BEE-spoke-data/govdocs1-by-extension huggingface dataset:
# Presentation: 940586

## Anomalous Water Molecule Seen by Neutron ScatteringT. Egami: University of Tennessee at Knoxville, DMR-0404781

- Water may appear to be a furthest matter from superconductivity.  Yet when a layered cobaltate (Na0.35CoO2) is intercalated with water it becomes superconducting. Using neutron scattering and the method of pair-density function (PDF) analysis for local structure, Cinzia Metallo (graduate student) discovered that the heavy water molecule (D2O) in this compound is anomalous, and takes two forms with different D-O-D angles.

**D-D**

## We have a high-school senior in our group!  Eddie Buehler, a gifted senior in Farragut High (center, with several of our group members) studies molecular dynamics modeling of liquids as a special project with full credit.

**We have a high-school senior in our group! ** Eddie Buehler, a gifted senior in Farragut High (center, with several of our group members) studies molecular dynamics modeling of liquids as a special project with full credit.

*While the mechanism of superconductivity in regular metals, such as aluminum, is well understood, that of complex metallic oxides, including high-temperature superconductivity in some cupper compounds, remains a deep mystery.  What we and others found is that in these oxides local atomic structure and dynamics are different from the average, and they may be contributing to this strange phenomenon.  Using neutron scattering as a main tool we try to cut into this mystery, as the example of cobaltate shows.*
# Presentation: 403523

## Earth Science ApplicationsSystems Engineering Process

**The *****Evaluation***** phase involves understanding the requirements for and technical feasibility of Earth science and remote sensing tools and methods for addressing DSS needs.**

**The *****Verification and Validation***** (*****V&V*****)**** phase includes measuring the performance characteristics of data, information, technologies, and/or methods, and assessing the ability of these tools to meet the requirements of the DSS.**
**In the *****Benchmarking****** *****phase, the adoption of NASA inputs within a DSS and the resulting impacts and outcomes are documented in a Benchmark Report.**

**Earth Science Applications****Systems Engineering Process**

**DSS Selection**

**Evaluate**** **NASA ESE System Components as DSS Inputs

**Design & Implement**** **Integrated System Solutions

**Benchmark**** **DSS with NASA Inputs

**Enhanced DSS**

- Refine

- Refine

- Refine

- Refine

**Evaluation**

**V&V**

**Benchmarking**

**Verify & Validate**** **NASA Outputs as DSS Inputs

- Refine

- Identify
**Requirements**** & Specifications **
**of DSS** Inputs & Outputs

- Revision 2

- 6/18/2004
# Presentation: 409768

## Heroes atHeinz Field

**Heroes at****Heinz Field**

## Slide 2

## Slide 3

## Slide 4

## Slide 5

## Slide 6

## Slide 7

## Slide 8

## Slide 9

## Slide 10

## Slide 12

## Slide 13

## Slide 14

## Slide 15

## Slide 16

## Slide 17

## Slide 18

## Slide 19

## Slide 21

## Slide 24

## Slide 25

## Slide 26

## Slide 27

## Slide 28

## Slide 29

## Slide 30

## Slide 31

## Slide 32

## Slide 33

## Slide 34

## Slide 35

## Slide 36

## Slide 37

## Slide 38

## Slide 39

## Slide 40

## Slide 41

## Slide 42

## Slide 43

## Slide 44

## Slide 45

## Slide 46

## Slide 47

## Slide 48

## Slide 49

## Slide 50

## Slide 51

## Slide 52

## Slide 53

## Slide 54

## Slide 55

## Slide 56

## Slide 57

## Slide 58

## Slide 59

## Slide 60

## Slide 62

## Helping Our Heroes

**Helping Our Heroes**
# Presentation: 321083

## Multi-Platform Goals of ICARTT

**Multi-Platform Goals of ICARTT**

**Measurement Comparison**

**Lagrangian Experiment**

**Radiative Forcing of Aerosols**

## Multi-Platform Goals of ICARTT

**Aircraft to aircraft**
**Aircraft to ground**
**Aircraft to ship**
**Aircraft to Satellite**
**Ship to Satellite**

**Credibility of measurements:**
**What is critical?**
**Can we trust it?**
**How can we test it?**

***Your not doing as well as you think (hope)?***

**Multi-Platform Goals of ICARTT**

## Multi-Platform Goals of ICARTT

**New York City plume - July 20 - 26 (P-3, DLR Falcon, Mace Head)**
**Low-level Outflow - July 15 - 18 (P-3, DC-8, BAe 146, Pico)**
**Warm Conveyor Belt - July 27 - August 1 (P-3, DC-8, BAe 146, DLR Falcon, Pico)**
**Outflow - July 9 - 15 (P-3, BAe 146)**
**Alaskan/Canadian Forest Fires - July 18 - 31 (DC-8, P-3, BAe 146)**

**Lagrangian Experiment (Evolution During Transport) **

**A. Stolh and D. Parrish NOAA**

**Multi-Platform Goals of ICARTT**

## Lagrangian Experiment (Evolution During Transport) 

**Lagrangian Experiment (Evolution During Transport) **

## Aerosol Properties and Radiative Effects

**Aerosol Properties and Radiative Effects**

**Aerosol Characterization**

***(Various platforms)***
# Presentation: 175333

## Operational Heat/Health Warning Systems and Application in Urban Environmental Hazard Management

**Dr. Laurence S. Kalkstein****Center for Climatic Research****University of Delaware**

**Challenges in Urban Meteorology: **
**                       ****A Forum for Users and Providers**
**Rockville, Maryland****September, 2004**

## Cook County, Illinois: July, 1995

- -- During the hottest days, mortality increased by over 100 %

## Maximum Temperature vs. Daily Mortality: 

**Maximum Temperature vs. Daily Mortality: **
**New York  and Jacksonville, Florida**

**	****New York****	****	****	****	****Jacksonville**

- -- The impact of weather is relative rather than absolute.

