Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Son”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

CPC data from TAMU TRACER campaign in the Houston, TX region from July to September 2022

During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow is directed through a cyclone impactor (Brechtel, Inc. Model SCC 0.732) and 0.3 LPM is directed to the CPC. To correct the data for particle losses, we used a two-step method. First, the measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate total particle loss through the inlet for every SMPS scan at a single deployment location. Second, the CPC data was corrected for particle losses using the average of the total losses per scan. This calculation was done separately for each deployment location due to changes in the measured size distributions between locations. Particle loss from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949), inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977), and cyclone impactor efficiency (based on Dirgo, 1985) were included in the loss calculation. When the SMPS was not sampling at a location (in the case of an instrument malfunction or operator error), the reported CPC data was corrected with an average of the total losses for the entire campaign at the specified deployment location (e.g., if we needed to correct Galveston data, then the average of all calculated losses at Galveston was taken). These flatline corrections were used for all data on 22/07/13, 22/07/20, 22/07/22, and the data from Galveston on 22/08/09. An additional flatline correction of 14% was applied to all CPC data based on laboratory calibration prior to and after the campaign. In laboratory calibrations, we identified that for the same sample of air the field CPC (GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC) undercounted the total concentration of particles by 14% compared to the ground truth laboratory CPC (TSI Model 3750). This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977. Dirgo et. al. Cyclone Collection Efficiency: Comparison of Experimental Results with Theoretical Predictions. Aerosol Science and Technology, 4:4, 401-415, 1985.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

CCN data from TAMU TRACER campaign in the Houston TX region from July to September 2022

During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow is directed through a cyclone impactor (Brechtel, Inc. Model SCC 0.732) and 0.5 LPM is directed to the CCN. To calculate particle losses, we used a two-step method. First, the measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate particle loss through the inlet during sampling. Second, the corrected SMPS data was used to calculate the average of the total losses per scan down the CCN line. Then, the correction was applied to the CCN data. This calculation was done separately for each deployment location due to changes in the measured size distributions between locations. Particle loss from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949), inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977), and cyclone impactor efficiency (based on Dirgo, 1985) were included in the loss calculation. When the SMPS was not sampling at a location (in the case of an instrument malfunction or operator error), the reported CPC data was corrected with an average of the total losses for the entire campaign at the specified deployment location (e.g., if we needed to correct Galveston data, then the average of all calculated losses at Galveston was taken). These flatline corrections were used for all data on 22/07/13, 22/07/20, 22/07/22, and the data from Galveston on 22/08/09. The supersaturation uncertainty is estimated conservatively at +/- 0.03%, where variation in the inlet temperature, pressure, and calibration technique prevents a more accurate measurement. Confidence in the reported supersaturation measurements is based on a pre-campaign calibration (following the methods from our previous work and Deng, 2014 based on Rose, 2008) in addition to inter-comparisons with the DOE for two days (22/08/18 and 22/09/01) where TAMU was co-located with AMF1. The inter-comparisons show good agreement between our instrument and the DOEs instrument on both days at all supersaturations. After the last inter-comparison on 22/09/01, there was no indication of a malfunction by our instrument through the rest of the campaign. Unfortunately, the instrument was dropped during demobilization. A post-campaign calibration was conducted, which showed a substantial departure from the pre-campaign calibration. The drop may have damaged the instrument’s ability to produce the desired supersaturations. Therefore, we do consider the data after 22/09/01 to be correct, but it should be used with caution. The CCN counter sampled for 3 minutes at each supersaturation setpoint (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%). At the end of a cycle, the instrument was set to 0.01% supersaturation for 5 minutes. The data is comprised of the last 60 seconds of each supersaturation set point (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%) to ensure the instrument stabilized and was able to reach thermal equilibrium. We removed the data during the periods where there were operational difficulties, setup, or maintenance. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Rose et. al. Calibration and Measurement Uncertainties of a Continuous-Flow Cloud Condensation Nuclei Counter (DMT-CCNC): CCN Activation of Ammonium Sulfate and Sodium Chloride Aerosol Particles in Theory and Experiment. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 1153-1179, 2008. Deng et. al. Using Raman Microspectroscopy to Determine Chemical Composition and Mixing State of Airborne Marine Aerosols over the Pacific Ocean. Aerosol Science and Technology, Vol 48, Issue 2, 2014. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977. Dirgo et. al. Cyclone Collection Efficiency: Comparison of Experimental Results with Theoretical Predictions. Aerosol Science and Technology, 4:4, 401-415, 1985.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

SMPS data from TAMU TRACER campaign in the Houston TX region from July to September 2022

During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow, 1.0 LPM, is directed through TSI's 0.071 cm impactor attached to the classifier of the SMPS setup. The SMPS’s DMA and CPC are connected through a 20.3 cm length of 0.48 cm diameter tubing. Measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate size-dependent particle losses for each SMPS scan. Particle losses from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949) and inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977) were included in the loss calculation. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Selective high-affinity polydentate ligands and methods of making such

