BEE-spoke-data/govdocs1-by-extension huggingface dataset:
# Presentation: 085528

## January 8, 2003
Jason Rhodes (GSFC) and the SNAP Collaboration 
SNAP Weak Lensing Working Group
Justin Albert (Caltech)
David Bacon (Edinburgh)
Gary Bernstein (U Penn)
Richard Ellis (Caltech)
Bhuvnesh Jain (U Penn)
Richard Massey (Cambridge)
Tim McKay (Michigan)
Alexandre Refregier (Saclay)
Jason Rhodes (GSFC)

**Jason Rhodes (GSFC) and the SNAP Collaboration **
**SNAP Weak Lensing Working Group**
- Justin Albert (Caltech)
- David Bacon (Edinburgh)
- Gary Bernstein (U Penn)
- Richard Ellis (Caltech)
- Bhuvnesh Jain (U Penn)
- Richard Massey (Cambridge)
- Tim McKay (Michigan)
- Alexandre Refregier (Saclay)
- Jason Rhodes (GSFC)

**Weak Lensing With SNAP**

## How Gravitational Lensing works

**Distortion of background images by foreground matter**

**Unlensed****	****	****	****	****Lensed**

## Scientific Promise of Gravitational Lensing

**Direct measure of dark matter distribution on various scales **
**Constraints on ********M****, ********, ****σ****8****, *****w *****... complementing and breaking degeneracies present in other methods (SNe, CMB)**
**Verification of gravitational instability via direct measure of evolutionary growth rate of mass structures: connecting mass & light**

## Shear - Ground vs Space

## SNAP Surveys

- Deep Supernova Search
-  15 square degrees (2x7.5 square degrees)
- AB=30.0, ***N******eff**** * = 200 arcmin-2
- 10 million galaxies
- Use for 2-D and 3-D maps
- Measure evolution of structure** **
**Wide Weak Lensing Survey**
**300 square degrees**
**5 months**
** ****AB=28.0, ***N**eff**** ***** ****= 100 arcmin****-2**
**100 million galaxies**
**Calculation of cosmological parameters**

## Dark Matter Power Spectrum

- The DM power spectrum is a remarkably powerful quantity:
-  provides direct probe of DM distribution free from “bias” and astrophysical assumptions
-  probes complexities of
- non-linear regime
-  form constrains equation of  state (w=p/****) modulo some degeneracy between M and w

**Non-linear physics**

**Wide survey**

## Lensing Complements SNe Constraints

- Combining constraints based on DM power spectrum with those from CMB (and SNe) breaks degeneracies between M and *w *and directly tests for growth of structure

**SNe**

## Evolution of Large Scale Structure

- Lensing signals, combined with approximate photo-z data for background sources in the wide field survey enables the direct verification of the gravitational instability picture

**Wide survey split by z****s**

**z****S ****< 1.0**

**z****S ****> 1.0**

## Fundamental limit from the ground

- Power spectrum of uncorrected PSF comparable to statistical noise for large surveys

## Crucial Gains of Space

- SNAP PSF at 800nm:
-  3.5 μm diffusion
-  Primary radius 1m
-  Secondary radius 0.4m
-  3 struts, 4 cm thick
-  2.1 m primary-secondary

**Keck 0.55 arcsec FWHM**

- And... more stable PSF
# Presentation: 297652

## NESDIS Research and Products in Support of Natural Hazard Monitoring

**Current Products & Services**
- Hurricanes: Strength, Winds & Temperatures for                                                   Improved Track and Intensity Forecasts
- Flash Floods: Precipitation Estimates & Outlooks
- Severe Weather, Thunderstorm Downbursts
- Volcanoes: Event and Ash Cloud Monitoring
**Future Products & Services**
- Fire and Smoke Monitoring
- Temperature Extremes

## Hurricane Tracking

- Soil Wetness Map

**SOIL WETNESS MAP**

## Atmospheric Stability Monitoring: Oklahoma TornadoesMay 3, 1999

## Slide 7

## Hourly Fire Monitoring

## Smoke and Low-level Wind Trajectory from Western FiresAugust 8, 2000

## Power Outages After Hurricane Fran

## Volcanic Ash Monitoring

- Web Page Sites for
- Satellite Products

_**NESDIS  Operational, Precipitation ,Volcano, Hurricanes, and Fire Products  **_
**http://www.ssd.noaa.gov**
_**NESDIS Experimental Precipitation/Flash Flood:**_
**http://orbit-net.nesdis.noaa.gov/arad/ht/**
_**GOES Winds, Aviation, Stability, TPW, winds:**_
**http://orbit-net.nesdis.noaa.gov/arad/fpdt**
# Presentation: 150099

## DERGE Arrival (RNAV)

- 	The DERGE Arrival is a prototype RNAV arrival procedure for the Memphis International Airport (MEM).  It is designed to overlay the Gilmore (GQE) STAR, with limited enhanced routing for RNAV equipped aircraft.
- 	At this time, NO vertical navigation is planned to be incorporated into the Arrival.

## DERGE Arrival (Description)

- 	On the next page you will see a graphic depiction of the DERGE Arrival.  The arrival route is shown overlaid onto the Memphis Approach Control video map (north configuration).  Memphis International Airport is at the center of the map.  The outer ring of the video map is approximately 40 nautical miles from the airport.  Some parts of the Arrival outside of Memphis Approach Control airspace are not shown on this depiction, but are identical to the GQE STAR.
- The BLUE routes depict the enroute transitions to the GQE VOR/DME/Waypoint.
- The WHITE route depicts the core route from GQE to DERGE Waypoint.
- The RED routes depict the transitions from the DERGE Arrival to the east or west side of the airport.