## Slide 4

## What can be done when a heat emergency is called?

## Intervention Actions Taken byPhiladelphia Department of Public Health When Health Warning is Issued

- Media announcement
- Promotion of the “buddy system”
- Activation of the “heatline”
- Home visits
- Nursing and personal care boarding home intervention
- Halt of utility service suspensions
- Increased emergency medical service staffing
- Daytime outreach to the homeless
- Air conditioned service facility capability

## New Orleans Intervention Activities

** ****Very little**

## Steps That can be Taken When 

- Alerts or Emergencies are Called

- 1.	NWS alerts appropriate city agency
- 	(e.g., Department of Health, Office of Aging, etc.)
- 2.	City develops (or already has in place) intervention plans
- 3.	Effectiveness of system can be monitored in three manners,
- 	and improvements are implemented if there are 			shortcomings:
- 	--forecasting effectiveness (false positives or negatives)
- 	--accuracy in estimating health impacts of offensive weather 	--noting if we are saving lives.

## Effectiveness of Philadelphia Heat Health System (based on Ebi et. al.*)

- Study evaluated effectiveness of Philadelphia system for the summers of 1995-98.
- It is estimated that 2.6 lives were saved on average, for each warning day and for the following three days.
- Therefore, based on the number of warning called by the Philadelphia Weather Service Forecast Office, the watch warning system saved an estimated 117 lives over the four summer period

- ---------
- * Ebi, K.L., T. J. Teisberg,  L.S. Kalkstein, L.Robinson, R.F. Weiher.  Heat Watch/Warning Systems Save Lives: Estimated Costs
- 	and Benefits for Philadelphia 1995-1998.  *Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society*, August 2004.

## How can we make cities cooler?

## Key Strategies to Reduce Heat Islands

**Urban Vegetation**
**Cool Roofing**
**Cool Pavements**

## Modeling Exercise to Implement These Strategies in Los Angeles

- By increasing the urban area’s solar reflectivity (albedo), the intensity of heat and associated deaths should drop.
- For Los Angeles, average heat-related mortality dropped by over 20% during hot humid air masses.
- Similar results were obtained from Philadelphia.
- The costs of adding reflective roofs to inter-city dwellings is not expensive.
- The added benefit of vegetation is questionable:
- provides shading
- but increases relative humidity
# Presentation: 037063

## FACILITATION MODEL

## Identify what it means to use “self” 
Understand differences in perception and how assumptions impact behavior
Describe ways in which people differ

- Understand differences in perception and how assumptions impact behavior
- Describe ways in which people differ

- MODULE 3 OBJECTIVES

## Identify how knowledge of a group’s learning style preferences can improve facilitation
Identify the eight Adult Learning Principles
Rate your use of Adult Learning Principles and implications for how you facilitate adults

- Identify the eight Adult Learning Principles
- Rate your use of Adult Learning Principles and implications for how you facilitate adults

- MODULE 3 OBJECTIVES, continued

## USING “SELF” TO HELP GROUPS

- Using our perceptions to help us understand and give meaning to what’s happening in the group
- Acting as a role model to demonstrate expected behaviors

## THE LADDER OF INFERENCE PROCESS

***Adapted from Senge and Roberts’ *****Fifth Discipline Fieldbook.***

## BENEFITS OF THE LADDER OF INFERENCE

- Become more aware of our own thinking and reasoning
- Make our thinking and reasoning more apparent to others
- Inquire into others’ thinking and reasoning

## GUIDELINES FOR USING THE LADDER OF INFERENCE

- 1.	Identify the conclusions you/person is making.
- 2.	Identify/ask for data that lead to the conclusion.
- 3.	Identify/inquire into reasoning that links the data and conclusion.
- 4.	Identify/infer a possible belief or assumption.
- 5.	Identify/state your inference and test it with the person.

## ADULT LEARNING PRINCIPLES

- 1.	Focus on “real-world” problems
- 2.	Emphasize how the learning can be applied
- 3.	Relate the learning to the goals of the participants
- 4.	Relate the information to past experiences of the participants

## ADULT LEARNING PRINCIPLES, continued

- 5.	Allow debate and challenge of ideas
- 6.	Listen to and respect the opinions of participants
- 7.	Encourage participants to be resources to you and others
- 8.	Treat participants like adults

## MODULE 3 KEY POINTS

- Effective facilitators:
- Understand the impact of assumptions and beliefs upon behavior
- Are aware of different learning styles and seek to meet the different needs people have
- Create an environment where people work from their strengths
# Presentation: 099886

## CLS ?

-   2.9 Gev synchrotron light source
-   3rd generation machine - insertion devices
-   main storage ring is 170 m. circumference
-   6 IR and X-ray beam lines,  4 – 6 more 	under 	development.
-   located in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
-   tony@cls.usask.ca

## Time line

-   Jan 2001	occupy new building
-   April 2001	commission linac
-   2001	install  & commission booster
-   2002	install & commission storage ring
-   2003	install beam lines
-    Dec 2003 	6 beam lines operational				4 or more in progress
-   control system will be gradually deployed for 	each stage

## EPICS 3.14

-   EPICS 3.14 running on RTEMS
-   conversion from EPICS 3.13 and vxWorks	straight forward.
-   target independent code
-   drivers for 	modbus / ethernet		FieldPoint		CLS stepping motors		GPIB via HP E2050 LAN/GPIB		magnet power supplies
-   EPICS 3.14 seems stable no crashes
-   EPICS 3.14 performance on RTEMS	is > 95% of 3.13 on vxWorks

## RTEMS

-   Developed for U.S. Army Missile Command
-   Now Open-Source (FreeBSD license terms)
-   Commercial support available ($$)
-   Runs on lots of platforms, including
-         MVME162, MVME167, MC68360
-         Power PC 27xx VME
-         Intel x86

**RTEMS**

## RTEMS Features

-   Multi-tasking Executive
-   Strict priority scheduling (preemptive)
-   255 priorities
-   Optional time-slicing between tasks at same 	priority
-   Semaphores, Message Queues, Events
-   Timers, Rate-monotonic Scheduler

**RTEMS Features**

## RTEMS Features

-   ANSI C/C++ library
-   FreeBSD network stack (ported by SAL)
-   Thread-safe RPC/XDR routines
-   POSIX compatibility option
-   Can not dynamically link libraries
-   No remote console access (no telnet)

**RTEMS Features**

## CLS Embedded Controller

- serial port 1 of 4

- BDM interface

- Motorola MC68360

- console

- Ethernet

**CLS Embedded Controller**

-   use more than 200 IOCs
-   inexpensive

## Power Supply controller

- state inputs

- to data bus – can address different power supply channels

- Embedded controller with 68360
# Presentation: 946351

## File Location Abstraction 

- Thomas K Hemmick

## Why is Hemmick talking about GRID?(he doesn’t know anything)

- Tuesday Alex came by to ask me a set of detailed questions about file list handling in typical macros:
- Prompted by specifics of STAR schedular.
- WOW ...  such detail already!!
- Discussion quickly moved from specifics to broader issues partly based upon Hemmick’s ignorance:
- “Well, what exactly is GRID?”
- Turns out there is a standard answer!!

