Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “magnetic force microscopy”

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.

438 records · Page 25
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2005

Chapter 19B - Antenna Radiation Patterns

Modern civil and military aircraft are equipped with a variety of communication devices, radio navigation equipment, and air traffic control systems. For all of these devices appropriate antennas must be available to transmit and receive the signals. As a result, as many as 30 antennas, and sometimes even more, are mounted around today's aircraft. For this reason, it is necessary to know the capabilities of the receiving/transmitting equipment on board. These capabilities are driven by the antenna characteristics. Therefore, coverage, shading, and beam pointing pattern data are necessary for optimum electronic coverage. The aircraft antenna has to convert the available power density of the electromagnetic field to an electric voltage at its connector. This voltage level must be sufficiently high to operate the connected equipment. The reciprocity principle states that it makes no difference if the antenna is receiving or transmitting. For the certification of the aircraft antennas it must be proven that the antennas are at least generating the minimum receiver input voltage which is required for each radio service. The prime condition is, of course, that the specified field power densities of the different radio navigation and communication services are available. An important property of a radio frequency link is the electro-magnetic field intensity at every point in space for a given output power of the antenna. As the propagation of radio frequency waves in free space is well known, the spatial distribution of the field intensity needs only be measured at one spatial sphere around the antenna. The information is usually given as distributions along the circumference of flat sections through this sphere: each of these is called an ARP. Several ARPs are usually required to describe the complete spatial antenna pattern of an antenna. In addition to mathematical modeling, measurements on sub-scale models, and static measurements on full size models or aircraft on the ground, dynamic measurements on aircraft in flight play the most important role in the aircraft antenna testing and certification. [19B-1] The shape of an ARP, for one given frequency, is determined by the shape of the antenna and the shape and material of the surface it is mounted on. As the directly transmitted waves interfere with waves reflected by the aircraft skin with its complex geometry, and the surface material parameters are only roughly known, it is not possible to predict the ARP with the required accuracy. In ground measurements the earth's surface also acts as a reflector thereby causing the ground ARP to be different from the in-flight ARP. As the in-flight ARP is the ARP we are actually interested in it becomes clear that it is necessary to conduct in-flight ARP measurements. The Flight Test Engineer must be aware of the needs of the specialists who are establishing the test program for measuring antenna patterns and radar cross sections. These tests will require special test equipment and dedicated flights to obtain the data that they require. This Section provides an introduction to the principles of determining antenna patterns and the flight techniques for determining both antenna patterns and radar cross section. Reference 19B-1 provides detailed information.

Helmut Bothe↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

High-Order Methods in NASA’s Next Generation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Tools