## DERGE Arrival (Graphic)

## DERGE Arrival (text routing)

- Routing prior to GQE is identical to the GQE STAR
- From over GQE direct DERGE
- Landing South:  Expect vectors to final approach course prior to DERGE
- Landing North:  from over DERGE direct ACALE, direct CADER; expect vectors to final approach course prior to CADER
- Landing North (*ONLY* if assigned East transition):  from over DERGE direct BUYAR, direct NIKKY, direct NDREA; expect vectors to final approach course prior to NDREA

## Route Data - 1

## Route Data - 2
# Presentation: 688497

## Functionality clarification

- Discussion session
- Olof Bärring CERN-IT

## Motivation

- SRM 3.0 is a complex interface specifications
- Interoperability between implementations is best achieved by having a very stringent specification. The alternative is
- Point-to-point testing SRM client A against SRM server B and vice versa
- endless debug sessions over phone,
- late nights/early mornings (timezone differences),
- tedious E-mail exchange
- Arbitrary mutual decisions on matters not covered in the specification

## Example of a standard of comparable complexity

- DMAPI (XDSM API)
- 198 pages specification document
- 40 pages overview
- 20 pages data types descriptions
- 105 pages methods descriptions (54 methods)
- 15 pages implementation notes
- Rest is TOC, index, copyright notice etc.

## SRM v3.0 functional spec

- Has improved in the newly released version
- The following slides give my view of what is ok and what I think needs to be improved
- Does not take into account the modifications discussed at this meeting

## Introduction chapters

- Discussion on release and remove files is necessary but needs some further clarifications
- Must be more specific when ‘release’ means that file is eligible for removal from the storage system as a whole and when it means remove unused copies in expensive storage layers.
- What happens to the SURL when I release a file, which only exists in volatile space?

## Introduction chapters

- Discussion on space reservations is far from complete
- What *is* and what *is* *not* guaranteed
- Reserved space is not necessarily all disk resident
- The ‘granularity’ problem due to physical partitioning in terms of filesystem sizes etc. should be discussed
- The usage is complex and some specific and detailed use-case examples would help

## Introduction chapters

- Missing:
- Reusability of TURLs
- E.g. is a TURL returned by srmStatusOfGetRequest() reusable for several file accesses within its remaining lifetime? Or should the client always call srmStatusOfGetRequest to get a ‘fresh’ TURL?
- prepareToGet/Put request lifecycles
- Sequence and/or state diagrams

## Type definitions

- StatusCodes
- Separate status from error codes
- Separate status/error codes for request and SURLs

## Function descriptions

- Separation of description of core and advanced features is useful

## Function descriptions

- More details must be added
- Document parameters
- Description of the context when the function is to be used, and (if applicable) the effect of its use in conjunction with what other functions
- E.g. where it fits into the lifecycles of various request types
- Error handling
- List all allowed status codes for request and SURLs
- List all allowed error codes for request and SURLs
# Presentation: 182539

## SUMMARY

- Jane Russell
- Perot Systems Corp & NASA/GSFC
- 1842
- 1868
- 1883

## KEYNOTE from Ray Walker

- A PERSISTENT DREAM
- A global data environment in which all Earth and space science data are organized in a common way with “one stop shopping” for any data product.
- GOALS
- Help scientists locate data required for a given study.
- Provide scientists with access to those data.
- Assure that those data are useable.
- Preserve the data forever.
- Aid scientists in using the data.

## CHALLENGES

- Data are found worldwide.
- Science may require data from multiple sources.
- Missions & instruments are more complex.
- Data volumes are increasing.
- Data complexity is increasing.
- 	Not all flat files, images
- 	Now databases, animations, what next?

## MORE CHALLENGES

- User wants/needs evolving from “just the data”              to high level products, correlated searches and       usable tools to process and manipulate data
- Put it on a shelf vs curation
- Involvement from conception vs data falling over the transom
- Training our communities archiving is a required function, not just an option
- Metadata curation can be mostly automated, but not completely
- Community wide standards, key is metadata
- Identifier – journals, pubs, societies

## & MORE CHALLENGES

- Large vs Small (& mission) data centers
- Domestic vs International
- Long term preservation
- 	Government vs university
- 	Hardware/technology evolves
- 	Software won’t rust, will go bust with new systems
- 	Human troubles, operators & hackers
- Emphasize service not formats for providers

## QUESTIONS

- Centralized vs distributed?
- Archive like a Scientist or a Librarian?
- Metadata, when is enough enough?
- To archive higher level products,       curate data or curate s/w to create them?

## COST CONSIDERATIONS

- Evolution vs Revolution – remember revolutions are expensive
- Need leverage -- compliance needs to be contractural obligation mandated by funding agency.

## INFO & LESSONS LEARNED

- Audits & Checklists
- How to Morph an Archive
- Goal should be a standard format, e.g. html
- Persistent Dataset Identifiers & Bibcodes
- Data Grids
- ESAC
- Document libraries

## QUOTES

- Clarity comes from usage.
- What about the unborn users?
- So far I’ve learned “centralized” is bad.
- It’s the metadata, stupid.
- They’ve been very flexible – for engineers.
- Science would be much better if you didn’t have to mess with formats.
- It’s very hard to produce well-documented data.
# Presentation: 243535

## Biostatistics

**Dr. Larry Rubinstein, **
**National Cancer Institute**

## Phase 0 Trial Statistics for PD Assay

**Endpoints are PD assay, baseline (ideally, just before Tx) vs. post-Tx, in tumor tissue and in blood**
**Baseline measures: 1 ****pre-treatment**** tumor biopsy measurement and at least 3 pre-treatment blood measurements (ideally, taken over the baseline to post-Tx time span) per patient**
**1 post-Tx measurement used as primary endpoint for tumor and blood (at same time post-Tx)**
**Declare significant Tx-related change, **_***for an individual patient***_**, for observed 2-fold change combined with 90% statistical confidence of a true difference (10% false positive rate)**
**For blood this is 1.8 x intra-pt pre-Tx SD**
**For tumor tissue this is 1.8 x inter-pt pre-Tx SD**

## Minimal Phase 0 Trial Design

**Accrue 3 patients to each of the dose levels**
**For either endpoint, tumor or blood, significant Tx-related response **_***for a dose***_** is defined as significant change for at least 2 patients out of the 3**
_***For a dose***_**, if there is 80% likelihood of observing change **_***at the patient level***_**, there is 90% power to detect significant response **_***for the dose level***_
**There is an overall 6% false positive rate, for both endpoints combined, **_***for a dose level***_** with no biologic effect (because of the 10% false positive observed change **_***at the patient level***_**)**