This invention provides novel polydentate selective high affinity ligands (SHALs) that can be used in a variety of applications in a manner analogous to the use of antibodies. SHALs typically comprise a multiplicity of ligands that each bind different region son the target molecule. The ligands are joined directly or through a linker thereby forming a polydentate moiety that typically binds the target molecule with high selectivity and avidity.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Selective high-affinity polydentate ligands and methods of making such

This invention provides novel polydentate selective high affinity ligands (SHALs) that can be used in a variety of applications in a manner analogous to the use of antibodies. SHALs typically comprise a multiplicity of ligands that each bind different region son the target molecule. The ligands are joined directly or through a linker thereby forming a polydentate moiety that typically binds the target molecule with high selectivity and avidity.

DeNardo, Sally J.↗
DOE OSTI2022

Selective high-affinity polydentate ligands and methods of making such

This invention provides novel polydentate selective high affinity ligands (SHALs) that can be used in a variety of applications in a manner analogous to the use of antibodies. SHALs typically comprise a multiplicity of ligands that each bind different region son the target molecule. The ligands are joined directly or through a linker thereby forming a polydentate moiety that typically binds the target molecule with high selectivity and avidity.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Conceptos Basicos Sobre los Vehiculos Electricos

Los vehiculos electricos (EV, por su sigla en ingles) usan la electricidad como combustible principal o para mejorar la eficiencia de los disenos de vehiculos convencionales. Los EV incluyen vehiculos todo electrico, tambien denominados vehiculos electricos de bateria (BEV, por su sigla en ingles), y vehiculos electricos hibridos enchufables (PHEV, por su sigla en ingles). Coloquialmente, a estos vehiculos se les conoce como autos electricos, o simplemente EV, aunque algunos de estos vehiculos todavia utilizan combustibles liquidos junto con la electricidad. Los EV son conocidos por brindar una aceleracion (torque, en ingles) rapida y una experiencia silenciosa al conducir. See DOE/GO-102023-6050 for the English translation of this fact sheet (https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/87125.pdf).

ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Biopolymer‐assisted Synthesis of P‐doped TiO 2 Nanoparticles for High‐performance Lithium‐ion Batteries: A Comprehensive Study

Abstract TiO 2 material has gained significant attention for large‐scale energy storage due to its abundant, low‐cost, and environmentally friendly properties, as well as the availability of various nanostructures. Phosphorus doping has been established as an effective technique for improving electronic conductivity and managing the slow ionic diffusion kinetics of TiO 2 . In this study, non‐doped and phosphorus doped TiO 2 materials were synthesized using sodium alginate biopolymer as chelating agent. The prepared materials were evaluated as anode materials for lithium‐ion batteries (LIBs). The electrodes exhibit remarkable electrochemical performance, including a high reversible capacity of 235 mAh g −1 at 0.1 C and excellent first coulombic efficiency of 99 %. An integrated approach, combining operando XRD and ex‐situ XAS, comprehensively investigates the relationship between phosphorus doping, material structure, and electrochemical performance, reinforced by analytical tools and first principles calculations. Furthermore, a full cell was designed using 2 %P‐doped TiO 2 anode and LiFePO 4 cathode. The output voltage was about 1.6 V with high initial specific capacity of 148 mAh g −1 , high rate‐capability of 120 mAh g −1 at 1 C, and high‐capacity retention of 96 % after 1000 cycles at 1 C.

El Halya, Nabil↗
DOE OSTI2021

Methodologies for Design, Characterization and Testing of Electrolytes that Enable Extreme Fast Charging of Lithium-ion Cells

Selection, testing and validation of electrolyte candidates for Li-ion cells are discussed, based on a 10-minute target for extreme fast charge (XFC). A combination of modeling and laboratory measurements create a timely and synergistic approach to identifying candidate electrolyte formulations. Multi-solvent systems provide a balanced set of properties, wherein lower molecular-weight solvents offer reduced viscosity, increased species diffusivity, and mitigation of concentration polarization at high charge rates. Carefully selected formulations can exhibit peak conductivity and usable conductivity range of two to three times that of the baseline EC-EMC (3:7, wt.) + LiPF 6 . Candidates are also chosen based on stability and longevity within the cell environment. Lab testing coincides with property predictions from the Advanced Electrolyte Model (AEM) and a macro-scale cell model. Furthermore, cell testing utilized coin and pouch cells having NMC532 or NMC811 cathodes with graphite electrodes. Results indicate combinations of low-molecular weight solvents are key for fast-charge electrolytes as they extend the useful conductivity range to both low and higher salt concentrations, and possess higher self-diffusivities compared to conventional solvents. This reduces impacts from concentration polarization. The choice of electrolyte also influences the tendency for lithium metal deposition at the anode, as showcased by experimental and modeling results herein.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