Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Well Clear Definition”

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.

23 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

SDSS J1058+5443: A Blue Quasar without Optical/NUV Broad Emission Lines

In this paper, the blue quasar SDSS J105816.19+544310.2 (=SDSS J1058+5443) at redshift 0.479 has been reported as the best true type 2 quasar candidate with the disappearance of central broad-line regions. There are no definite conclusions on the very existence of true type 2 active galactic nuclei (AGN), mainly due to detected optical broad emission lines in high-quality spectra of some previously classified true type 2 AGN candidates. Here, unlike previously reported true type 2 AGN candidates among narrow emission-line galaxies with weak AGN activities but strong stellar lights, the definitely blue quasar SDSS J1058+5443 can be well confirmed as a true type 2 quasar due to apparent quasar-shape blue continuum emissions but an apparent loss of both the optical broad Balmer emission lines and the near-UV (NUV) broad Mg II emission line. Based on different model functions and the F-test statistical technique, after considering blueshifted optical and UV Fe II emissions, there are no apparent broad optical Balmer emission lines and/or broad NUV Mg II lines, and the confidence level is smaller than 1σ in support of broad optical and NUV emission lines. Moreover, assuming the virialization assumption to broad-line emission clouds, the reconstructed broad emission lines strongly indicate that the probable intrinsic broad emission lines, if they exist, cannot be hidden or overwhelmed in the noise of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey spectrum of SDSS J1058+5443. Therefore, SDSS J1058+5443 is so far the best and most robust true type 2 quasar candidate, leading to the clear conclusion of the very existence of true type 2 AGN.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Actinide 5f Occupations: The Case of PuO 2

In actinide chemistry, the formal number of open-shell 5f electrons, n open , is a well-defined quantity with an integer value. The effective 5f occupation, n f , additionally takes donation and back-donation into account, generally has a non-integer value, and has varying numerical definitions. The present study explores the important distinction between n f and n open in actinide chemistry with the example of PuO2, by using electronic structure methods with a relativistic Hamiltonian in combination with experimental Pu M 5 -edge high-energy-resolution X-ray absorption and emission spectroscopic data. The total donation to the metal in PuO 2 is between 3.1 and 2.4 electrons, depending on the type of calculation, most of which is to the Pu 6d and 5f shells. The donation into 5f is sensitive to the approximations in the electronic structure model but likely amounts to 1.6/0.8 electrons when the diffuse regions of the 5f shell are included/excluded. Valence band resonant inelastic X-ray scattering experiments demonstrate that Pu 5f electron density is present in the valence band; thus, there is a clear experimental signature of covalent bonding in PuO 2 . Pu M 5 -edge and M 3 -edge high-energy-resolution X-ray absorption near-edge structures for Pu 3+ and Pu 4+ in an aqueous solution are compared to PuO 2 , showing that Pu in PuO 2 has an nf closer to Pu 4+ (aq).

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2024

An editorial to the Special Issue on “Severe climate Risks”

The history of this Special Issue (https://www.sciencedirect.com/special-issue/10JD7LNJNQ0) indirectly dates back to the early 1990s, when the signature of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change kicked-off an international political process based on one overarching and foundational principle: to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” at the global level. More than three decades later, such a principle remains central, though complementary aims made their way through the climate negotiation process, such as the importance of ensuring equity and justice, to give just one example here. Scientific knowledge also considerably progressed and we know more about the range of risks that climate change imposes and will continue to impose to the biosphere and humankind, worldwide and at all territorial levels. It is also clear that societal responses to these risks —“climate adaptation” as we know it— are increasingly happening, but definitely not at the pace of climate risk trends (Berrang-Ford et al., 2021, Erisken et al., 2021, Olazabal and Ruiz De Gopegui, 2021, Magnan et al., 2023a, Reckien et al., 2023, UNEP, 2023). As a result, concerns have emerged over the recent years in both the scientific and policy arenas around the idea that societies may not be able to address all climate risks, and that limits to adaptation and induced residual risks need to be considered more seriously. Such concerns further highlight the continuing importance of the imperative to minimise dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, at any scale. But what does “dangerous interference” mean? How can we decide that we are entering the “dangerous” space, compared to a broader range of climate risks that would qualify as problematic but not necessarily “dangerous”? Who should make such a decision? Which conditions drive risk severity over time, including in the future? And what would be the environmental, economic, social and cultural implications of prioritising some climate risks over others? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was a pioneer in addressing such questions through the development of the “Key Risks” framing that describes those climate risks having the potential to become dangerous or “severe” over the course of this century (Schellnhuber et al., 2006, Schneider et al., 2007, Oppenheimer et al., 2014, O’Neill et al., 2022). The Fifth and Sixth assessment cycles (AR5 and AR6) went a step further by identifying about 120 Key Risks across regions and sectors, and clustering them into 8 “Representative Key Risks” covering a range of geographical systems (low-lying coasts, and to terrestrial and ocean ecosystems), sectors (critical infrastructure, living standards, human health, food security, and water security) and human dimensions (peace and mobility) (Oppenheimer et al., 2014, O’Neill et al., 2022). This Special Issue was born of the efforts of a range of authors, during the development of the IPCC AR6 main Assessment Report between 2019 and 2022, to characterise Key Risks and Representative Key Risks, and advance knowledge on what shapes “severe climate risks” conceptually as well as in the real-world. The series of papers forming this Special Issue is not intended to cover the topic exhaustively, but rather to give readers an overview through the following narrative: defining “severe climate risks” is highly challenging (Magnan et al., 2023b), but knowledge is expanding on the driving climate hazards (Tebaldi et al., 2023) and their implications on geographical systems, sectors and human dimensions, using here food security (Mirzabaev et al., 2023), human mobility (Gilmore et al., 2024) and peace (Buhaug et al., 2023) as illustrative examples. The overall intention is to support especially decision-makers, whatever the scale or sector considered, in asking severity-driven questions to identify sector- and context-specific “priority” risks from climate change.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

