Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “recorders”

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

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

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1987

The large Type 4 radio burst event of 24 April 1985 interpreted by dynamic spectral recordings and associated recordings

The Active Region 4647 showed a sudden increase in spot area on 23 April 1985 as well as an appearance of the D magneic configuration. During STIP interval XVII numerous subflares occurred in this region but only one very large event which exhibited all signatures of a classical p-event, well separated in time from other large events. The dynamic spectrum was observed at Bleien, Ondrejov, and Weissenau. The onset of radiation at m- and dm-waves is impulsive, and at dm-waves the preceeding dm continuum rises gradually. The absolute fluxes show very high readings of some 10 to the 4th power SFU at m-waves and some 5 x 10 to the 3d power at cm waves. High energy particles were observed about a day later by IMP 8. A Forbush decrease was seen on the neutron monitors but there was no GLE. The GOES X-ray flux monitors showed a gradual rise to high fluxes and a slow decrease over several hours. This information was extracted from Gdata but also from numerous letters from other observers and interpreters. More detailed data on the event and on the concomitant active region are to be presented.

Urbarz, H. W.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Determining the locations of the various CIRC recording format information blocks (user data blocks, C2 and C1 words and EFM frames) on a recorded compact disc

Just prior to its being EFM modulated (i.e., converted to eight-to-fourteen channel data by the EFM encoder) and written to a Compact Disc (CD), information that passes through the CIRC Block Encoder is grouped into 33-byte blocks referred to as EFM frames. Twenty four of the bytes that make up a given EFM frame are user data that was input into the CIRC encoder at various (different) times, 4 of the bytes of this same EFM frame were created by the C2 ECC encoder (each at a different time), and another 4 were created by the C1 ECC encoder (again, each at a different time). The one remaining byte of the given EFM frame, which is known as the EFM frame C&D (for Control & Display) byte, carries information that identifies which portion of the current disc program track the given EFM frame belongs to and also specifies the location of the given EFM frame on the disc (in terms of a time stamp that has a resolution of l/75th second, or 98 EFM frames). (Note: since the program track and time information is stored as a 98-byte word, a logical group consisting of 98 consecutive EFM frames must be read, and their respective C&D bytes must be catenated and decoded, before the program track identification and time position information that pertains to the entire block of 98 EFM frames can be obtained.) The C&D byte is put at the start (0th byte) of an EFM frame in real time; its placement completes the construction of the EFM frame - it is assigned just before the EFM frame enters the EFM encoder. Four distinct blocks of data are referred to: 24-byte User Input Data Blocks; 28-byte C2 words; 32-byte C1 words; and 33-byte EFM frames.

Howe, Dennis G.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Impact Record of a Asteroid Regolith Recorded in a Carbonaceous Chrondrite

C-class asteroids frequently exhibit reflectance spectra consistent with thermally metamor-phosed carbonaceous chondrites [1], or a mixture of phyllosilicate-rich material along with regions where they are absent [2]. One particularly important example appears to be asteroid 162173 Ryugu, the target of the Hayabusa 2 mission [1], although most spectra of Ryugu are featureless, suggesting a heterogeneous regolith [3]. Here we explore an alternative cause of dehydration of regolith of C-class asteroids - impact shock melting. Impact shock melting has been proposed to ex-plain some mineralogical characteristics of CB chondrites [4], but has rarely been considered a major process for hydrous carbonaceous chondrites [5]. Jbilet Winselwan (JW) is a very fresh CM breccia from Morocco, with intriguing characteristics. While some lithologies are typical of CM2s (Figure 1, top), other clasts show evidence of brief, though significant impact brecciation and heating. The first evidence for this came from preliminary petrographic and stable isotope studies [6,7]. We contend that highly-brecciated, partially-shocked, and dehydrated lithologies like those in JW dominate C-class asteroid regolith.