## Enhanced Phase 0 Trial Design

**There may be a need to detect a lower rate of response per dose level—use a 2-stage design**
**Accrue 3-5 patients per dose level, allowing for the expansion of a cohort to 5 patients if the results are not definitive for the initial 3**
**Declare significant change, **_**for an individual patient**_**, for an observed 2-fold change combined with 95% statistical confidence of a true difference**
**For tumor tissue this is 2.3 x inter-patient pre-Tx SD**
**For blood this is 2.3 x intra-pt pre-Tx SD**

## Enhanced Phase 0 Trial Design Details

**Accrue 3 patients to each dose level**
**If a significant change is observed for exactly   1 patient, for either endpoint, expand the dose to 5 patients**
**For either endpoint, significant Tx-related response **_***for a dose***_**, for cohort size 3 or 5, is defined as significant change for at least 2 pts**
_***For a dose***_**, if there is 60% likelihood of observing change **_***at the patient level***_**, there is 89% power to detect significant response **_***for the dose level***_
**There is an overall 4% false-positive rate, for both endpoints combined, **_***for a dose level***_** with no biologic effect (because of the 5% false- positive observed change **_***at the patient level***_**)**

## The Next Speaker is:Dr. Holly Taylor

**The Next Speaker is:****Dr. Holly Taylor**
# Presentation: 684860

## Arc Reduction Procedures forSolar Cells

-  Developed construction method for solar cells to reduce high 	voltage solar cell arcing
-  Developed UHV test facility and methods for evaluating the 	mechanism of arcing in high voltage solar cells in LEO
-  Successfully tested reduced arc frequency solar cells during 	Shuttle mission
**                             ****COMMERCIALIZATION**
-  Established testing service for alternate solar cell designs
-  Sales of more than $100 K for testing service

***PHYSICAL SCIENCES, INC.***
***ANDOVER, MA***

**S****mall**
**B****usiness**
**I****nnovation **
**R****esearch**

**     ****GOVERNMENT/SCIENCE APPLICATIONS**
-  NASA purchased test panels for $15K which were tested 		successfully on Space Shuttle flight STS-62
-  Very useful to Space Station
-  Applicable to any Low Earth Orbit (LEO) power system

- 1987 Phase 2; SS-175; 9/8/97

- Lewis Research Center

**Arc Reduction Procedures for****Solar Cells**

***High Voltage Arcing ***
# Presentation: 681484

## MINOS NEAR DETECTOR

- Status
- Plans for Installation and Commissioning

- P. Shanahan
- FNAL
- AlExp 11/17/03

## MINOS Detectors

- 1” Fe/1cm plastic scintillator
- 4.1 cm transverse segmentation
- WLS fiber readout into multi-anode PMTs

*Near Detector readout single ended*

## Near Detector

- Smaller than Far Detector
- 282 planes (153 scintillator), partial instrumentation
- 980t, 4.8m x 3.8m x 16.6m

- 1.2T magnetic field

- Every 5th plane throughout detector is fully instrumented

## Near Detector Function

- First 120 planes: each plane instrumented
- Last 162 planes: multiplexed spectrometer region

- cm

- cm

- cm

- cm

- Veto
- region

- Target
- region

- Calorimeter
- region

- Spectrometer
- Region:4x multiplexing,
- 4/5 planes not instrumented

- MC

## Readout Electronics

- High Rate Neutrino Experiment
- >30 interactions/10s spill
- QIE based system
- Multiranging, Deadtimeless 19ns sampling over entire spill
- Electronics Assembly nearly complete
- Checkout >50% complete

**Component Count (not counting ~10% spares):**
**9328 MENUS**
**583 MINDERS**
**81 MASTERS**

**Readout Boards**
**(MASTER)**

**MINDER**
**Crate**

**Trigger/Keeper**

**Front End Mother Boards**
**(MINDERs)**

**Readout**
**Crate**

- QIE Daughter Board(MENU)

## Near Detector Status

- All ND planes ready for installation
- Staging at New Muon
- Rack assembly in progress
-  Beneficial Occupancy: Jan. 31, 2004

- Integration tests: 8 spectrometer planes
- Prior to B.O., test integration of planes, fiber cables, PMTs, electronics, Light Injection
- Possibly readout with DAQ, schedule permitting

## Installation

- Installation expected to start ~ 6-8 weeks after Beneficial Occupancy
- Aim for 2 planes/day
- Stage from NMS to MINOS Surface Building
- Expect *O*(30) weeks to complete

*Practicing plane manipulation with strongback*

## Commissioning

- Aim to commission planes as they go in
- Light leaks
- basic functioning, operational parameters of scintillator, PMT, electronics, Light Injection system
- Great experience gained at Calibration Detector at CERN
- Hope to demonstrate interactions in 1st few minutes of neutrino beam.
# Presentation: 739825

## Section 5

_***Section 5***_
***Technical Reviews***

*** ******. . . Dale Schulz***
*EO-1 Project Manager *

## Peer Reviews SinceMarch Red Team Review

***Peer Reviews Since******March Red Team Review***

***Safehold Test On-Orbit***
***Additional Vibration Test***

## Safehold Test On-Orbit

***Safehold Test On-Orbit***

***Review Panel from GSFC GN&C Systems Engineering Branch***
***Eric Holmes***
***Landis Markley***
***Alan Reth***
***Sam Placanica***
***Three Actions were established and answered by the ACS Team***
***Verify that all instruments can survive dwelling on the sun for 10 minutes; only the AC is vulnerable if allowed to stare at the sun for an extended duration, but analyses and simulations demonstrate there is sufficient angular rate during Safehold Mode (SHM) attitude acquisition to prevent a thermal problem.***
***Duration of SHM Test should be at least one complete orbit; it is.***
***Have the Solar Array outside the 5 degree “indexed” tolerance when the SHM is initiated; it will be set to a 10 degree offset.***
***The Review Panel concurred with the planned SHM Test on Day 2. The NMP Program Manager, Director of AETD, Director of R&QA, and the Director of Projects all also concur with the plan.***