## GRID is:

- Thus spake Ian Foster:
- _[http://www.gridtoday.com/02/0805/100191.html](http://www.gridtoday.com/02/0805/100191.html)_
- Coordinates resources that are NOT subject to centralized control
- Uses standard, open, general purpose protocols and interfaces
- Delivers non-trivial qualities of service
- Now I guess I understand a little bit about why it is still a subject without a complete answer.
- Back to Alex’s question in more detail:
- How does PHENIX handle the specifics of input file lists?
- How should a final GRID implementation of this be done?
- Seems to me that principle #1 has the most bearing:
- Our standards for input file name handling should impose as few as possible restrictions on independent grid sites.

## Stage-Dependent Specificity

- User asks tremendously broad (experiment specific) questions:
- “Let me pass my code over all data files that contain J/-> in the PHENIX Muon Arms.
- Appropriate file list is collected and run at “best” site by a generic mechanism.
- Goal is that the remote site’s job should determine site-specific details at run time:
- Which details are site-specific.
- Minimal effort by users to make jobs run-time savvy.
- One example is path to necessary files:
- Making full paths to files on all clusters a centralized aspect seems to violate principle 1.
- How to make run-time path specification?

## Irina’s baby:  FROG

- File names are standardized and completely descriptive of content:
- Content_buildVersion_run-subRun.root.
- All files with this specific name are identical.
- Do need to impose central definition of file naming convention.
- Site dynamically handles file placement; don’t want to central definition.

## Hidden From Users

- FROG application is actually hidden from the user invisibly.
- To Ron Soltz:
- File locations are on a need-to-know basis and you don’t need to know!

## Summary

- To satisfy GRID principle 1, we will need to carefully separate run-time knowledge from job-creation-time knowledge.
- File path is one example of an item that is most elegantly run-time specified.
- FROG shows an example of how such implementations can be made invisible to user macros.
- Future decisions should keep these boundaries always in mind.
# Presentation: 726000

## Standardized Comparison of

**ME generators**

- IPPP MC Workshop. Durham, January 2003

**Gervasio Gómez**
**Instituto de Física de Cantabria / CSIC**

## Motivation

- Several ME generators available:
- ALPGEN, MadGraph, GR@PPA, CompHEP, MCFM, others
- Many processes including W/Z + light or heavy jet-partons
- Define a common set of inputs, cuts and processes to make comparisons
- Useful
- Authors get feedback from users
- Improvements in code
- Better user interfaces
- Implementation of new processes
- Good way to determine if there are bugs
- Agreement  trust

## “comparison” ME inputs

| Parameter | value |
| --- | --- |
| Mz | 91.188 GeV |
| Mw | 80.41 GeV |
| GF | 1.16639x10-5 GeV-2 |
| sin2w | 0.2224 |
| em | 1/132.43 |
| w | 2.047 GeV  |
| z | 2.445 GeV |
| g | 0.6532 |
| g’ | 0.7407 |
| CKM: Vud=Vcs | sqrt(0.95) |
| CKM: Vus=-Vcd | sqrt(0.05) |
| CKM: Vub=Vcb | 0.0 |
| CKM: Vts=Vtd | 0.0 |
| CKM: Vtb | 1.0 |

## “comparison” ME inputs

| Parameter | value |
| --- | --- |
| beam | p-pbar |
| sqrt(s) | 1.96 TeV |
| Q2 | Mv |
| PDF | CTEQ5L (parametric) |
| s(Mz) | 0.127 |
| mt | 175.0 GeV |
| mb | 4.75 GeV |
| mc | 1.55 GeV  |
| m | 1.777 GeV |

**2**

## “comparison” cuts

- Charged leptons
- Z/* only, l+l- pairs: 50<mll<200 GeV
- No other cuts
- Neutrinos
- No cuts
- Jet-partons
- PT > 10 GeV
- || < 2.5
- Separation between particles/partons
- jj: RJJ > 0.4 (j=jet parton)
- jl, ll: no cut in R (l=any lepton)

## (W+jets) (pb)

| ME-MC | W+0j | W+1j | W+2j | W+3j | W+4j | W+5j |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ALPGEN | 2046±1 | 522.6±0.6 | 146.1±0.3 | 41.5±0.2 | 11.55±0.07 | 3.13±0.02 |
| GRAPPA | 2042±4 | 525.4±0.6 | 146.8±0.3 | 40.2±0.3 |  |  |
| MadGraph | 2044±5 | 525.4±1.1 | 146.1±0.3 | 41.8±0.1 |  |  |
| MCFM(LO) | 2044±1 | 526.3±0.5 | 147.2±0.3 | 41.8±0.2 |  |  |

## (Z+jets) (pb)

| ME-MC | Z+0j | Z+1j | Z+2j | Z+3j | Z+4j | Z+5j |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ALPGEN | 198.0±0.2 | 53.72±0.06 | 14.76±0.05 | 4.09±0.02 | 1.13±0.01 | 0.292±0.002 |
| GRAPPA | 198.1±0.2 | 54.02±0.06 | 15.07±0.02 |  |  |  |
| MadGraph | 198.9±0.7 | 53.5±0.2 | 14.70±0.04 | 4.079±0.009 |  |  |
| MCFM(LO) | 198.2±0.1 | 53.80±0.05 | 14.79±0.03 | 4.11±0.02 |  |  |

## (Wbb+jets) (fb)

| ME-MC | Wbb+0j | Wbb+1j | Wbb+2j | Wbb+3j |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ALPGEN | 1170±2 | 596±2 | 253±2 | 100±1 |
| GRAPPA | 1178±3 |  |  |  |
| MadGraph | 1175±8 | 602±2 | 251.1±0.7 |  |
| MCFM(LO) | 1175±3 |  |  |  |