The missions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) routinely produce unique requirements and challenges for development and application of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) methods. NASA presently embodies four distinct Mission Directorates: Aeronautics Research, Exploration Systems, Science, and Space Operations. These missions generate requirements for systems that operate in a wide variety of environments. They range from the high-speed flight of aerodynamically optimized vehicles operating in the earth’s atmosphere to spacecraft designed for missions that don’t favor aerodynamic optimization, some operating in the atmosphere of planets and planetary moons such as Mars and Venus or Saturn’s moon Titan. Systems supporting these vehicles, such as rocket and jet propulsion, reaction control systems, fluid and thermal transfer systems, etc. can also generate their own unique set of flow phenomena that challenge today’s CFD methodology. Through the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC), NASA annually conducts state-of-the-discipline assessments in fifteen distinct engineering disciplines. These assessments are performed by the NASA Technical Fellows that lead Technical Discipline Teams (TDT) of recognized experts in these fifteen areas. In the Aerosciences discipline, three topics have been identified as the top challenges for the discipline: aero-plume interaction prediction, unsteady separated flows, and aerothermodynamic prediction. These challenge areas are defined by the Agency’s high-risk projects and problems on which the NESC is requested to perform independent testing, analysis, and assessments. When viewed as a whole, these tests, analyses, and assessments provide a clear view of the recurring technical challenges facing Agency engineers and researchers and can be used to guide future research and technology development. The present state-of-the-art in the application of CFD at NASA is the use of Reynolds-Averaged Navier- Stokes (RANS) solvers, primarily executed in a steady-state mode of operation. In isolated cases, Unsteady RANS (URANS) solvers have been employed when steady RANS solutions produce poorly converging or oscillating results or in cases, such as aeroelastic analysis, which require unsteady aerodynamic simulation. For most traditional external and internal aerodynamic flows, structured overset grids or unstructured grids are employed to minimize geometric modeling and grid generation times. Grid adaptation, primarily as a series of coarse-grain intermediate processing steps is also seeing use on particularly complex flow problems and configurations. In the case of aerothermodynamic flows, engineers have been forced to continue to employ structured grid techniques as the present unstructured grid methodology has proven inadequate in the prediction of surface heating. In the area of aero-plume interaction modeling, two-gas, frozen chemistry simulation is generally the state-of-the- art, with some production solvers capable of predicting flows with only a single gas component. Prediction of flows falling into the afore-mentioned top Aerosciences technical challenges have severely stressed the present state-of-the-art in CFD prediction and for some problems, such as unsteady separated flows and aero-plume interaction cases, engineers have begun employing Large Eddy Simulation (LES) and Hybrid RANS/LES techniques. In some isolated aero-propulsion interaction cases, chemically reacting flow simulations have been applied. These methods are highly evolutionary and engineers have little experience in their application, so they cannot be heavily relied upon in today’s application environment. Therefore, this leads one to muse over which numerical technologies will be included in the CFD tools that will be employed 30 years in the future. This presentation will describe specific technical problems that have stressed NASA’s traditional CFD methods to their breaking point and will link these issues to the Agency’s top Aerosciences technical challenges. The discussion will then shift to the characteristics of future CFD solvers that will be required to attack these challenges and how these characteristics differ from the present state-of-the- art. High-order methods certainly appear to have a place in the development of future CFD tools and some of the physical characteristics of our most challenging problems suggest that high-order methods are the only way to effectively solve them. But there are some relatively severe implementation issues that face these methods, particularly in the area of general applicability and robust operation as an engineering tool. Desired characteristics of next-generation CFD solvers will be discussed and the author’s view of which emerging numerical technologies might be employed to address these attributes will also be presented

David M Schuster↗
DOE OSTI2026

Anomalous Spin‐Optical Helical Effect in Ti‐Based Kagome Metal

The kagome lattice stands as a rich platform for hosting a wide array of correlated quantum phenomena, ranging from charge density waves and superconductivity to electron nematicity and loop current states. Direct detection of loop currents in kagome systems has remained a formidable challenge due to their intricate spatial arrangements and the weak magnetic field signatures they produce, and this has made their identification experimentally subtle. This has left their existence and underlying mechanisms a topic of intense debate. In this work, we uncover signatures compatible with loop currents: spin handedness-selective signals that surpass conventional dichroic, spin, and spin-dichroic responses. We observe this phenomenon in the kagome metal CsTi 3 ⁢Bi 5 and we call it the anomalous spin-optical helical effect. This effect arises from the coupling of light's helicity with spin-orbital electron correlations, thereby providing an indirect yet sensitive approach to probe loop-current–related electronic correlations in quantum materials. Our discovery not only enriches the debate surrounding loop currents but also offers new experimental strategies to exploit the electronic phases of quantum materials via light–matter interaction.

anomalous spin-optical helical effect↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Phosphate Textural Diversity in CI Chondrites and C-Type Asteroids