Zolensky, Michael↗
DOE OSTI2020

USACE FUSRAP Records Management Challenges in the Digital Age - 20242

In late 2016, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) implemented a Headquarters-supported nationwide records management initiative managed by the USACE-New England District to address the digitization and organization of Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) project files. This initiative will prepare USACE FUSRAP for moving toward a fully electronic system of records management. Additionally, the records management initiative streamlines the process and prepares the Administrative Record (AR) and Permanent Record (PR) file for transfer from USACE to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-Office of Legacy Management (LM) following project closeout. Over the past couple of years, USACE and DOE-LM have been working to finalize a joint guidance document to assist in the FUSRAP records transition process. However, there remain key records management topics that require further discussion and development. Specifically, these topics include the implementation, process, and procedure for the capture of social media records and compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC 794d), as amended. Due to advances in technology and the ease of communication it provides, USACE is using social media more often to interface with the public than 5, 10 or 15 years ago. The identification and capture of these records are challenging because it requires each USACE district or producer of a record to track what has been released through social media so that it can be captured as part of the AR or PR. USACE is currently evaluating processes and procedures for social media records capture. This paper explores how social media is being used by USACE across FUSRAP projects and best practices for the capture of social media records. Public accessibility to the project AR is required under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which USACE FUSRAP must follow. As USACE FUSRAP ARs are converted to a digital format, greater accessibility to the files can be provided through web sites or other electronic media. However, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act must be considered when releasing electronic files to the public. Under Section 508, government agencies must ensure that information is made available to the public in a format that provides equal access to persons with disabilities. This paper discusses the electronic records requirements under Section 508 and addresses broad implementation of compliance across large digital records sets. Records management challenges are presented in the context of the FUSRAP records management program; however, these records management considerations and best practices are applicable across all Federal agency records management programs. Examples presented will further aid in understanding electronic records requirements that may be included on new USACE FUSRAP contracts as well as upcoming National Archives Records Administration requirements that will move us toward an electronic government. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Recalculated based on data sourced from WestDAAT - Changed using a Site ID column to identify unique records to using aa combination of Site ID and Allocation ID - Removed the Water Management Area (WMA) column from the harmonized records. The replacement is a separate file which stores the relationship between allocations and WMAs. This allows for allocations to contribute to water right amounts to multiple WMAs during the subsequent cumulative process. - Added a column describing a water rights legal status - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category - Added an acre-foot (AF) column - Added a column for the classification of the right's owner v1.02 - Added a .RData file to the dataset as a convenience for anyone exploring our code. This is an internal file, and the one referenced in analysis scripts as the data objects are already in R data objects. v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description Here we present an updated database of Western U.S. water right records. This database provides consistent unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of seven broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of inter-sectoral water allocation changes though water markets (Grogan et al., *in review*). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, Water Balance Model (WBM), with a water rights module (Grogan et al., *in review*). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, water management in the U.S. West is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al., 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. West. We produced the water rights database presented here in four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) data quality control, (3) data harmonization, and (4) generation of cumulative water rights curves. Each of steps (1)-(3) had to be completed in order to produce (4), the final product that was used in the modeling exercise in Grogan et al. (*in review*). All data in each step is associated with a spatial unit called a Water Management Area (WMA), which is the unit of water right administration utilized by the state in which the right came from. Steps (2) and (3) required use to make assumptions and interpretation, and to remove records from the raw data collection. We describe each of these assumptions and interpretations below so that other researchers can choose to implement alternative assumptions an interpretation as fits their research aims. Motivation for Changing Data Sources The most significant change has been a switch from collecting the raw water rights directly from each state to using the water rights records presented in WestDAAT, a product of the Water Data Exchange (WaDE) Program under the Western States Water Council (WSWC). One of the main reasons for this is that each state of interest is a member of the WSWC, meaning that WaDE is partially funded by these states, as well as many universities. As WestDAAT is also a database with consistent categorization, it has allowed us to spend less time on data collection and quality control and more time on answering research questions. This has included records from water right sources we had previously not known about when creating v1.0 of this database. The only major downside to utilizing the WestDAAT records as our raw data is that further updates are tied to when WestDAAT is updated, as some states update their public water right records daily. However, as our focus is on cumulative water amounts at the regional scale, it is unlikely most records updates would have a significant effect on our results. The structure of WestDAAT led to several important changes to how HarWR is formatted. The most significant change is that WaDE has calculated a field known as `SiteUUID`, which is a unique identifier for the Point of Diversion (POD), or where the water is drawn from. This separate from `AllocationNativeID`, which is the identifier for the allocation of water, or the amount of water associated with the