WAS

8332

Volume 103

Number 4

Winter 2017

Journal of the

MCZ

WASHINGTON LIBRARY

MAR 14 2018

ACADEMY OF SCIENCES HARVARD

UNIVERSITY

SIEM EM NASE ES COS NT NCERES S110 C11 Cl nec etree reas Penacece sack ceteencnnaisaadinacpionesorasoeesedaasnsestssieieenavin ii

Se ee AMEN MEMES GON SIME CAUCUS occ coe aces 8 pons enet ces cce veces anes tvcnnmeynesdensnqvonco MN sneseningsetcauseetstocsaseses iil

ae MAI RIAN a gon ee ener rescas Soaks san tndendadoditce dace ed cgeut on dcnpsinavtedVsasiesaanstansdeoneelt 1

Open Wide and Say AAARARGH Pee Ray ianiscic..ccscssesccscsvsccssasgsronseséetaneecdsvascrasenseseesongteseronsceets 3

History of the WAS Jumior Academy K. ELCUTCrO............c...ccsesessserersosesonecsesonsecqntesersntgersnasseroaees $)

Microbial Fuel Cells for Power Generation J. Staveley et Al. .cceeccesecssscssssessssetesssteseseeenes 17

Wise paen RCRD EAA TED ea MOTEL crepe emcee access Peon cotta ceodsssocssncodpe incaniiceavgnvovescasedevasséanessepnvsston 25

aU oe aa Brae aa 8 Pivn es oiae soph csenengipbodadeose bane dbnnsersondeeeae> 51

Hae ER ens RET a AEN NN A CLC EN lace eer vsce oe ean tI vn cent donee cont elccacWeabncuvnendesvodzessttearendes 57

ME Rai WUMRAE UII TMEE CFE AMR RIN Sse aso ces hes cro tok cr evasceteree fh stncascdoncdech fescue asuensevasneodunicesonsenfetessoaies 58

RE RIE CHENN NETTIE TRU TELECON US troy torn soe aya vce atcha a ov avtoe Salto ag Sulu oucaCnarbs pxsenteecnestanee

Lorpeceyens | Saree fe Ore) ye | Ce

ISSN 0043-0439 Issued Quarterly at Washington DC

Washington Academy of Sciences

Founded in 1898

BOARD OF MANAGERS

Elected Officers

President

Sue Cross

President Elect

Mina Izadjoo

Treasurer

Ronald Hietala

Secretary

Anna Maria Berea

Vice President, Administration

Terry Longstreth

Vice President, Membership

Ram Sriram

Vice President, Junior Academy

Paul Arveson

Vice President, Affiliated Societies

Gene Williams

Members at Large

Michael Cohen

Terrell Erickson

Frank Haig, S.J.

Meisam lIzadjoo

Mary Snieckus

Past President

Mike Coble

AFFILIATED SOCIETY DELEGATES

Shown on back cover

Editor of the Journal

Sethanne Howard

Journal of the Washington Academy of

Sciences (ISSN 0043-0439)

Published by the Washington Academy of

Sciences

email: wasjournal@washacadsci.org

website: www.washacadsci.org

The Journal of the Washington Academy

of Sciences

The Journal is the official organ of the

Academy. It publishes articles on science

policy, the history of science, critical reviews,

original science research, proceedings of

scholarly meetings of its Affiliated Societies,

and other items of interest to its members. It

is published quarterly. The last issue of the

year contains a directory of the current

membership of the Academy.

Subscription Rates

Members, fellows, and life members in good

standing receive the Journal free of charge.

Subscriptions are available on a calendar year

basis, payable in advance. Payment must be

made in US currency at the following rates.

US and Canada $30.00

Other Countries $35.00

Single Copies (when available) $15.00

Claims for Missing Issues

Claims must be received within 65 days of

mailing. Claims will not be allowed if non-

delivery was the result of failure to notify the

Academy of a change of address.

Notification of Change of Address

Address changes should be sent promptly to

the Academy Office. Notification should

contain both old and new addresses and zip

codes.

POSTMASTER:

Send address changes to WAS, Rm GL117,

1200 New York Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20005

Academy Office

Washington Academy of Sciences

Room GL117

1200 New York Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 326-8975

Volume 103

Number 4

Winter 2017

Journal of the

WASHINGTON

ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Editor's Comments S. Howard

uofiga WepeBiret oll tr) =i Se |) Col (i Aen oe eee nee eee ane Aarne SNOr rT, mew ill

tel a Dol nc oe pee en) ee A ee ee SRO NREL radi Seaeee aM Roce tn sis ers 1

@Gpen Wide and Say AAAAARGH.. PK. iiciisc.. oko hicds hess Riatacnnctevobetaeoeareedeees yuntentbnattn 3

History of the WAS Junior, Academy K. ElCUterlo <..ncisssocscosectestortobevictsncerdesseensecctesbasesstpncecdir 9

Microbial Fuel Cells for Power Generation J. Slaveley €l A. coccccecceccssesssssssssessesssesseessesseeess 17

DEE EE PGHY URED D8 SLO IE II ase Sach set cre tects ta toe PSU IOUa ago renee Slate ve sree eC aces 25

eA RoC S RUE NMS oe exccsesnhct BD Di cecengs Rw Rares geo cet a y dred ces bivd Manavees NA au ee dade 9 va Tears eree 51

PPEREN TESS REED ANUS EOIN GAUNNEN 2525, ccaa cocios cra snens bcatea tasccetatyvouseDrane dis eedessevvarsacomnerthestairnseionicvens eurtetteanctowral ay

DTS URC ENG EW EO PRUIEANCIIS ox-ic5-5 054 eee ee ceed ne avb aa et ceo accdasvizad vsesen ote oR RCE i end ceo 58

AUN RCA AUTRE UE NS UIE (NOD e208 ses cles acess acetate as tenet ae a catae tales sears odes Uo a areeocen aaa eee 59

PP GHUIAEEE SOCIE CIES ATTEN DELCO ES ooo psen cass soerccsscks tveinafeesstiscntsiisiaverr Ouceiosettoonwrloetiverinniiiieemuletns

ISSN 0043-0439 Issued Quarterly at Washington DC

Fall 2017

EDITOR’S COMMENTS

Presenting the 2017 Winter issue of the Journal. This is an exciting time for

science. Studies of the brain are providing new insights into human

behavior. Recently the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave

Observatory (LIGO) measured black hole collisions. I hope that our readers

will contribute papers on these topics.

For this issue we have three different papers plus an excerpt from a

book by one of our authors. Included here is an excerpt from Peg Kay’s first

book: Open Wide and Say AAAAARGH. All proceeds from the book sales

go to the Academy.

Kaelyn Eleuterio, a student at the College of William and Mary,

looked into the history of our Junior Academy. Her paper is presented here.

Judy Staveley, a professor at Frederick Community College, with her

students presents a paper on a new way to generate power in emergency

situations. The final paper describes LIGO.

Every year in the Winter issue we publish our list of members. If

you see an error in the list, please let the editor know.

Letters to the editor are encouraged. Please send email

(wasjournal@washacadsci.org) comments on papers, suggestions for

articles, and ideas for what you would like to see in the Journal. We are a

peer reviewed journal and need volunteer reviewers. If you would like to be

on our reviewer list please send email to the above address and include your

specialty.

Sethanne Howard

Washington Academy of Sciences

Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences

Editor Sethanne Howard showard@washacadscl.org

Board of Discipline Editors

The Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences has an 11-member

Board of Discipline Editors representing many scientific and technical

fields. The members of the Board of Discipline Editors are affiliated with a

variety of scientific institutions in the Washington area and beyond —

government agencies such as the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST); universities such as Georgetown; and professional

associations such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

(IEEE).

Anthropology Emanuela Appetiti eappetiti@hotmail.com

Astronomy Sethanne Howard sethanneh@msn.com

Biology/Biophysics Eugenie Mielczarek mielczar@physics.gmu.edu

Botany Mark Holland maholland@salisbury.edu

Chemistry Deana Jaber djaber@marymount.edu

Environmental Natural

Sciences Terrell Erickson terrell.erickson] @wdec.nsda.gov

Health Robin Stombler rstombler@auburnstrat.com

History of Medicine Alain Touwaide atouwaide@hotmail.com

Operations Research Michael Katehakis mnk@rci.rutgers.edu

Science Education Jim Egenrieder jim@deepwater.org

Systems Science Elizabeth Corona elizabethcorona@gmail.com

Fall 2017

Washington Academy of Sciences

Tribute to Isabelle Karle

Dr. Isabelle Lugoski Karle died October 3 at a hospice center in Arlington

VA. She was 95. Several colleagues provided moving tributes on her

mentorship. Dr. Karle’s distinguished Naval Research Laboratory career

continues to serve as an inspiration, and NRL honors her and her late

husband in so many ways including the Karle Fellows and the Karle

Workshops. She was 22 when she got her PhD. Her famous quote on

qualities for scientists are similar to another Chemist Iris Lange of

G6ttingen. She was different from Iris in that she was willing to take risks

in working in uncharted areas. the most correct and comforting note in the

obituary is her husband's observation about who also merited the Nobel

Prize in chemistry that he was awarded (shared with mathematician Herbert

Hauptman), and made at the time of the announcement in 1985 : "I can't

think of anyone who is more qualified than my wife."

Qualities that are desirable for scientists are

curiosity, persistence and dedication. One

must not be discouraged by uncharted areas

or by lack of acceptance.

Isabella Lugoski Karte

In Loving Memrory

December 2, 1921 = October 3, 2017

Isabella graduated from Detroit’s Denby High School in 1937. By 1944, she

earned a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. with a specialty in physical science at the

University of Michigan. During her long and distinguished career at the

Naval Research Laboratory she made pioneering contributions in

Winter 2017

determining the three-dimensional structure of molecules and wrote over

250 scientific articles. Among her numerous prestigious honors she

received the Bower Award and Prize for Achievement in Science, Francis

P. Garvan—John M. Olin Medal, Hillebrand Prize of the Chemical Society

of Washington, WISE Lifetime Achievement Award, Gregori Aminoff

Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and the National

Medal of Science.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Good and Bad Science Writing

Over the past decade the publishing industry has undergone dramatic

changes. The old, proud publishing houses have, for the most part, become

virtually indistinguishable from other commercial establishments, delegating their

traditional editorial functions to agents whose primary purpose is to meet the

demands of the market. Increasingly, authors are eschewing the agent-to-publisher-

to-mass market route and are turning to on-demand, self- publishing. Whether the

process includes a traditional publisher or not, editorial niceties and fact-checking

often have no place in the process.

This has led to a number of problems, the worst of which is — from the

Academy’s point of view -the great increase in “junk science” being published

both as fiction and non-fiction. The Academy therefore offers those Academy

members who have written a science-heavy book, the opportunity to submit the

book to our editors for review of the science therein. The manuscript receives the

same rigorous scientific review that we accord articles published in our Journal.

If the reviewer(s) determine(s) that the science is accurate, the author may then

continue the publishing process of choice and the book will display the seal of The

Washington Academy of Sciences. In cases where the Academy editors determine

that the book is scientifically accurate but requires editing, they may return the

manuscript to the author and request that it be satisfactorily edited.

One of our members, Peg Kay, has written a series of books each with logo.

All proceeds from the sale of her books goes into the Academy coffers. We offer here

chapter one from her first book Open Wide and Say Aaaugh. Enjoy.

Winter 2017

OPEN WIDE & SAY AAAAARGH

PREVIEW

THE OBJECT CODE

a computer program file -- usually a fragment --

that must be linked to the rest of the program to be understood

Washington Academy of Sciences

March 9, 1990

I was shivering up there on the roof, wedged between Don and Lee

Roy in the space allotted to the non-performing members of the

Laboratory for Industrial Technology staff. We were all a little nervous,

all very chilly. That ass Delamain kept mumbling about how nice and

brisk it was.

Our group was situated on the near left of the stairs coming up.

The Members of the Subcommittee stood to- ward the far left, joined by

the Subcommittee staff and the Department of Trade and Industry's

Congressional liaison. The NASA brass and the DoTI dignitaries were at

the far right. I glanced over at the Subcommittee. Congressman Jaeklin

seemed impervious to the chill. Good. I sneaked a peek at the

Department’s delegation. The Secretary looked frozen and murderous.

Not good.

In the no-man's land between the Congress and the Executive,

Hump was peering over his belly at the stack of 3x5 crib cards we had

prepared for him.

Don nudged me. “If the wind blows those cards out of his hands,

we're dead.”

Lee Roy leaned over. ““Whad’d you say, Clyde?”

Me. “Shhhh.”

Hump was standing within a cut-away mockup of a space vehicle.

DoTI's graphics department had done a superb job. The controls looked

realistic, the "hull' was heavy enough to withstand the occasional windy

blasts, and the scale was big enough to comfortably hold Hump. I had the

feeling that a real spacecraft cabin would have fit him like a sausage

casing. As it was, he looked impressive — framed nicely by the open door,

the Washington Monument at a distance behind him.

Winter 2017

At the near left of the roof, Alex was checking the cables to his

micro. One last check. One last prayer. At the other end of the cables, in

the center of the roof, were the robot arms; next to them was a table laden

with various objects; at the far center left, a stool.