## Additional Vibration Testing

***Additional Vibration Testing***

***Peer Review Panel***
***Steve Brodeur, Chair (540)***
***Bob Coladonato (542)***
***Scott Gordon (542)***
***Oren Sheinman (543)***
***Mark Turczyn (730) ***
***Panel concurred with the Project that the benefits of additional vibration testing are not worth the risks***
***All assembly / disassembly was uncomplicated and well controlled; same procedures, personnel, and quality control was used as in the original assembly***
# Presentation: 769314

## Windows Requirementsin theResidential Energy Codes

- 2005 National Workshop
- on
- State Building Energy Codes
- Austin, TX

## Window Metrics

- U-Factor
- Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC)
- Air Leakage (AL)

## Window Ratings

- National Fenestration Rating Council
- Required for U-Factor since 1995 MEC
- Required for SHGC since 1998 IECC

## MEC & Windows

- No prescriptive requirements
- Window U-Factor buried in wall Uo

## MEC Wall U-Factor

## MEC

- Default U-Factors for non-rated windows added in 1995
- No requirements for window solar control

## Approximate Window Requirements from MEC Wall Uo

- 15% Window to Wall Area Ratio

**Low-E**

**Clear**

## IECC: 1998, 2000, and 2003

- Added tables of prescriptive U-Factors
- Added SHGC requirements in the south
- Added NFRC rating of SHGC
- Added default SHGC for non-rated windows
- Replacement windows added in 2000

## IECC Window U-Factors: Type A-1

## IECC Window U-Factors: Type A-2

## IECC: 170 Prescriptive Combinations

- (17) climate zones
- (6) window to wall areas for type A-1
- (3) window to wall areas for type A-2
- (1) replacement set
- Different requirements for Performance Path!!!

## IECC 1998-2000Prescriptive Window Requirements

- IECC 1998-2000Prescriptive Window Requirements

- 15% Window to Wall Area Ratio

**Low-E**

**Clear**

**Low Solar Gain**

## The Big Change: 2004 Supplement

- No window to wall area requirements
- Simplified table of prescriptive requirements applies to single & multi-family
- Performance path baseline and replacement windows tied to Prescriptive

## 2004 IECC Window Requirements

## IECC 2004+Prescriptive Window Requirements

- IECC 2004+Prescriptive Window Requirements

- 15% Window to Wall Area Ratio

**Low-E**

**Low Solar Gain**

## Dis-Advantages to Eliminating Window ÷ Wall Area

- Change is hard
- It’s less accurate
- More training is needed
- You can build an all glass house

## Advantages to Eliminating Window ÷ Wall Area

- It’s easy to understand & enforce
- It will promote market transformation
- It saves energy nationally
- Every room is comfortable!
# Presentation: 696930

## U.S. Department of Transportation

- Vulnerability Assessment for Chemical, Biological, Radiological Weapons of Mass Destruction

## Purpose

- Increased threat of chemical / biological / radiological weapons.
- Evaluate the vulnerability of DOT Headquarters for various attacks.
- Determine strategies to best protect the building and occupants.

## Consultant Resources

- Argonne National Labs
- University of Chicago  						Tony Policastro 	630-252-3235
- Booz, Allen, Hamilton
- Nicholas Bahr  	703-377-0372
- U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center
- Homeland Defense Unit
- Jim Duhala 	410-436-4730

## Why Buildings are Likely Targets

- Large population densities
- Hazardous concentrations are achievable indoors with small quantities
- Agents can be delivered into a building with little warning
- Residual effects can make a building uninhabitable for extended periods of time
- Detection of chemical/biological hazards is challenging

## Agents of Concern	

- Military chemical agents
- (Nerve gases, Mustard agents)
- Toxic industrial chemicals
- (Chlorine, Arsine, Hydrogen Cyanide)
- Biological agents
- (Anthrax, Tularemia, Smallpox)
- Radiological agents

## Methods of Agent Delivery

- Internal Release
- Agent released inside of building
- Tokyo subway attack
- External Release – Proximate
- Agent released into external openings or air intakes
- External Release – Remote
- Agent plume envelopes the building from upwind source
- Matsumoto attack

## Basic Approaches for Protecting

- Continuous high efficiency air filtration
- Physical security (exclusion)
- Detector-initiated protection
- Internal filtration
- Personal respiratory protection
- Sheltering-in-place
- WMD response plans
- Education and Awareness

## Vulnerability Assessment Approach

- Site Visit
- Examine the existing condition of protective capabilities within the facility, based on the three agent delivery methods
- Examine the facility for potential application of known effective improvements
- Report
- Assign a vulnerability description rating for each factor
- Provide recommendations (with cost estimates) for reducing vulnerability
# Presentation: 272512

## MDC4 Reconstruction

- Good news
- Relatively stable/smooth operation of software
- Things which were expected to break did not
- New stuff put in recently performed well
- Bad news
- We still lack a detailed look at things
- Some issues remain to be resolved
- But it is doable
- Calibrations cannot be tested here but knowledge accumulates

## New Reconstruction Software

- (Beyond detector level)
- TPC-SVT matcher (EST) in place
- It works nicely (even with only 3-SVT layers)
- Needs some tuning (secondaries)
- Primary (pseudo) Kalman fit
- Used for first time on large production in MDC4 !!
- Looks similar to year-1, as expected
- Open issues still remain but all doable

## New Reconstruction Software (2)

- EVR upgrades
- Better efficiency/better vertex at low multiplicity
- Some minor issues should be discussed/resolved
- “global” handshaking
- Needed careful coordination
- Still needs work on alignment (transforms?) with data
- Stability is near but not here!