water right. It should be noted that it is possible for a single site to have multiple allocations associated with it and for an allocation to be able to be extracted from multiple sites. The site-allocation structure has allowed us to adapt a more consistent, and hopefully more realistic, approach in organizing the water right records than we had with HarDWR v1.0. This was incredibly helpful as the raw data from many states had multiple water uses within a single field within a single row of their raw data, and it was not always clear if the first water use was the most important, or simply first alphabetically. WestDAAT has already addressed this data quality issue. Furthermore, with v1.0, when there were multiple records with the same water right ID, we selected the largest volume or flow amount and disregarded the rest. As WestDAAT was already a common structure for disparate data formats, we were better able to identify sites with multiple allocations and, perhaps more importantly, allocations with multiple sites. This is particularly helpful when an allocation has sites which cross WMA boundaries, instead of just assigning the full water amount to a single WMA we are now able to divide the amount of water between the number of relevant WMAs. As it is now possible to identify allocations with water used in multiple WMAs, it is no longer practical to store this information within a single column. Instead the stAllocationToWMATab.csv file was created, which is an allocation by WMA matrix containing the percent Place of Use area overlap with each WMA. We then use this percentage to divide the allocation's flow amount between the given WMAs during the cumulation process to hopefully provide more realistic totals of water use in each area. However, not every state provides areas of water use, so like HarDWR v1.0, a hierarchical decision tree was used to assign each allocation to a WMA. First, if a WMA could be identified based on the allocation ID, then that WMA was used; typically, when available, this applied to the entire state and no further steps were needed. Second was the spatial analysis of Place of Use to WMAs. Third was a spatial analysis of the POD locations to WMAs, with the assumption that allocation's POD is within the WMA it should belong to; if an allocation still had multiple WMAs based on its POD locations, then the allocation's flow amount would be divided equally between all WMAs. The fourth, and final, process was to include water allocations which spatially fell outside of the state WMA boundaries. This could be due to several reasons, such as coordinate errors / imprecision in the POD location, imprecision in the WMA boundaries, or rights attached with features, such as a reservoir, which crosses state boundaries. To include these records, we decided for any POD which was within one kilometer of the state's edge would be assigned to the nearest WMA. Other Changes WestDAAT has Allowed In addition to a more nuanced and consistent method of assigning water right's data to WMAs, there are other benefits gained from using the WestDAAT dataset. Among those is a consistent categorization of a water right's legal status. In HarDWR v1.0, legal status was effectively ignored, which led to many valid concerns about the quality of the database related to the amounts of water the rights allowed to be claimed. The main issue was that rights with legal status' such as "application withdrawn", "non-active", or "cancelled" were included within HarDWR v1.0. These, and other water rights status' which were deemed to not be in use have been removed from this version of the database. Another major change has been the addition of the "unspecified water source category. This is water that can come from either surface water or groundwater, or the source of which is unknown. The addition of this source category brings the total number of categories to three. Due to reviewer feedback, we decided to add the acre-foot (AF) column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. We added the ownerClassification column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. File Descriptions The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. In addition, each file begins with the state's name, in case the file is separate from its sub-directory for some reason. After the state name is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file described in detail. Note that st is a placeholder for the state's name. stFullRecords_HarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the complete water records for each state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state to which the allocations belong to. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. siteID - The site location ID for POD locations. A site may have multiple allocations, which are the actual amount of water which can be drawn. In a simplified hypothetical, a farm stead may have an allocation for "irrigation" and an allocation for "domestic" water use, but the water is drawn from the same pumping equipment. It should be noted that many of the site ID appear to have been added by WaDE, and therefore may not be recognized by a given state's water rights database. allocationID - The allocation ID for the water right. For most states this is the water right ID, and what is recommended to use should a right be looked up on a given state's water rights database. The water amounts associated with these IDs tend to be finer scaled than those associated with siteID. It should be noted that some allocations may be extracted from multiple sites, particularly for larger Places of Use. ownerClassification - A classification of the types of owners for water rights. The most common is `Private` which incorporates a wide range of entities. Several classifications would be grouped into a government category, most of which are for the U.S. Federal Government. These allocations could be listed as "Federal", "United States of America", or as the names of any number of federal agencies. The last major grouping of entities is for "Native American"s. priorityDate - The date we use as the water right priority date for our modeling analysis. This is the legal priority date when it is available. However, for some rights, specifically from California and New Mexico, we used a pseudo priority date (e.g. well completion date or start of well drilling date) when a legal priority date was not available. The most questionable dates come from New Mexico, where the only date associated with certain water right records was the date the allocation was recorded in the database. As the allocation record creation tended to be within a few months of the filing of the application of the water right, from manually double checking the water rights, and our analysis focuses on aggregating water rights on the timescale of years, we determined it was acceptable to use such dates to include as many records as possible. primaryBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category for the primary water use at the PoD site. allocationBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories for WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category

