posted 08-07-2007 01:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim Furniss:
So, even though I have given you three specifc examples of what was covered in Flight International you still doubt and because of that you don't want to read the earlier parts of the book which you would have liked to have read. A bit of flawed logic I think. Go on give it a go mate! It's only £12!

---

I understand your efforts to sell your book - as any author would.
The logic I have is - I don't have time to read every book that comes out in my interest zone. Instead, I read reviews, comments from the author, etc., and that tells me a lot about whether it would be something that interested me. I am pretty sure almost everyone does that - it's pretty logical.

Taking it further, after a while one learns which book reviewers to trust, who have similar opinions to yours.

As others here have pointed out, self-published books are generally looked at with even more scepticism, as the assumption is no publishing house wanted to touch them.

I've, therefore, read the reviews and summaries by Robert Pearlman and others, plus (most tellingly for me) your own words here and on your personal website. And have based my decision on that. It seems perfectly logical to me.

quote:

---

I assume that you will not be posting any more contributions now that you have decided not to read the "A Life in Space" and will have not actually have read Chapter 10 - and that goes for any others who have made their comments.

---

Well, that is up to Robert, as the moderator of this website, to decide. Personally, I think with the lengthy summary of the chapter you put on your website and your many messages here, you have given us a great deal to discuss and comment on without having to read the chapter. You've summarized your thoughts well, and made it very clear what the chapter contains. So, I disagree.

I am a little concerned that you believe no-one here should talk about your book in this free and open discussion we are having, until they have given you money. I am sure you understand that, for those who do consider parts of your work "conspiracy theories," the last thing they would want to do is finance your efforts.

posted 08-07-2007 04:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim Furniss:
Gosh. I did not actually know that I was answerable to you FFRench, nor to CollectSpace for that matter.

---

Naturally, you are not, and I have no idea where you would get such an impression.

When publishing a book, there will naturally be discussion of the book's opinions and viewpoints, especially by those who are interested in the subject area. Most authors welcome such debate as it means their book is being noticed.

And in this instance, you have been the one to come to this site and suggest that we read your book to understand your viewpoints. Did I misunderstand you?

quote:

---

However, you are welcome to read the book and I can send it to you as a Word document attachment by email if you can give me your email address.

---

Thank you - I will be happy to do so off-thread.

quote:

---

I also trust that your review will be objective and not based on your predetermined point of view demonstrated in your postings. I am thankful that we live in countries where we can have a free and open discussion.

---

Your two sentences above seem to contradict. Any review that I do will naturally take into account my prior knowledge of space history and my belief in extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof.

If you are asking that I try and keep an open mind and imagine that I am coming to this work cold, without any prior knowledge of it, then that I can try and do when reading it.

In return, you would agree that any comments I make are in the interests of reviewing the book - and that, even if you did not like them, you would limit discussions here and elsewhere to factual viewpoints. I note a tendency in your postings here and elsewhere to suggest legal litigation, and reviewing the work would be pointless if that was the outcome. I'll review the work if you agree that my words will be protected free speech.

posted 08-07-2007 04:24 PM               

I'm probably not as smart as you, but I have also studied such matters, and have great confidence in the long history behind them to have sorted out fact from fancy.

posted 08-07-2007 04:31 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by STEVE SMITH:
I'm really agahst at Ali's statement that Conservation of Energy may be invalid. Tell me more.

---

posted 08-08-2007 10:40 AM            

I think, generally, people believe that a 'controversy' is such only if more than one person believes it. As AbuTaha has also here stated, to his credit, that he does not share your NASA cover-up claims, I'm hard pressed to call something a controversy if you're the only person who believes there to be one. You have, instead, put forward here and elsewhere theories about NASA conspiracies. And interesting that you mention space historian Jim Oberg describing them as conspiracy theories too elsewhere online.

posted 08-08-2007 10:51 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim Furniss:
I did not approach CollectSpace.