## EVR updates (by L.Ray)

- Bottom line is
- Details in /protected/reco/ray/evr_testresults_April2001.html
- New low multiplicity efficiency is factor of 2 up but it still misses a lot of good events
- We might have to re-install LMV even if it overdoes it
- Peripheral group needs these events
- Heavy Ion users should use carefully events with <20 primaries
- Use of beam position knowledge keeps x,y reco sigmas almost flat over all multiplicities
- This is an optional switch

## EVR updates (2)

- For MDC4 resolution is as expected ~50um
- Issues (EVR is the messenger, do not shoot him!)
- S-shape of reconstructed vertex z-position
- This is a recent feature
- It shows up in simulations, not ‘calibration’
- Not clear origin but closing down
- LMV reinstallation

## New Primary Fit (A. Saulys, W. Deng)

- First time in large production in MDC4
- Identical so far for year-1/year-2
- Kalman propagation to vertex neighborhood
- Constrained fit to vertex
- ‘GEANT’-look up of material/energy loss
- Not yet implemented for global tracks in year-2
- But in the works together with use of dE/dx info

## New Primary Fit (2)

- It is not a miracle performer but
- It does a better job than the one before
- Energy loss seems to be corrected
- Chi2 peaks around 0.9 for data at best
- It peaks around 0.7 for TRS simulations
- Momentum resolution trends as expected.

## New Primary Fit (3)

- Issues
- TRS/Data chi2 needs to be resolved
- Hit error systematics might have to be revisited again after all calibrations are done
- Use dE/dx info in both years (coming)
- Extend ‘GEANT’ trick to account for SVT in global
# Presentation: 550618

## Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and SafetyDonald St.PierreDeputy DirectorFDA/CDRH/OIVD

## Topics of Discussion

**New office (what is different)**
**Structure**
**Goals**
**What have we done so far**
**In-process items of interest**

## How are we Structured

**Established – November 2002**
**Single Organizational Unit**
**Premarket/Compliance/Postmarket**
**One Stop Shopping to better serve all stakeholders**

## Who’s who

**Director, OIVD – Steve Gutman**
**Deputy Director – Don St,Pierre**
**3 Divisions**
**Chemistry & Toxicology (Jean Cooper)**
**Immunology & Hematology (Josie Bautista)**
**Microbiology (Freddie Poole)**
**Number of vacant/acting positions**

## Office Goals

**Increase Transparency**
**Uniform Least Burdensome Approach**
**Expedite Technology Transfer**
**Improve Connectivity & Quality of Work**
**Knowledge & Understanding are Key**

## What have we done

**IVD webpage**
**Move to more education (lab safety tip)**
_**[http://](http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/oivd/index.html)**__**[www.fda.gov/cdrh/oivd/index.html](http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/oivd/index.html)**_
**Standardized review format**
**Move to posting for transparency**
**Patient safety team**
**Looking for new ways to identify and resolve problems**
**Active surveillance**

## In the works

**Posting FDA review summaries and labeling, if possible**
**Shift from premarket to quality systems**
**Open ASR rule - NPRM**
**Rethink basic tenets**
**Expand authorities -- risk based approach**
**Address level playing field arguments**
**Drafting multiplex testing guidance**
# Presentation: 318163

## Argyle Colonial Forton the Ogeechee

## Slide 2

## Interpretation Challenges

- Primary mission of Fort Stewart is to assist training and deployment of soldiers.
- Installation must ensure the maximum amount of land for training soldiers.
- Permanent Interpretive station would be seen as drawing funds and focus away from the mission of training soldiers.

## Theme

- The survival of the early Georgia colony system depended on a system of frontier fortifications, beyond the limits of settlement and farming, by Rangers who patrolled the outlying system.

## Goals

- Broaden, context from compliance to include interpretation of Fort Argyle, to include a wider audience. Convince the commander of the potential of Fort Argyle to influence the Army and the nation in an effort to create stakeholders to implement a comprehensive Cultural Resource Management  Plan to include an interpretation of Fort Argyle.
- Using available resources develop and implement an evolving plan to connect people to the story of Fort Argyle.

## Objectives

- Satisfy compliance issues.
- Staff action from the director to the General, that Fort Argyle be recognized for its historical value to the nation and this action include identification of potential stakeholders.
- Director of Public Works creates a staff ride to train officers and un-commissioned officers using the legacy of Fort Argyle.
- Create a traveling exhibit/program featuring the story of Fort Argyle, which can be used in a variety of settings.
- Such as DOD and local school systems, third infantry division and other interested parties.

## Plan

- Immediate Plan- Trunk at the museum comparing and contrasting colonial ranger equipment to 21st century military equipment. Develop web based activities related to the history of Fort Argyle. Create a portable exhibit for use at special events.
- Short Term Plan- Permanent exhibit at the existing Infantry Museum. Portable Diorama, implement living history program.
- Long Term- Commander and all stakeholders support continued support of initiatives and research into the story.
# Presentation: 912175

## U. S. Chamber of Commerce – 

**U. S. Chamber of Commerce – **
**Fighting for Your Business**

## U. S. Chamber of Commerce – Fighting for Your Business

**U. S. Chamber of Commerce – Fighting for Your Business**

**About the U.S. Chamber of Commerce**
**The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, founded on April 12, 1912,  with a group of 700 delegates from various commercial and trade organizations is the world’s largest business federation. **
**•  ****3 million businesses**
**•  ****Thousands of state and local chambers of commerce**
**•  ****Hundreds of business associations**
**•  ****104 American Chambers of Commerce in 91 countries**

## U. S. Chamber of Commerce – Fighting for Your Business

**U. S. Chamber of Commerce – Fighting for Your Business**

**Membership and Staff:**
**Members include businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions. Many of the nation’s largest companies are active Chamber members, and more than 96% of members are small businesses with 100 employees or fewer.**
**The Chamber maintains a professional staff of more than 300 of the nation’s top policy experts, lobbyists, lawyers, and communicators.**

## U. S. Chamber of Commerce – Fighting for Your Business

**Our Mission**
**The Chamber’s core mission is to fight for business and free enterprise before Congress, the White House, regulatory agencies, the courts, the court of public opinion, and governments around the world.**
**Mission Statement:**
**"To advance human progress through an economic, political and social system based on individual freedom, incentive, initiative, opportunity, and responsibility**

