Results for “electrochemical performance” — Page 59

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Motor Configuration Selection for A New Technical Challenge to Develop A 5 MW Cryogenic Motor and Drive

Due to aviation’s appreciable and growing share of humanity’s impact on our environment and estimates that CO2emissions only account for 34% of aviation’s total effective radiative forcing [1], there is a need to reach beyond climate goals that focus only on CO2emissions, such as the US Aviation Climate Action Plan’s [3] goal to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.There is motivation to develop technology that pushes toward future large transport aircraft with net zero climate impact that are highly electrified (i.e., have higher power electrical propulsion system components). This paper describes a new, 6-year technical challenge to address this need by developing a 5 MW superconducting motor and cryogenic drive. Section 1 will detail the motivation for this work. Section 2 will describe the technical challenge and the selected specifications for the motor. Section 3 will present the results of a motor configuration trade study and the down selection of one configuration to develop a detailed design for. The technical challenge focuses on the design of a5 MW superconducting motor and cryogenic drive and demonstration of it at a 2+ MW scale to achieve TRL 3. Both fully superconducting (superconducting stator and rotor) and fully cryogenic (superconducting rotor and cryogenic stator) machine configurations will be explored. An emphasis will be placed on addressing the key tall poles for high power superconducting machines. Further details will be included in the full paper. The requirements and goals of the motor will be detailed. The rated speed (2,000 to 3,000 rpm) is defined to be appropriate for directly driving multi-MW fans or propellers. A range of rated speed is permitted because the motor is not designed for a specific aircraft and to provide design flexibility if AC losses in the stator winding are found to be a significant constraint (i.e., a lower speed can be selected to reduce electrical frequency). Relatively conservative requirements for efficiency (99%) and specific power (20 kW/kg) are defined, because TRL advancement and pushing toward flight readiness is emphasized over performance optimization. However, more aggressive efficiency and specific power goals are specified (99.9% and 40 kW/kg). The 3rd section will present the results of a motor configuration trade study. The study started with a qualitative assessment of sixteen motor configurations based on geometric, mechanical, thermal, and electromagnetic criteria. This assessment has been completed with three evaluators scoring all nine criteria. A configuration down select was made by prioritizing the sixteen configurations into four tiers based on each configuration’s total score and consideration of manufacturability, complexity, and support hardware (e.g., rotary vacuum seals, bearings). Configurations in priority A and B will be further evaluated through quantitative assessments, whereas those in priority C will only be further evaluated if time permits and priority D will not be further evaluated. Eight of the sixteen configurations were down selected for quantitative assessment, which will include analytical calculations and low-to moderate-fidelity finite element analysis to produce a preliminary Pareto front of efficiency versus specific power for each configuration. This assessment emphasizes the calculation of AC losses in the stator winding and an exploration of thermal management approaches to remove that heat and maintain cryogenic temperature. The final paper will include a description of each motor configuration that was considered. The quantitative assessments are underway, and an assessment of one configuration is complete for multiple stator conductor options. The remaining assessments are scheduled to be completed by late March so that the final down select to one configuration can be included in this paper.

Net Zero↗

DOE OSTI2025

DESI 2024 II: sample definitions, characteristics, and two-point clustering statistics

We present the samples of galaxies and quasars used for DESI 2024 cosmological analyses, drawn from the DESI Data Release 1 (DR1). We describe the construction of largescale structure (LSS) catalogs from these samples, which include matched sets of synthetic reference ‘randoms’ and weights that account for variations in the observed density of the samples due to experimental design and varying instrument performance. We detail how we correct for variations in observational completeness, the input ‘target’ densities due to imaging systematics, and the ability to confidently measure redshifts from DESI spectra. We then summarize how remaining uncertainties in the corrections can be translated to systematic uncertainties for particular analyses. We describe the weights added to maximize the signalto-noise of DESI DR1 2-point clustering measurements. We detail measurement pipelines applied to the LSS catalogs that obtain 2-point clustering measurements in configuration and Fourier space. The resulting 2-point measurements depend on window functions and normalization constraints particular to each sample, and we present the corrections required to match models to the data. We compare the configuration- and Fourier-space 2-point clustering of the data samples to that recovered from simulations of DESI DR1 and find they are, generally, in statistical agreement to within 2% in the inferred real-space over-density field. The LSS catalogs, 2-point measurements, and their covariance matrices will be released publicly with DESI DR1.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI1994