Economics↗
NASA NTRS2004

Records Management: Preserving the Past to Make the Future

As an intern in the Records Management Office at NASA, I have learned the importance of records management and teamwork. I work in building 60 with Kevin Coleman, the Records and Forms Manager and History Officer, and Deborah Demaline, the senior records specialist. Prior to my internship, I had never paid attention to records and their role in operating a business. However, after my first assignment of identifying files and filling out a C-277 form, I realized the importance of preserving each file. Since NASA is a government agency, keeping our records in a safe and easily accessible area is a major priority. As the records have accumulated over the years, and the destruction of records has been put on hold due to the fairly recent tobacco litigation; the amount of NASA s records has been quickly accumulating. Currently, our records are stored at Plum Brook in Sandusky, Ohio. Recently, rain has leaked through the bunkers and caused damage to some of our records boxes. Plum Brook has been experiencing difficulty in finding the funds to repair the damage. NASA Glenn is reluctant to give Plum Brook more money because the staff at the Sandusky site has not shown us a detailed summary of what they are doing with the funds we give them annually. Even though storing our records at Plum Brook comes with little cost, there are plenty other companies that offer a records storage area and a special software database for easy record retrieval. My assignment is to do a feasibility study on these companies to see how they compare in providing the appropriate criteria for NASA Glenn's needs. Other research I am doing is on which companies will allow us to convert our physical records into an electronic database for quicker retrieval and to eliminate the cost of storing our records in a facility altogether. The two studies have required me to not only work closely with the Records Management Department, but also the Information Technology staff. It has been important for me to thoroughly understand the criteria both departments here at NASA Glenn need in order to make the system effective for the entire organization. The interaction that I am experiencing with different organizations within NASA Glenn and the various companies we are looking at has enhanced my communication skills. Without proficient communication skills, it is difficult to seek how each company meets all of NASA's standards. This includes webx conferences, teleconferences, face-to-face meetings, knowing the appropriate time to ask questions, knowing what those appropriate questions are, and most importantly, being a good listener. During the meetings and conferences I attend, I ensure that I understand where each party is coming from and listen carefully to the points people make. In addition to working with the feasibility study, I will later work on a marketing plan to encourage employees to take care in storing their records and learn the importance of the History Office. Also, the department is trying to develop a special presentation for new employees during their orientation. Assisting Deborah Demaline in taking inventory at Plum Brook is another task that must be done to ensure that the records have been properly placed.

Petro, Kathryn↗
DOE OSTI2023

Reassessing long-standing meteorological records: an example using the national hottest day in Ireland