## (Zbb+jets) (fb)

| ME-MC | Zbb+0j | Zbb+1j | Zbb+2j | Zbb+3j |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ALPGEN | 181.7±0.4 | 93.5±0.5 | 37.6±0.4 | 12.8±0.6 |
| MadGraph | 182.5±1.2 | 92.7±0.4 |  |  |
| MCFM(LO) | 182.2±0.5 |  |  |  |
# Presentation: 232692

## The Combination of Evidence in Dempster-Shafer Theory

- Kari Sentz
- Ph.D. Student in Systems Science
*Binghamton University*
- Epistemic Uncertainty Project
*Sandia National Laboratories*

## Dempster-Shafer Theory (DST)

- A mathematical theory of evidence
- Probabilities on a _set_ which is related to a set of situations
- Originally defined in finite space, many recent efforts have taken this to the continuous domain.
**Important elements of the theory**
- Belief and Plausibility measures
- basic probability assignment (*m*)
- _Rules_ of Combination

## Basic Probability Assignment

*m*: *P*(X)  [0,1]
*m*(Ø) = 0;
*m*(*A*) expresses the proportion to which all available and relevant evidence supports the claim that a particular element of X belongs to A
- pertains only to set A
- does not imply any additional claims regarding the subsets of A
- any additional evidence of the subsets of A, i.e. B  A,  the claim must be expressed by another value *m*(B)

## Belief, Plausibility, and Basic Probability Assignment

- For all sets *A**P*(*X*)
- where |A-B| is the cardinality of the set difference of A and B

## Belief and Plausibility

- Transformation:
- Relation: 		*Pl*(*A*)  *Bel *(*A*)
- Interval:		[*Bel *(*A*), *Pl* (*A*)]

## Set Theoretic Classification for Rules of Combination

- Conjunctive operation (AND, )
- corresponds to the situation where all sources are considered reliable
- Disjunctive operation (OR, )
- corresponds to the situation where there is only one reliable source among many
- Trade-off operation
- corresponds to any situation that is not clearly one of the above

## Important “Primitive” Calculations to Dempster-Type Rules	

## Dempster-Type Rules

## Averaging

- Weighted Averaging or Mixing
- Generalized average for probability distributions
- Discount and Combine
- Convolutive X-Averaging
- Generalized average for scalar numbers

## Simple Example

## Relevant Calculations

## Inagaki’s Rule for Simple Example

## Disjunctive Consensus Rule for Simple Example

## Important Points in Conflict Assessment

- CONTEXT

- EVIDENCE
- Type of evidence
- Amount
- Accuracy

- SOURCES
- Type
- Number
- Reliability
- Dependency
- Conflict

- COMBINATION
- OPERATION
- Type of Operation
- Algebraic Properties
- Handling of conflict
- Advantages
- Disadvantages

## Conclusions

- Many of the criticisms of DST have rejected the theory on the basis of the Dempster rule of combination.
- There are many ways to combine evidence in DST.
- The critical concern for the selection of a combination operation is the nature of conflict and how it is handled by a particular combination rule.
# Presentation: 489090

## USING THEHAZARD MITIGATION PLAN TOOLKIT

- Questions? Suggestions?
- Contact:
- Audrey Massa
- FEMA Region II
- audrey.massa@dhs.gov

## Mitigation Plan Toolkit

- Consists of a ***Master Table*** with computer hyperlinks
- Provides instant access to key aids, samples, websites, and guidance
- Organized to show how to meet 5 local plan requirement steps

## Slide 3

|  MASTER TABLE |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Planning
Steps | Requirements
Addressed | Click to Access | Description
of Aid |
| General |  |  |  |
| Planning 
Process |  |  |  |
| Risk
Assessment |  |  |  |
| Mitigation
Strategy |  |  |  |
| Plan Maintenance |  |  |  |
| Adoption |  |  |  |

## Plan Toolkit (cont)

- Samples selected as addressing particular plan requirements well
- Includes best, readily available hazard risk info on state and national level
- Documents info sources and explains
-  methodologies

## Slide 5

| Planning
Steps | Requirements
Addressed |  | Description
of Aid |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Risk Assessment | Earthquakes:
Hazard ID
Location
Probability of  future events | X | Earthquake 
pga map |

## Plan Toolkit (cont)

- Provides framework for adding more aids
- Fits on a jump drive (140MB)
- Sept 2006 CD available
- To be posted on web

## Slide 7

## Using the Toolkit CD

- Open the “Open-me 1st Master Table”
- Then, click to access files (X) and links (L)
- Color coding of 5 plan steps:
**General:** *sample plan table of contents*
**Plan Process:** *planning team table*
**Risk Assessment:** *identifying hazards*
**Mitigation Strategy:** *sample goals/actions*
**Plan Maintenance:*** progress report worksheet*
**Adoption:** *adoption resolution sample*
# Presentation: 701025

## OTC NSAID and ASA GI BleedingAnalysis of Spontaneous Reports

**Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting**
**Joyce P. Weaver, Pharm.D.**
**Office of Drug Safety**
**September 20, 2002**

**Center for Drug Evaluation and Research**** **

## Objective

**To describe cases reported to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) of GI bleeding in individuals who ingested an OTC NSAID or ASA **** **

## NSAID OTC Indications

**Temporary relief pain**
**headache**
**muscular aches**
**the minor pain of arthritis**
**toothache**
**backache**
**common cold**
**menstrual cramps**
**Fever**** **

## ASA OTC Indication

**Temporary relief pain**

## AERS case selection 

**AERS* searched for cases rec 1/1/1998 - 12/31/2001**
**Cases screened for “OTCness”**
**NSAIDs-use of OTC product, or OTC use in narrative**
**ASA-analgesic indication***** AERS is an FDA database of spontaneously reported adverse drug events**** **

## AERS case selection, cont

**279 cases included in series**
**NSAIDs-197**
**Ibuprofen**
**Ketoprofen **
**Naproxen**
**Aspirin-82 **** **

## Reporters

**Healthcare practitioner-125**
**Consumer-63**
**Attorney-3**
**Unknown-3**

## Demographics

**Age **
**Mean 59.3 yrs****(range 1-99) **
**Gender**
**Male-49.5% (138/279)**
**Female-42.7% (119/279)**
**Unknown-7.9% (22/279)**

## Indications for use

**Pain, “aches and pains”; n=70**
**Arthritis; n=49**
**Headache; n=35**
**Back, neck, or shoulder pain; n=25**
**Hip, knee, ankle, foot, joint; n=18**
**Fever; n=11**** **