**U. S. Chamber of Commerce – Fighting for Your Business**

## U. S. Chamber of Commerce – Fighting for Your Business

**U. S. Chamber of Commerce – Fighting for Your Business**

**Connecting with Members:**

|  Monthly Magazine

 Weekly E-Newsletter
 |  Reports and Studies

 News Feeds

 |
| --- | --- |

** ****Summits, conferences and workshops**

**  ****Annually over 2 million Standard Mail and First Class Mail pieces **

## U. S. Chamber of Commerce – Fighting for Your Business

**U. S. Chamber of Commerce – Fighting for Your Business**

**Strategy for 2007:**
** ****Working for pro-growth legislation**
** ****Challenging Anti-Business Proposals**
** ****Advancing Competitive Reforms **

## U. S. Chamber of Commerce – 

**U. S. Chamber of Commerce – **
**Fighting for Your Business**

- www.uschamber.com
# Presentation: 474551

## A Seven-Cruise Sample of Clouds, Radiation, and Surface Forcing in the Equatorial Eastern Pacific

- J. E. Hare, C. W. Fairall, T. Uttal, D. Hazen – *Environmental Technology Laboratory*Meghan Cronin and Nick Bond - *NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory*Dana Veron - *Rutgers University*

**Measurements**

| Table 1. Instruments and measurements deployed by ETL for the ship-based cloud/MBL monitoring project. |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | System | Measurement |
| 1 | Motion/navigation package | Motion correction for turbulence |
| 2 | Sonic anemometer/thermometer | Motion covariance turbulent fluxes |
| 3 | IR fast H2O/CO2 sensor | Direct covariance moisture/CO2 fluxes |
| 4 | Mean SST, air temperature/RH | Bulk turbulent fluxes |
| 5 | Pyranometer/Pyrgeometer | Downward solar and IR radiative flux |
| 6 | Ceilometer | Cloud-base height |
| 7 | 0.92 or 3 GHz Doppler radar profiler | Cloud-top height, MBL microturbulence |
| 8 | Rawinsonde | MBL wind, temperature, humidity prof. |
| 9 | 23, 31 GHz μ wave radiometer (ARM type) (MAILBOX) | Integrated cloud liquid water
Integrated total water vapor |
| 10 | Riegl Laser wave sensor | Ocean surface wave height/period |
| 11 | Precipitation spectrometer | Drizzle droplet size spectra |
| 12 | CN counter, aerosol spectrometer | Aerosol size spectra |
| 13 | BNL rotating shadowband radiometer | Direct/diffuse solar |
| 14 | 35 GHz Doppler cloud radar | Cloud microphysical properties |
| 15 | 20, 31, 90 GHz μ wave radiometer (ETL) (MMCR) | Integrated cloud liquid water
Integrated total water vapor |
| 16 | Upward pointed IR thermometer | Cloud-base radiative temperature |
| 17 | Ronald H. Brown C-band radar | Precipitation spatial structure |

**Data Sample: Wind Components**

- Wind components from 7 cruises.  The left panel shows daily averages of the individual observations; the right panel shows the 7-cruise average (blue=spring and red=fall).  Note the strong intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) at 8 to 10 N in the fall.

**Cloud Radiative Forcing and Net Heat Fluxes**

- Average surface heat fluxes for the 7 cruises (blue=spring; red=fall).  The left panel is for the IR cloud forcing (upper) and solar cloud forcing (lower).  The right panel shows the net surface heat flux (upper) and the cloud forcing contribution to that flux (lower)

- Cloud Forcing = Mean Measured Radiative Flux – Mean Clear Sky Radiative Flux.
- Thus, cloud forcing is the net effect the cloud have on the surface radiative fluxes.  For IR flux it is positive (clouds warm the surface) while for solar flux it is negative (clouds cool the surface).
# Presentation: 438693

## Markus Glatter, Colin Mollenhour,
Jian Huang, and Jinzhu Gao
The University of Tennessee

- Jian Huang, and Jinzhu Gao
**The University of Tennessee**

- Scalable Data Servers for Large Multivariate Volume Visualization

## Motivation

**Volumetric multivariate time-varying datasets are often complex and massive in size.**
**Efficient and interactive selection and visualization of subsets is not easily done, as datasets will not fit in core.**
**Real-word example: astrophysics simulation of supernova generates 300 time steps of a spatial resolution of 864x864x864 with multiple attributes stored at each voxel.**
**Few systems can adequately support (interactive) visualization of such enormous datasets.**

## Our approach: Overview

**Parallel data management and effective data culling**

## Data culling

**Parallel data culling on the granularity of individual voxels.**
**Process is driven by compound boolean range queries.**
**Cull unnecessary voxels as early in the visualization pipeline as possible, i.e., on the server side.**

## Parallel data management

**The entire dataset is distributed among a number of networked independent computers according to space filling curve order in the high-dimensional attribute space.**
**Load-balancing can be achieved among data servers, independent of the range queries.**

## Parallel data management

**Each data server leverages a very compact data structure similar to B-tree to maintain all voxels distributed to it.**
**Queries to a server can be responded to quickly with a query rate of 4.2 million relevant voxels per second across a local area network.**

## Requirements

**System of networked workstations without any special hardware or software.**
**All data servers combined need to hold the entire dataset in main memory in a compressed form.**
**Queries will need to fit into client’s main memory to render.**
**If requirements cannot be met, the system will still be operational, but performance will be hampered.**

## Results—Datasets

- TSI**—****Time-varying (6 time steps),****	****Multivariate (11 attributes),****	****864x864x864****	****	**105 GB of raw data

- RMI**—****Time-varying (3 time steps), ****	****Multivariate (11 attributes), ****	****1024x1024x960****	****	****	****	**82 GB of raw data

**Tests run with 20, 30, and 40 servers**

## Results

## Results

**Network seems to be the bottleneck of the system:**
**Even with a Quadrics Elan3 network (single-direction bandwidth of 400 MB per second).**
**We can query at 144 MB/s or about 9 million voxels per second in parallel.**
**The load imbalance among servers ranged between a mere 0.012% to 0.155% for medium and large queries.**

## Integration into VisIt

- http://www.llnl.gov/visit

**Scalable data servers have been integrated into the free interactive parallel visualization and graphical analysis tool VisIt as a module in version 1.7**