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 35, No. 2, July-December 1994]

Nuclear Safety is a journal that covers significant issues in the field of nuclear safety. Its primary scope is safety in the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors worldwide and the research and analysis activities that promote this goal, but it also encompasses the safety aspects of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing and handling, and nuclear waste disposal, the handling of fissionable materials and radioisotopes, and the environmental effects of all these activities. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 179 Consideration of Postaccident Consequences in the Determination of Safety Objectives for Future Nuclear Power Plants in France, D. Queniart, A. Sugier, and J. Lochard; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 187 Nuclear Safety Research: The Phebus FP Severe Accident Experimental Program, P. von der Hardt, A. V. Jones, C. Lecomte, and A. Tattegrain; 205 Containment Performance Analysis of the Advanced Neutron Source Reactor at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, S. H. Kim, R. P. Taleyarkhan, and V. Georgevich; 213 Assessment of Fission Product Deposits in the Reactor Coolant System: The DEVAP Program, G. Le Marois and M. Megnin; 222 Erratum to “A Review of the Available Information on the Triggering Stage of a Steam Explosion," Vol. 35, No. 1, CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 223 Effects of Normal Aging on Calibration and Response Time of Nuclear Plant Resistance Temperature Detectors and Pressure Sensors, H. M. Hashemian; DESIGN FEATURES: 235 Defense in Depth Against the Hydrogen Risk—A European Research Program, F. Fineschi; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 246 Technical Note: A Preliminary Analysis of the Risks to Hong Kong Resulting from Potential Accidents of Daya Bay Nuclear Power Plant, Z. Shi and X. Wei; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 253 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; SPECIAL SECTION ON TMI-2 VESSEL INVESTIGATION PROJECT: 256 Three Mile Island—New Findings 15 Years After the Accident A. M. Rubin and E. Beckjord; 269 Relocation of Molten Material to the TMI-2 Lower Head, J. R. Wolf, D. W. Akers, and L. A. Neimark; 280 Insight Into the TMI-2 Core Material Relocation Through Examination of Instrument Tube Nozzles, L. A. Neimark; 288 Physical and Radiochemical Examinations of Debris from the TMI-2 Lower Head, D. W. Akers and B. K. Schuetz; 301 Results of Metallographic Examinations and Mechanical Tests of Pressure Vessel Samples from the TMI-2 Lower Head, D. R. Diercks and G. E. Korth; 313 Margin-to-Failure Calculations for the TMI-2 Vessel, J. Rempe, L. Stickler, S. Chavez, G. Thinnes, R. Witt, and M. Corradini; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INFORMATION AND ANALYSES: 328 1993 Accident Sequence Precursor (ASP) Program Results, L. N. Vanden Heuvel, J. W. Cletcher, D. A. Copinger, J. W. Minarick, B. W. Dolan, and P. D. O’Reilley; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 339 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 345 Proposed Rule Changes as of June 30, 1994; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 234 Thirty-First Annual Meeting of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 356 1995 International Incineration Conference; 358 Fifth International Controls and Instrumentation Conference; 359 ANS International Topical Meeting on Safety of Operating Reactors; 359 Fifth International Conference on Nuclear Criticality Safety; 360 International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment Methodology and Applications; 351 The Authors; 357 Reviewers of Nuclear Safety, Vol. 35.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

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↗

DOE OSTI2026

Experimental observation and integrated modelling of proton-beryllium fusion in He and D plasmas at JET

