SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
A variety of numerical methods for fitting a function to data given at a set of points scattered throughout a domain in the plane are surveyed. Four classes of methods are discussed: (1) global interpolation; (2) local interpolation; (3) global approximation; and (4) local approximation. Also, two-stage methods and contouring are discussed. The surfaces constructed include polynomials, spline functions, and rational functions, among others.
Analysis of data from darkside and eclipse observations of Io by the NIMS and SSI instruments show that the South Volund hot spot is a manifestation of high temperature active silicate volcanism. The NIMS data are fitted with a two temperature model (developed from modelling terrestrial lavas) which yields a better fit to the data than a single temperature fit.
The fit of the Hagfors model to the Magellan altimetry data provides a means to characterize the surface properties of Venus. However, the derived surface properties are only meaningful if the model provides a good representation of the data. The Hagfors model provides a good representation of the data. The Hagfors model is generally a realistic fit to surface scattering properties of a nadir-directed antenna such as the Magellan altimeter; however, some regions of the surface of Venus are poorly described by the existing model, according to the goodness of fit parameter provided on the ARCDR CD-ROMs. Poorly characterized regions need to be identified and fit to new models in order to derive more accurate surface properties for use in inferring the geological processes that affect the surface in those regions. We have compared the goodness of fit of the Hagfors model to the distribution of features across the planet, and preliminary results show a correlation between steep topographic slopes and poor fits to the standard model, as has been noticed by others. In this paper, we investigate possible relations between many classes of features and the ability of the Hagfors model to fit the observed echo profiles. In the regions that are not well characterized by existing models, we calculate new models that compensate for topographic relief in order to derive improved estimates of surface properties. Areas investigated to date span from longitude 315 through 45, at all latitudes covered by Magellan. A survey of those areas yields preliminary results that suggest that topographically high regions are well suited to the current implementation of the Hagfors model. Striking examples of such large-scale good fits are Alpha Regio, the northern edges of Lada Terra, and the southern edge of Ishtar Terra. Other features that are typically well fit are the rims of coronae such as Heng-O and the peaks of volcanos such as Gula Mons. Surprisingly, topographically low regions, such as the ubiquitous plains areas, are modeled poorly in comparison. However, this generalization has has exceptions: Lakshmi Planum is an elevated region that is not well fit compared to the rest of neighboring Ishtar, while the southern parts of topographically low Guinevere Planitia are characterized quite well by the Hagfors model. Features that are candidates for improved models are impact craters, coronae, ridges of significant scale, complex ridged terrains, moderate-sized mountains, and sharp terrain boundaries. These features are chosen because the goodness of fit is likely to be most affected either by departures from normal incidence angles or by sharp changes in terrain type within a single footprint. Most large features that are elevated with respect to their surroundings will suffer from steep slope effects, and smaller coronae and impact craters will probably suffer due to rapid changes in their appearance within a single footprint (10-20 km).
NOvA (NuMI Off-Axis $\nu_e$ Appearance) is a long baseline neutrino experiment designed to measure the oscillation of muon neutrinos to electron neutrinos over a distance of 810 km. NOvA uses a near and far detector to observe $\nu_\mu$ disappearance and $\nu_e$ appearance of neutrinos produced by the NuMI beam at Fermilab. NOvA uses a Bayesian analysis framework in addition to its Frequentist method to measure neutrino oscillation parameters such as the mixing angles, mass ordering, and CP-violating phase. We report preliminary results of Bayesian fits to representative NOvA datasets. Comparison of fits to $\nu_\mu$ disappearance and $\nu_e$ appearance enables a cross-check of NOvA results with reactor $\bar{\nu_e}$ disappearance measurements. NOvA also searches for violation of Lorentz invariance by analyzing fits of forward horn current (FHC) versus reverse horn current (RHC) samples. The results validate and advance NOvA's contributions to precision measurements of neutrino properties.
This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
Using altimeter data from a single pass, orbital fiting of these data is investigated. The stability problems of this special kind of short are method as well as the problem in the case of a mean Keplerian ellipse are discussed in detail. It is shown that short periodic perturbations can influence the size of the eccentricity of the satellite orbit computed from these data. In this way the desired result, the corrections of d zeta to the geoidal undulations, may be falsified.
Einstein SSS X-ray observations of the eclipsing intermediate polar EX Hya are presented. The SSS data have a better resolution at energies extending below 2 keV than do the EXOSAT data. These data reveal the presence of a soft component with a temperature of about 0.74 keV. The phase-resolved data can be fitted to a model of two-temperature thermal plasma with a single absorber, with the result that only the normalization varies with phase. This suggests that part of the soft component might become occulted at minimum. If we assume that the reduction in the flux occurs due to the photoelectric absorption, we find that a high-density material covering only about 40 percent of the emission can fit the data equally well. The EXOSAT and Ginga data of this source favor the accretion curtain model rather than the occultation model. We modify the accretion curtain model by assuming that the modulation is caused by an absorber which partially covers the accreting column at the minimum of the 67-min pulse. An emission line at 1.72 keV is present in the data. The equivalent width of this line varies in phase with the continuum. We associate this line with Si fluorescence.