Hump cleared his throat loudly and began his speech. "I would like

to thank you all for coming here when I know there are warmer, more

comfortable places you would like to be. But we thought that you would -

- well, never mind that". He turned to the next card.

Steve winced.

"Robot arms are essential to the performance of many tasks, uh,

many tasks performed by our astronauts, who, uh, perform many tasks at

a distance and require robot arms. So far, these arms have been single

arms, each programmed to, uh, perform individual tasks. Devising a way

to get two or more arms to work together has been a very stubborn

problem -- a problem that NASA had been unable to solve -- at least until

they came to my lab."

I looked over at the gaggle of Executive dignitaries.

Now the NASA Administrator looked murderous.

Hump grinned. "When the two-armed robots go up 1n a spacecraft,

they will be driven by much more sophisticated software than what we

have here. And there won't be all these cables around for the astronauts to

trip over. But the hard work has been done, and the rest is up to NASA.

Turn it on, Alex." Hump put the unread cards in his jacket pocket and

folded his arms across his paunch.

Alex typed the robot’s name, ‘The Dentist’, onto the keyboard. The

micro whirred, the cables transmitted the commands and the robot arms

swung toward the table. One arm picked up a glass jar and carried it

toward the other arm, which moved in and deftly untwisted the cap. The

arms set the jar and cap gently down on the table.

Congressman Jaeklin applauded.

Unnoticed by the multitude, Alex made an ‘aw, it was nuthin'

gesture. He really was cute.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Now the arms swung toward their next task — the stool. Abruptly,

they paused, changed direction, and accelerated toward a figure standing

at the edge of the roof.

I closed my eyes. Opened them again. Oh, my God, no!

Stop!

Winter 2017

Washington Academy of Sciences

Closing the Sputnik Gap

Introduction to the History of the Junior Academy

In 1957 the then Soviet Union launched a small satellite into low

Earth orbit. It lasted about a year before burning up in the atmosphere.

History changed with that launch. The United States realized it was behind

in what came to be termed the “space race”. Apparently the press had a field

day discussing the scientific gap under which the US was suffering.

Everyone wanted to know what it took to keep a body in orbit about the

Earth. The people who knew that answer were authorities in celestial

mechanics. The US had four such people: Paul Herget at Cincinnati who

was the world’s expert on orbits of minor planets; Ray Duncombe at the US

Naval Observatory who was the expert on planetary positions and precise

positions of stars; Dirk Brouwer at Yale who had the best handle on the

theory of orbits and co-author of the 1961 book Methods of Celestial

Mechanics; and Leland Cunningham at UC Berkeley who was expert on the

precise measurements of the orbits of comets, planets, satellites, and space

probes. He was also an early authority on electronic digital computers and

assisted in their construction and use 1n orbit calculations. These four were

held hostage by their phones answering eager questions from the press

which seemed to them like queries from Boy Scouts working towards a

merit badge. Orbit theory is rather elementary in celestial mechanics.

There just were not enough teachers to train the plethora of students

with a new interest in celestial mechanics. Given the dearth of experts in

celestial mechanics companies hired mathematicians who promptly

rediscovered the works of Laplace and Gauss that were over a century old.

They learned that one can get a preliminary orbit from three observations of

the right ascension and declination of a satellite. These observations were

the six known quantities from which one can produce the six quantities that

define an orbit. The big computers could get an orbit in ten seconds what

took Leland Cunningham eight hours with a hand calculator.

By 1965 Georgetown University’s celestial mechanics course

blossomed to over fifty-five students taken from many government agencies

in the DC area. Dirk Brouwer at Yale established several summer institutes

in dynamical astronomy to train students. The one at Yale is still active.

Thus by 1969 we put humans on the Moon.

Winter 2017

There never was a real science gap. The information was there,

captured in books and astronomical observatories. It was safely kept in the

minds of scientists quietly teaching their students. The lack, perhaps, is that

the importance and excitement of science were not part of our national

identity. To address that issue, the Washington of Academy of Sciences

worked with scientists and teachers in the DC metro area to bring students

to science. Ms Eleuterio shares with us in the next pages the beginning of

the Junior Academy of the Washington Academy of Sciences.

Washington Academy of Sciences

A Brief History of the WAS Junior Academy

Kaelyn Eleuterio

College of William and Mary

Abstract

In 1952 the Washington Academy of Sciences (WAS) created a program

for high school students in the D.C., Maryland, and Virginia area, named

the Junior Academy of Sciences. The Junior Academy was created in

response to the general lack of young people interested in science at the

time. Members were selected based on their achievements in science

fairs and science talent searches. Although it was “officially” supervised

by members of The Committee on Encouragement of Science Talent

(from WAS), the student officers ran the meetings themselves with little

adult oversight. These meetings gave them the opportunity to discuss

possible solutions to the general lack of young people interested in

science. Members also presented their own papers in an annual lecture

series (where they were ranked by other students and could receive

scholarships), took monthly railroad trips to Philadelphia or New York

to visit scientific demonstrations and museums, and helped run the

annual D.C. Science Fair, among other activities. Many members of the

Junior Academy became scientists themselves, and the club is still active

today, often partnering with other programs for young students.

Introduction

DURING THE 1940s AND 50s the United States had a major problem: young

students were no longer interested in science or math, thus scientists would

not have anyone to continue their legacy. Scientists and science lovers alike

raced to find a solution; and it came in an unexpected way: with a small

group made up of Mrs. Grace Truman; Dr. Marvin, president of George

Washington University; and Reverend J. Hunter Guthrie, S.J., president of

Georgetown University. This group first proposed a Junior Academy of

Sciences, a student group based on the Washington Academy of Sciences

(WAS). After six years of careful planning, the club was finally brought to

fruition on June 13, 1952.

So how does one create a club that encourages young people to

engage in science, while also giving the members opportunities for

leadership? To make it more egalitarian, the Junior Academy was open to

all the members of science clubs of about 240 high schools (public and

Winter 2017

private) in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. The Junior Academy also selected

members based on merit (some members had ranked in science fairs, while

others had been noticed during science talent searches). Although the Junior

Academy was “officially” supervised by members of The Committee on

Encouragement of Science Talent (a committee of WAS), the student

officers ran the meetings themselves with little adult oversight. The WAS

members didn’t even preside at the annual election of Junior Academy

officers. The Junior Academy also held a few joint meetings with the WAS

during the Spring, which both served to encourage them to pursue science,

and recognized the merits of select high school students (who received

Certificates of Merit to recognize accomplishments demonstrated in the

Westinghouse Science Talent Search).

The newly-formed Junior Academy included student officers (from

high schools in the D.C. area), alumni members (students who had attended

local high schools), and Fellows (either teachers whose students had

impressive scientific accomplishments, or scientists who promoted science

education). All of the Junior Academy activities were guided by a

Governing Council, made up of the student officers, alumni members, and

Fellows. The Council also included both membership representatives as

well as members of the Committee on Encouragement of Science Talent

(one of WAS’ committees).

Beginning with its conception in 1952 and continuing far into the

1960s, the Junior Academy responded to the concerning lack of scientists

by promoting science clubs in local high schools. For example the

presidents of school science clubs met with Junior Academy officers to

discuss common problems in science promotion, such as the lack of

stimulation from science fair projects. The Junior Academy also held annual

science club workshops at Georgetown University, which about 200

students and adults attended. During these workshops participants had a

short general meeting followed by six simultaneous discussion groups to

talk about different problems in science clubs. Each group had a student

chairman, a secretary, and an adult advisor. The science club workshop

closed with an assembly where each group presented a report on their

conclusions.

However, these are just a few of the Junior Academy’s many

activities. Here are a few more.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Meetings

The Junior Academy met regularly at Georgetown University, and

they usually discussed problems they noticed in the science community, or

ways to encourage other students to be more interested in science careers.

Guest scientists would come to lecture on findings in their field of expertise

Or present papers, Junior Academy students presented summer

opportunities for research in the D.C. area to their fellow members, and they

occasionally allied with local scientists for special trips (like a telescopic

tour of the moon with the National Capital Astronomers). Every Fall the

students had an organizational meeting in the Hall of Nations of

Georgetown University, and the year closed with a Spring election meeting

(when they elected new officers and the National Science Fair finalists

presented papers on their projects).

The Annual Christmas Lectures

Years before the Junior Academy’s conception the Philosophical

Society of Washington had held an annual Christmas Lecture for Young

People. During Christmas break a scientist or professor would give a lecture

about their research to high school students in the D. C. area.

However, the Junior Academy eventually took over the Christmas

lectures, and held them in Georgetown University’s main hall. For example

one of the Junior Academy-organized lectures included lectures from

professionals in physics, chemistry, biology, and mathematics; a banquet; a

slide presentation on the year’s activities; and an address by John D.

Nicolaides, special assistant to the director of the Office of Space Sciences

and Applications.

However, the Junior Academy eventually decided to allow students

to present their own papers. Junior Academy members judged each paper;

the winners received scholarships of a few hundred dollars. As Reverend

Francis J. Heyden, S.J. (one of the former chairmen of the Junior Academy,

who had a lot of influence on many student members) said in his memoirs,

Earth Science, “The hall seated 800 and there were not many empty seats.

The Junior Academy had a great sense of pride.”

The Junior Academy published the extended abstracts of the student

papers in an annual publication called Proceedings of the Washington

Winter 2017

Junior Academy of Sciences. Copies were distributed to each member of the

Junior Academy and some members of the WAS. The Junior Academy also

distributed copies among the libraries of the senior high schools in the D.C.

area, in order to have a permanent record of local scientists’ achievements,

as well as to encourage budding high-school scientists to pursue science

careers.

Railroad Trips

On one Saturday of each month, nearly a thousand students and

teacher chaperones took an excursion to Philadelphia or New York to visit

scientific demonstrations and museums (such as the Fels Planetarium,

Franklin Institute, and Academy of Natural Science). They took the

Pennsylvania Reading Railroad (now called Amtrak), and the students all

paid for their own way; however, the railroad also donated a generous sum

every year that covered the Junior Academy’s other expenses and create

small scholarships.

D.C. Science Fair

Before the Junior Academy was created WAS held an annual D.C.

Science Fair every spring (starting in 1947) with the aid of the D.C. Board

of Education, the Science Service, and other science societies. However, the

Junior Academy took over the Science Fair soon after it was created. The

WAS Committee on Science Fairs continued to create policies for the Fair,

find judges, get publicity, and raise any needed funds that were not provided

by the school boards or other sources of income. However, the Junior

Academy also relied on the generosity of local scientists. Reverend Heyden

writes in his memoir that each science fair had about 125 judges, and that

many of them needed to take time off from their jobs to judge, often without

compensation. “In all there must have been at least a dozen science fairs for

the greater Washington area and the same judges often covered two or three

Fairs. It is hard to realize how self-sacrificing judges had to be...”” Heyden

wrote. The Science Fair was open to all students in local junior and senior

high schools, and winners in grades 9-12 automatically became Junior

Academy members (as of 1954). Select students who placed in the Fair also

went on to represent D.C. at the National Science Fair held in May.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Inspired by the D.C. science fair, other counties in the greater D.C.

area began holding local science fairs (such as the Prince Georges County

Science Fair or the Arlington Science Fair), and sent a few students to the

D.C. Science Fair every year. Although the Junior Academy itself wasn’t

involved in planning these local fairs, they guarded the exhibits while the

forty winners met with a science talent search for questioning or seminars.

The winners often formed close friendships with the Junior Academy

members and they were invited to a panel with expert scientists on the

Georgetown University Forum on 13 TV and 400 radio stations. The

winners, along with a selected group of six Junior Academy members, were

also sent to the national meeting of the Junior Science and Humanities

Symposium for the greater Washington area (sponsored by the U.S. Army).

Conclusion

The Junior Academy 1s still strong today, and is a partner of the

Senior Scientist and Engineers STEM Volunteer Program (run by the

American Association for the Advancement of Science, or AAAS). Junior

Academy members also work with Sigma Xi in its new publication

“Chronicle of the New Researcher,” and supports a maker space in

Maryland (which FIRST Robotics organizes).

The Junior Academy was one of the first attempts to make students

passionate about science, and it succeeded: many members went on to be

scientists themselves, and have fond memories of the club. One reason for

its success is that its members had so much responsibility: students planned

most of the activities themselves, which made them more invested in the

events and meetings. Many of the adult chairmen let the students lead

themselves, especially Reverend Heyden.

Heyden writes that before the space age, “science interest

waned...for almost twenty years. The schools...the teacher[s] [of] colleges,

science clubs, and courses in elementary schools saw a general lack of

interest.” However, programs like the Junior Academy and the arrival of the

new Vanguard satellite made students passionate about science and

technology once again — to the point where scientists were even rushing to

find new topics to feed the students’ interest. As Heyden concluded in his

memoir: “Researchers are working at wits’ end to keep up with

the...inquiring minds...this is a good sign for progress and a release from

Winter 2017

the quicksands of crystallized complacency.” Thus, the success of the Junior

Academy provides a model for modern scientists who hope to make

students interested in STEM: open the club to a wide range of students,

encourage them to talk about the problems they personally see in science,

and let them plan the activities they’re interested in. It may be out of most

scientists’ comfort zone, but isn’t science about taking risks?