## Location of bleed

**Stomach; n=63**
**Duodenum; n=35**
**Unspecified upper GI; n=15**
**Esophagus; n=13**
**Rectum/colon/small intestine; n=9**

## Median time to onset

**NSAIDs-7 days**
**ASA-30 days****(wide range)**

## Risk factors

**Previous GI bleed/ulcer, *****H. pylori***
**Other medical hx**
**Social hx**
**ETOH, tobacco**
**Concomitant meds**
**NSAID, ASA, anticoagulant, corticosteroid**
**Dose > labeled OTC dose**
**Advanced age**** ****Wolfe et al. NEJM 1999; 340: 1888-99**** **** **

## Risk factors

**70% (195/279) at least 1 RF**
**40% (112/279) had > 1 RF**
**29% (81/279) no RF**** **

## Risk factors, cont’

**Concomitant meds (~50%)**
**NSAID (inc COX-2)**
**Aspirin**
**Age **_**>**_** 65 (~40%)**
**GI history (~18%)**
**ETOH (~12%)**
**Tobacco use (~5%)**

## Risk factors, cont’

**Dose exceeding OTC labeling**
**NSAID-13.7% (27/197)**
**ASA-1.2% (1/82)**

## Outcome

**Hospitalization-76% (212/279)**
**Death-4.7% (13/279)**** **

## Conclusions

**GI bleeding occurs with OTC use of NSAIDs & ASA**
**Most patients recovered after hospitalization**** **

## Conclusions, cont’

**Most patients had risk factors for GI bleeding**
**Concomitant medications**
**Advanced age**
**GI history**** **
# Presentation: 746697

## Environmental Monitors on Lobster Traps

## Points to be highlighted today

**Temperature:** fixed sites over multiple years still primary eMOLT objective

## Points to be highlighted today

**Temperature:** fixed sites over multiple years still primary eMOLT objective
**Salinity:** limited to process questions (ie specific hypothesis)

## Points to be highlighted today

**Temperature:** fixed sites over multiple years still primary eMOLT objective
**Salinity:** limited to process questions (ie specific hypothesis)
**Current: ** flow will be measured with near-surface drifters beginning June 2004 for purposes of validating numerical model simulations

## eMOLT database stats

- # fixed sites documented:	159
- # temperature records:		1,015,591
- # salinity records:           	70,170
- # drifter sightings reported:	55
- # drifter automated fixes:	15,407
- # people returning data:  	104

## Slide 6

## Slide 7

## Phase IV – Drifters(Summer 2004)

## Slide 9

## Slide 10

## Slide 11

## Slide 12

## Slide 13

## Slide 14

## Summary

- Temperature project
- spring 2003 5 degF colder than  2002
- to be maintained for years to come
- Salinity project
-  data to be analyzed this winter
- redesigned to investigate “submarine freshwater discharges” in Casco Bay
- Drifter project
- summer 2003 demonstrates feasibility
- summer 2004 monthly deployments planned

## teee
# Presentation: 113886

## High Speed Imaging of Edge 

*ORAL session, Saturday afternoon, April 05*
*Washington B, Loews Philadelphia Hotel* **[C10.009] **
_**High Speed Imaging of Edge **_
_**Turbulence in Magnetic **_
_**Fusion Plasmas**_
*Stewart Zweben (PPPL) *
*Klaus Hallatschek (IPP Garching) *
*John Lowrance (Princeton Scientific Instruments, Inc.) *
*Ricardo Maqueda (LANL), Daren Stotler (PPPL) *
*James Terry (MIT)*

## Images of NSTX Spherical Torus

- Visible line emission only from “cold” edge at T ≤ 50 eV
- Plasma in core emits thermal x-rays at T ≥ 1 keV

- 1000 frames/sec @ 10 μsec exposure / frame

## What Causes Plasma Turbulence ?

- •  Large density or temperature gradient across B (≈ 105 0K/cm)
- •  Linear “drift wave” instability grows with ≈iat ≈ 106/sec
- •  Fast electron motion along B makes spatial structure ≈ 2-D

- [Chen, Plasma Physics, 1984]

- 2-D  B

- 3-D

- B

## A Closer Look at NSTX

- •    Look at He1(578.6 nm) light from neutral gas puff ne
- •    View along B field line to see 2-D structure  B

## High Speed Imaging of NSTX Edge

- [camera obtained from Princeton Scientific Instruments, NJ]

- CCD camera with
- 100,000 frames/sec
- at 10 μsec/frame
- for 28 frames/shot
- localized structures
- move outward
- at ≈ 105 cm/sec

## Simulation of Plasma Turbulence

_**Simulation of Plasma Turbulence**_

- •  Use 2-fluid equations in 3-D geometry
- •  Assume initial conditions and evolve

- radius

- [Rogers, Drake, and Zeiler, PRL ‘98]

- B
- E
- n
- Ti
- Te
- vII

## Experiment vs. Simulation

- Experiment

- Simulation

- •  Compare turbulence size (k=2π/) spectrum vs. plasma
- 	radius in Alcator C-Mod tokamak at MIT

***=>  simulation reproduces average size scale to within x2***

- radius

- radius

- k (cm-1)

- k (cm-1)

## Where is this Going ?

- Measure-
- ments

- Simulation

- Theory

-    ***Increase red area to explain existing experiments***
***   ******Determine optimum magnetic confinement system******  ***
# Presentation: 452761

## Barriers to Oncology Drug Development: A Perspective from the Children’s Oncology Group

**Market forces and drug development for childhood cancer.**
**Testing new anti-cancer drugs in children – the shifting paradigm.**
**Legislation and Regulations: Help or Hindrance?**
**The Solution: Coordination and Rational Prioritization.**

## Pediatric Cancer Market Forces and Drug Development

**Relative rarity and patent exclusivity.**
**General off-label use of single agents and combinations.**
**Participation of pediatric patients in clinical trials.**
**Relatively confined provider audience.**

## Testing New Oncology Drugs in Children

**Limited subjects for clinical trials.**
**Requirement for multi-center studies.**
**pK, pharmacodynamic and pharmacogenetic studies.**
**Ethical considerations:**
**Human proof of principle.**
**Potential for therapeutic benefit.**
**Assent in minors.**