Wave rotors, used in a gas turbine topping cycle, offer a potential route to higher specific power and lower specific fuel consumption. In order to exploit this potential properly, it is necessary to have some realistic means of calculating wave rotor performance, taking losses into account, so that wave rotors can be designed for good performance. This in turn requires a knowledge of the loss mechanisms. The experiment reported here was designed as a statistical experiment to identify the losses due to finite passage opening time, friction, and leakage. For simplicity, the experiment used a 3-port, flow divider, wave cycle, but the results should be applicable to other cycles. A 12 inch diameter rotor was used, with two different lengths, 9 inches and 18 inches, and two different passage widths, 0.25 inch and 0.54 inch, in order to vary friction and opening time. To vary leakage, moveable end-walls were provided so that the rotor to end-wall gap could be adjusted. The experiment is described, and the results are presented, together with a parametric fit to the data. The fit shows that there will be an optimum passage width for a given wave rotor, since, as the passage width increases, friction losses decrease, but opening-time losses increase, and vice-versa. Leakage losses can be made small at reasonable gap sizes.
A standard problem in gamma-ray astronomy data analysis is the decomposition of a set of observed counts, described by Poisson statistics, according to a given multi-component linear model, with underlying physical count rates or fluxes which are to be estimated from the data.
We report on gamma-ray observations of the supernova remnant (SNR) RX J0852.04622 with the Large Area Telescope (LAT) on board the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. In the Fermi-LAT data, we find a spatially extended source at the location of the SNR. The extension is consistent with the SNR size seen in other wavelengths such as X-rays and TeV gamma rays, leading to the identification of the gamma-ray source with the SNR. The spectrum is well described as a power law with a photon index of = 1.85 0.06 (stat)+0.18 0.19 (sys), which smoothly connects to the H.E.S.S. spectrum in the TeV energy band. We discuss the gamma-ray emission mechanism based on multiwavelength data. The broadband data can be fit well by a model in which the gamma rays are of hadronic origin. We also consider a scenario with inverse Compton scattering of electrons as the emission mechanism of the gamma rays. Although the leptonic model predicts a harder spectrum in the Fermi-LAT energy range, the model can fit the data considering the statistical and systematic errors.
The Dawn spacecraft was launched on September 27th, 2007. Its mission is to consecutively rendezvous with and observe the two largest bodies in the main asteroid belt, Vesta and Ceres. It has already completed over a year's worth of direct observations of Vesta (spanning from early 2011 through late 2012) and is currently on a cruise trajectory to Ceres, where it will begin scientific observations in mid-2015. Achieving this data collection required careful planning and execution from all Dawn operations teams. Dawn's Orbit Determination (OD) team was tasked with reconstruction of the as-flown trajectory as well as determination of the Vesta rotational rate, pole orientation and ephemeris, among other Vesta parameters. Improved knowledge of the Vesta pole orientation, specifically, was needed to target the final maneuvers that inserted Dawn into the first science orbit at Vesta. To solve for these parameters, the OD team used radiometric data from the Deep Space Network (DSN) along with optical data reduced from Dawn's Framing Camera (FC) images. This paper will de-scribe the initial determination of the Vesta ephemeris and pole using a combination of radiometric and optical data, and also the progress the OD team has made since then to further refine the knowledge of Vesta's body frame orientation and rate with these data.
No abstract available
This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
The photopigment in the human eye that transduces light for circadian and neuroendocrine regulation, is unknown. The aim of this study was to establish an action spectrum for light-induced melatonin suppression that could help elucidate the ocular photoreceptor system for regulating the human pineal gland. Subjects (37 females, 35 males, mean age of 24.5 +/- 0.3 years) were healthy and had normal color vision. Full-field, monochromatic light exposures took place between 2:00 and 3:30 A.M. while subjects' pupils were dilated. Blood samples collected before and after light exposures were quantified for melatonin. Each subject was tested with at least seven different irradiances of one wavelength with a minimum of 1 week between each nighttime exposure. Nighttime melatonin suppression tests (n = 627) were completed with wavelengths from 420 to 600 nm. The data were fit to eight univariant, sigmoidal fluence-response curves (R(2) = 0.81-0.95). The action spectrum constructed from these data fit an opsin template (R(2) = 0.91), which identifies 446-477 nm as the most potent wavelength region providing circadian input for regulating melatonin secretion. The results suggest that, in humans, a single photopigment may be primarily responsible for melatonin suppression, and its peak absorbance appears to be distinct from that of rod and cone cell photopigments for vision. The data also suggest that this new photopigment is retinaldehyde based. These findings suggest that there is a novel opsin photopigment in the human eye that mediates circadian photoreception.