Bio

Kaelyn Eleuterio is a sophomore at the College of William and Mary. She

has participated in the Science and Engineering Apprentice Program

(SEAP) and Pathways Internship Program, both at the Naval Research

Laboratory (NRL) in D.C. She gives special thanks to Viyayanand Kowtha

of IEEE and Terry Longstreth of the Washington Academy of Sciences, for

primary documents that were used for this article.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Use of Microbial Fuel Cells for Power Generation in

Emergency Situations

Tanner Ash, Elizabeth Doyle, Godfrey Ssenyonga, Cassie Kraham, Sean

Scott

Faculty: Judy Staveley, Adil Zuber

Frederick Community College: Bioprocessing Technology Program

Abstract

Bioelectrogenic microorganisms can generate electricity in emergency

situations (e.g. natural disasters) if traditional sources of power are

unavailable. When coupled with a fuel cell, these microorganisms offer a

promising source of alternative energy for use in adverse conditions. A

microbial fuel cell was constructed and tested in both laboratory and field-

based conditions. Our preliminary testing demonstrated promising results

on the utility of this novel alternative source of energy.

Introduction

MANY COUNTRIES LACK ELECTRICITY and the U.S may also be heading

towards an energy crisis. Only 5.1% of South Sudan's population has access

to electricity. Less than 20% of the populace have access to electricity in

many countries (e.g. Tanzania, Niger, Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso, Central

African Republic, Liberia, Malawi, Burundi, Chad) (World Atlas, 2017).

Electricity is a highly valuable utility in the modern world used for - but not

limited to - lighting, medicine, refrigeration, and computers. The

availability of electricity for these applications is even more important in

emergency situations such as natural disasters and military conflicts when

traditional electric sources may not be available.

Bioelectrogenesis is the generation of electricity by biological

mechanisms and processes. Some soil-based bacterial species generate

electricity, similar to the well-known electric eel. These bioelectrogenic

microorganisms can be coupled with electrodes to create microbial fuel

cells (MFC) that generate electricity. MFCs have been the subject of

extensive research.

MECs extract electrons from microbial life generated by cellular

respiration. Given the ubiquity of microbial energy sources, this technology

has the potential for near-worldwide utility. A MFC device can readily be

Winter 2017

constructed from inexpensive materials using microorganisms to generate

electricity. For the MFC to function properly, electrons must flow via an

electric current from one electrode to the other electrode.

Construction of a MFC requires cultivation of a diverse microbial

population. Several microbial species are known to be bioelectrogenic. The

bacterial genus Shewanella is ubiquitous around the world. The anaerobic

bacterial Geobacter genus is commonly found in deep soil underground or

in ocean sediments. While Protozoa are not specifically bioelectrogenic,

this common class of eukaryotes play a key role in maintaining the balance

of microbial life needed to support a population of bioelectrogenic

organisms. Sufficient nutrients must also be present in the environment to

allow microbial population to grow. Carbohydrates and organic nutrients

found in soil are consumed by microbial cellular respiration and producing

electrons. These electrons are then released back into the soil. Our work was

based upon the existing concept of the properties of bioelectrogenic

microorganisms for generating power in emergency situations.

Materials and Methods

e Two standard beakers and / or two plastic containers

e Two Zinc strips and Two Copper strips.

e Electrodes — Anode and Cathode wires with multimeter tests AC

& DC, Resistance, Diode and Transistor hFE (0-1000). The switch

dial allows for 19 ranges. This multifunction digital meter can be

bought at any electrical or home store (Lohner, 2016).

e Electrical Tape

e Rope

e Conductors

e Soil (Several different types)

e Shewanella Bacteria

The MFC is constructed of a mud-filled container populated by

microorganisms. The mud originated from a local pond containing

wastewater. The MFC has two compartments, an anode and cathode,

separated by a selectively-permeable membrane for positively-charged

ions. Organic matter is oxidized by microorganisms to generate electrons.

The electrons transmit via an electronical circuit to the cathode. Protons

Washington Academy of Sciences

pass through the selectively-permeable membrane. The electrons and

protons combine with oxygen to form water.

Anode: Anodic materials must be conductive, biocompatible, and

chemically stable.

Cathodes: Water or Copper

Membrane. The majority of MFC designs require the separation of the

anode and the cathode compartments. In addition to conventional

instruments used for chemical measurements in microbial systems, the

MFC experiments required specialized electrochemical instrumentation for

testing.

Results

“Electric Resistance (Ohms)”

Electric Observations

Resistant

(Ohms)

lk Temp 80 degrees F,

partly cloudy

Ground was wet from

previous rain

Table 1

Outside

DATE LOCATION

4/20/17 Garden ZS

12:10

7:30 pm_ | Garden

DCV_ | ACV

(10) (10)

2 lk Temp 82 degrees F,

cloudy

Temp 80 degrees F,

sunny

Ground was wet from

previous rain

Debris around site, bent

AGY OHMS Observations

) (x10)

Black on Zn

—

ios) (oe)

APQAIV] Garden

2:00 pm

+ .

Beaker

DATE LOCATION

DCV

—~

—

aed,

3/21/17

aes

Lab

-} bo

Mn} \O

Winter 2017

arther apart

F500 mi organic so

4/10/17 Lab 0.5 Temp 69.5 degrees F

No water since 3/21/17;

soil still moist

Added conductor

produced max output

Added DI water to 100

mL after reading

TEM Moved Gu and Zn

Added soil 100 mL -

500 mL

PoE No water added

4/17/17 Lab 3 te lk Reading higher without

water

4/19/17 Lab 4 ley) Temp 68.5 degrees F in

Se Mc A Ga So

500 mL soil, packed;

ee visible separation

between old and new

ws Cu was moved deeper

into the soil

incubator after reading

2 oe ee ee eee ee

4/20/17 Lab 4 100 From 37 degree C

Beaker

#2 j

DATE LOCATION OHMS(x10) | Observations

(10) (10)

Rg TE nen a a rr

00pm | | | Covered wit as |

ey eee ee ee ee

Washington Academy of Sciences

Added 45 mL of DI

water and 10 mL of

table sugar to 500 mL

of organic soil;

covered and placed in

37 degree C incubator

anonT [Lab [2 [09 [1k] 24 hours late

Ohmic Losses: The ohmic losses (or ohmic polarization) in the MFC

include both the resistance to the flow of electrons through the electrodes

and interconnections, and the resistance to the flow of ions.

Power: The overall performance of an MFC was evaluated in different

ways but mainly through power output.

Energy Efficiency: The most important factor for evaluating the

performance of the bionano cell for making electricity which 1s compared

to more traditional techniques, is to evaluate the system in terms of the

energy recovery.

The MFC is a new approach that represents new technology for

generating bioelectricity from biomass and microorganisms. In the MFC,

the bacteria and organic matter produce electrons that travel and generated

small amounts of electricity.

Conclusion

Bacterial extracellular electron transfer can be a promising tool to

use and convert chemical energy into electricity through electrochemical

devices called microbial fuel cells, which combine hydrogen and oxygen to

produce small amounts of clean electricity. Microbial fuel cells are a

new promising technology for power generation for emergency situations

across the globe.

The MFC design requires additional work before prototyping can

begin. Optimization of soil composition and improvements in MFC

fabrication require additional studies. While still preliminary, this

technology does offer the potential for availability of an alternative

electricity resource in resource limited and emergency situations.

Winter 2017

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Frederick Community College for the opportunity

to pursue this research. We would also like to thank Pete Staveley for his

contributions. This research was supported by National Science Foundation

and the American Association of Community Colleges through the

Community College Innovation Challenge.

References

Wee, R. (2017). Countries with The Lowest Access to Electricity.

Retrieved from http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-

lowest-access-to-electricity.html

Lohner, S.T., Deutzmann, J., Logan, B.E., Leigh, J. and Spormann, A..,

(2014). Direct uptake and metabolism of cathodic electrons by the

archaeon Methanococcus maripaludis. ISME J. 8:1673—1681.

Lohner, S. (2016). How Do Bacteria Produce Power 1n a Microbial Fuel

Cell?

Rabaey, K.; Boon, N.; Siciliano, S. D.; Verhaege, M.; Verstraete, W.

Biofuel cells select for microbial consortia that self-mediate electron

transfer. Appl. Environ. Microbial. 2004, 70, 5373- 5382.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Biography

Judy Staveley is a Professor & Program Director of the Bioprocessing

Technology program at Frederick Community College.

Adil Zuber is a former researcher in the Chemical, Biochemical, and

Environmental Engineering Department at the University of Maryland:

Baltimore County and adjunct faculty of Engineering at Frederick

Community College.

Godfrey Ssenyongaiscurrently pursuing a _ graduate degree

in Biotechnology and administration at University of Maryland University

College. He also holds a BSc. Degree in Medical Laboratory technology as

well as an AAS in Bioprocessing Technology from Frederick Community

College. He is currently doing aninternship at the translation tissue

engineering center at John Hopkins School of medicine (Elisseeff Lab). He

currently adjuncts at Frederick Community College for forensics biology

laboratory section.

Sean Scott is an undergraduate student working towards a degree in

Biochemistry/Molecular Biology. He has an interest in biomedical research

and education, and is currently a tutor at his local community college in

chemistry, biology, physics, and mathematics.

Tanner Ash is an undergraduate student working towards a B.S. degree in

Biotechnology. He is currently working at LONZA pharmaceuticals and a

recent graduate of Frederick Community College.

Liz Doyle is an undergraduate student working towards a degree in

Biotechnology. She has an interest in biotechnology research and is a

graduate of Frederick Community College.

Winter 2017

Washington Academy of Sciences

THE LIGO CHIRP

Sethanne Howard

USNO retired

Abstract

The story of the LIGO chirp, gravitational waves, and the recent

detections of merging black holes and neutron stars.

Introduction

THE LASER INTERFEROMETER GRAVITATIONAL-WAVE OBSERVATORY

(LIGO) is a large-scale astrophysics experiment and observatory to detect

cosmic gravitational waves and to develop gravitational-wave observations

as an astronomical tool. This single sentence contains a plethora of

interesting concepts.

Let us start with gravitational waves. Newton’s 17" century

universe did not allow gravitational waves. According to Newton space is

filled with gravity at all places all at once. Einstein’s 20" century spacetime

universe does allow gravitational waves. Gravitational waves are ‘ripples’

(waves) in the fabric of spacetime that propagate at the speed of light. The

General Theory of Relativity (GTR) allows spacetime to ripple. Einstein’s

equations are the core of GTR. They describe the relation between the

geometry of a 4-dimensional spacetime and the energy-momentum

contained in that spacetime.’ The Einstein field equations are nonlinear and

very difficult to solve. The equations can be written:

82zG

Guy t+ AD " c Ey

where the symbols with subscripts are tensors; 7’ is the energy momentum

tensor; G is the Einstein tensor which expresses the curvature of the

manifold; g is the metric tensor; A represents the cosmological constant.

The left side represents the spacetime. The right side represents the matter.

In GTR gravity results from the curvature of spacetime, and

spacetime curves in the presence of mass. Figure | is a two dimensional

representation of this. Mass distorts the spacetime around it. As objects with

mass move around in spacetime, the curvature changes to reflect the motion.

Winter 2017

In certain circumstances mass that accelerates disrupts the changing

curvature creating gravitational waves. If the accelerating mass is very

large, then spacetime is disrupted in such a way that waves of distorted

spacetime radiate from the source.

Figure | two dimensional representation of space-time curvature

Einstein was not the first to suggest gravitational waves. In 1905

Henri Poincaré proposed gravitational waves, emanating from a body and

propagating at the speed of light, as required by the Lorentz

transformations" . He suggested that, in analogy to an accelerating electrical

charge producing dipole electromagnetic (EM) waves, accelerated masses

in a relativistic field theory of gravity should produce gravitational waves.

When Einstein published his GTR in 1915, he was skeptical of Poincaré’s

idea because the GTR theory implied there were no gravitational dipoles to

produce waves. An accelerating electric charge will produce dipole

radiation. An accelerating mass will not produce dipole waves. So the

analogy breaks down.

This led to extended controversy over choice of coordinate systems.

Things resolved in 1956 when the equations of GTR were cast in terms of

the observable Riemann curvature tensor Ry» where “ and v each take the

values 0, 1, 2, 3. There is no gravitational dipole radiation. Known as the

Einstein field equations, these equations specify how the geometry of space

and time is influenced by whatever matter and radiation are present.

| 870

Ny a. Ory 7 ioe aia

4 Lv:

(G;

Washington Academy of Sciences

A Small Digression into Math

In 1828 Carl Friedrich Gauss proved an important property of

Euclidean surfaces. The theorem says that the curvature of a surface (how

curvy it is) can be determined entirely by measuring distances along paths

on the surface. That is, the curvature does not depend on how the surface

might be embedded in a 3-dimensional space. Bernhard Riemann extended

Gauss’s theory to higher-dimensional spaces called manifolds in a way that

also allows distances and angles to be measured and the notion of curvature

to be defined, again in a way that was intrinsic to the manifold and not

dependent upon how it was embedded in higher-dimensional spaces. This

discovery caused a major paradigm shift in mathematics; it freed

mathematicians from the belief that Euclid’s axioms were the only way to

make geometry consistent and non-contradictory. Through his pioneering

contributions to differential geometry, Riemann laid the foundations for the

mathematics of GTR.