This analysis highlights the potential value in reanalysing early national meteorological records from around the world. These were oftentimes measured via techniques that preceded standardisation of instrumentation and methods of observation and thus could be subject to considerable biases and uncertainties. This analysis uses the techniques pioneered by WMO record assessment teams. The highest currently recognised air temperature (33.3 °C) ever recorded in the Republic of Ireland was logged at Kilkenny Castle in 1887. The original observational record however no longer exists. Given that Ireland is now the only country in Europe to have a national heat record that was set in the 19th century, a reassessment of the verity of this record is both timely and valuable. The present analysis undertakes a fundamental reassessment of the plausibility of the 1887 temperature record using methods similar to those used to assess various weather extremes under WMO auspices over recent years. Specifically, we undertake an inter-station reassessment using sparse available records and make recourse to the new and improved 20CRv3 sparse-input reanalysis product. Neither surrounding available stations nor the reanalysis offer substantive support for the Kilkenny record of 33.3 °C being correct. Moreover, recent data rescue efforts have uncovered several earlier extreme values, one of which exceeds the Kilkenny value (33.5 °C on 16 July 1876 recorded at the Phoenix Park). However, the sparsity of early observational networks, a distinct lack of synoptic support from 20CRv3 for many of the extreme heat values, and the fact that these measurements were obtained using non-standard exposures lead us to conclude that there is grossly insufficient evidence to support any of these 19th century extremes as robust national heat record candidates. Data from the early 20th century onwards benefit from a denser network of stations undertaking measurements in a more standardised manner, many under the direct auspices of Met Éireann and its predecessors, adhering to WMO guidance and protocols. This enables more robust cross-checking of records. We argue that the Met Éireann-recognised 20th century heat record from Boora in 1976 is verified as the most plausible robust national temperature record based upon the synoptic situation and comparisons with nearby neighbouring stations. This measurement of 32.5°C thus likely constitutes the highest reliably recorded temperature measurement in the Republic of Ireland. Ultimately, the formal decision on any reassessment and reassignment of the national record rests with the national meteorological service, Met Éireann.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two-digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use(s) from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to include within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state. For those whom may be interested in exploring our code more in depth, we are also making available an internal data file for convenience. The file is in .RData format and contains everything described above as well as some minor additional objects used within the code calculating the cumulative curves. For completeness, here is a detailed description of the various objects which can be found within the .RData file: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. rightsByState_surface: A list of data frames with the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxFullHarmonizedRights.csv files. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page. The code related to the creation of this dataset can be viewed within HarDWR GitHub Repository/dataHarmonization.

Economics↗
NASA NTRS2005

NASA Records Database

The NASA Records Database, comprising a Web-based application program and a database, is used to administer an archive of paper records at Stennis Space Center. The system begins with an electronic form, into which a user enters information about records that the user is sending to the archive. The form is smart : it provides instructions for entering information correctly and prompts the user to enter all required information. Once complete, the form is digitally signed and submitted to the database. The system determines which storage locations are not in use, assigns the user s boxes of records to some of them, and enters these assignments in the database. Thereafter, the software tracks the boxes and can be used to locate them. By use of search capabilities of the software, specific records can be sought by box storage locations, accession numbers, record dates, submitting organizations, or details of the records themselves. Boxes can be marked with such statuses as checked out, lost, transferred, and destroyed. The system can generate reports showing boxes awaiting destruction or transfer. When boxes are transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the system can automatically fill out NARA records-transfer forms. Currently, several other NASA Centers are considering deploying the NASA Records Database to help automate their records archives.

Callac, Christopher↗
DOE OSTI2023

DATASET RELEASE AND QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW OF LIVERMORE NEVADA NETWORK (LNN) RECORDINGS OF A SUBSET OF NEVADA NUCLEAR SECURITY SITE NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS FROM 1979 TO 1992.

Geophysical research on historical nuclear tests is an important aspect of future monitoring capabilities in seismic research. This research is challenging due to the limited number of digital seismic recordings during the peak of nuclear testing (1945-1992). These limited records are unique and non-reproducible data with potential high research impact. Releasing available nuclear explosion seismic records to the explosion monitoring community is thus of high value and is the motivation for this dataset release. The target of this effort was on compilation and quality control of regional seismic records of nuclear explosions recorded on Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory stations ELK, KNB, LAC, and MNV, known collectively as the Livermore National Network (LNN) (Figure 1). LNN was established in the early 1960s for the primary purpose of monitoring underground nuclear testing at the former Nevada Test Site (NTS), now known as the Nevada Nuclear Security Site (NNSS) following the signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT). LNN consisted initially of short-period vertical component Benioff’s recorded on film located at Mina, NV (MNV) and Kanab, Utah (KNB). LNN added two additional stations at Landers, CA (LAC) and Elko, NV (ELK) in 1967 and upgraded equipment to broadband seismometers recorded on frequency modulation (FM) tapes from 1967-1979, followed by digital recordings after 1979 (Jarpe, 1989). The digital recordings were on a variety of now obsolete media, including 9-track, Exabyte, and DAT tapes. Jarpe (1989) describes the seismic station instrumentation details over the period of deployment. LNN recorded valuable non-repeatable unique data of several hundreds of nuclear explosions at NNSS, as well as earthquakes and chemical and mining explosions (Walter, 2020). The details of these nuclear tests are provided in the Department of Energy Report NV-209 Rev 16 (DOE, 2015).