A global urban heat island intensity dataset: Generation, comparison, and analysis

The urban heat island (UHI) effect, a phenomenon of local warming over urban areas, is the most well-known impact of urbanization on climate. Globally consistent estimates of the UHI intensity (UHII) are crucial for examining this phenomenon across time and space. However, publicly available UHII datasets are limited and have several constraints: (1) they are for clear-sky surface UHII, not all-sky surface UHII and canopy (air temperature) UHII; (2) the estimation methods often neglect anthropogenic disturbance, introducing uncertainties in the estimated UHII. To address these issues, this study proposes a new dynamic equal-area (DEA) method that can minimize the influence of various confounding factors on UHII estimates through a dynamic cyclic process. Utilizing the DEA method and leveraging various gridded temperature data, we develop a global-scale (>10,000 cities), long-term (over 20 years by month), and multi-faceted (clear-sky surface, all-sky surface, and canopy) UHII dataset. Further, based on these estimates, we provide a comprehensive analysis of the UHII and its trends in global cities. The UHII is found to be greater than zero in >80% of cities, with global annual average magnitudes around 1.0 °C (day) and 0.8 °C (night) for surface UHII, and close to 0.5 °C for canopy UHII. Furthermore, an interannual upward trend in UHII is observed in >60% of cities, with global annual average trends exceeding 0.1 °C/decade (day) and over 0.06 °C/decade (night) for surface UHII, and slightly surpassing 0.03 °C/decade for canopy UHII. Notably, there exists a positive correlation between the magnitude and trend of UHII, suggesting that cities with stronger UHII tend to experience faster growth in UHII. Additionally, discrepancies in UHII are found between different temperature data, stemming not only from distinctions in data types (surface or air temperature) but also from differences in data acquisition times (Terra or Aqua), weather conditions (clear-sky or all-sky), and processing methodologies (with or without gap filling). Overall, our proposed method, dataset, and analysis results have the potential to provide valuable insights for future urban climate studies. The UHII dataset is publicly available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24821538.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

The Role of Quantum Science Concepts in Enhancing Sensing and Imaging Technologies: Applications for Biology: Proceedings of a Workshop