## Contact

- Markus Glatter
- The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
- (865) 974-5400
- glatter@cs.utk.edu

-    Glatter_ScalableDS_SC07
# Presentation: 422165

## Surface Water – Groundwater Interaction in San Acacia Reach

*Nabil Shafike*
*New Mexico Interstate *
*Stream Commission*

## SW/GW A Single Resource

## Gaining / Losing Streams

*Winter et al. 1998.*

## Disconnected Stream

*Winter et al. 1998.*

## Stream Aquifer Interaction Under Stress

*Winter et al. 1998.*

## Mathematical Representation

*Stream –aquifer System*

*Representation of the Stream –aquifer System*

*Land *
*Surface*

*River *
*Surface*

*Water Table*

*Head in *
*Cell (h)*

*Streambed*

*River Stage *
*(HRIV)*

*Impermeable Walls*

*M*

*W*

*RBOT*

*If   h > RBOT*
*     **Leakage = Cond (HRIV – h)*
*If   h <= RBOT*
*     **Leakage  = Cond (HRIV – RBOT)*
*Riverbed Conductance = KLW/M*

***MODFLOW River Packages:***
***	******- Riv1    (MODFLOW 83)   ***
***	******- Riv2    (Miller 1988)***
***	******- Stream Pckg (Prudic, 89)***
***	******- BRANCH (Swain et al, 97)***
***	******- SFR-1 (Prudic et al, 2004)***

## Conceptualization of the SW System

## Conceptualization of the Groundwater System

- (Anderholm 1987)

## Shallow SW/GW Interaction

## Surface Water Depletion

## Rio Grande Seepage Analysis

## Aquifer Test Analysis

- H. Hydrauic Conductivity (Kx)   =   72.0    ft/day
- V. Hydraulic Conductivity (Kz)  =    3.6     ft/day
- Kh : Kz                                         =   20 : 1
- Specific Yield   (Sy)                     =    0.15
- Specific Storage (Ss)                    =    6.0e-07  1/ft
- Discharge (Q)                               =   76.0   gpm

## Slide 13

## Regional GW/SW Model

## Riparian Vegetation

## Measured vs Simulated Steady StateWater Levels

## Simulated Steady State Water Levels

*Simulated Steady State Water Levels*

## Measured Water Levels at HW-380

## Measured Water Levels Near San Marcial

## Inflow Hydrograph at San Acacia(Transient Run)

## Riparian Evapotranspiration Rate

## Rio Grande Flow at San Marcial

## LFCC Flow at San Marcial

## Simulated Groundwater Levelsat Escandida and San Antonio

## Operation Scenarios:

*	**1- Max diversion of 500 cfs and min of 100 cfs*
*	**2- Max diversion of 1000 cfs and min of 100 cfs*
*	**3- All flow diverted to LFCC with a max of 2000 cfs*
*Hydrology of year 2001 was used in all scenarios*

## Water Budget Analysis

## Water Above Land Surface

- Current Operation

- Maximum Operation

## Concluding Remarks

*For this specific year (2001-hydrology) and given the model input conditions:*
*	**1- SW Operations impact its interaction with the **	**groundwater system.*
*	**2- There is no significant difference in depletions between **	**current operation of the LFCC as a drain and a maximum **	**diversion between 500 cfs to 1000 cfs.*
*	**2-  Operating the LFCC up to its maximum capacity (2000 **	**cfs) provides the most efficient way to convey water to **	**Elephant Butte because evapotranspiration losses are **	**reduced. *
# Presentation: 413727

## Role of the CDRH Ombudsman

**Les Weinstein**
**Ombudsman**
**Center for Devices and Radiological Health**

*July **2000*

## Role of CDRH Ombudsman

**Provide focus to variety of dispute    resolution mechanisms**
**Easing the way to be heard**
**Accessible to industry;  **
**complaints, questions, issues and disputes;  suggestions and feedback **
**Activist, problem-solving Ombudsman**

## Respond to questions
Advise on options for challenging     or appealing decision
Shuttle diplomacy
Mediation

**Advise on options for challenging     or appealing decision**
**Shuttle diplomacy**
**Mediation**

**Role of CDRH Ombudsman****(continued)**

## Neutral and impartial, facilitate constructive resolution of disputes
Confidentiality

- Confidentiality

**Role of CDRH Ombudsman****(continued)**

## Initiatives

**Outreach to industry**
**speaking at trade association meetings**
**meeting with small groups of industry representatives**
**purpose:  explain role and listen to issues and concerns**
**MDDI (Medical Device Industry Initiatives Grassroots Task Force).  Joint industry/FDA group working together for mutual benefit.  Emphasis shifting from field to CDRH-specific**** ****issues.  **

## In-reach to CDRH staff. 
Met with other FDA Ombudsmen
Revising draft Guidance on Resolving Scientific Disputes

**Met with other FDA Ombudsmen**
**Revising draft Guidance on Resolving Scientific Disputes**

**Initiatives****(continued)**

## 
Impaneling new Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel 
8 members
scientific disputes -- no other avenue; performance standards; PMA/PDP; Postmarket Surveillance more than 36 months
first meeting tentatively planned for Oct 2000

**Impaneling new Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel **
**8 members**
**scientific disputes -- no other avenue; performance standards; PMA/PDP; Postmarket Surveillance more than 36 months**
**first meeting tentatively planned for Oct 2000**

**Initiatives****(continued)**

## Developing tracking system:       status and statistics
Website

**Website**

**Initiatives****(continued)**

## Full Title

**Ombudsman & Quality Assurance Manager: two sides of same coin, look at quality and consistency of decisions; make recommendations for improvement.  **

## US OmbudsmanAssociation Mission

**To promote and support fairness, accountability, and equity in government.  **

## How to Contact the CDRH Ombudsman:

**Les Weinstein**
**Telephone number:****  (301) 827-7991**
**Fax number:****  (301) 443-2962**
**Mailing address:**
**	****CDRH Ombudsman (HFZ-5)**
**	****Office of the Center Director**
**	****Center for Devices and Radiological Health**
**	****9200 Corporate Blvd.**
**	****Rockville, MD  20850**
**E-mail address:****  ombudsman@cdrh.fda.gov**
# Presentation: 166726