---

This thread began in the late afternoon of June 19th. Your first posting to it was on the morning of June 21st, just over a day later. Are you suggesting that you did so involuntarily, under some kind of duress?

If not, I fail to understand your reasoning. Did you not choose to post your personal thoughts and opinions here on a discussion board, a place where, naturally, they are being discussed?

quote:

---

I was never aware of what was being posted on CS for a quite a while after, until I think I was prompted by an email from a friend.

---

I see. Assuming that most of us would consider "quite a while after" to mean longer than one day, this does not match the facts that can be seen by the date and time postings on this very thread.

posted 08-08-2007 08:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim Furniss:
I hope you have time to do other things during the day!

---

Thank you for your concern. Yes, I certainly did. Today I took a number of science teachers to see the shuttle launch live via video from inside a Challenger Center Mission Control at the Reuben H. Fleet Science Center. These teachers had, five days before, attended a workshop that I hosted at the San Diego Air & Space Museum sponsored by Northrop Grumman and Sally Ride Science, where they received NASA-sponsored workshops and presentations from people at NASA Marshall and JPL. Each of the teachers will receive some of the basil seeds flown on this mission, and all of them got to meet NASA astronaut Ellen Baker who flew in specially to meet them.

The Challenger Centers were set up in memory of the crew lost on that shuttle's launch, and today's launch was a moving experience for many as, within the center, we watched Barbara Morgan continue that crew's educational mission.

So yes, a busy day. But when I consider Robert Pearlman's prior posting in this thread about your book chapter draft:

"It would seem that Furniss and Abutaha set out to rectify that injustice by lobbing an even greater insult at the Challenger Seven's pilot and commander. The authors... reinterpret the official transcript to fit their theories"

posted 08-09-2007 09:34 AM               

You have jumped to conclusions about me not being keen for you to review the book. I think I have heard that accusation about me! Oh well never mind.

I hope you got my email this morning which is basically what I sent you I think on Tuesday agreeing to send you the book for review.

You very kindly said on 6 August that you were a “very big fan" of my work in the 1980s and 1990s”. Thank you.

So what happened in 2000... did I suddenly turn into a sugar plum fairy?

I worked for Flight a few more years, contributing to the reportage of the Columbia accident etc and covering the othe news. I was replaced by the excellent Rob Coppinger as for family reasons I was not able to travel.

You want references of my Challenger reportage in Flight International, which you obviously were "a great fan of" in the 1980-1990s!

Well here it is:
Challenger References - Flight International
Relating to accident and AbuTaha

1986

• 8 Feb p.2 bolted joint leak
  
• 15 Feb p.40 booster casings
  
• 22 Feb p.2 suspect booster blown up
  
• 22 Feb p.20 test did not show loss of resiliency
  
• 24 May p.44 overall strengthening of entire SRB
  
• 26 July p.10 NASA working on new SRB design
  
• 4 Oct p.49 seal redesign
  
• 25 Oct p.33 NRC calls for radical redesigns later
  
  
  1987
  
• 17 Jan p.18 independent analysis by AbuTaha points to breach in booster in areas of attach ring
  
• 24 Jan p.44 new evidence studied
  
• 31 Jan p.31 Truly ignores Abutaha’s claims
  
• 14 Feb p.21 Were Challenger pilots aware?
  
• 21 Feb p.18 booster redesign criticised
  
• 6 June p.45 booster tested
  
• 29 Aug p.23 booster strengthened
  
• 12 Sep p.16 AbuTaha gains support from engineers
  
• 31 Oct p.16 problems delay booster
  
  
  1988
  
• 16 Jan p.42 booster hits problem
  
• 27 Feb p.18 booster failure survivable
  
• 30 Apr p.25 AbuTaha recieves wide support
  
• 25 Jun p.9 booster tested
  
• 16 Jul p.6 concerns about loads on aft skirts
  
• 30 Jul p.6 problems threaten delay
  NOTE: Sept fully-circumferential attach ring on STS 26. If the Shuttle was safe with the half-ring why did NASA change the design of the attach ring?
  