## Testing New Oncology Drugs in Children (cont.)

**Timing of pediatric studies relative to adult trials.**
**Early adult toxicity data; MTD.**
**Early adult efficacy data.**
**Response assessment.**

## Testing New Oncology Drugs in Children (cont.)

**Phase I and pK studies.**
**Broad-based vs. targeted Phase II studies.**
**Phase II window studies.**
**Combination studies.**

## Testing New Oncology Drugs in Children – Molecularly Targeted Therapy

**Validation of suspect targets in pediatric tumors.**
**Favorable toxicity profiles.**
**Pediatric studies in the agent’s development timeline.**
**Response assessment: new and surrogate endpoints.**

## Legislation and Regulations: “Feast or Famine”

**Incentivization and disease-specific drug development plans.**
**Mandated pediatric testing and disease-specific strategies.**
**Definition of indication and substantial benefit**
**Roles of Pediatric Subcommittee, ODAC**

## Coordination and Rational Prioritization

**Timing of adult and pediatric studies: Sequential vs. Simultaneous**
**	****-****	****adult MTD/OBD**
**	****-****	****toxicity assessment**
**	****-****	****efficacy in adult tumor systems**
**Validation of molecular targets in pediatric tumors.**
**Pre-clinical models: translation to clinical trials.**
**Consistent drug source/supply.**

## Coordination and Rational Prioritization

**Disease-specific, targeted therapy plans.**
**International communications/ collaboration:**
**	****-****	****Avoid duplication.**
**	****-****	****Enhance opportunities for targeted ****	****Phase II and combination trials.**
# Presentation: 330423

## Fluid properties for new technologies: Connecting Virtual Design with Physical Reality

*William A. Wakeham*
*Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London, UK*

## General

- Provider of thermophysical property data rather than a user
- Experimental Design
- Measurement
- Theory
- Application of theory (Approximation)
- Estimation procedures

## Context

- Fluids
- Oil
- Gas
- Molten metals
- Mixtures
- Soft Solids (Pastes)
- Inhomogeneous fluids
- Reacting mixtures

## Applications

- Reservoir engineering
- Refining
- Chemicals (bulk) and Pharmaceuticals
- Human tissue
- Casting processes
- Crystal Growth
- Food
- Environment

## Reacting fluids

- Combustion systems
- Turbulent flames
- Short-lived species
- Reaction with separation
- supercritical systems

## Tissue Engineering

- Human organ growth for transplantation
- Bone
- Lungs
- Liver
- Growth in a ‘Chemical’ reactor
- Scaffolding (porous ceramic)
- Undifferentiated stem cell culture
- All fluid properties of culture as for usual reactor

## Biotechnology

- Membrane transport processes
- Effluent treatment
- Separations
- Fluid/Solid property interaction is important

## Inhomogeneous Fluids

- Colloids (e.g. clay suspensions)
- Aphrons
- Liquid Crystals
- Slurries (Concrete)
- ‘Mushy Region’ in molten metals

## Soft solids

- Pastes
- Food
- Adhesives
- Cosmetics
- Powders
- Food
- Cosmetics

## Is experiment necessary?

- It does provide physical reality but,
- Expensive
- Takes time
- Dangerous
- What might happen if we omitted the experiment?
- Examples
- VLE in heavy ends distillation

## P-x phase envelopes of the n-eicosylbenzene + n-tetracontane mixture at T =  658 K

## Without experiment?

- Which of these phase envelopes is physical reality?
- Does it matter?

## Can we possibly measure everything?

**Assume:**

-  =   3.3  108

**Assume: **

- 3 measurements / day

***and there are many more than 15 pure chemicals in industry...***

- 17/35

## Conclusion

- Complex Fluids
- Inhomogeneous Fluids
- Reacting Fluids
- Balance Simulation/Theory with Experiment
# Presentation: 791496

## 
The 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse 
Dramatic Drop in Youth Drug Use Continues

DRUG USE AMONG 12-17 YEAR-OLDS DOWN SUBSTANTIALLY

**The 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse**** **
**Dramatic Drop in Youth Drug Use Continues**
_**DRUG USE AMONG 12-17 YEAR-OLDS DOWN SUBSTANTIALLY**_

- The single most important finding from the 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse is that the rate of ***current, past month use of any drug*** among 12-17 year olds has declined for the second straight year, showing a ***21 percent drop*** ***over the past two years*** (from 11.4 % in 1997 to 9.0% in 1999).
***Current use of marijuana*** in the 12-17 year-old age cohort showed an even greater decline, ***falling  by 26 percent*** (from 9.4% in 1997 to 7.0% in 1999).  Such a decline for marijuana, the most abused of all drugs among youth, occurring among ***current users is*** ***remarkably good news***.** ****   **_**YOUNG ADULTS, AGED 18-25, POSE A WORSENING PROBLEM**__** **_
- There are also some negative findings: for the 18-25 age cohort (young adults) the current rate of use of _any illicit drug_ is up 28 percent over the last two years (rising from 14.7% in 1997 to 18.8% in 1999).  Marijuana use also rose 28 percent (from 12.8% in 1997 to 16.4% in 1999).  Cocaine use in this cohort rose in 1998 but dropped slightly in 1999 .
- The 18-25 age cohort, which  includes many of those who formed their attitudes about drug use and began to use in the early 1990s, can be expected to reflect relatively higher rates of drug use as they age.  _**DRUG NEW INITIATION RATES SHOW SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT**__** **_
- There were 2.3 million new marijuana users in 1998--11 percent fewer than the 2.6 million in 1997.  The average age at first use increased for the fifth year in a row (from 16.7 in 1994 to 17.3 in 1998).
- Initiates to heroin use were estimated at *149,000 in 1998, 21 percent less than in 1997*.
- However, there was bad news for new cocaine users for 1998, which were estimated at  934,000, an increase of 16 percent 1997 (800,000 new users).  However, the average age at first use for cocaine did rise, going from 19.6 years in 1997 to 21.3 years in 1998.
_**The bottom line**_:  We have seen remarkable success over the past two years, due in large part to the continued hard work and solid focus of the prevention network -- parents, coaches and other key mentors, community-based coalitions, the DARE program, schools, groups such as the YMCA and the Boys and Girls Clubs, and the ONDCP Youth Media Campaign have made a difference.  But we still face a serious problem.  While there is notable improvement in the 12-17 age group, drug use among young adults is rising.  Other data sources indicate increasing problems with Club Drugs (i.e., MDMA, GHB, LSD) and with methamphetamine.  Emerging drug use trends must still be confronted promptly and appropriately.

