas performance status was associated with survival. Favorable prognostic factors specific to surgery patients were neck retreatment and lack of extracapsular extension, whereas for nonsurgery patients, these were a nasopharynx subsite and complete response to induction chemotherapy. Actuarial rates of grade ≥3 toxicity were 32% at 2 years and 48% at 5 years, with dysphagia or odynophagia being most common. Increased grade ≥3 toxicity was associated with retreatment volume >50 cm{sup 3} and concurrent chemotherapy. Conclusions: Reirradiation with IMRT either definitively or after salvage surgery can produce promising local control and survival in selected patients with head and neck cancers. Treatment-related toxicity remains significant. Prognostic factors are emerging to guide multidisciplinary treatment approaches and clinical trial design.
Purpose: Postoperative radiation is often indicated in the treatment of malignant epithelial tumors of the orbit and ocular adnexa. We present details of radiation technique and toxicity data after orbit-sparing surgery followed by adjuvant proton radiation therapy. Methods and Materials: Twenty patients underwent orbit-sparing surgery followed by proton therapy for newly diagnosed malignant epithelial tumors of the lacrimal gland (n=7), lacrimal sac/nasolacrimal duct (n=10), or eyelid (n=3). Tumor characteristics, treatment details, and visual outcomes were obtained from medical records. Acute and chronic toxicity were prospectively scored using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Results: The median radiation dose was 60 Gy(RBE) (relative biological effectiveness; [range 50-70 Gy]); 11 patients received concurrent chemotherapy. Dose to ipsilateral anterior optic structures was reduced in 13 patients by having them gaze away from the target during treatment. At a median follow-up time of 27.1 months (range 2.6-77.2 months), no patient had experienced local recurrence; 1 had regional and 1 had distant recurrence. Three patients developed chronic grade 3 epiphora, and 3 developed grade 3 exposure keratopathy. Four patients experienced a decrease in visual acuity from baseline but maintained vision sufficient to perform all activities of daily living without difficulty. Patients with grade ≥3 chronic ocular toxicity had higher maximum dose to the ipsilateral cornea (median 46.3 Gy[RBE], range 36.6-52.7 Gy[RBE] vs median 37.4 Gy[RBE], range 9.0-47.3 Gy(RBE); P=.017). Conclusions: Orbit-sparing surgery for epithelial tumors of the orbit and ocular adnexa followed by proton therapy successfully achieved disease control and was well tolerated. No patient required orbital exenteration or enucleation. Chronic grade 3 toxicity was associated with high maximum dose to the cornea. An eye-deviation technique can be used to limit the maximum corneal dose to <35 Gy(RBE).
Purpose: A single-institution prospective study was conducted to assess disease control and toxicity of proton therapy for patients with head and neck cancer. Methods and Materials: Disease control, toxicity, functional outcomes, and patterns of failure for the initial cohort of patients with oropharyngeal squamous carcinoma (OPC) treated with intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) were prospectively collected in 2 registry studies at a single institution. Locoregional failures were analyzed by using deformable image registration. Results: Fifty patients with OPC treated from March 3, 2011, to July 2014 formed the cohort. Eighty-four percent were male, 50% had never smoked, 98% had stage III/IV disease, 64% received concurrent therapy, and 35% received induction chemotherapy. Forty-four of 45 tumors (98%) tested for p16 were positive. All patients received IMPT (multifield optimization to n=46; single-field optimization to n=4). No Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 4 or 5 toxicities were observed. The most common grade 3 toxicities were acute mucositis in 58% of patients and late dysphagia in 12%. Eleven patients had a gastrostomy (feeding) tube placed during therapy, but none had a feeding tube at last follow-up. At a median follow-up time of 29 months, 5 patients had disease recurrence: local in 1, local and regional in 1, regional in 2, and distant in 1. The 2-year actuarial overall and progression-free survival rates were 94.5% and 88.6%. Conclusions: The oncologic, toxicity, and functional outcomes after IMPT for OPC are encouraging and provide the basis for ongoing and future clinical studies.
Real-time battery impedance spectrum is acquired using a one-time record. Fast Summation Transformation (FST) is a parallel method of acquiring a real-time battery impedance spectrum using a one-time record that enables battery diagnostics. An excitation current to a battery is a sum of equal amplitude sine waves of frequencies that are octave harmonics spread over a range of interest. A sample frequency is also octave and harmonically related to all frequencies in the sum. A time profile of this sampled signal has a duration that is a few periods of the lowest frequency. A voltage response of the battery, average deleted, is an impedance of the battery in a time domain. Since the excitation frequencies are known and octave and harmonically related, a simple algorithm, FST, processes the time profile by rectifying relative to sine and cosine of each frequency. Another algorithm yields real and imaginary components for each frequency.
Real-time battery impedance spectrum is acquired using a one-time record. Fast Summation Transformation (FST) is a parallel method of acquiring a real-time battery impedance spectrum using a one-time record that enables battery diagnostics. An excitation current to a battery is a sum of equal amplitude sine waves of frequencies that are octave harmonics spread over a range of interest. A sample frequency is also octave and harmonically related to all frequencies in the sum. The time profile of this signal has a duration that is a few periods of the lowest frequency. The voltage response of the battery, average deleted, is the impedance of the battery in the time domain. Since the excitation frequencies are known and octave and harmonically related, a simple algorithm, FST, processes the time record by rectifying relative to the sine and cosine of each frequency. Another algorithm yields real and imaginary components for each frequency.
Real time battery impedance spectrum is acquired using one time record, Compensated Synchronous Detection (CSD). This parallel method enables battery diagnostics. The excitation current to a test battery is a sum of equal amplitude sin waves of a few frequencies spread over range of interest. The time profile of this signal has duration that is a few periods of the lowest frequency. The voltage response of the battery, average deleted, is the impedance of the battery in the time domain. Since the excitation frequencies are known, synchronous detection processes the time record and each component, both magnitude and phase, is obtained. For compensation, the components, except the one of interest, are reassembled in the time domain. The resulting signal is subtracted from the original signal and the component of interest is synchronously detected. This process is repeated for each component.