Riemann found the correct way to extend the differential geometry

of surfaces into n dimensions. The fundamental object is called the Riemann

curvature tensor, Ruy. Riemann’s idea was to introduce a collection of

numbers at every point in space (i.e., a fensor) which would describe how

much the space was bent or curved. Riemann found that in four dimensions,

one needs a collection of ten numbers at each point to describe the properties

of a manifold, no matter how distorted it 1s.

Near the Earth the Universe looks roughly like 3-dimensional

Euclidean space — flat'". However, near very massive stars and black holes

spacetime is curvy. The amount that spacetime curves can be estimated by

using theorems from Riemannian geometry. The Riemann curvature tensor

is given by:

R(u,v)w=V,V,w-V,V,w-V_, Ww

where [w, v] is the Lie bracket of vector fields. Or in terms of Christoffel’

symbols:

Re oa a. al oF Pale =A

OV Mo jiton

Winter 2017

Clearly this does not give us an equation that is straightforward to

solve. Nevertheless this is as far as we shall go with Riemann. The curvature

tensor exists and provides the framework for gravitational waves.

Tensors are particularly useful for describing the properties of a

substance where its properties vary in direction. An example would be the

stress and strain in a bent metal bar. The stress and strain vary with the

direction along or across the bar. A tensor ai is called a tensor of second

rank, because it has two indices. A vector — with one index — 1s a tensor

of the first rank, and a scalar — with no index — is a tensor of zero rank.

A metric space is a set, X, for which distance d(x, y) is defined for

every pair of points (x, vy) belonging to X. A metric tensor 1s a function which

takes as input a pair of tangent vectors v and w at a point of a surface (or

higher dimensional differentiable manifold) and produces a real number

scalar g(v, w) in a way that generalizes many of the familiar properties of

the dot product of vectors in Euclidean space. In the same way as a dot

product does metric tensors define the length of and angle between tangent

vectors. Through integration the metric tensor allows one to define and

compute the length of curves on the manifold. The metric captures all the

geometric and causal structure of spacetime. The metric tensor describes the

local geometry of spacetime.

A Euclidean (flat) metric tensor using the typical x, y coordinates 1s:

The length of a curve in Euclidean space is familiar:

L=f (dx) +(ay) |

Then in special relativity (still a flat space) the metric tensor includes time

and becomes

thet kg)

=i et

a =i wo

or OFM

Washington Academy of Sciences

The spacetime interval becomes

ds’ = c’ dt? —dx’ —dy —dz’ = Gy dr’

The simplest metric for a black hole is the Schwarzschild metric:

-(1 ~ ee) 0) 0) ()

alo

2 =

o> 0 [i- ad 0 0

(0) 0) r° ()

0 0 0 r’sin’? @

Even in the simplest case, a curvy spacetime is complicated.

Gravitational Waves

Einstein’s equations expressed with the Riemann curvature tensor

and a metric will produce gravitational waves. These are traveling

distortions of spacetime moving at the speed of light. The ripples are subtle;

after starting at some curvy spacetime by the time they reach Earth some

gravitational waves compress spacetime by as little as one ten-thousandth

the width of a proton. As a gravitational wave passes an observer, that

observer will find local spacetime distorted by the effects of strain.

Distances between objects increase and decrease rhythmically as the wave

passes, at a frequency corresponding to that of the wave. Figure 2 shows a

greatly exaggerated effect on a circular ring of particles. This effect occurs

despite that the ring is not subjected to an unbalanced force. The magnitude

of this effect follows an inverse square law. The two figures illustrate the

exaggerated squeeze and stretch caused by the gravitational wave.

Figure 2 the exaggerated effect of a gravitational wave passing a ring of particles —

stretch on the left and squeeze on the right

Winter 2017

As with other waves, there are characteristics that describe a

gravitational wave:

e Amplitude: /, this is the size of the wave: the fraction of stretching

or squeezing. The amplitude shown in Figure 2 is roughly h = 0.5

(or 50%). Gravitational waves passing through the Earth are many

sextillion times weaker than this — h~ 10 7°. This is because the

sources of the waves are distant from Earth.

e Frequency: f, this is the frequency with which the wave oscillates

(the inverse of the time between two successive maximum stretches

or squeezes).

e Wavelength: J, this is the distance along the wave between points of

maximum stretch or squeeze.

e Speed: This is the speed at which a point on the wave (i.e., a point

of maximum stretch or squeeze) travels. For gravitational waves

with small amplitudes, this wave speed is the speed of light (c).

The speed, wavelength, and frequency of a gravitational wave are related

by the equation c = A f, just like the equation for a light wave.

Polarization of a gravitational wave 1s similar to the polarization of

an EM wave except that the polarizations of a gravitational wave are 45°

apart, as opposed to 90° for EM radiation.

Gravitational waves because they represent curved space can

penetrate regions of spacetime that EM waves cannot. EM waves cannot

see curved spacetime. Gravitational waves can see curvy spacetime. So we

can, for example, observe the merger of black holes and possibly other

exotic objects that occur in curvy spacetime. In particular gravitational

waves can offer a possible way of observing the very early Universe. This

is not possible with conventional astronomy, because before recombination

the Universe was opaque to EM radiation.

Objects that are accelerated radiate gravitational waves, provided

that the motion is not perfectly spherically symmetric (like an expanding or

contracting sphere) or rotationally symmetric (like a spinning disk or

sphere). Two objects orbiting each other, as a planet would orbit the Sun,

will radiate. In extreme cases massive stars like neutron stars or black holes,

orbiting each other quickly, give off significant amounts of gravitational

Washington Academy of Sciences

radiation. Figure 3 is an artist’s conception of gravitational waves. A good

source for an explanation is http://phdcomics.com/comics.php .

Figure 3 artist’s conception of gravitational waves

In principle gravitational waves could exist at any frequency.

However, very low frequency waves would be impossible to detect, and

there 1s no credible source for producing detectable waves of very high

frequency. Stephen Hawking and Werner Israel’ listed different frequency

bands for gravitational waves that could plausibly be detected, ranging from

LO Hz up to 10" Elz:

First proof of gravitational waves

Actual proof did not arrive until 1974, 20 years after Einstein’s

death. In that year two astronomers, Russell Alan Hulse and Joseph Hooton

Taylor. Jr., working at the 305 m radio antenna at Arecibo Radio

Observatory” in Puerto Rico detected pulsed radio emissions and thus

identified the source as a pulsar, a rapidly rotating, highly magnetized

neutron star”" that emits a precise pulsed signal. The neutron star rotates on

its axis 17 times per second; thus the pulse period is 59 milliseconds. After

timing the radio pulses for some time, Hulse and Taylor noticed that there

was a systematic variation in the arrival time of the pulses. Sometimes, the

pulses arrived a little sooner than expected; sometimes, later than expected.

These variations changed in a smooth and repetitive manner, with a period

of 7.75 hours. The pulses from the pulsar sometimes arrive 3 seconds early

Winter 2017

ie>)

relative to others, showing that the pulsar’s orbit is 3 light-seconds across",

approximately two-thirds of the diameter of the Sun. They realized that such

behavior is predicted if the pulsar were in a binary orbit with another star,

later confirmed to be another neutron star. Their discovery of the system

and analysis of it earned them the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics “for the

discovery of a new type of pulsar, a discovery that has opened up new

possibilities for the study of gravitation.”

This is the binary pulsar, PSR B1913+16, which was exactly the

type of system that, according to GTR, should radiate gravitational waves —

massive stars orbiting each other with a steady decay in the orbit. Knowing

that this discovery could be used to test Einstein’s prediction, astronomers

began measuring how the period of the stars’ orbits changed over time.

After eight years of observations it was determined that the stars were

getting closer to each other (the orbit was decaying) at precisely the rate

predicted by GTR. Since this is a binary system,” the masses of the two

neutron stars can be determined, and they are each about 1.4 times the mass

of the Sun. Observations have shown that the pulsar’s orbit is gradually

contracting (and therefore accelerating), which means there is emission of

energy in the form of gravitational waves, as described by GTR, causing the

pulsar to reach periastron slightly early. Also, the periastron advances 4°

per year in longitude due to the gravitational field (thus the pulsar’s

periastron moves as far in a day as Mercury’s moves in a century).

This system has now been monitored for over 40 years and the

observed changes in the orbit agree so well with GTR, there is no doubt that

it is emitting gravitational waves. See Figure 4.

The total power of the gravitational radiation (waves) emitted by this

system presently is calculated to be 7.35 x 104 watts. For comparison this

is 1.9% of the power radiated in light by the Sun (another comparison is that

the Solar System radiates only about 5000 watts in gravitational waves).

The mass of the companion is 1.387 Mo, the total mass of the system is

2.828378(7) Mo, the orbital period is 7.751938773864 hours (yes, all those

digits are real), the eccentricity is 0.6171334 the semi-major axis is

1,950,100 km, the periastron separation is 746,600 km, and the orbital

velocity of stars at periastron (relative to center of mass) is 450 km/s.

Washington Academy of Sciences

-10

odes

“

BS -1s

a —20

-2s

pe |

> -30

=35 i

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

Figure 4 Orbital decay of PSR B1913+16. The data points indicate the observed change

in the epoch of periastron with date while the parabola illustrates the theoretically

expected change in epoch according to GTR.

The Distance Problem

The strongest gravitational waves are produced by catastrophic

events such as colliding black holes, the collapse of stellar cores

(supernovae), coalescing neutron stars or white dwarf stars, the slight

wobbly rotation of neutron stars that are not perfect spheres, and the

remnants of gravitational radiation created by the birth of the Universe

itself.

However, these sources are far away from Earth. The effects when

measured on Earth are predicted to be very small, having strains of less than

1 part in 107°. Therefore a detector on Earth would need to be extremely

sensitive. Such detectors are not off the shelf items.

Joe Weber (1919-2000) was an American physicist who helped

develop the first maser and laser. Weber was also the first to make a real

attempt to detect gravitational waves. He worked at the University of

Maryland.

Winter 2017

He developed the first gravitational wave detectors (Weber bars) in

the 1960s, and began publishing papers with evidence that he had detected

these waves. In 1972, he sent a gravitational wave detection apparatus to

the moon (the “Lunar Surface Gravimeter”, part of the Apollo Lunar

Surface Experiments Package) on the Apollo 17 lunar mission. In the 1970s

the results of his gravitational wave experiments were largely discredited,

although Weber continued to argue that he had detected gravitational

waves. He was the first to embrace gravitational waves as real and is

considered the father of gravitational wave research.

Instead of Weber bars scientists turned to interferometry.

Laser Interferometry

Interferometry began with the Michelson Interferometer at the end

of the 19" century. His interferometer used optical light. A Michelson

interferometer minimally consists of mirrors M7 and M2 and a beam splitter

M. In Figure 5 a source S emits light that hits the beam splitter (in this case,

a plate beam splitter) surface M at point C. M 1s partially reflective, so part

of the light 1s transmitted through to point B while some is reflected in the

direction of A. Both beams recombine at point C’ to produce an interference

pattern incident on the detector at point E (or on the retina of a person’s

eye). As an undergraduate I built a Michelson Interferometer.

There are two ‘arms’ defining the two paths that the light follows.

By moving the Mirrors one can change the length of the light paths.

Rippling the spacetime along the arms causes them to alternately stretch and

squeeze, so the signals arrive back at the detector at different times. Picture

one arm stretching while the other arm squeezes, and vice versa.

A Fourier transform spectrometer is essentially a Michelson

interferometer with one movable mirror. (A practical Fourier transform

spectrometer would substitute corner cube reflectors for the flat mirrors of

the conventional Michelson interferometer.) An interferogram is generated

by making measurements of the signal at many discrete positions of the

moving mirror. A Fourier transform converts the interferogram into an

actual spectrum. There was an infrared Fourier transform spectrometer at

the McMath Solar Telescope at Kitt Peak. We used it in the 1970s to obtain

three dimensional spectra of the planet Uranus.

Washington Academy of Sciences

mirror —a |

half-silvered

coherent eis

light source — on p

_— — {2

S ;

mirror

detector

Figure 5 schematic of a Michelson Interferometer

Starting in the 1960s American scientists including Joseph Weber,

as well as Soviet scientists Mikhail Gertsenshtein and Vladislav Pustovoit,

conceived of basic ideas and prototypes of laser interferometry, and in 1967

Rainer Weiss of MIT published an analysis of interferometer use and

initiated the construction of a prototype with military funding, but it was

terminated before it could become operational. Then in 1968 Kip Thorne

initiated theoretical efforts on gravitational waves and their sources at

Caltech, and was convinced that gravitational wave detection would

eventually succeed.

Laser Michelson interferometry is a leading method for the direct

detection of gravitational waves. Detection involves measuring tiny strains

in spacetime itself, affecting the two long arms of the interferometer

unequally, due to a strong passing gravitational wave. Because a

gravitational wave is a spacetime perturbation which propagates at the

speed of light, the passing wave slightly curves the spacetime, which

changes the local light path. Mathematically, if s the amplitude (assumed to

be small) of the incoming gravitational wave and Lthe length of the optical

Winter 2017

cavity in which the light is in circulation, the change of the optical path due

to the gravitational wave is given by the formula:

with being a geometrical factor which depends on the relative orientation

between the cavity and the direction of propagation of the incoming

gravitational wave.