Quantum concepts hold the potential to enable significant advances in sensing and imaging technologies that could be vital to the study of biological systems. The workshop Quantum Science Concepts in Enhancing Sensing and Imaging Technologies: Applications for Biology, held online March 8–10, 2021, was organized to examine the research and development needs to advance biological applications of quantum technology. Hosted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the event brought together experts working on state-of-the-art, quantum-enabled technologies and scientists who are interested in applying these technologies to biological systems. Through talks, panels, and discussions, the workshop facilitated a better understanding of the current and future biological applications of quantum-enabled technologies in fields such as microbiology, molecular biology, cell biology, plant science, mycology, and many others. The workshop was organized around three main themes. The first, quantum in biology, examined quantum concepts that are hypothesized to be important for life processes and that researchers are working to observe through biological imaging and sensing. The second, quantum for biology, addressed ways to use quantum concepts to enhance technologies for biological imaging and sensing. The third, biology for quantum, offered a wider discussion of how the frontiers of biological imaging and sensing could enable future study using quantum concepts, tools, or technologies. Throughout the workshop, participants identified a wide range of emerging approaches and opportunities at the intersection of quantum physics and biological sensing and imaging. During the workshop, there were some differences in how each speaker defined the term quantum. During one of the panels, Prem Kumar offered thoughts on what phenomena are classical versus quantum, explaining that techniques get progressively more quantum as you move from just having superposition to having superposition with measurement and entanglement. Another explanation from Clarice Aiello delineates the definition into several levels. This includes a base level of “quantum-ness,” which reflects that all matter is made of atoms, and when these particles are isolated they behave based on quantum mechanical principles. A second level is related to quantum coherence, where a single quantum object might be found in a coherent superposition state. A final level, which she described as the quantum-entangled level, involves multiple quantum systems which are entangled among themselves. Overall, the workshop touched on concepts such as superposition, entanglement, and squeezing and their potential implications for communication, computing, and simulation, in addition to the workshop’s main focal area, biological sensing and imaging. At the opening of the workshop, Thorsten Ritz of the University of California, Irvine, identified two questions at the heart of quantum biology: Is the machinery of life quantum mechanical, and can quantum mechanics be used to study the machinery of life in new ways? Participants highlighted systems in which researchers have explored these questions, from the vast array of molecular interactions involved in biological processes such as photosynthesis, to the mechanics involved in cellular functions such as differentiation and aggregation, to the role of oscillating magnetic fields in flight orientation among birds. Sensing and imaging technologies are crucial to biological research; these technologies could both enhance the study of quantum effects and be enhanced by quantum concepts. A critical challenge in biological research is to develop imaging and sensing tools that do not damage or interfere with the often fragile and fleeting systems being studied. Attendees discussed a variety of established and emerging technologies that could enhance noninvasive biological imaging, including single- and two-photon spectroscopy, single-molecule spectroscopy, quantum illumination, ghost imaging, and cryo-electron microscopy. One example came from Marlan Scully who gave a keynote address on the first day of the workshop. Scully emphasized the use of different laser technologies, which exhibit coherence and other quantum properties, in moving toward real-world biological applications, such as the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Both tools and theory will play an important role in advancing quantum biology research and applications. Several participants suggested theorists and experimentalists should work in tandem to understand and model biological processes. While physics often reduces systems to their simplest forms for fundamental insights, participants also noted the value of observing and understanding biological systems in all their “messiness,” capturing both the inner workings of biological systems and the complex interactions that occur within and between organisms. In discussions among participants, several attendees stressed the need to match emerging tools with the right scientific questions. Rather than developing quantum technologies as “a hammer looking for a nail,” participants emphasized a focus on exploring the problems these technologies are best suited to address. For example, it is important to consider the size of the phenomenon being studied, the timescales that are important in answering the scientific question, and other relevant considerations. Every tool along the spectrum from classical to quantum involves its own set of trade-offs. For example, Ted Laurence of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory said that quantum measurements, such as single photon counting, fluorescence transitions, and lasers, can take longer to produce the same results as classical measurements. These quantum measurements, however, do not require calibration and can enable new research questions to be answered. Prem Kumar, Northwestern University, noted that, despite their promise, quantum approaches should not be used simply for the sake of using quantum, especially in situations where classical approaches better meet the needs of the researcher. Understanding and applying quantum concepts could enable advances in a wide range of application areas including energy, synthetic biology, medicine, and sustainability. For example, Michelle O’Malley, University of California, Santa Barbara, described how improved noninvasive imaging approaches could help capture the complex interactions and functions involved in the breakdown of organic matter by microbial communities and lead to new technologies for capturing valuable products from plant waste. Several other participants discussed needs in tracking the movement of metabolites and molecules in microbial communities for insights into nutrient cycling in environments such as soil. Margaret Ahmad, Sorbonne University, discussed potential opportunities to leverage the magnetic properties of cryptochromes to advance new treatment approaches for diseases such as COVID-19 and cancer. Looking toward the future development of the field, participants discussed challenges to advancing quantum biology that arise from disciplinary disconnects between physicists and biologists. The siloing of academic research disciplines represents a significant barrier to progress. Disconnects in terminology, motivations and priorities, and structural barriers to collaborative work underscore the need for concerted efforts to bridge these divides. Attendees and speakers offered suggestions for resolving these divergences, establishing a shared language, moving the field forward, and fostering meaningful feedback between disciplines. Overall, participants stressed a need for balance, open communication, collaboration, unity, and clear dialogue on trade-offs between quantum and classical approaches. Keiko Torii, The University of Texas at Austin, said that the best collaborations happen when the project provides mutual advantages that can show off everyone’s talents, each team finds the work interesting, and partners develop a camaraderie to pursue new knowledge. To enable near- and long-term opportunities in this space, participants suggested that exploratory, high-risk funding could improve existing instrumentation to explore quantum enhancement collaboratively. They also emphasized the need for collaboration between quantum physicists and sensing/imaging scientists, which could be advanced through a dedicated quantum biology investigator program. People, even more than technology, will be crucial to the future of quantum biology. Participants explored training, education, and workforce needs to further develop this burgeoning field and cultivate the next generation of scientists. While many programs are still in their nascent stages, participants highlighted examples of approaches and programs being developed at various types of institutions to engage students and professional scientists in quantum biology research. Several participants stressed the need for an inclusive approach, spanning disciplines as well as communities to foster a diverse field fueled by the intellectual contributions of a wide range of people, including historically under-resourced schools and students. To increase awareness and excitement about quantum physics and related areas of biology, attendees suggested capitalizing on the “buzz” around quantum. Several participants emphasized the need to start early, introducing students to quantum concepts and their appealing “weirdness” in K–12 education. Engaging students early—before they become entrenched in traditional disciplinary siloes as typically happens in graduate school—could help to galvanize interest in the area and foster a generation of scientists with the interdisciplinary mindset and skills needed to advance this interdisciplinary field. While these efforts could be advanced at many levels and across multiple sectors, several participants suggested a national quantum biology center could be a valuable hub to coordinate and support quantum biology education and workforce development across academia, industry, and government.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