Validated integrated modelling of JET ITER-like wall experiments in which fusion performance is driven by reactions between fast ions and intrinsically present metal wall impurities is presented. A steady-state L-mode plasma with dominant proton-beryllium fusion and neutron yields of up to ≈ 6·10 13 s -1 is developed in He and D, via radiofrequency heating of a H minority. The fusion drive is unambiguously confirmed by the neutral particle analyser, fast ion loss detector, and γ-ray diagnostics. Experiments are analysed via an integrated modelling framework, developed to model the two-stage proton beryllium-fusion chain and produce high-fidelity fusion product source terms. The modelling chain comprises TRANSP and JETTO for plasma core modelling, LOCUST for full orbit product tracking and collisional slowing-down, DRESS to resolve two- and three-body fusion kinematics, and MCNP for neutron transport calculations. Modelling shows that the primary 9 Be(p,n) 9 B reaction is the dominant neutron emitter at naturally present concentrations of beryllium in these experiments. The yield contribution of secondary reactions between fusion products and beryllium, 9 Be(d,n) 10 B and 9 Be(α,n) 12 C, is found to be negligible. The proton-deuteron knock-on effect in D plasmas is modelled, which is calculated to contribute ≈ 25% to the total neutron yield. For both He and D discharges the total computed neutron rates match fission chamber (FC) measurements within the combined experimental and computational uncertainty, with an average discrepancy of ≈ ± 20%. Realistic proton-beryllium neutron sources are propagated through JET’s MCNP neutron transport model which shows that 235 U FCs’ response is sensitive to p–Be source changes, with up to ≈ 10% variation compared to a D–D neutron source. We show that the high-energy tail of the fast proton minority can be studied with multi-foil neutron activation. The framework is also applied to the study of interactions between fast protons and boron impurities, of relevance to ITER. We calculate that in JET conditions a significant alpha source with DT-like energies could be generated through 11 B(p, α)2α fusion, and detected via γ-emission in secondary interactions between fast alphas and boron. The work represents an important step towards validating predictive integrated modelling capabilities for non-standard fusion reactions.

JET↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Trajectory Engineering with Modular Patched Conics for Entry Systems and TPS (TEMPEST)

Brief Presenter Biography (35 word limit): Bohdan Wesely is an Aerospace Engineer in the Entry Systems and Technology Division at Ames. He has worked on a variety of projects for NASA including integrated TPS (thermal protection system) flight hardware deliveries and testing services for commercial partners. Introduction: TEMPEST is a new trajectory analysis framework that is designed to fill the gap between dedicated flight mechanics tools and aerothermal and TPS sizing tools. The project started as an SJSU master’s thesis and has since evolved into a general conceptual design tool capable of studying a wide variety of entry problems. Development is ongoing in the Entry Systems and Technology Division at NASA ARC. Why TEMPEST: Space missions involving entry into a planetary atmosphere involve a series of unique requirements across multiple disciplines. Whether it is traditional entry descent and landing (EDL), or aerocapture, the vehicle must navigate to its target landing location or orbit state, and the TPS must protect the payload during entry. The design process typically involves iterative handoffs between various flight mechanics, flow solver, and material response level tools. During the early conceptual phase, a wide variety of feasible trajectories are simulated in a Monte Carlo scenario which broadly satisfy the mission or landing requirements. Next, computational fluid dynamics (CFD), direct simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC), and other flow solver analyses are performed at various key trajectory points to generate an aero-database, heating and TPS design requirements also emerge at this stage. At this point, with updated aerodynamics from the various flow solvers, trajectories can be re-run, this in turn can change the required freestream conditions for the CFD tools, and as a project progresses, these analyses converge, and uncertainty is reduced. However, there is always a “hand-off” occurring between two inherently coupled phenomena. Analysis Description: One of the goals with TEMPEST is to use a variety of first principles estimation methods coupled with an atmosphere model to predict vehicle aerothermodynamics across the entire flight regime while propagating a 3 or 6 degree of freedom (DoF) trajectory. Aerodynamics methods include modified Newtonian, Maxwell and Cercignani- Lampis-Lord (CLL) for continuum, transitional, and free molecular flow regimes. Aerothermodynamics include boundary layer and reference enthalpy methods, and Mutation++ for non-equilibrium chemistry modeling. TEMPEST is also capable of stitching multiple trajectory segments together to study mission scenarios like multi-pass aerocapture and aero-gravity assists. Most of the program is implemented in MATLAB using modern system objects, it relies on several C++ shared libraries for supporting tools like Gmsh, the Global Reference Atmospheric Model (GRAM), and Mutation++. The various first principles aerothermal estimation methods are discretized across either a structured axisymmetric panel mesh or an unstructured tri-mesh generated from an open-source tool such as Gmsh, this allows solutions on the same mesh to be compared across tools such as CB-Aero. CFD Coupling. A physics-aware, gaussian process CFD anchoring scheme is proposed to adjust the various first principles methods as a CFD database is populated. One goal for this anchoring module is to inform the project where CFD should be run. Full knowledge of the entire trajectory, atmosphere, and aerothermodynamics allows for easier identification of high sensitivity areas and uncertainty quantification. While the first principles effects are well known and proven accurate in existing tools such as CB- Aero and Cart3D, a physics aware CFD anchoring scheme increases tool credibility across a project lifecycle. Material Response Modeling. Correct TPS sizing is critical for optimizing mass for science payloads and ensuring mission success. The process typically involves a thermal analysis along the trajectory with surface heating environments as a boundary condition. Several design constraints are maximum bondline temperature and maximum recession with various margining techniques. The material response tool FIAT, developed out of NASA Ames, is currently being integrated into the TEMPEST environment. TPS recession, shape change, mass loss, and mass property alteration are all factors that can perturb an entry trajectory. For missions like Mars 2020, recession was minimal and was safely handled separately as a post process. For missions such as Jupiter Galileo with a high TPS mass fraction or asteroid entries, recession plays a major role. The proposed fully coupled scheme is to use an epoch-based approach where the trajectory integration is halted after a recession threshold, the energy balance and FIAT are solved at each panel, the mesh, aerodynamics, and mass properties are updated, and the trajectory continues. Several computational tradeoffs have been made during the development of TEMPEST to limit the cost of a single trajectory and preserve its utility as a conceptual, rapid iteration tool. Conclusion: Development of TEMPEST is ongoing and the project is still in its infancy. This talk aims to showcase its unique capabilities to support future NASA entry systems missions.