## Final Assumptions in Reference Case--Resources 

**Final Assumptions in Reference Case--Resources**** **
**SSG-WI Joint Planning Work Group/Technical Support Group Meeting**
**December 15, 2005**
**Mary Johannis**

## SSG-WI Planned Resource Reference

**SSG-WI Planned Resource Reference**
**Principles for Resource Additions (2008-2015)**
- “Minimal Interregional Transfer” Case

**Principles:**
-  Incremental 2008-2015 resources from IRPs, to satisfy RPS and be consistent with other formal plans
-  Incremental resources primarily to meet load growth in subareas, i.e. CA, NTAC, RMATS, SWAT & CCPG
-  If existing through 2008 resources are for export to other subareas, then assume same level of export for 2015

- Integrated Resource
- Plans (IRP)

- December 15, 2005

## Slide 3

- December 15, 2005

## Challenge of Conforming Transmission Topology to Resource Planning Topology

- NTAC = Alberta + BC Hydro + PNW ((NW East + NW West) + Idaho (Oxbow/Hells Canyon + Midpoint Boise & Snake + KGB + JB) ) + Montana
- Nevada = Sierra + Nevada
- Utah = Utah North + Utah South + Bonz
- Wyoming = Ywtl + BHB + Wyo + SW Wyo + Bhills + LRS
- Colorado = Col W + Col E
- New Mexico = New Mexico
- Arizona = Arizona + WAPA L.C.
- California = PG&E + Bay Area + So. Calif. + San Diego + Imperial CA + LADWP + IPP + Mexico CFE

- December 15, 2005

## L/R BALANCE BY STATE/REGION

| State/Region | 2015 Peak Load (MW) | 2015 Peak Resources (MW) | 2015 Planning Margin (%) | 2008 Planning Margin (%) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ALBERTA | 11,224 | 13,565 | 21 | 35 |
| BR COLUMBIA | 12,457 | 13,674 | 10 | 31 |
| PNW:OR,WA,ID | 35,550 | 51,893 | 46 | 33 |
| NEVADA |  9,272 | 13,209 | 42 | 40 |
| MONTANA | 1,698 | 4,062 | 139 | 129 |
| UTAH | 9,425 | 7,837 | -17 | -22 |
| WYOMING  | 3,009 | 4,158 | 38 | 39 |
| COLORADO | 11,692 | 14,472 | 24 | 12 |
| CALIF/MEXICO | 71,133 | 77,809 | 9 | 16 |
| ARIZONA | 22,877 | 35,358 | 55 | 87 |
| NEW MEXICO | 4,730 | 5,718 | 21 | 30 |

**L/R BALANCE BY STATE/REGION**

- December 15, 2005

## Next Steps

- Data Base to Transition to WECC
- Opportunities for Updates/Corrections
- Add Omitted Facilities (e.g. PGE’s 388 MW Port Westward Gas Turbine, Utah Intermountain 1800 MW Coal Plant)
- More wind turbines in Wyoming?
- Selection of Model for Economic Transmission Expansion Planning via WECC
- Better method of Hydro Modeling
- Address Tx Modeling Issues such as Losses

- December 15, 2005
# Presentation: 756143

## Visapult and the SCXX Bandwidth Challenge Hat Trick

- Wes Bethel
- LBNL

## The Punch Line

- SC00 – 1.5 Gbps peak, 660 Mbps sustained.
- SC01 – 3.3 Gbps sustained.
- SC02 – 16.8 Gbps sustained.
- SC03 – we’re taking the year off.
- How did we do this?

## Visapult Architecture

## SC00 Bandwidth Challenge – the year of TCP

## SC01 Bandwidth Challenge – the year of UDP

## SC01 BWC – What’s this UDP stuff?

- Do away with “frame boundaries.”
- Each packet is independent.
- Flow-rate regulation.
- Decouple simulation PE from Visapult PE (domain decomposition independence).

## SC02 Bandwidth Challenge Resource Map

## SC02 SCInet Weathermap

## SC02 SCInet 10Gb Interface Traffic

## SC02 BWC Visapult Improvements

- Omniview capabilities
- Overhauled custom UDP encoding & connection handshake – more flexibility and better performance.

## Lessons Learned

- Rate regulated flows seriously kick booty. Want general purpose implementation. (Tsunami)
- Corollary: TCP sucks.
- Visapult is completely custom. Want better support to more generally deploy component-based RDV tools (Diva).
- Application drivers particularly useful to push technology in many areas, not just networking.
# Presentation: 537378

## OMI-TOMS Total Column Ozone A Comparison to Ground-based Ozone ValuesGordon LabowSSAINASA-Goddard Space Flight CenterAURA Validation Workshop, 22 September, 2005 much too early in the morning 

## Slide 2

## Slide 3

## Slide 4

## Slide 5

## Slide 6

## Slide 7

## OMI vs NOAA 16 SBUV/2

- Coincident matchups
- Within 1 hour (similar orbits)
- ~82 North to 82 South
- All OMI pixels averaged under SBUV FOV
- Over 340,000 matchups as of 9/1/05

## Slide 9

## Slide 10

## Slide 11

## Slide 12

## Slide 13

## Conclusions:

- It’s much too early in the morning for conclusions.......

## Results: The First year

- OMI TO**3** agrees quite well with data from an ensemble of Northern Hemisphere ground-stations.
- Agreement with N-16 SBUV/2 also looks good.
- No major retrieval errors can be seen from these comparisons.
- Only small corrections seem to be necessary:
-     - Aerosol comparisons suggest a small retrieval issue
-     - High Solar Zenith Angle errors will be addressed (M-3 TOMS)

## Future Work for allSatellite retrievals:Maintain long-term calibrationImprove retrievals under cloudy conditionsImprove retrievals at high solar zenith anglesGround-based retrievalsStudy SZA (Mu) dependenceStudy polarization effectsStray light & forward scattering effectsIteratively deconvolve SO2 from ozone Validation campaign suggestion:Someplace where the ozone is NOT 290-320 DU