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to included within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state.

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2020

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Switched source data from collecting records from each state independently to using the WestDAAT dataset v1.0 - Initial public release Description In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, as well as geospatial data defining the areas in which water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. In addition, while all states make their water rights publicly available, each provides their records in unique formats, meaning that file types, field availability, and terms vary from state to state. This leads to additional challenges to managing resources which cross state lines, or conducting consistent multi-state water analyses. For the first version of HarDWR, we collected the water rights databases from 11 Western States of the United States. In order to preform regional analyses with the collected data, the raw records had to be harmonized into one single format. The Water Data Exchange (WaDE) is a program dedicated to the sharing of water-related data for the Western U.S. in a singular consistent format. Created by the Western States Water Council (WSWC) to facilitate the collection and dissemination of water data among WSWC's member states and the public, WaDE provides an important service for those interested in water resource planning and management in their focus region. Of the services which WaDE provides, the one of the most interesting is the WestDAAT dataset, which is a collection of water rights data provided by the 18 WSWC member states that have been standardized into a single format, much like we had done on a more limited scale with HarDWR v1. For this version of HarDWR we decided to use WestDAAT, specifically a snapshot created in Feburary 2024, as our water rights source data. A full explanation of the benefits gained from this switch can be found in the description of the updated Harmonized Water Rights Records v2.0, but in short it has allowed us to focus more of our efforts on answering research questions and gaining a more realistic understanding of how water rights are allocated. For more information on how the data for WestDAAT was collected, please see the WaDE data summary. Terms of Use While WaDE works directly with the state agencies to collect and standardize the water rights records, the ultimate authority for the water rights data remains the individual states. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. As several of the states update their water rights databases daily, the information provided here is not the latest possible, and should not be used for legal purposes. WestDAAT itself has irregular updates. Additional questions about the data the source states provided should be directed to the respective state agencies (see methods.csv and organization.csv files described below). In addition, although data was presented here was not collected directly from the states, several states requested specifically worked disclaimers when sharing their data. These disclaimers are included here as an acknowledgement from where the water rights data is primarily sourced. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." File Descriptions The unmodified February, 2024 WestDAAT snapshot is composed of nine files. Below is a brief description of each file, as well as how they were utilized for HarDWR. WaDEDataDictionaryTerms.xlsx: As the file's name implies, this is a data dictionary for all of the below named files. This file describes the column names for each of the following files, with the exception of citation.txt which does not have any columns. The descriptions for each file are divided by tab,with the same name as their associated file, within this document. allocationamount.csv: The "main" file of the group, it contains the water right records for each state. Of particular note, each water right is broken down into one or more water allocations. Allocations may be withdrawn from one or more locations, or even multiple allocations associated with a particular location. This is a more subtle and realistic representation of how water is used than what was available in the first version of HarDWR. For the records from some states, this can mean that multiple allocations listed under a single right will appear as rows within this file. citation.txt: A combination of contact information for WaDE personnel, disclaimer about how the data should be used, and guidelines for citing WestDAAT. methods.csv: A file describing the source and method by which WaDE collected water rights data from each state. organization.csv: A file listing the water rights authoritative agencies for each state. sites.csv: This file provides the geographic, and other descriptors, of the physical location of allocations, called 'sites'. To reiterate, it is possible for one allocation to be associated with multiple sites, as well as one site to be associated with multiple allocations. The two descriptors which we were most interested in where the site's coordinates, as well as whether the site was classified as a Point of Diversion (POD) or a Place of Use (POU). As a general rule, PODs are geographic points, while POUs are areas typically represented as property boundaries or irregularly shaped polygons. sites_pouGeometry.csv: For those allocations with a POU site, this file contains the defining points for the associated polygons. variables.csv: A file describing the units in which an allocation's water amount is reported within WestDAAT. This information is essentially a repeat of the 'AllocationFlow_CFS' and 'AllocationVolume_AF' columns within allocationamount.csv, at least for our purposes. watersources: This file describes the source of water from which each site extracts from. For our purposes, this table was used to determine whether the water came from Surface Water, Groundwater, or Unspecified Water.