Introduction: Apatite, Ca 5 (PO 4 ) 3 (CL/F/OH-), is a ubiquitous phosphate found throughout the solar system, including the most primitive solids, CI-chondrites [1,2] and related samples of carbonaceous asteroids Ryugu [3] and Bennu [4], returned by JAXA’s Hayabusa2 and NASA’s OSIRIS-REx missions, respectively. Apatite in these primitive solids is found as individual grains or mineral clusters and has been inferred to form from the hydrothermal sequence during cooling of their respective parent body or bodies. To better understand the formation history and reworking of these early phosphates we have undertaken a highly coordinated study of phosphate microstructures, geochemistry and U/Pb geochronology from a suite of CI meteorites and carbonaceous asteroid samples. These data have identified novel phosphate microstructures and complex relationships across a suite of apatite grains from the early solar system, indicating multiple episodes of growth and modification on the CI parent body(ies). Methods: Samples of CI chondrites, Alais, Ivuna, Orgueil, Oued Chebeika 002, Yamato (Y) 82162, Y980115, Y980134, and two chips of Hayabusa2 Ryugu particles (A0262 and C0263) have been acquired for analysis. The bulk texture of the samples were first scanned by X-ray Computed Tomography (XCT) using the Nikon XT H 320 within the XFACT facility at NASA JSC or the Xradia 620 Versa at the UTCT facility. Based on the identification of petrofabrics or features of interest from the XCT data, samples were chipped, oriented, potted in epoxy and thick sections were prepared. After anhydrously polishing the samples with silicon carbide and dry diamond powder down to 1 µm, the samples were ion polished using a Hitachi ArBlade. Energy dispersive Xray spectrometry (EDS) maps were collected to ID phosphates of interest using a JEOL 7900F SEM. The internal microstructures of identified phosphates were then mapped by electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) using the JEOL 7900F. Based on the EDS and EBSD data, domains of interest were targeted for quantitative chemical analyses using a JEOL 8530 EPMA. Subsequently, in situ U-Pb and 207 Pb/ 206 Pb ages will be collected using a Cameca ims1290 secondary ion mass spectrometer at UCLA across a range of microstructures. Results: Apatite grains are ubiquitous throughout the CI chondrites and carbonaceous asteroid materials, found as individual grains, disseminated clusters or grain aggregates. Apatite grains are associated with serpentine, magnet-ite, and/or carbonate. Of particular interest, we have identified individual and aggregate polycrystalline grains ex-hibiting an internal ‘honeycomb’ texture (Fig. 1). Some of these grains appear overprinted by subsequent alteration while others remain unaltered. Apatite halogen sites are dominated by the missing component, assumed to be OH, and F, comparable to published values from Bennu, Ryugu and CM-chondrites [3-5]. However, the Yamato CI-like meteorites show a broader range of Cl values, and one grain from Alais is dominated by CL. Summary: Apatite growth features indicate a protracted and complex growth history, consistent with precipitation from an evolving fluid system. The ‘honeycomb’ texture identified in some CI meteorites is, to the best of our knowledge, the first report of such a microstructure in meteoritic phosphate. The microtextures and zoning will guide subsequent age analyses, to better constrain the formation and reworking of phosphate in CI(-like) materials. Acknowledgments: We thank the National Institute of Polar Research, Japan for samples of Y82162, 980115 and 980134 meteorites, ASU’s Buseck Center for Meteorite Studies for samples of Ivuna and Alais meteorites, and JAXA curation for chips of Ryugu material. This work was funded by NASA ROSES LARS grant 24-LARS24-0014. References: [1] Morlok et al., 2016, GCA 70:5371-5394. [2] Alfin g et al., 2019, Geochemistry 79:125532. [3] Nakamura et al. (2022) Science 379:1-15. [4] Seifert et al. (2026) MAPS 61:504-521. [5] Piralla et al. (2021) MAPS 56:809-828.

CI chondrites↗
DOE OSTI2026

Tokamak Energy’s pre-concept design for a fusion power plant: an overview of ST-E1