In 2015 the first detection of gravitational waves was accomplished

using the LIGO instrument, a Michelson interferometer with 4 km arms.

This was the first experimental validation of gravitational waves, predicted

by Einstein’s GTR. The most sensitive detector that accomplished the task

possessed a sensitivity measurement of about one part in 5x 107? (as of 2012)

provided by the LIGO and VIRGO observatories.

LIGO and VIRGO

LIGO

Two large observatories were built in the United States with the goal

of detecting gravitational waves using laser interferometry. These

observatories can detect a change in the 4 km mirror spacing of less than a

ten-thousandth the charge diameter of a proton, equivalent to measuring the

distance to Proxima Centauri with an accuracy smaller than the width of a

human hair.

The initial LIGO observatories were funded by the National Science

Foundation (NSF) and were conceived, built, and operated by Caltech and

MIT. In 1994 with a budget of USD 395 million, LIGO stood as the largest

overall funded NSF project in history.

After a rocky start the LIGO project broke ground in Hanford,

Washington in late 1994 and in Livingston, Louisiana in 1995. They

collected data from 2002 to 2010 but no gravitational waves were detected.

The Advanced LIGO Project to enhance the original LIGO detectors

began in 2008 and continues to be supported by the NSF, with important

contributions from the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council, the

Max Planck Society of Germany, and the Australian Research Council. The

improved detectors began operation in 2015.

Washington Academy of Sciences

The redesign made LIGO’s new interferometers 10 times more

sensitive than the original. A 10-fold increase in sensitivity means that the

new and improved LIGO will ultimately be able to listen for gravitational

waves 10 times farther away than Initial LIGO (iLIGO). This is an

enormous improvement since listening 10 times farther away will give

LIGO access to 1000 times more volume of space (volume increases with

the cube of the distance. So 10 times farther away means 10x10x10=1000

times the volume of space), and 1000 times more galaxies that host sources

of gravitational waves. Figure 6 illustrates the change in volume.

ime of a Sphere =*/, 7h

Volume of sphere with radius= 1 cm

Figure 6 An illustration of a 10 times change in radius

LIGO’s multi-kilometer-scale gravitational wave detectors use laser

interferometry to measure the minute ripples in spacetime caused by passing

gravitational waves from cataclysmic cosmic sources such as the mergers

of pairs of neutron stars or black holes, or supernovae. LIGO consists of

two widely separated interferometers within the United States—one in

Hanford, Washington and the other in Livingston, Louisiana—operated in

unison to detect gravitational waves.

Although it is considered one observatory, LIGO is comprised of

four distinct facilities across the United States: two gravitational wave

Winter 2017

detectors (the interferometers) and two university research centers. The

interferometers are located in fairly isolated areas of Washington (LIGO

Hanford) and Louisiana (LIGO Livingston), and separated by 3,002 km

(1,865 miles). The two primary research centers are located at The

California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, California, and

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge,

Massachusetts. Figure 7 is a schematic of the LIGO interferometer.

mirror

————

4km

Fabry-Pérot

cavity

power

recycling

mirror

laser

. | =

beamsplitter mirror mirror

M@-----

@—> photodetector

Figure 7 a schematic of LIGO

LIGO is a national facility for gravitational-wave research,

providing opportunities for the broader scientific community to participate

in detector development, observation, and data analysis. The capabilities of

the LIGO detectors were greatly improved with the completion of the

Advanced LIGO project in late 2014. The Advanced LIGO detectors will

Washington Academy of Sciences

increase the sensitivity and observational range of LIGO by a factor of 10

over its predecessor.

Richard Muller said “Gravitational waves are what happens when

you shake space itself. Just like when you shake a rope, the shake moves

down the rope, when you shake space, the shake travels. When it passes by

two mirrors, the distance between them changes (because space is being

shook), and that's what LIGO detects — a change in the distance between

two mirrors.”

LIGO consists of:

¢ Two L-shaped detectors with 4 km long vacuum chambers...

e built 3000 kilometers apart and operating in unison...

e to measure a motion 10,000 times smaller than an atomic nucleus

e caused by the violent and cataclysmic events in the Universe...

e occurring millions or billions of light years away.

Encapsulating 10,000 m?* (350,000 ft*), each vacuum chamber

encloses as much volume as 11 Boeing 747-400 commercial airliners. The

air removed from each of LIGO’s vacuum chambers could inflate two-and-

a-half million footballs, or 1.8 million soccer balls. LIGO’s vacuum volume

is surpassed only by the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland.

The pressure inside LIGO’s vacuum tubes is one-trillionth of an

atmosphere (10° tor). It took 40 days (1100 hours) to remove all 10,000 m*

(353,000 ft*) of air and other residual gases from each of LIGO’s vacuum

tubes to reach that pressure.

LIGO’s arms are so long that the curvature of the Earth is a

measurable | meter (vertical) over the 4 km length of each arm. The most

precise concrete pouring and leveling imaginable was required to counteract

this curvature and ensure that LIGO’s vacuum chambers were flat and level.

Without this work LIGO’s lasers would hit the end of each arm | m above

the mirrors. Figure 8 is an aerial photo of LIGO.

Winter 2017

Figure 8 aerial photo of LIGO

VIRGO

The Virgo interferometer is also a large Michelson interferometer

designed to detect gravitational waves predicted by GTR. It 1s isolated from

external disturbances: its mirrors and instrumentation are suspended and its

laser beam operates in a vacuum. The instrument’s two arms are three

kilometers long and located near Pisa, Italy.

The Virgo project was approved in 1993 by the French and in 1994

by Italy. The construction of the detector started in 1996. In 2000 they

created the European Gravitational Observatory (EGO consortium). EGO

is responsible for the Virgo site, in charge of the construction, the

maintenance and the operation of the detector, as well as of its upgrades.

The goal of EGO is also to promote research and studies about gravitation

in Europe. By December 2015 19 laboratories plus EGO were members of

the Virgo collaboration.

The initial Virgo detector was not sensitive enough to detect a

gravitational wave. Therefore, it was decommissioned in 2011 to be

replaced by the “advanced” Virgo detector which aims at increasing its

sensitivity by a factor of 10. The advanced Virgo detector benefits from the

experience gained on the initial detector and from technological advances

since 1t was made.

Since 2007 Virgo and LIGO have agreed to share and jointly analyze

the data recorded by their detectors and to jointly publish their results.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Because the interferometric detectors are not directional (they survey the

whole sky) and they are looking for signals which are weak and infrequent,

simultaneous detection of a gravitational wave in multiple instruments is

necessary to confirm the signal and determine its origin.

Noise

How do the scientists know that a signal in the data really came from an

event in space? This consumes a huge portion of the work that is done by

many of the scientists and engineers — separating a gravitational wave

vibration from all the other vibrations the detectors feel. To confirm a

detection they use several techniques to help sift through the noise,

including:

e Measuring all known noise sources (e.g. earthquakes, winds, ocean

waves, trucks driving by on nearby roads, farming activities, even

molecular vibrations in LIGO’s mirrors) with seismometers,

magnetometers, microphones, and gamma ray detectors, and then

filtering out the signals caused by these noise sources from the data.

e Looking for identical, simultaneous signals from multiple detectors

world-wide (LIGO, Virgo). This rules out noise sources which are

local to a given detector. The more detectors that feel the same

vibration at the same time (accounting for a gravitational-wave’s

travel time between detectors), the more certain they are that the

source of the vibration was not local.

e Using sophisticated analysis techniques to filter out and separate

noise from a potential signal.

e Comparing the signals received with theorized patterns of

gravitational waves generated by known phenomena.

e Confirming the timing of the possible gravitational wave event with

astronomical observatories, hoping to see a coincident EM event on

the sky (e.g. light from a supernova explosion).

Despite these precautions, however, no measuring device is 100%

accurate or precise, so no result of an experiment is ever 100% certain. For

LIGO they would like to be more than 99.9999% sure that a possible

detection was not just noise.

Once they start to see signals on a regular basis in conjunction with

other observations and other observatories around the world, confidence

Winter 2017

that they are truly detecting gravitational waves will grow until any

uncertainties will be too small to worry about.

Once LIGO and VIRGO begin detecting gravitational waves on a

regular basis, the data will be used to answer outstanding questions about

astronomy and the Universe in general. Since each source of gravitational

waves plays a unique “tune”, the first thing to learn is which event in the

Universe generated the wave. The known possibilities are:

e The merging (coalescence) of two black-holes, or two neutron stars,

or a neutron star and a black hole in orbit around each other

e The vibration or rotation of a bumpy neutron star

e The explosion of a lumpy supernova (if a star is not perfectly

spherical when it explodes)

e Motions of matter and energy right after the Big Bang.

And there’s always a chance finding something as yet unknown.

Detection

The first detection of gravitational waves was reported in 2016 by

the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) and the Virgo Collaboration with

the international participation of scientists from several universities and

research institutions. Scientists involved in the project and the analysis of

the data for gravitational-wave astronomy are organized by the LSC, which

includes more than 1000 scientists worldwide as of December 2016.

When in Observing mode, the Hanford and Livingston detectors

collect data simultaneously, operating as one single observatory. This

coordination is essential to LIGO’s ability to verify a gravitational-wave

detection, and was critical to LIGO confirming the world’s first detection

of gravitational waves emitted by two colliding black holes 1.3 billion light

years away.

LIGO began observing in September, 2015 and within days LIGO’s

new advanced detectors achieved what iLIGO could not accomplish in eight

years of operation: On September 14, 2015, the LIGO detectors in

Livingston, LA and Hanford, WA made the world’s first direct detection of

gravitational waves, heralding a new era in astronomical exploration. The

signal was named GW150914 from ‘Gravitational Wave’ and the date of

observation. The gravitational waves detected by LIGO on that day were

Washington Academy of Sciences

generated by two black holes colliding and merging into one nearly 1.3

billion light years away. Figures 9, 10, and 11 show what the detection

looked like. Note the rapid increase in amplitude at the merger.

The gravitational waves detected by LIGO on September 14, 2015

were generated by the merger of two massive black holes. Not only was this

the world's first detection of gravitational waves, but it was also the first

time black holes were directly ‘observed’, the first time black holes of this

particular size were observed, and also the first confirmation that binary

black holes (two black holes orbiting each other) exist at all.

Signal at LIGO Hanford Observatory

Signal at LIGO Livingston Observatory

Frequency [Hz]

Frequency fH2z]

05 0 0S 05 0 0s

Time [Saconcs} Time [seconds]

Figure 9 the September 2015 detection of the gravitational wave produced by two

colliding and merging black holes

LIGO Hanford

~_—_

ose

LIGO Livingston Wo wi WAY f\ | Nam

4 ¥ Y Vv

0.7 0.8

Time (sec)

Figure 10 the September 2015 detection of the gravitational wave produced by two

colliding and merging black holes

Winter 2017

The change in arm length occurred faster and faster as the wave

passed — short-long, short-long, short-long. If the oscillation is tuned to an

audible frequency the final signal sounds like a fast chirp. Imagine a silver

dollar spinning on a tabletop. As the coin starts to wobble around its outer

edge, making a “blop...blop...blop” sound that speeds up (blop-blop-blop)

and speeds up (blopblopblop) until it’s just a blur of sound that rises in pitch

into a final “blooop” as the coin flattens on the table. That final “blooop” is

the chirp of the final moment of the merger.

During the final fraction of a second, the two black holes collided

into each other at nearly one-half the speed of light and formed a single

more massive black hole, converting a portion of the combined black holes’

mass to energy, according to Einstein’s famous formula

= mes

This energy 1s emitted as a final strong burst of gravitational waves. It is

these gravitational waves that LIGO had observed.

LIGO Hanford Data Predicted

Strain (107")

LIGO Livingston Data Predicted

i A A hh Ff

uM A aly WA BN

oof Vy Wy Yi ' \

Strain (107')

—-

i=)

—

LIGO Livingston Data

0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45

Time (sec)

Figure 11 processed data from event

Washington Academy of Sciences

Based on the observed signals, LIGO scientists estimate that the

black holes for this event were about 29 and 36 times the mass of the Sun,

and the event took place 1.3 billion years ago. About three times the mass

of the Sun was converted into gravitational waves in a fraction of a

second—with a peak power output about 50 times that of the whole visible

universe. By looking at the time of arrival of the signals — the detector in

Livingston recorded the event 7 milliseconds before the detector in Hanford

— so they can say that the source was located in the Southern Hemisphere

of the sky.

According to the press release “Our observation of gravitational

waves accomplishes an ambitious goal set out over five decades ago to

directly detect this elusive phenomenon and better understand the universe,

and, fittingly, fulfills Einstein’s legacy on the 100" anniversary of his

general theory of relativity,” says Caltech’s David H. Reitze, executive

director of the LIGO Laboratory.

There’s More

As of August 2017 LIGO had made five detections of gravitational

waves, the first four of which were colliding black hole pairs. The fifth

detected event, on August 17, 2017, was the first detection of a collision of

two neutron stars, GW 170871, which simultaneously produced signals

detectable by conventional telescopes.