Bohdan O Wesely↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ARCTRON: A Rapid Experimental Proving Ground for TPS Experiments and Arcjet Technology Development

Innovation in high-enthalpy facilities is fundamentally limited by the cost and risk of experimentation. New concepts for plasma control, diagnostics, facility components, and plasma-material interaction often require repeated iterations that are impractical to perform in production arcjets. As a result, promising ideas may remain unexplored or reach operational facilities only after significant development effort. ARCTRON is being developed as a rapid experimental proving ground where new ideas in plasma science, arcjet engineering, diagnostics, and material response can be conceived, tested, and quantitatively evaluated before transition to large-scale facilities. The platform combines radio-frequency (RF) and DC arc plasma generation, externally applied magnetic fields, configurable gas composition, reduced-pressure operation, laser heating, electrical biasing, and modular diagnostic access. These capabilities permit the plasma source, applied forcing, test article, and measurement configuration to be modified independently, allowing individual physical mechanisms to be isolated more readily than in a traditional test environment. One class of investigations addresses fundamental plasma-surface interaction physics. Conventional material tests often expose a specimen simultaneously to convective heating, reactive species, pressure, shear, radiation, and surface-current effects. The resulting material response may be measured accurately, while the contribution of each mechanism remains difficult to identify. ARCTRON is designed to vary these effects selectively. Plasma chemistry can be changed independently through configurable gas mixtures; magnetic fields and electrical biasing can modify charged-particle transport; laser heating can provide a non-plasma thermal input; and pressure, flow, and discharge mode can be varied over a broad operating space. This enables controlled tests of hypotheses involving surface catalycity, reactive-species transport, plasma-assisted oxidation, electromagnetic effects, shear, and the relative contributions of thermal and chemical loading. A second class of investigations enabled by this approach concerns the engineering of high-enthalpy facilities themselves. Arc-heated facilities are limited by electrode erosion, unstable arc attachment, localized heating, and damage to nozzles and other plasma-facing components. ARCTRON provides a lower-cost environment for testing concepts intended to mitigate these limitations. Candidate investigations include the use of applied magnetic fields to alter current paths and reduce plasma interaction with nozzle walls, ExB forcing to introduce controlled plasma rotation, magnetic or geometric approaches for distributing arc attachment, and alternative electrode or discharge configurations intended to reduce erosion and improve stability. Because the platform is reconfigurable, these concepts can be evaluated through repeated design--build--test cycles before they are considered for implementation in operational facilities. The platform also supports the development and validation of diagnostics that may be difficult to introduce initially into a large arcjet. Current and planned measurements include spatially resolved optical emission spectroscopy, electrostatic probes, fast imaging, pyrometry, calorimetry, laser-induced fluorescence, and absorption spectroscopy. These diagnostics are intended not merely to document a nominal operating condition, but to constrain the local plasma state and its relationship to component or material response. The modular facility geometry allows diagnostic concepts to be tested, calibrated, and compared under repeatable conditions before deployment in more demanding environments. ARCTRON is also supported by an integrated software suite. Automated control and data acquisition allow discharge parameters, gas composition, magnetic fields, diagnostic timing, and test configuration to be recorded as part of each experiment (STARDAC - Software for Testing, Analysis, Research Data, and Control). The Backend for Experiment Analysis, Storage, and Traceability (BEAST) is a database that provides the infrastructure needed to associate heterogeneous measurements with facility configuration, specimen identity, calibration state, geometry, and analysis provenance. This backend is particularly important for exploratory campaigns, in which many related configurations may be tested, and the value of an individual experiment depends on its connection to earlier and subsequent iterations. Complementary analysis capabilities, including computer-vision-based transient response measurements (arcjetCV), three-dimensional surface reconstruction (STARSCAN), and model-based Bayesian inference (SHIELD), and tomography data analysis (TOMATO, PuMA) can be incorporated when required by a specific hypothesis without becoming the focus of every campaign. The central objective of ARCTRON is therefore not to maximize heat flux or reproduce a complete flight environment. Its purpose is to reduce the cost and time required to ask consequential questions about plasma behavior, plasma-facing materials, diagnostics, and arcjet technology. By providing a controlled environment for rapid reconfiguration, mechanism isolation, quantitative measurement, and iterative engineering, ARCTRON can help mature concepts that would otherwise remain too speculative or too risky for evaluation in production facilities. The resulting knowledge can then guide the design of material models, focus test objectives in larger arcjets, reduce facility-development risk, and improve the physical basis of high-enthalpy ground testing. This work will present the ARCTRON architecture, operating modes, diagnostic suite, and digital experimental workflow. Initial experimental results from the first integrated operation of the facility will be presented, including flow characterization, power limitations, and deployment of the initial diagnostic suite. Ongoing development efforts aimed at catalycity characterization, magnetic plasma control, and advanced optical diagnostics will also be discussed, illustrating how the platform supports rapid iteration from concept to experiment.