Climate change and rapidly rising energy demand, driven in part by artificial intelligence and data-centre growth, create an urgent need for stable, low-carbon, and abundant power. Fusion is a promising long-term solution, yet its commercialisation faces a fundamental paradox in today’s investment environment: pilot plants are essential to de-risk physics, engineering, and operations, but their limited lifetime energy output and high upfront costs make them difficult to finance. This paper presents Tokamak Energy’s response: ST-E1, a pre-concept design for a low-aspect-ratio tokamak power plant engineered specifically to overcome this challenge. ST-E1 is designed from the outset for phased operation—pilot and commercial phases, with an upgrade phase in between—with emphasis on commercial viability, maintainability, nuclear engineering, modularity, and upgradability. A key design principle is the deliberate separation of long-lived assets, such as the magnet cage and vacuum vessel, from replaceable in-vessel systems. This provides an attractive and credible investment approach to generate operational data and de-risk key technologies while preserving most capital-intensive assets for later commercial phases. The architecture supports continuous optimisation toward high net electric power (targeting 800–1000 MW net electric), a normalised capital expenditure of $\$$ 12–14k/kW of net electric power, and high availability (targeting > 80%). A tokamak core with a 5 m major radius, aspect ratio of 2.3, and on-plasma axis toroidal field of 5.25 T was selected to meet these objectives. This paper summarises the ST-E1 design philosophy, principal features, and development methodology. It introduces a Focus Collection of 11 papers detailing the pre-concept design of the entire tokamak and corresponding plant.

ST-E1↗
DOE OSTI2026

HydraGNN_Predictive_GFM_2026 - Ensemble of predictive graph foundation models for atomistic materials modeling