Neutron stars are so-called because their matter 1s so densely packed

that they are composed primarily of neutrons. One such star possessing the

mass of our Sun would be just 10 to 15 km in diameter. Using the signals

received in LIGO’s detectors, the masses of the neutron stars were

determined to 1.1 to 1.6 times as massive as our Sun.

LIGO Hanford Observatory (LHO) Head, Michael Landry

explained what LIGO saw in its detectors. “LIGO and Virgo detected 100

seconds of gravitational waves as these two neutron stars spiraled together

in a massive and fiery collision,” he said. “In a sprawling follow-up

campaign involving about one-quarter of the world’s professional

astronomers, observatories in space and on the Earth have detected radiation

in all wavelengths from gamma rays to radio waves. But the LIGO and

Virgo detectors were absolutely essential in identifying and pinpointing the

event in the sky, allowing this campaign to proceed”, Landry added.

Winter 2017

While black hole collisions produce almost no signature other than

gravitational waves, the collision of neutron stars can be — and was —

observed up and down the EM spectrum. “When neutron stars collide, all

hell breaks loose,” said Frans Pretorius, a Princeton physics professor.

“They start producing a tremendous amount of visible light, and also

gamma rays, x-rays, radio waves....” The gravitational waves were the first

evidence of the neutron star merger to arrive at Earth, followed by a gamma

ray burst that arrived 1.7 seconds later.

The connection between neutron stars and gamma ray bursts

(GRBs) was first put forth thirty years ago in a pair of papers by Bohdan

Paczynski and Jeremy Goodman of Princeton University. They argued that

colliding neutron stars could be the sources of GRBs, first identified by

satellites in the late 1960s. In addition Paczynski had realized that most

GRBs were coming from distances far enough that the expansion of the

universe was affecting their apparent distribution.

“Bohdan Paczynski was absolutely right,” said Goodman. However,

his ideas were not immediately embraced by the field. Goodman said “I

remember going to a conference in Taos, New Mexico. ... Bohdan gave a

short talk on his idea that GRBs are coming from cosmological distances. I

remember these other astrophysicists ... they were respectfully quiet when

he spoke, but regarded him as a bit of a lunatic.” I, too, was at that

conference in Taos.

LIGO scientists were alerted to a remarkable astronomical event,

which occurred within 2 seconds of LIGO’s detection of the colliding

neutron stars. The Fermi gamma ray space telescope had recorded a “‘short”’

gamma ray burst (sGRB) just 1.7 seconds after the arrival of the

gravitational waves. This is GRB 170817A.

Gamma ray bursts are seen quite frequently, but what causes them

has remained a mystery. Knowing that neutron star mergers were expected

to generate electromagnetic radiation, likely of very high energy,

excitement grew as it became more and more plausible that the first

electromagnetic counterpart to a gravitational wave (GW) had been

observed. The time of arrival of the sGRB and GW signals was especially

telling, and important to validating the relationship between them.

Paczynski was right.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Other wavelengths soon joined in. The first ‘S’ in SSS17a

(supernova survey) stands for the Swope l-m telescope Boller & Chivens

reflector at Las Campanas. It produced the important first detection of the

optical transient after the gravitational wave trigger. A transient and fading

optical source occurred 10.9 hours after the gravitational wave trigger,

Swope Supernova Survey 2017a (SSS17a), coincident with GW170817.

SSS17a is located in NGC 4993, an SO galaxy at a distance of 40

megaparsecs. The precise location of GW170817 provides an opportunity

to probe the nature of these cataclysmic events by combining EM and

gravitational-wave observations. Figure 12 shows a Hubble Space

Telescope image taken before the trigger and the Swope Telescope image

of the signal after the trigger.

When neutron stars smash into each other at an appreciable fraction

of the speed of light, the collision fuses atoms together and creates the

elements that fill the bottom rows of the periodic table.

NGC 4993 SSSI7a

April 28, 2017 Hubble Space Telescope |} August 17, 2017 Swope Telescope ,

Figure 12 on the left is a Hubble image of the galaxy before the event and on the right

is the same galaxy after the event with optical transient indicated by the arrow

“These elements—platinum, gold, uranium, and many other less

valuable ones that are high up on the periodic table — they have more

neutrons than protons in their nuclei,” Goodman said. “You can’t get to

those nuclei in the same way that we understand elements up to iron being

produced, by effectively adding one neutron at a time. The problem 1s that

you have to add a lot of neutrons very quickly.” This rapid process 1s known

as the r-process.

Winter 2017

For a long time scientists thought that r-process elements were

created in supernovae, but the numbers didn’t add up, Goodman said. “But

neutron stars are mostly neutrons, and if you smash two of them together,

it's reasonable to expect that some of the neutrons will splash out.”

Spectroscopic observations from the European Southern

Observatory's Very Large Telescope (VLT) in the wake of the LIGO

detection confirmed that heavy metals like platinum, lead, and gold were

created 1n the collision of the two neutron stars.

The VLT data used to identify these elements, the visible and near-

visible wavelengths of light, were gathered in the hours and days following

LIGO’s detection of the gravitational waves. Once word had begun to

spread of LIGO’s discovery, the worldwide astronomical community

trained their telescopes and other instruments on the patch of sky that the

gravitational waves had come from. There are almost 4000 co-authors on

the paper describing the follow-up observations of x-rays, gamma rays,

visible light waves, radio waves, and more.

The team reported a measurement of the Hubble constant that

combines the distance to the source inferred purely from the gravitational-

wave signal with the recession velocity inferred from measurements of the

redshift using the EM data. They find a value of 70°,’ km/s/Mpc. A binary

coalescence — such as the merger of two neutron stars — is a self-

calibrating ‘standard candle’, which means that it is possible to infer directly

the distance without using the cosmic distance ladder. The key is that the

rate at which the binary’s frequency changes is directly related to the

amplitude of the gravitational waves it produces, i.e. how ‘loud’ the GW

signal is. Just as the observed brightness of a star depends on both its

intrinsic luminosity and how far away it is, the strength of the gravitational

waves received at LIGO depends on both the intrinsic loudness of the source

and how far away it is. By observing the waves with detectors like LIGO

and Virgo, we can determine both the intrinsic loudness of the gravitational

waves as well as their loudness at the Earth. This allows us to directly

determine distance to the source which give the Hubble constant. For a list

of various observations of the Hubble constant see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Observed values .

Washington Academy of Sciences

Conclusion

The direct detection of gravitational waves requires multiple

detections from widely separated sites. To enhance detection capabilities,

LIGO researchers are working closely with gravitational wave researchers

at Virgo in Italy and GEO600* in Germany, they are assisting the Japanese

as they build KAGRA, and for years LIGO staff have been training Indian

engineers to prepare for the construction of the third LIGO interferometer

in India.

Now that LIGO has detected gravitational waves, the next steps in

the emerging field of gravitational wave astronomy will involve beginning

to understand the nature, dynamics, and structure of gravitational wave

sources. The ultimate goal (not yet achieved) is to use a world-wide network

of gravitational wave detectors to pinpoint quickly and precisely the

location of gravitational wave sources on the sky so that LIGO’s

astronomical partners can immediately participate in the search to unshroud

the sources of these enigmatic vibrations in spacetime. Optical, x-ray, radio,

infrared, and gamma ray telescopes, as well as neutrino detectors are at the

ready. This ‘multi-messenger’ astronomy represents one of the large

collaborations that LIGO and other detectors will help to facilitate amongst

the global scientific community.

Check out these leisure-time activities that you can try alone or with

friends.

e Gravity Spy! Help LIGO scientists search for gravitational waves

by finding different kinds of “glitches” found in real LIGO data. By

identifying glitches, you will help train LIGO's computers to find

gravitational wave signals more _ efficiently! Visit

https://www.zooniverse.org/projects.zooninverse/gravity-spy

e Build an interferometer https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-

T1400762/public and https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T0900393/public

e Black Hole Hunter http://blackholehunter.org/

e Black Hole Pong

http://www.gwoptics.org/processing/blackhole_pong/

e Space-time Quest https://www.laserlabs.org/spacetimequest.php

e American Museum of Natural History Virtual

Interferometer https://www.amnh.org/explore/science-

Winter 2017

bulletins/“%28watch%29/astro/documentaries/gravity-making-

waves (Click “Interactive: Operate LIGO!”)

¢ Einstein@Home https://einsteinathome.org/ Use your computer’s

idle time to search for gravitational waves.

Bio

Sethanne Howard is an astrophysicist retired from the US Naval

Observatory where she was Chief of the Nautical Almanac Office. All the

information in this paper came from Wikipedia and the LIGO web site.

‘Newton connected force and momentum: F = d(mv)/dt in 3 dimensions to represent his

universe. At very low speeds and low mass Einstein’s equation reduce to those of

Newton.

'' The Lorentz transformations are coordinate transformations between two coordinate

frames that move at constant velocity relative to each other. Frames of reference can

be divided into two groups: inertial (relative motion with constant velocity) and non-

inertial (accelerating in curved paths, rotational motion with constant angular velocity,

etc.). The term “Lorentz transformations” only refers to transformations between

inertial frames. They supersede the Galilean transformation of Newtonian physics,

which assumes an absolute space and time.

Consistent with Euclid.

'’ Christoffel symbols provide a concrete representation of the connection of (pseudo-)

Riemannian geometry in terms of coordinates on the manifold.

‘ Hawking, S. W. & Israel, W. (1979). General Relativity: an Einstein Centenary Survey.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

“' This is one of the largest radio telescopes, not the largest, but one of the largest. The

telescope appeared in a James Bond movie.

“" A neutron star is quite unusual. It is composed of almost all neutrons densely packed.

They are the smallest and densest stars known to exist. A matchbox filled with

neutron star matter will weigh 3 billion tons. A pulsar is a neutron star that emits a

narrow beam of EM radiation. The beam spins with the pulsar.

vl In other words the pulse travels a distance of 3 light seconds extra.

Binary stars offer advantages over a single star. Once can determine the mass of each

star and other properties.

* GEO600 is a ground-based interferometric gravitational wave detector located near

Hannover, Germany. It is designed and operated by scientists from the Max Planck

Institute for Gravitational Physics and the Leibniz Universitat Hannover, along with

partners in the United Kingdom, and is funded by the Max Planck Society and the

Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC).

Washington Academy of Sciences

Membership List for 2017

M = Member, LM = Life Member, F = Fellow, LF = Life Fellow, EM = Emeritus

Member, EF = Emeritus Fellow

ANTMAN, STUART (Dr.) University of Maryland, 2309 Mathematics Building, College

Park MD 20742-4015 (EF)

APPETITI, EMANUELA Washington DC 20009, Unit 405, 1423 R Street NW,

Washington DC 20009 (LM)

APPLE, DAINA DRAVNIEKS (Mrs.) PO Box 905, Benicia CA 94510-0905 (M)

ARSEM, COLLINS (Mr.) 3144 Gracefield Rd Apt 117, Silver Spring MD 20904-5878

(EM)

ARVESON, PAUL T. (Mr.) 6902 Breezewood Terrace, Rockville MD 20852-4324 (F)

BARBOUR, LARRY L. (Mr.) Pequest Valley Farm, 585 Townsbury Road, Great

Meadows NJ 07838 (M)

BARWICK, W. ALLEN (Dr.) 13620 Maidstone Lane, Potomac MD 20854-1008 (F)

BECKER, EDWIN D. (Dr.) 339 Springvale Road, Great Falls VA 22066 (EF)

BEKEY, IVAN (Mr.) 4624 Quarter Charge Drive, Annandale VA 22003 (F)

BERLEANT, DANIEL (Dr) 12473 Rivercrest Dr., Little Rock AR 72212 (M)

BERRY, JESSE F. (Mr.) 2601 Oakenshield Drive, Rockville MD 20854 (M)

BIONDO, SAMUEL J. (Dr.) 10144 Nightingale St., Gaithersburg MD 20882 (EF)

BOISVERT, RONALD F. (Dr.) Mail Stop 8910, National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST), 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg MD 20899-8910 (F)

BRADY, KATHIE (Ms) 4539 Metropolitan Court, Frederick MD 21704 (M)

BRISKMAN, ROBERT D. (Mr.) 61 Valerian Court, North Bethesda MD 20852 (LF)

BROWN, ELISE A.B. (Dr.) 6811 Nesbitt Place, McLean VA 22101-2133 (LF)

BUFORD, MARILYN (Dr.) P.O. Box 171, Pattison TX 77466 (EF)

BULLARD JEFFREY WAYNE (Dr.) 11 Marquis Drive, Gaithersburg MD 20878 (F)

BYRD, GENE GILBERT (Dr.) Box 1326, Tuscaloosa AL 35403 (M)

CAWS, PETER J (Dr) Apt. 230, 2475 Virginia Ave. N.W., Washington DC 20037 (EM)

CHRISTMAN, GERARD (Mr.) 6109 Berlee Drive, Alexandria VA 22312 (F)

CIORNEIU, BORIS (Dr.) 20069 Great Falls Forest Dr., Great Falls VA 22066 (M)

CLINE, THOMAS LYTTON (Dr.) 13708 Sherwood Forest Drive, Silver Spring MD

20904 (F)

COBLE, MICHAEL (Dr.) NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8314, Gaithersburg MD 20899-

8314 (F)