experimental diagnostics↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ARCTRON: A Rapid Experimental Proving Ground for TPS Experiments and Arcjet Technology Development

Innovation in high-enthalpy facilities is fundamentally limited by the cost and risk of experimentation. New concepts for plasma control, diagnostics, facility components, and plasma-material interaction often require repeated iterations that are impractical to perform in production arcjets. As a result, promising ideas may remain unexplored or reach operational facilities only after significant development effort. ARCTRON is being developed as a rapid experimental proving ground where new ideas in plasma science, arcjet engineering, diagnostics, and material response can be conceived, tested, and quantitatively evaluated before transition to large-scale facilities. The platform combines radio-frequency (RF) and DC arc plasma generation, externally applied magnetic fields, configurable gas composition, reduced-pressure operation, laser heating, electrical biasing, and modular diagnostic access. These capabilities permit the plasma source, applied forcing, test article, and measurement configuration to be modified independently, allowing individual physical mechanisms to be isolated more readily than in a traditional test environment. One class of investigations addresses fundamental plasma-surface interaction physics. Conventional material tests often expose a specimen simultaneously to convective heating, reactive species, pressure, shear, radiation, and surface-current effects. The resulting material response may be measured accurately, while the contribution of each mechanism remains difficult to identify. ARCTRON is designed to vary these effects selectively. Plasma chemistry can be changed independently through configurable gas mixtures; magnetic fields and electrical biasing can modify charged-particle transport; laser heating can provide a non-plasma thermal input; and pressure, flow, and discharge mode can be varied over a broad operating space. This enables controlled tests of hypotheses involving surface catalycity, reactive-species transport, plasma-assisted oxidation, electromagnetic effects, shear, and the relative contributions of thermal and chemical loading. A second class of investigations enabled by this approach concerns the engineering of high-enthalpy facilities themselves. Arc-heated facilities are limited by electrode erosion, unstable arc attachment, localized heating, and damage to nozzles and other plasma-facing components. ARCTRON provides a lower-cost environment for testing concepts intended to mitigate these limitations. Candidate investigations include the use of applied magnetic fields to alter current paths and reduce plasma interaction with nozzle walls, ExB forcing to introduce controlled plasma rotation, magnetic or geometric approaches for distributing arc attachment, and alternative electrode or discharge configurations intended to reduce erosion and improve stability. Because the platform is reconfigurable, these concepts can be evaluated through repeated design--build--test cycles before they are considered for implementation in operational facilities. The platform also supports the development and validation of diagnostics that may be difficult to introduce initially into a large arcjet. Current and planned measurements include spatially resolved optical emission spectroscopy, electrostatic probes, fast imaging, pyrometry, calorimetry, laser-induced fluorescence, and absorption spectroscopy. These diagnostics are intended not merely to document a nominal operating condition, but to constrain the local plasma state and its relationship to component or material response. The modular facility geometry allows diagnostic concepts to be tested, calibrated, and compared under repeatable conditions before deployment in more demanding environments. ARCTRON is also supported by an integrated software suite. Automated control and data acquisition allow discharge parameters, gas composition, magnetic fields, diagnostic timing, and test configuration to be recorded as part of each experiment (STARDAC - Software for Testing, Analysis, Research Data, and Control). The Backend for Experiment Analysis, Storage, and Traceability (BEAST) is a database