## Ages 12-17

- MAINE

_**Ages 12-17**_

- MAINE

**Prevalence Rate**

**Past Month Use of Any Illicit Drug**
**State by State**

**Source: SAMHSA, 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse**
# Presentation: 005468

## Simulations of polyphenylacetylene (PPA) “foldamers”

- Vijay S. Pande
- Stanford University MRSEC, DMR-0213618

*Work performed by Sidney Elmer, CPIMA supported graduate student*

- F

- I

- U

- TI

- TU

**What are PPA “foldamers”**
- nonbiological polymers that fold
- model systems for self-assembling nano structures
- challenge for simulation: long timescale and complex dynamics
** ****New results**
- longer chains considerably are more complex: multiple traps and remarkable complexity
- new methods used to predicted long timescale behavior: Markovian model and Folding@Home grid computing
- Folding@Home: a new paradigm of combined research and outreach
# Presentation: 513483

## Comparison of 6-hour “errors” in east Pacific in August 2004

***Comparison of 6-hour “errors” in east Pacific in August 2004***
***--operational in pressure, 2.5 degrees***
***--new system in sigma, 2.5 degrees***
***Good news and bad news***
***--low level wind difference between analysis and  6 hr forecasts decreased significantly:  new analyses more like forecasts***
***--rms errors in tropics not reduced, except south of the equator in the east Pacific***
***--hurricane forecasts worse in new system***
***--Galapagos problem may not be very relevant to improving forecasts***

## Old GFS

***Old GFS***

***NEW GFS***

## Old GFS

- New GFS

- More southerly wind in new analyses near 90W

## OLD

- New

- Reduced “error” near 90W (Galapagos) since new analyses agree more with forecasts

## OLD

- NEW

- Much smaller “error” near Galapagos in new system

## New

- Old

## Rms error wind 6h new gfs aug04 4t

## old

- new

- Error near Galapagos much less

## New GFS

## Slide 10

## Model wants to deepen boundary layer south of ITCZ

- New GFS

## New GFS

## old

- new

## New GFS

## old

- new

- new

- new

- Forecasts deepen boundary layer in east Pacific

## old

- new
# Presentation: 429695

## Intermetallic Issues With

- Wire Joining by
- Thermocompression & Soldering
- Dr Henning Leidecker
- Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 562
- Parts, Packaging, and Assembly Technologies Office
- Henning.W.Leidecker@nasa.gov
- 301-286-9180
- 21 Oct 2003

## Outline

- Wire Bonding Au-Al
- Intermetallics – Equil.
- Intermetallics – Rates
- Degradation/Failure
- GFSC Websites

- Wire Soldering Au-I
- Intermetallics – Equil.
- Intermetallics – Rates
- Degradation/Failure
- GSFC Websites

## But first, a bit about COTS ...

- The “Commercial Off-The-Shelf” (COTS) market is huge and competitive: the stakes are high.  Hence, some of the best designers in the world develop COTS parts, sharply focused on a “target” market.  Often, they hit this market with exquisite precision.
- But trade-offs are usually made in this target-focused design, and the resulting parts may not be apt for a different market whose needs differ from the target.
- Reliability over long times (5+ years) is a prime example.
-       ==> DO NOT FEAR “COTS” BUT BE WARY <==

## Gold-Indium Phase Diagram

## Optical Cross-section of a ball bond

## SEM – intermetallic at base of bond

## SEM – cross section

## Note Cracks

## Familiar Intermetallic?

## Carbon Exuding From Grain Boundaries

## Intermetallic Remaining

## Normal and Carbon-Sensitive Images

## GSFC Websites about this topic

- NASA/GSFC Wire Bond Website:
- Selected Topics of Interest to GSFC “Parts”
- http://nepp.nasa.gov/wirebond/Index.htm
- Richard Katz Website:
- http://klabs.org/richcontent/fpga_content/pages/notes/fpga_reliability.htm
- Pay special attention to Horsting's work on the effects of impurities on the bonding pad; see also

- “Issues with Gold Electroplating for Microelectromechanical Systems Applications”, by C. A. Kondoleon, et al.
- Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings 2002, 687 (143--148)

## Indium Solder and 1 mil Gold Wires

- Before there was “wire bonding” (e.g., thermocompression), there was “soldering”
- Pb-Sn solder dissolves gold; not good for 1 mil.
- About early 1950's, Indium was used to solder thin gold wires --- Initial success, followed by high frequency (--> 100%) of the joins breaking.
- The short-term attractiveness of Indium as a solder induces repeated “lessons learned”!

## Wedge Bond of 1 mil Au to In

## Wedge Bond of 1 mil Au to In

## Au changing into Au-In compound

## Au wire with In attack: side view

## Au wire with In attack: top view

## Indium Solder and 1 mil Gold Wires

## GSFC Websites about this topic

- NASA/GSFC
- Technology Validation Assurance Web Site:
- http://misspiggy.gsfc.nasa.gov/tva/
- Reliability of Laser Diodes for Space Flight Applications:
- http://misspiggy.gsfc.nasa.gov/tva/meldoc/photonicsdocs/LDreliability.htm
# Presentation: 275170

## NCI Legislative UpdateNational Cancer Advisory Board

- NCI Legislative UpdateNational Cancer Advisory Board

- Susan Erickson
- Director, Office of Policy Analysis and Response
*September 6, 2006*

## Legislative 

- Appropriations Status
- Update on NIH Reauthorization

- Legislative
- Activities

## Appropriations –

- President’s Budget:
- Announced February 6, 2006
- NIH $ 28.6B; NCI  $ 4.70B*
- House:
- Reported by Committee June 13
- NIH $ 28.3B; NCI $ 4.75B
- Senate:
- Reported by Committee July 20
- NIH $ 28.6B; NCI $ 4.80B

- FY 2007

## House Report Language

- Commends NCI in several areas:
- ARCA
- Cancer Centers
- TCGA
- Community Cancer Centers

## House Report Language

- Encourages NCI in several areas:
- GYN Cancers
- Lung Cancer
- Cancer Center
- Liver Cancer