COFFEY, TIMOTHY P. (Dr.) 976 Spencer Rd., McLean VA 22102 (F)

COHEN, MICHAEL P. (Dr.) 1615 Q. St. NW T-1, Washington DC 20009-6310 (LF)

COLE, JAMES H. (Mr.) 9709 Katie Leigh Ct, Great Falls VA 22066-3800 (F)

CORONA, ELIZABETH T 343 Cedar Street NW, #106, Washington DC 20012 (M)

COUSIN, CAROLYN E. (Dr.) 1903 Roxburg Court, Adelphi MD 20783 (F)

CROSS, SUE (Dr.) 9729 Cheshire Ridge Circle, Manassas VA 20110 (M)

CUPERO, JERRI ANNE (Dr.) 2860 Graham Road, Falls Church VA 22042 (F)

CURRIE, S.J., CHARLES L. (Rev.) Jesuit Community, Georgetown University,

Washington DC 20057 (EF)

DANNER, DAVID L. (Dr.) 1364, Suite 101, Beverly Road, McLean VA 22101 (F)

DAVIS, ROBERT E. (Dr.) 1793 Rochester Street, Crofton MD 21114 (F)

DEAN, DONNA (Dr.) 367 Mound Builder Loop, Hedgesville WV 25427-7211 (EF)

DEDRICK, ROBERT L. (Dr.) 21 Green Pond Rd, Saranac Lake NY 12983 (EF)

Winter 2017

DOMANSKI, PIOTR A. (Dr.) NIST, Engineering Lab, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8631,

Gaithersburg MD 20899 (F)

DONALDSON, JOHANNA B. (Mrs.) 3020 North Edison Street, Arlington VA 22207

(EF)

DURRANI, SAJJAD (Dr.) 17513 Lafayette Dr, OLNEY MD 20832 (EF)

EDINGER, STANLEY EVAN (Dr.) Apt #1016, 5801 Nicholson Lane, North Bethesda

MD 20852 (EM)

EGENRIEDER, JAMES A. (Mr.) 1615 N. Cleveland St. Arlington VA 22201 (F)

EPHRATH, ARYE R. (Dr.) 5467 Ashleigh Rd., Fairfax VA 22030 (M)

ERICKSON, TERRELL A. (Dr.) 4806 Cherokee St., College Park MD 20740-1865 (M)

ETTER, PAUL C. (Mr.) 8612 Wintergreen Court, Unit 304, Odenton MD 21113 (F)

FASANELLI, FLORENCE (Dr.) 4711 Davenport Street, Washington DC 20016 (EF)

FASOLKA. MICHAEL J. (Dr.) NIST Material Measurement Lab, MS8300 100 Bureau

Dr. , Gaithersburg MD 20809 (F)

FAULKNER, JOSEPH A. (Mr.) 2 Bay Drive, Lewes DE 19958 (F)

FILLIBEN, JAMES JOHN (Dr.) NIST 100 Bureau Dr., Stop 8980, Gaithersburg MD

20899 (F)

FRASER, GERALD (Dr.) 5811 Cromwell Drive, Bethesda MD 20816 (M)

FREEMAN, ERNEST R. (Mr.) 5357 Strathmore Avenue, Kensington MD 20895-1160

(LEF)

FROST, HOLLY C. (Dr.) 5740 Crownleigh Court, Burke VA 22015 (F)

GAGE, DOUGLAS W. (Dr.) XPM Technologies, 1020 N. Quincy Street, Apt 116,

Arlington VA 22201-4637 (M)

GAUNAURD, GUILLERMO C. (Dr.) 4807 Macon Road, Rockville MD 20852-2348

(EF)

GHARAVI, HAMID (Dr.) NIST, MS 8920, Gaithersburg MD 20899 (F)

GIBBON, JOROME (Mr.) 311 Pennsylvania Avenue, Falls Church VA 22046 (F)

GIFFORD, PROSSER (Dr.) 59 Penzance Rd, Woods Hole MA 02543-1043 (F)

GLUCKMAN, ALBERT G. (Mr.) 18123 Homeland Drive, Olney MD 20832-1792 (EF)

GOLDMAN, WILLIAM (Dr.) 8101 Woodhaven Blvd., Bethesda MD 20817 (F)

GRAY, MARY (Professor) Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer

Science, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington DC

20016-8050 (F)

GUIDOTTI, TEE L (Dr.) 2347 Ashmead PI., NW, Washington DC 20009-1413 (M)

HACK, HARVEY (Dr.) 176, Via Dante, Arnold MD 21012-1315 (F)

HACSKAYLO, EDWARD (Dr.) 7949 N Sendero Uno, Tucson AZ 85704-2066 (EF)

HAIG, SJ, FRANK R. (Rev.) Loyola University Maryland, 4501 North Charles St,

Baltimore MD 21210-2699 (EF)

HARDIS, JONATHAN EDWARD (Dr.) NIST, MS 8400, Gaithersburg MD 20899 (F)

HARR, JAMES W. (Mr.) 180 Strawberry Lane, Centreville MD 21617 (EF)

HAYNES, ELIZABETH D. (Mrs.) 7418 Spring Village Dr., Apt. CS 422, Springfield

VA 22150-4931 (EM)

HAZAN, PAUL 14528 Chesterfield Rd, Rockville MD 20853 (F)

HEANEY, JAMES B. 6 Olive Ct, Greenbelt MD 20770 (M)

HIETALA, RONALD (Dr.) 6351 Waterway Drive, Falls Church VA 22044-1322 (M)

HOFFELD, J. TERRELL (Dr.) 11307 Ashley Drive, Rockville MD 20852-2403 (F)

HOLLAND, MARK A. (Dr.) 201 Oakdale Rd., Salisbury MD 21801 (M)

HONIG, JOHN G. (Dr.) 7701 Glenmore Spring Way, Bethesda MD 20817 (LF)

Washington Academy of Sciences

HORLICK, JEFFREY (Mr.) 8 Duvall Lane, Gaithersburg MD 20877-1838 (F)

HOROWITZ, EMANUEL (Dr.) Apt 618, 3100 N. Leisure World Blvd, Silver Spring

MD 20906 (EF)

HOWARD, SETHANNE (Dr.) Apt 311, 7570 Monarch Mills Way, Columbia MD 21046

(LF)

HOWARD-PEEBLES, PATRICIA (Dr.) 7501 Virginia Parkway 2312, McKinney TX

75071 (EF)

HULSE, RUSSELL (Dr.) 13 Harvest Dr., Plainsboro NJ 08536 (LF)

IKOSSI, KIKI (Dr.) 6275 Gentle LN, Alexandria VA 22310 (F)

IZADJOO, MEISAM (Mr.) 13137 Clarksburg Square Road, Clarksburg, MD 20871 (M)

IZADJOO, MINA (Dr.) 15713 Thistlebridge Drive, Rockville MD 20853 (F)

JANUSZEWSKI, JOSEPH (Mr.) North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Suite

600, 1325 G Street NW, Washington DC 20005 (M)

JOHNSON, EDGAR M. (Dr.) 1384 Mission San Carlos Drive, Amelia Island FL 32034

(LF)

JOHNSON, GEORGE P. (Dr.) 3614 34" St. NW Washington DC 20008 (EF)

JOHNSON, JEAN M. (Dr.) 3614 34" St. NW Washington DC 20008 (EF)

JONG, SHUNG-CHANG (Dr.) 8892 Whitechurch Ct, Bristow VA 20136 (LF)

KAHN, ROBERT E. (Dr.) 909 Lynton Place, Mclean VA 22102 (F)

KARAM, LISA (Dr.) 8105 Plum Creek Drive, Gaithersburg MD 20882-4446 (F)

KAUFHOLD, JOHN (Dr.) Suite 1200, 4601 N. Fairfax Dr, Arlington VA 22203 (M)

KAY, PEG (Ms.) 6111 Wooten Drive, Falls Church VA 22044 (LF)

KEEFER, LARRY (Dr.) 7016 River Road, Bethesda MD 20817 (EF)

KEISER, BERNHARD E. (Dr.) 2046 Carrhill Road, Vienna VA 22181-2917 (LF)

KLINGSBERG, CYRUS (Dr.) Apt. L184, 500 E. Marylyn Ave, State College PA 16801-

6225 (EF)

KLOPFENSTEIN, REX C. (Mr.) 4224 Worcester Dr., Fairfax VA 22032-1140 (LF)

KRUEGER, GERALD P. (Dr.) Krueger Ergonomics Consultants, 4105 Komes Court,

Alexandria VA 22306-1252 (EF)

LAWSON, ROGER H. (Dr.) 10613 Steamboat Landing, Columbia MD 21044 (EF)

LEIBOWITZ, LAWRENCE M. (Dr.) 3903 Laro Court, Fairfax VA 22031-3256 (LF)

LEMKIN, PETER (Dr.) 148 Keeneland Circle, North Potomac MD 20878 (EM)

LESHUK, RICHARD (Mr) 9004 Paddock Lane, Potomac MD 20854 (M)

LEWIS, DAVID C. (Dr.) 27 Bolling Circle, Palmyra VA 22963 (F)

LEWIS, E. NEIL (Dr.) Malvern Instruments, Suite 300, 7221 Lee Deforest Dr, Columbia

MD 21046 (M)

LIBELO, LOUIS F. (Dr.) 9413 Bulls Run Parkway, Bethesda MD 20817 (LF)

LIDDLE, J. ALEXANDER (Dr.) NIST, MS6203, 100 BUREAU Dr. Gaithersburg MD

20899 (F)

LOCASCIO, LAURIE E. (Dr.) NIST, MS1000, Gaithersburg MD 20899 (F)

LONDON, MARILYN (Ms.) 3520 Nimitz Rd, Kensington MD 20895 (F)

LONGSTRETH, II, WALLACE I (Mr.) 8709 Humming Bird Court, Laurel MD 20723-

1254 (M)

LOOMIS, TOM H. W. (Mr.) 11502 Allview Dr., Beltsville MD 20705 (EM)

LOZIER, DANIEL W. (Dr.) 5230 Sherier Place NW Washington DC 20016 (F)

LUTZ, ROBERT J. (Dr.) 6031 Willow Glen Dr, Wilminton NC 28412 (EF)

LYONS, JOHN W. (Dr.) 7430 Woodville Road, Mt. Airy MD 21771 (EF)

MADHAVAN GURUPRASAD 1512 Marion St NW Washington DC 20001 (F)

Winter 2017

MALCOM, SHIRLEY M. (Dr.) 12901 Wexford Park, Clarksville MD 21029-1401 (F)

MANDERSCHEID, RONALD W. (Dr.) 10837 Admirals Way, Potomac MD 20854-

1232(EE)

MARRETT, CORA (Dr.) 7517 Farmington Way, Madison WI 53717 (EF)

MATHER, JOHN (Dr.) 3400 Rosemary Lane, Hyattsville MD 20782 (F)

MCGRATTAN, KEVIN B. (Dr.) 11512 Brandy Hall Lane, Gaithersburg MD 20878 (F)

MENZER, ROBERT E. (Dr.) 90 Highpoint Dr, Gulf Breeze FL 32561-4014 (EF)

MESSINA, CARLA G. (Mrs.) 9800 Marquette Drive, Bethesda MD 20817 (EF)

METAILIE, GEORGES C. (DR.) 18 Rue Liancourt, 75014 Paris, FRANCE (F)

MIGLER, KALMAN B. (Dr.) NIST, 100 Bureau Dr. MS8542 Gaithersburg MD 20899

(F)

MILLER, JAY H. (Mr.) 8924 Ridge Place, Bethesda MD 20817-3364 (M)

MILLER I, ROBERT D. (Dr.) The Catholic University of America, 10918 Dresden

Drive, Beltsville MD 20705 (M)

MORRIS, JOSEPH (Mr.) PO Box 3005, Oakton VA 22124-9005 (M)

MORRIS, P.E., ALAN (Dr.) 4550 N. Park Ave. #104, Chevy Chase MD 20815 (EF)

MOUNTAIN, RAYMOND D. (Dr.) 701 King Farm Blvd #327, Rockville MD 20850

(F)

MUELLER, TROY J. (Dr.) 42476 Londontown Terrace, South Riding VA 20152 (M)

MUMMA, MICHAEL J. (Dr.) 210 Glen Oban Drive, Arnold MD 21012 (F)

MURDOCH, WALLACE P. (Dr.) 65 Magaw Avenue, Carlisle PA 17015 (EF)

NORRIS, KARL H. (Mr.) 11204 Montgomery Road, Beltsville MD 20705 (EF)

O'HARE, JOHN J. (Dr.) 108 Rutland Blvd, West Palm Beach FL 33405-5057 (EF)

OHRINGER, LEE (Mr.) 5014 Rodman Road, Bethesda MD 20816 (EF)

OTT, WILLIAM R (Dr.) 19125 N. Pike Creek Place, Montgomery Village MD 20886

(EF)

PAJER, BERNADETTE (Mrs.) 25116 143rd St. SE, Monroe WA 98272 (M)

PARR, ALBERT C (Dr.) 2656 SW Eastwood Avenue, Gresham OR 97080-9477 (F)

PAULONIS, JOHN J (Mr.) P.O. Box 335, Yonkers NY 10710 (M)