that provides the infrastructure needed to associate heterogeneous measurements with facility configuration, specimen identity, calibration state, geometry, and analysis provenance. This backend is particularly important for exploratory campaigns, in which many related configurations may be tested, and the value of an individual experiment depends on its connection to earlier and subsequent iterations. Complementary analysis capabilities, including computer-vision-based transient response measurements (arcjetCV), three-dimensional surface reconstruction (STARSCAN), and model-based Bayesian inference (SHIELD), and tomography data analysis (TOMATO, PuMA) can be incorporated when required by a specific hypothesis without becoming the focus of every campaign. The central objective of ARCTRON is therefore not to maximize heat flux or reproduce a complete flight environment. Its purpose is to reduce the cost and time required to ask consequential questions about plasma behavior, plasma-facing materials, diagnostics, and arcjet technology. By providing a controlled environment for rapid reconfiguration, mechanism isolation, quantitative measurement, and iterative engineering, ARCTRON can help mature concepts that would otherwise remain too speculative or too risky for evaluation in production facilities. The resulting knowledge can then guide the design of material models, focus test objectives in larger arcjets, reduce facility-development risk, and improve the physical basis of high-enthalpy ground testing. This work will present the ARCTRON architecture, operating modes, diagnostic suite, and digital experimental workflow. Initial experimental results from the first integrated operation of the facility will be presented, including flow characterization, power limitations, and deployment of the initial diagnostic suite. Ongoing development efforts aimed at catalycity characterization, magnetic plasma control, and advanced optical diagnostics will also be discussed, illustrating how the platform supports rapid iteration from concept to experiment.

experimental diagnostics↗

DOE OSTI2026

Weak Lensing Mass Calibration of the ACT DR5 Galaxy Clusters with the DES Year 3 Weak Lensing Data

We use weak gravitational lensing measurements from Year 3 Dark Energy Survey data to calibrate the masses of 443 galaxy clusters selected via the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect from Atacama Cosmology Telescope Data Release 5 maps of the cosmic microwave background. We incorporate redshift and SZ measurements for individual clusters into a hierarchical model for the stacked lensing signals and perform Bayesian analyses to constrain the hydrostatic mass bias of the clusters. Our treatment of systematic uncertainties includes a prescription for measuring and accounting for the weak lensing boost factor, consideration of a miscentering effect, as well as marginalization over uncertainties in the source galaxy photometric redshift distributions and shear calibration. The resultant constraints on the normalization of the mass-observable relation have a precision of approximately 7%, with the mean WL halo mass of M $_{500c}$ = 5.4 × 10$^{14}$ M $_{⊙}$. We measure the bias between the true cluster mass and the mass estimated from the SZ signal based on an X-ray-calibrated scaling relation assuming hydrostatic equilibrium, to be 1 - b = 0.74$^{+0.06}$ $_{-0.05}$ over the full sample. When splitting the clusters into high (z = 0.43-0.70) and low (z = 0.15-0.43) redshift bins, we measure 1 - b = 0.58$^{+0.06}$ $_{-0.05}$ and 0.81$^{+0.08}$ $_{-0.06}$, respectively. When introducing additional freedom in redshift and mass to the hydrostatic bias model, we find that 1 - b decreases with redshift (with the power law of -1.8$^{+0.5}$ $_{-0.6}$, 99.95% confidence), consistent with findings from other recent studies, while we do not find any significant trend in mass. We also demonstrate that our result is robust against various systematics such as a scale cut, priors on baryonic and miscentering parameters, and degree of scatter in mass-observable relation. The weak-lensing mass calibration presented in this study will be a useful tool for using the ACT clusters as probes of astrophysics, and as a step towards using their abundance as a cosmological probe.