In anticipation of forthcoming data releases of current and future spectroscopic surveys, we present the validation tests and analysis of systematic effects within velocileptors modeling pipeline when fitting mock data from the AbacusSummit N-body simulations. We compare the constraints obtained from parameter compression methods to the direct fitting (Full-Modeling) approaches of modeling the galaxy power spectra, and show that the ShapeFit extension to the traditional template method is consistent with the Full-Modeling method within the standard ΛCDM parameter space. We show the dependence on scale cuts when fitting the different redshift bins using the ShapeFit and Full-Modeling methods. We test the ability to jointly fit data from multiple redshift bins as well as joint analysis of the pre-reconstruction power spectrum with the post-reconstruction BAO correlation function signal. We further demonstrate the behavior of the model when opening up the parameter space beyond ΛCDM and also when combining likelihoods with external datasets, namely the Planck CMB priors. Finally, we describe different parametrization options for the galaxy bias, counterterm, and stochastic parameters, and employ the halo model in order to physically motivate suitable priors that are necessary to ensure the stability of the perturbation theory.
We describe the Metrology Data Processor (METDAT), the Optical Surface Analysis Code (OSAC), and their application to the image evaluation of the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE) mirrors. The FUSE instrument - designed and developed by the Johns Hopkins University and launched in June 1999 is an astrophysics satellite which provides high resolution spectra (lambda/Delta(lambda) = 20,000 - 25,000) in the wavelength region from 90.5 to 118.7 nm The FUSE instrument is comprised of four co-aligned, normal incidence, off-axis parabolic mirrors, four Rowland circle spectrograph channels with holographic gratings, and delay line microchannel plate detectors. The OSAC code provides a comprehensive analysis of optical system performance, including the effects of optical surface misalignments, low spatial frequency deformations described by discrete polynomial terms, mid- and high-spatial frequency deformations (surface roughness), and diffraction due to the finite size of the aperture. Both normal incidence (traditionally infrared, visible, and near ultraviolet mirror systems) and grazing incidence (x-ray mirror systems) systems can be analyzed. The code also properly accounts for reflectance losses on the mirror surfaces. Low frequency surface errors are described in OSAC by using Zernike polynomials for normal incidence mirrors and Legendre-Fourier polynomials for grazing incidence mirrors. The scatter analysis of the mirror is based on scalar scatter theory. The program accepts simple autocovariance (ACV) function models or power spectral density (PSD) models derived from mirror surface metrology data as input to the scatter calculation. The end product of the program is a user-defined pixel array containing the system Point Spread Function (PSF). The METDAT routine is used in conjunction with the OSAC program. This code reads in laboratory metrology data in a normalized format. The code then fits the data using Zernike polynomials for normal incidence systems or Legendre-Fourier polynomials for grazing incidence systems. It removes low order terms from the metrology data, calculates statistical ACV or PSD functions, and fits these data to OSAC models for the scatter analysis. In this paper we briefly describe the laboratory image testing of FUSE spare mirror performed in the near and vacuum ultraviolet at John Hopkins University and OSAC modeling of the test setup performed at NASA/GSFC. The test setup is a double-pass configuration consisting of a Hg discharge source, the FUSE off-axis parabolic mirror under test, an autocollimating flat mirror, and a tomographic imaging detector. Two additional, small fold flats are used in the optical train to accommodate the light source and the detector. The modeling is based on Zernike fitting and PSD analysis of surface metrology data measured by both the mirror vendor (Tinsley) and JHU. The results of our models agree well with the laboratory imaging data, thus validating our theoretical model. Finally, we predict the imaging performance of FUSE mirrors in their flight configuration at far-ultraviolet wavelengths.
The building envelopes contributes significantly to the energy-efficiency of the building. Building performance simulation has made it possible to compare façade technologies regarding energy demand, daylighting, thermal and visual comfort in detail. Planners, such as architects and engineers, need experience to find product data with the right quality and level of detail, and to process the data to fit the calculation and the application. In the available time, planners can compare only a limited number of products, which means that better solutions could go unnoticed. This paper presents a new concept for making product data easily accessible for building façade planning. The concept consists of a network of databases for the efficient exchange and use of optical and calorimetric data of glazing units, shading devices, and combinations of both. The paper presents the research questions, an analysis of the current challenges, six design goals for the product data network and its implementation together with a discussion. Many product data sources can be connected to many planning software applications via the specified application programming interface. When planning software connects to the product data network, the planning of building envelopes can be much faster because planners do not need to spend so much time to search and process product data manually. The planning of building envelopes can also become much easier, especially for planners with limited experience. They do not need to understand all the details about which data fits which calculation if the software company implements this. The planning of building envelopes can become much more reliable when software companies validate their use of the product data network, because the current manual process is prone to errors. The planning of building envelopes can also improve because more products can be compared in the available time, allowing better solutions to be found.