PAZ, ELVIRA L. (Dr.) 172 Cook Hill Road, Wallingford CT 06492 (LEF)

PICKHOLTZ, RAYMOND L. (Dr.) 3613 Glenbrook Road, Fairfax VA 22031-3210

(EF)

POLAVARAPU, MURTY 10416 Hunter Ridge Dr., Oakton VA 22124 (LF)

POLINSKI, ROMUALD (Prof, Doctor of Sciences (Economics)) Ul. Generala Bora

39/87, 03-982 WARSZAWA 131, Poland (M)

PRZYTYCKI, JOZEF M. (Prof.) 10005 Broad St, Bethesda MD 20814 (F)

PYKE, JR, THOMAS N. (Mr.) 4887 N. 35th Road, Arlington VA 22207 (EF)

RADER, CHARLES A. (Mr.) 1101 Paca Drive, Edgewater MD 21037 (EF)

REAGAN, ANN M. (Dr.) PO Box 22, Lusby MD 20657 (M)

REISCHAUER, ROBERT (Dr.) 5509 Mohican Rd, Bethesda MD 20816 (EF)

RICKER, RICHARD (Dr.) 12809 Talley Ln, Darnestown MD 20878-6108 (F)

RIDGELL, MARY P.O. Box 133, 48073 Mattapany Road, St. Mary's City MD 20686-

0133 (LM)

ROBERTS, SUSAN (Dr.) Ocean Studies Board, Keck 607, National Research Council,

500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington DC 20001 (F)

ROMAN, NANCY GRACE (Dr.) 8100 Connecticut Ave. Apt.1605, Chevy Chase MD

20815 (M)

ROOD, SALLY A (Dr.) PO Box 12093, Arlington VA 22219 (F)

Washington Academy of Sciences

ROSENBLATT, JOAN R. (Dr.) 701 King Farm Blvd, Apt 630, Rockville MD 20850

(EF)

SATTERFIELD, MARY (Dr.) 503 Main St. Apt 426, Gaithersburg MD 20878 (F)

SCHINDLER, ALBERT I. (Dr.) 6615 Sulky Lane, Rockville MD 20852 (EF)

SCHMEIDLER, NEAL F. (Mr.) 7218 Hadlow Drive, Springfield VA 22152 (F)

SCHNEPFE, MARIAN M. (Dr.) Potomac Towers, Apt. 640, 2001 N. Adams Street,

Arlington VA 22201 (EF)

SELKIRK, WILLIAM (Dr.) 2423 Wynfield Ct, Frederick MD 21702 (M)

SERPAN, CHARLES Z (Mr.) 5510 Bradley Blvd, Bethesda MD 20814 (M)

SEVERINSKY, ALEX J. (Dr) 4707 Foxhall Cres NW, Washington DC 20007-1064

(EM)

SHETLER, STANWYN G. (Dr.) 142 E Meadowland Ln, Sterling VA 20164-1144 (EF)

SHROPSHIRE, JR, W. (Dr.) Apt. 426, 300 Westminster Canterbury Dr., Winchester VA

22603 (LF)

SIMMS, JAMES ROBERT (Mr.) 9405 Elizabeth Ct., Fulton MD 20759 (M)

SMITH, THOMAS E. (Dr.) 3148 Gracefield Rd Apt 215, Silver Spring MD 20904-5863

(LF)

SNIECKUS, MARY (Ms) 1700, Dublin Dr., Silver Spring MD 20902 (F)

SODERBERG, DAVID L. (Mr.) 403 West Side Dr. Apt. 102, Gaithersburg MD 20878

(EM)

SOLAND, RICHARD M. (Dr.) 2516 Arizona Ave. Apt 6, Santa Monica CA 90404-1426

(LF)

SOZER, AMANDA (Dr.) 525 Wythe Street, Alexandria VA 22314 (M)

SPARGO, WILLIAM J. (Dr.) 9610 Cedar Lane, Bethesda MD 20814 (F)

SPILHAUS, JR, A.F. (Dr.) 10900 Picasso Lane, Potomac MD 20854 (EM)

SRIRAM, RAM DUVVURU (Dr.) 10320 Castlefield Street, Ellicott City MD 21042

(LF)

STAVELEY, JUDY (Dr.) 880 Laval Dr. Sykesville, MD 21784 (M)

STERN, KURT H. (Dr.) 103 Grant Avenue, Takoma Park MD 20912-4328 (EF)

STEWART, PETER (Prof.) 417 7th Street NE, Washington DC 20002 (M)

STIEF, LOUIS J. (Dr.) 332 N St., SW., Washington DC 20024-2904 (EF)

STOMBLER, ROBIN (Ms.) Auburn Health Strategies, 3519 South Four Mile Run Dr.,

Arlington VA 22206 (M)

SUBRAHMANIAN, ESWARAN (Dr.) 4740 Connecticut Ave. Apt 815, Washington DC

20008 (LM)

TABOR, HERBERT (Dr.) NIDDK, LBP, Bldg. 8, Rm 223, National Institutes of Health,

Bethesda MD 20892-0830 (M)

TEICH, ALBERT H. (Dr.) PO Box 309, Garrett Park MD 20896 (EF)

THOMPSON, CHRISTIAN F. (Dr.) 278 Palm Island Way, Ponte Vedra FL 32081 (LF)

TIMASHEV, SVIATOSLAV (SLAVA) A. (Dr.) 3306 Potterton Dr., Falls Church VA

22044-1603 (F)

TOUWAIDE, ALAIN Unit 405, 1423 R Street NW, Washington DC 20009 (LF)

TROXLER, G.W. (Dr.) PO Box 1144, Chincoteague VA 23336-9144 (F)

UBELAKER, DOUGLAS H. (Dr.) Dept. of Anthropology, National Museum of National

History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC 20560-0112 (F)

UMPLEBY, STUART (Professor) Apt 1207, 4141 N Henderson Rd, Arlington VA

22203 (F)

VAISHNAV, P. P.O. Box 2129, Gaithersburg MD 20879 (LF)

Winter 2017

VARADL, PETER F. (Dr.) Apartment 1606W, 4620 North Park Avenue, Chevy Chase

MD 20815-7507 (EF)

VAVRICK, DANIEL J. (Dr.) 10314 Kupperton Court, Fredricksburg VA 22408 (F)

VOAS, JEFFREY (Dr.) 8210 Crestwood Heights Dr., Apt. 720, McLean VA 22102 (M)

VOORHEES, ELLEN (Dr.) 100 Bureau Dr., Stop 8940, Gaithersburg MD 20899-8940

(F)

WALDMANN, THOMAS A. (Dr.) 3910 Rickover Road, Silver Spring MD 20902 (F)

WANG, Y. CLAIRE (Dr.) 140 Charles St. Apt 22D, New York, NY 10014 (M)

WEBB, RALPH E. (Dr.) 21-P Ridge Road, Greenbelt MD 20770 (EF)

WEIL, TIMOTHY (Mr.) SECURITYFEEDS, PO Box 18385, Denver CO 80218 (M)

WEISS, ARMAND B. (Dr.) 6516 Truman Lane, Falls Church VA 22043 (LF)

WERGIN, WILLIAM P. (Dr.) 1 Arch Place #322, Gaithersburg MD 20878 (EF)

WHITE, CARTER (Dr.) 12160 Forest Hill Rd, Waynesboro PA 17268 (EF)

WIESE, WOLFGANG L. (Dr.) 8229 Stone Trail Drive, Bethesda MD 20817 (EF)

WILLIAMS, CARL (Dr.) 2272 Dunster Lane, Potomac MD 29854 (F)

WILLIAMS, E. EUGENE (Dr.) Dept. of Biological Sciences, Salisbury University, 1101

Camden Ave, Salisbury MD 21801 (M)

WILLIAMS, JACK (Mr.) 6022 Hardwick Place, Falls Church VA 22041 (F)

WITHERSPOON, F. DOUGLAS ASTI, 11316 Smoke Rise Ct., Fairfax Station VA

22039 (M)

Washington Academy of Sciences

1200 New York Avenue

Rm G119

Washington, DC 20005

Please fill in the blanks and send your application to the address above. We will

contact you as soon as your application has been reviewed by the Membership

Committee. Thank you for your interest in the Washington Academy of Sciences.

(Dr. Mrs. Mr. Ms)

Business Address

Home Address

Phone : - ry ald alee

Cell Phone

preferred mailing address Type of membership

Business Home Regular Student

Schools of Higher Education attended

Present Occupation or Professional Position

Please list memberships in scientific societies — include office held

Winter 2017

lle

Instructions to Authors

Deadlines for quarterly submissions are:

Spring — February | Fall — August |

Summer — May | Winter — November |

Draft Manuscripts using a word processing program (such as

MSWord), not PDF. We do not accept PDF manuscripts.

Papers should be 6,000 words or fewer. If there are 7 or more graphics,

reduce the number of words by 500 for each graphic.

Include an abstract of 150-200 words.

Include a two to three sentence bio of the authors.

Graphics must be in graytone, and be easily resizable by the editors to

fit the Journal’s page size. Reference the graphic in the text.

Use endnotes or footnotes. The bibliography may be in a style

considered standard for the discipline or professional field represented

by the paper.

Submit papers as email attachments to the editor or to

wasjournal(@washacadsci.org .

Include the author’s name, affiliation, and contact information —

including postal address. Membership in an Academy-affiliated society

may also be noted. It is not required.

Manuscripts are peer reviewed and become the property of the

Washington Academy of Sciences.

There are no page charges.

Manuscripts can be accepted by any of the Board of Discipline Editors.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Affiliated Institutions

National Institute for Standards & Technology (NIST)

Meadowlark Botanical Gardens

The John W. Kluge Center of the Library of Congress

Potomac Overlook Regional Park

Koshland Science Museum

American Registry of Pathology

Living Oceans Foundation

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)

Winter 2017

Delegates to the Washington Academy of Sciences

Representing Affiliated Scientific Societies

Acoustical Society of America

American/International Association of Dental Research

American Assoc. of Physics Teachers, Chesapeake

Section

American Astronomical Society

American Fisheries Society

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

American Institute of Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration

American Meteorological Society

American Nuclear Society

American Phytopathological Society

American Society for Cybernetics

American Society for Microbiology

American Society of Civil Engineers

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

American Society of Plant Physiology

Anthropological Society of Washington

ASM International

Association for Women in Science

Association for Computing Machinery

Association for Science, Technology, and Innovation

Association of Information Technology Professionals

Biological Society of Washington

Botanical Society of Washington

Capital Area Food Protection Association

Chemical Society of Washington

District of Columbia Institute of Chemists

District of Columbia Psychology Association

Eastern Sociological Society

Electrochemical Society

Entomological Society of Washington

Geological Society of Washington

Historical Society of Washington DC

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

(continued on next page)

Paul Arveson

J. Terrell Hoffeld

Frank R. Haig, S. J.

Sethanne Howard

Lee Benaka

David W. Brandt

E. Lee Bray

Vacant

Charles Martin

Vacant

Stuart Umpleby

Vacant

Daniel J. Vavrick

Mark Holland

Vacant

Toni Marechaux

Jodi Wesemann

Vacant

F. Douglas

Witherspoon

Vacant

Chris Puttock

Keith Lempel

Vacant

Ronald W.

Mandersheid

Vacant

Jurate Landwehr

Vacant

Gerald Krueger

Washington Academy of Sciences

Delegates to the Washington Academy of Sciences

Representing Affiliated Scientific Societies

(continued from previous page)

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Washington

Section

Institute of Food Technologies, Washington DC Section

Institute of Industrial Engineers, National Capital Chapter

International Association for Dental Research, American

Section

International Society for the Systems Sciences

International Society of Automation, Baltimore Washington

Section

Instrument Society of America

Marine Technology Society

Maryland Native Plant Society

Mathematical Association of America, Maryland-District of

Columbia-Virginia Section

Medical Society of the District of Columbia

National Capital Area Skeptics

National Capital Astronomers

National Geographic Society

Optical Society of America, National Capital Section

Pest Science Society of America

Philosophical Society of Washington

Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine

Society of American Foresters, National Capital Society

Society of American Military Engineers, Washington DC

Post

Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Washington DC

Chapter

Society of Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc.,

Washington DC Section

Soil and Water Conservation Society, National Capital

Chapter

Technology Transfer Society, Washington Area Chapter

Virginia Native Plant Society, Potowmack Chapter

Washington DC Chapter of the Institute for Operations

Research and the Management Sciences (WINFORMS)

Washington Evolutionary Systems Society

Washington History of Science Club

Washington Paint Technology Group

Washington Society of Engineers

Washington Society for the History of Medicine

Washington Statistical Society

World Future Society, National Capital Region Chapter

Richard Hill

Taylor Wallace

Neal F. Schmeidler

Christopher Fox

Vacant

Richard

Sommerfield

Hank Hegner

Jake Sobin

Vacant

John Hamman

Julian Craig

Vacant

Jay H. Miller

Vacant

Jim Heaney

Vacant

Larry S. Millstein

Vacant

Marilyn Buford

Vacant

BE. Lee Bray

Erika Larsen

Richard Leshuk

Alan Ford

Meagan Pitluck-

Schmitt

Vacant

Albert G. Gluckman

Vacant

Alvin Reiner

Alain Touwaide

Michael P. Cohen

Jim Honig