Shin, T. [Carnegie Mellon U.] (ORCID:0000000263895↗

DOE OSTI2026

The SPT-deep Cluster Catalog: Sunyaev–Zel’dovich Selected Clusters from Combined SPT-3G and SPTpol Measurements over 100 Square Degrees

We present a catalog of 500 galaxy cluster candidates in the SPT-Deep field: a 100 deg$^{2}$ field that combines data from the SPT-3G and SPTpol surveys to reach noise levels of 3.0, 2.2, and 9.0 μK-arcmin at 95, 150, and 220 GHz, respectively. Candidates are selected via the thermal Sunyaev–Zel’dovich (SZ) effect with a minimum significance of ξ = 4.0, resulting in a catalog of purity ∼89%. Optical data from the Dark Energy Survey and infrared data from the Spitzer Space Telescope are used to confirm 442 cluster candidates. The clusters span 0.12 < z ≲ 1.8 and 1.0 × 10$^{14}$M$_{⊙}$/h$_{70}$ < M$_{500c}$ < 8.7 × 10$^{14}$M$_{⊙}$/h$_{70}$. The sample’s median redshift is 0.74, and the median mass is 1.7 × 10$^{14}$M$_{⊙}$/h$_{70}$; these are the lowest median mass and highest median redshift of any SZ-selected sample to date. We assess the effect of infrared emission from cluster member galaxies on cluster selection by performing a joint fit to the infrared dust and tSZ signals by combining measurements from SPT and overlapping submillimeter data from Herschel/SPIRE. We find that at high redshift (z > 1), the tSZ signal is reduced by $17.9_{−3.2}^{+3.8}$%$(3.8_{−0.7}^{+0.9}$%$)$ at 150 GHz (95 GHz) due to dust contamination. We repeat our cluster finding method on dust-nulled SPT maps and find the resulting catalog is consistent with the nominal SPT-Deep catalog, suggesting dust contamination does not significantly impact the SPT-Deep selection function; we attribute this lack of bias to the inclusion of the SPT 220 GHz band.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2026

Constraining primordial non-Gaussianity from DESI DR1 quasars and Planck PR4 CMB lensing

We present the first measurement of local-type primordial non-Gaussianity from the cross-correlation between 1.2 million spectroscopically confirmed quasars from the first data release (DR1) of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) and the Planck PR4 CMB lensing reconstructions. The analysis is performed in three tomographic redshift bins covering 0.8 < z < 3.5, covering a sky fraction of ∼20%. We adopt a catalog-based pseudo-C ℓ estimator and apply linear imaging weights validated on noiseless mocks. Compared to previous analyses using photometric quasar samples, our results benefit from the high purity of the DESI spectroscopic sample, the reduced noise of PR4 lensing, and the absence of excess large-scale power in the spectroscopic quasar auto-correlation. Fitting simultaneously for the non-Gaussianity parameter f NL and the linear bias amplitude in each redshift bin, we obtain f NL = 2 +28 -34 for a response parameter p = 1.6, and f NL = 6 +20 -24 for p = 1.0. These results improve the constraints on f NL by ∼35% compared to the previous analysis based on the Legacy Imaging Survey DR9. Additionally, we derive an optimal weighting scheme to maximize the constraining power. In this case, and assuming p = 1.6, we obtain f NL = 19 +25 -31 . Our results demonstrate the statistical power of DESI quasars for probing inflationary physics, and highlight the promise of future DESI data releases.

cosmological parameters from CMBR↗