Lisk, Matthew↗
NASA NTRS1995

The use of ion mobility spectrometry and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry for the detection of illicit drugs on clandestine records

Illicit drug distribution has over the past decade grown tremendously from simple 'drug pushing' where drugs were distributed from poorly organized individuals to today's well organized and well financed drug cartels. This change to a more 'corporate-like' atmosphere has resulted in a greater use of record keeping to monitor the profits generated. The use of record keeping by drug distributors is not restricted to high level drug smugglers but is used at all levels within the distribution network. Dealers at all levels including street dealers are generally 'fronted', given on consignment quantities of drugs that they in turn sell to customers, thereby requiring the need for records to keep track of drug sales versus liabilities. These records because of their illicit nature are often encrypted to hide the fact that they are indeed records of drug transactions. The creation of a handwritten notation concerning a drug transaction is normally brought on because of a purchase or sale. In a sale, this is commonly accomplished through a consignment, or the designation of a quantity to a customer to whom that amount has been 'fronted'. Because this activity generates a debt, it follows that an accounting for payments made, as well as new transactions completed, is only logical. One of the most common means of representing these is through an 'accounting flow', in which payments are subtracted from a running balance while new sales are added to it. The examination of illicit drug records has been the key to the prosecution of numerous federal, state, and local drug cases for a number of years. The Document Section of the FBI Laboratory, through its Racketeering Records Analysis Unit (RRAU), has been involved in such analytical efforts since 1983. Detailed analytical research brought about an evolution in the systematic approach utilized in the RRAU since that time. The close proximity of the drugs to the records often results in trace drug evidence being transferred to the records. The detection of trace drug residue on surfaces by ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) is well documented in literature. The following procedure will deal primarily with the newer techniques of trace drug analysis and drug record analysis developed by the Chemistry/Toxicology Unit of the FBI Laboratory since the more traditional techniques of latent finger print analysis and document analysis are well known.

Donnelly, Brian↗
NASA NTRS1980

Digital optical recorder-reproducer system

A mass archival optical recording and reproduction system includes a recording light source such as a laser beam focussed and directed upon an acousto-optic linear modulator array (or page composer) that receives parallel blocks of data converted from a serial stream of digital data to be stored. The page composer imparts to the laser beam modulation representative of a plurality of parallel channels of data and through focussing optics downstream of the page composer parallel arrays of optical spots are recorded upon a suitable recording medium such as a photographic film floppy disc. The recording medium may be substantially frictionlessly and stably positioned for recording at a record/read station by an air-bearing platen arrangement which is preferably thermodynamically non-throttling so that the recording film may be positioned in the path of the information-carrying light beam in a static or dynamic mode. During readout, the page composer is bypassed and a readout light beam is focussed directly upon the recording medium containing an array of previously recorded digital spots, a sync bit, data positioning bits, and a tracking band. The readout beam which has been directed through the recording medium is then imaged upon a photodetector array, the output of which may be coupled to suitable electronic processing circuitry, such as a digital multiplexer, whereby the parallel spot array is converted back into the original serial data stream.