This release contains data and parameters of HydraGNN-based graph foundation models trained as a result of the work published in the pre-print "Exascale Multi-Task Graph Foundation Models for Imbalanced, Multi-Fidelity Atomistic Data" by M. Lupo Pasini et al. (https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15380). We jointly train on 16 open first-principles datasets (544+ million structures covering 85+ elements) using a multi-task architecture with per-dataset heads and a scalable ADIOS2/DDStore data pipeline. On Frontier, we execute six large-scale DeepHyper hyperparameter optimization campaigns in FP64 and promote the top-performing message-passing models to sustained 2,048-node training, yielding a PaiNN-based lead model. The version of HydraGNN used to generate the outputs provided in this release is HydraGNN v5.0 (https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0) The list of datasets used for the training of the graph foundation model is the following: 1) Alexandria [1] 2) ANI1x [2] 3) MPTrj [3] 4) Open Catalyst 2020 (OC20) [4] 5) Open Catalyst 2022 (OC22) [5] 6) Open Catalyst 2025 (OC25) [6] 7) Open Direct ir Capture 2023 (ODAC23) [7] 8) Open Materials 2024 (OMat24) [8] 9) Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25) [9] 10) OMol25-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with zero total charge) 11) OMol25-non-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with non-zero total charge) 12) Open Polymers 2026 (OPoly2026) [10] 13) Nabla2DFT [11] 14) QCML [12] 15) QM7X [reference 13] 16) transition1x [14] Dataset references: [1] J. Schmidt et al., “A dataset of 175k stable and metastable materials calculated with the PBEsol and SCAN functionals,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 64, 2022. [2] J. S. Smith et al., “The ANI-1ccx and ANI-1x data sets, coupled-cluster and density functional theory properties for molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 7, p. 134, 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0473-z [3] A. Jain et al., “Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation,” APL Materials, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 011002, 07 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4812323 [4] L. Chanussot et al., “Open catalyst 2020 (oc20) dataset and community challenges,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 6059–6072, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.0c04525 [5] K. Tran et al., “Open catalyst 2022 (oc22) dataset and challenges for oxidation electrocatalysts,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 3066–3084, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.2c05426 [6] S. J. Sahoo et al., “The open catalyst 2025 (oc25) dataset and models for solid-liquid interfaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.17862, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17862 [7] A. Sriram et al., “The open DAC 2023 dataset and challenges for sorbent discovery in direct air capture,” ACS Central Science, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 923–941, 2024. [8] L. Barroso-Luque et al., “Open materials 2024 (omat24) inorganic materials dataset and models,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12771 [9] D. S. Levine et al., “The open molecules 2025 (OMol25) dataset, evaluations, and models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08762 [10] D. S. Levine et al., The open polymers 2026 (OPoly26) dataset and evaluations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23117, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.23117 [11] K. Khrabrov et al., “Nabla2dft: A universal quantum chemistry dataset of drug-like molecules and a benchmark for neural network potentials,” in NeurIPS 2024 Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=ElUrNM9U8c [12] S. Ganscha et al., “The QCML dataset, quantum chemistry reference data from 33.5M DFT and 14.7B semi-empirical calculations,” Scientific Data, vol. 12, p. 406, 2025. [13] J. Hoja et al., “QM7-X, a comprehensive dataset of quantum-mechanical properties spanning the chemical space of small organic molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 8, p. 43, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-021-00812-2 [14] M. Schreiner et al., “Transition1x - a dataset for building generalizable reactive machine learning potentials,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 779, 2022. The folder "datasets_ADIOS2_format" contains the set of pre-processed datasets in Adaptable I/O System (ADIOS) format (https://www.exascaleproject.org/research-project/adios/) that have been used for the development and training of GFMs in this work. The "datasets_ADIOS2_format" directory contains 2 sub-directories, one for the version "v1" of the datasets and one for the version "v2" of the datasets. The version "v1" of the datasets provides values of the total energy as they are extracted from the original data as it was released by the respective institutions. The version "v2" of the datasets provides values of the energy that have been realigned. The realignment was performed by training a linear regression model that predicts the total energy as a function of the chemical composition of the atomistic structure, and then subtract such prediction from the original value of the total energy. Both folders "v1" and "v2" contain 16 sub-directories, each corresponding to an ADIOS2-formatted dataset The folder "DeepHyper-results" contains the configurational files and model's parameters for all the 186 HPO trials that were successfully completed by the scalable hyperparameter optimization (HPO) runs on Frontier. The content of the folder "DeepHyper-results" I structured as follows: 1) task-list.txt: list of mpnn name, jobid, and deephyper task id 2) gfm_${MPNN}_${JOBID}_0.${TASKID}: run directory with checkpoint files 3) gfm_${MPNN}: deephyper summary directory (*.csv) for each specific MPNN type 4) deephyper-experiment-${JOBID}: output and error logs for each job The file "deephyper-sorted.csv" contains the details of each HydraGNN model built and tested by HPO, obtained by merging the (*.csv) filed from each HPO run executed. Out of all the HPO trials, we selected 10 to continue the training of the respective HydraGNN models. Due to limited computational budget available in the LRN070 allocation we could not complete the training till convergence for all these 10 selected models. The folder "models" contains multiple sub-folders, one per each HydraGNN model trained. Each model sub-folder contains the parameters of each HydraGNN model, with multiple checkpoint-restarts. The list of sub-folders are as follows: 1) multidataset_hpo-BEST1-fp64 2) multidataset_hpo-BEST2-fp64 3) multidataset_hpo-BEST3-fp64 4) multidataset_hpo-BEST4-fp64 5) multidataset_hpo-BEST5-fp64 6) multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64 7) multidataset_hpo-BEST7-fp64 8) multidataset_hpo-BEST8-fp64 9) multidataset_hpo-BEST9-fp64 10) multidataset_hpo-BEST10-fp64 Within each one of these folders, additional auxiliary log files are provided with descriptions about how the training proceeded. The lead PaiNN-model is contained inside "multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64". The file "mlp_branch_weights" contains the parameters of the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) used to reconcile the predictions of the 16 output decoding heads of the HydragNN architectures. The MLP takes in input the chemical composition of the atomistic structure and predicts averaging weights to linearly mix the predictions of each output decoding head toward consolidating them into a single one. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 1.1 billion atomistic structures randomly generated. Each structures is associated with energy and forces predicted with the lead-PaiNN model combined with the MLP model for reconciliation of the multi-branch predictions generated by the 16 output decoding heads. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 9,300 (*.tar.gz) subdirectories, one per Frontier compute node used to execute the inference at exascale. Once uncompressed, each (*.tar.gz) subdirectory contains an ADIOS2 (*.bp) file container, where each atomistic structure is stored as a PyTorch-Geometric Data object. The file "export_dataset_environment_variables.sh" contains the environment variables that need to be set before running the HydraGNN code to reproduce the results provided in this dataset release. The code that can be used to load the ADIOS2 files, load HydraGNN models, and run inference is available at: https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