## House Report Language

- Recommendations/Concerns:
- GYN Cancer
- SPORES
- Strategic Plans

## Senate Report Language

- Commends NCI in several areas:
- Cancer Centers
- TCGA
- Prostate Cancer
- Antimicrobial Resistance Research

## Senate  Report Language

- Encourages NCI in several areas:
- Angiogenesis
- Blood Cancers
- Cancer Centers
- Cancer Vaccines
- Imaging Systems Tech.
- Lung Cancer
- Lymphedema
- Lymphoma
- Nanosystems Biology

## Senate  Report Language

- Recommendations/Concerns:
- Melanoma
- Pediatric
- AP4 Program
- SPOREs
- SBIR
- Pancreatic Cancer Plan
- Blood Cancer
- CLL
- Breast Cancer

## Appropriations – What’s Next?

- House vote? - Maybe
- Senate vote? – Not likely
- Continuing Resolution? - Probably

## Status of NIH Reauthorization

- New provisions of bill “discussed” recently
- Authorization of Appropriations
- Common Fund
- Appropriations tied to IC Collaborations
- Periodic Organizational Review
- OPASI
- No opportunity for NCI input
- Limited days left in legislative calendar

## NCI Legislative UpdateNational Cancer Advisory Board

- NCI Legislative UpdateNational Cancer Advisory Board
# Presentation: 690129

## PHENIX DAQ Hours

**PHENIX DAQ Hours**

- Average 8.3 DAQ hrs/day

**days since April 17th**

**77 DAQ hours ****(!)**** in the previous week**
**(5/16 – 5/23) **

- J. Lajoie - RHIC Time/Machine-Expt. Meeting

- 5/24/05

## 200 GeV pp Integrated Luminosity

**200 GeV pp Integrated Luminosity**

**4.21 pb****-1 ****live ZDCLL1**

**PHENIX Goal 5.5 pb****-1 ****live BBCLL1**

**(5/24/05)**

**40.0 B BBCLL1 events sampled**

**1.78 pb****-1 ****live BBCLL1**

**June 25, 2005**

**(4.3 pb****-1 ****projected,     3.64 pb****-1**** with development and transverse running )**

- J. Lajoie - RHIC Time/Machine-Expt. Meeting

- 5/24/05

## 200 GeV pp “Figure of Merit”

**200 GeV pp “Figure of Merit”**

**(5/24/05)**

**PHENIX Goal 226 nb****-1**

**94.2 nb****-1**

**June 25, 2005**

**(252 nb****-1 ****projected,     209 nb****-1**** with development and transverse running )**

- J. Lajoie - RHIC Time/Machine-Expt. Meeting

- 5/24/05

## Lies, Damn Lies, and Projections...

- Luminosity/FOM growth ~constant for past week
- Big increase from improved duty cycle
- Integrated Luminosity: 77.2 nb-1/day
- FOM: 4.8 nb-1/day
- Assuming no change in polarization
- More realistic assessment of projected totals:
- 410 GeV development time/running
- Assume four days
- Transverse running
- Assume five days
- ~24 nb-1 FOM integrated, ~10% of total
- Integrated Luminosity:   3.64 pb-1  (66% of goal)
- Figure of Merit:    0.209 pb-1  (92% of goal)

- J. Lajoie - RHIC Time/Machine-Expt. Meeting

- 5/24/05
# Presentation: 328286

## 

Offline Production and Databases
(Tuesday, June 20, 2000)

Introduction - Lee Lueking/Boaz Klima                       5‘

Status of MC Production –

NIKHEF - Kors Bos                                                    5‘
UTA - Dave Adams                                                     5'
Lyon - Michel Jaffre/Patrice Lebrun                         5'
Prague - Vlada Simak                                                 5'
Others (?)                                                                    5‘

MC Generation Control System - Greg Graham       20‘

Production and the SAM system - Lee Lueking         15‘

Data processing at Fermilab - Mike Diesburg            10'   

**Offline Production and Databases**
**(Tuesday, June 20, 2000)**
**Introduction - Lee Lueking/Boaz Klima                       5‘**
**Status of MC Production –**
**NIKHEF - Kors Bos                                                    5‘**
**UTA - Dave Adams                                                     5'**
**Lyon - Michel Jaffre/Patrice Lebrun                         5'**
**Prague - Vlada Simak                                                 5'**
**Others (?)                                                                    5‘**
**MC Generation Control System - Greg Graham       20‘**
**Production and the SAM system - Lee Lueking         15‘**
**Data processing at Fermilab - Mike Diesburg            10'**** **
# Presentation: 201158

## GISS Aerosol Microphysics:Susanne Bauer (GISS), Dorothy Koch (GISS)  and Robert McGraw (BNL)

- Motivation: The GISS climate model, only included a mass based aerosol scheme, allowing to calculate the mass of sulfate (Koch et al JGR 99), nitrate (Bauer et al ACP 06), black and organic carbon (Koch et al JGR 01) in one size class, sea salt (Koch et al JGR 06) and dust (Miller et al JGR 06) in a limited set of size classes. Aerosol mixing was only considered between dust, sulfate and nitrate (Bauer et al JGR 06) due to condensation processes.
- The new microphysical model (Bauer et al ACP 08) includes the processes of secondary particle formation (nucleation), coagulation and condensation, based on the Methods of Moments Scheme. Tracking mass, size and number concentrations and detailed information on the aerosol mixing state.

- Improvements for climate simulations:
- Direct Aerosol Forcing:
- Explicit treatment of aerosol size,
- chemical composition (mixing) and
- water content.
- Indirect Aerosol Forcing:
- Explicit calculation of aerosol particle
- activation, prognostic number
- concentrations.
- Interface for the double-moment bulk
- cloud microphysics scheme.

## GISS Aerosol Microphysics:Susanne Bauer (GISS), Dorothy Koch (GISS)  and Robert McGraw (BNL)

- GISS Aerosol Microphysics:Susanne Bauer (GISS), Dorothy Koch (GISS)  and Robert McGraw (BNL)

- Example of detailed aerosol information as simulated by the GISS model:
- (Bauer et al, submitted to *Atmos. Chem Phys.* 2008: The Multiconfiguration Aerosol TRacker of mIXing state MATRIX, an aerosol
- microphysical module for global atmospheric models,)

- Station Hohenpeissenberg, Germany: Measurement of Number and Size Distribution (black solid line),
- GISS model number concentration (blue line), mixing mode and chemistry (colored symbols).