Reddersen, Brad R.↗
DOE OSTI2020

Comparison of heart rate obtained from shorter duration Holter recordings to 24-hour mean heart rate in dogs with atrial fibrillation

The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of short duration electrocardiographic (ECG) recordings extracted from ambulatory continuous ECG (Holter) to assess 24-hour mean heart rate in dogs with atrial fibrillation. In this retrospective study, Holter recordings obtained from 20 dogs with atrial fibrillation were selected for analysis. Ten out of 20 dogs were receiving drugs to control heart rate at the time of Holter evaluation. From the Holter recordings, heart rate averages were calculated for various sample durations (fiveminutes, 30 minutes, one-hour, two-hours, and three-hours) for each dog. Percentage of these shorter duration ECG obtained HR averages that fell within ±10%, ±15% and ± 20% of 24-hour mean heart rate was determined for each sample duration and for each dog. Seventy five percent of heart rate averages obtained from three-hour ECG recordings fell within ±10% of 24-hour mean HR. All the heart rate averages obtained from two-hour ECG recordings fell within ±20% of 24-hour mean heart rate. Based on the results of this study it can be concluded that the duration of the ECG recording affects the prediction accuracy for 24-hour Holter mean HR. Only two and three hours of Holter recordings provided all heart rate averages within ±20% of 24-hour mean heart rate. No significant differences were noted in the prediction accuracy of shorter duration ECG recordings based on rate control therapy status. Further prospective studies are needed to assess the accuracy of HR obtained at home using various ECG recording devices to predict 24-hour mean heart rate in dogs with atrial fibrillation.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a collection of objects stored within an RDate file, stateWaterRightsHarmonized.RData. Each object either describes how one should interact with the other objects, or contains the harmonized water rights data. Here is each object described in detail: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. The column headers for each data frame are: waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. allocatedFlow - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. rightsByState_surface: A list of the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, these lists are the merging of rightsByState_ground and rightsByState_surface by state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page.

Economics↗
NASA NTRS1991

A high data rate recorder for astronomy

A magnetic tape recorder developed for the special requirements of radio astronomy and geodesy is described. These requirements include a high bit packing density and long record times. The current version of this longitudinal recorder used by the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) records 5.5 Terabits on a 14-in diameter reel of inch-wide tape. A maximum record rate of 256 Mb/s is achieved in the VLBA configuration with one recorder operating at 4 ms and utilizing 32 of the heads in a single stack. The VLBA recorders have been tested using a longitudinal density of 2.25 fr/micron; 448 data + 56 system tracks are recorded in 14 passes, each lasting 50 min, for a total record time (at 128 Mb/s) of 12 h on 14-in diameter reel of inch-wide 13-microns-thick D1-equivalent tape.

Hinteregger, H. F.↗
NASA NTRS1993

The NT digital micro tape recorder

The description of an audio recorder may at first glance seem out of place in a conference which has been dedicated to the discussion of the technology and requirements of mass data storage. However, there are several advanced features of the NT system which will be of interest to the mass storage technologist. Moreover, there are a sufficient number of data storage formats in current use which have evolved from their audio counterparts to recommend a close attention to major innovative introductions of audio storage formats. While the existing analog micro-cassette recorder has been (and will continue to be) adequate for various uses, there are significant benefits to be gained through the application of digital technology. The elimination of background tape hiss and the availability of two relatively wide band channels (for stereo recording), for example, would greatly enhance listenability and speech intelligibility. And with the use of advanced high-density recording and LSI circuit technologies, a digital micro recorder can realize unprecedented compactness with excellent energy efficiency. This is what was accomplished with the NT-1 Digital Micro Recorder. Its remarkably compact size contributes to its portability. The high-density NT format enables up to two hours of low-noise digital stereo recording on a cassette the size of a postage stamp. Its highly energy-efficient mechanical and electrical design results in low power consumption; the unit can be operated up to 7 hours (for continuous recording) on a single AA alkaline battery. Advanced user conveniences include a multifunction LCD readout. The unit's compactness and energy-efficiency, in particular, are attributes that cannot be matched by existing analog and digital audio formats. The size, performance, and features of the NT format are of benefit primarily to those who desire improved portability and audio quality in a personal memo product. The NT Recorder is the result of over ten years of intensive, multi-disciplinary research and development. What follows is a discussion of the technologies that have made the NT possible: (1) NT format mechanics, (2) NT media, (3) NT circuitry and board.

Sasaki, Toshikazu↗