  
  1989
  
• 4 Feb p.14 excessive stress on attach ring is believed to have been the major cause
  
  
  1991
  
• 28 Aug p.13 AbuTaha sues NASA
  
  
  1992
  
• 16 Sep p.44 AbuTaha proposes pulsed engines to boost Shuttle
  
  
  1993
  
• 1 Sept p.33 Loads of Trouble on Shuttle
  
  
  1996
  
• 24 Jan p.30 Dynamic Overshoot
  
  
  1997
  
• 5 Feb p.5 New evidence reveals fire on doomed Challenger’s booster

My book includes references to this reportage in Chapter 10 and other later chapters.

Looking forward to receiving your email address.

Other than corresponding to your email regarding reviewing my book, I have no intention of contributing to the thread anymore. It is getting tired, personal and tetchy (and I admit I got sucked into it aswell) and does no credit to a fine website.

I may dip in and take a look at what else you can create to knock me but you seem to be scraping the barrel now.

Cheers mate. Tim

posted 08-09-2007 09:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim Furniss:
You have jumped to conclusions about me not being keen for you to review the book.

---

quote:

---

I hope you got my email this morning which is basically what I sent you I think on Tuesday agreeing to send you the book for review.

---

quote:

---

You want references of my Challenger reportage in Flight International, which you obviously were "a great fan of" in the 1980-1990s!

---

Thank you for your summary of that work, explaining how you have been championing these Challenger theories for 21 years despite, to my knowledge, there being no-one in the respected aerospace community agreeing with them. That is also most enlightening.

quote:

---

I have no intention of contributing to the thread anymore. It is getting tired, personal and tetchy (and I admit I got sucked into it aswell) and does no credit to a fine website. I may dip in and take a look at what else you can create to knock me but you seem to be scraping the barrel now.

---

It's told us all, in fact, a great deal about your thinking, your definition of objectivity and historical evidence, and about you as a person.

posted 08-09-2007 12:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim Furniss: I can assure you that I sent two previous emails agreeing to let you have my book to review and I was puzzled that you did not reply to them...

...Let me have your email address.

---

Okay, leaving aside my obvious puzzlement here that you are asking for my E-mail address while telling me you have sent me E-mails (to what address, I have no idea, as you correctly state you don't have my address yet, and I have not received anything from you via E-mail).

Moving on...

quote:

---

on the condition that you would not reproduce or distribute the book which is against copyright laws. Copyright Tim Furniss 2007. Spaceport Publishing. ISBN 978-0-9555651-0-6. (I plan other books)
I need you to confirm that.

---

Of course - absolutely, no problem, goes without saying. You have my confirmation.

quote:

---

So let me have you email address and you have deal.

---

Sounds good - glad you agree to my terms as stated above in this thread, which I'll repeat here:

"you would agree that any comments I make are in the interests of reviewing the book - and that, even if you did not like them, you would limit discussions here and elsewhere to factual viewpoints. I note a tendency in your postings here and elsewhere to suggest legal litigation, and reviewing the work would be pointless if that was the outcome. I'll review the work if you agree that my words will be protected free speech."

quote:

---

if of course you make an objective review which I think you will find very difficult.

---

Interesting, considering when you look at my posts here I started out praising your former work. I've been quite able throughout this dicussion, I believe, to separate my (continuing and deep) respect for that work with my questioning of your current theories.

I have noticed a strong undercurrent in your postings that "objective" means "agreeing with you." What I will do is be open-minded and fair to your work, as previously stated. I may not agree with you on some theories expressed in your book as I read it, and you should be prepared for that, as any author should be when reading a review of their work. But it will be based on the book, not on any personal feelings towards you, good or otherwise.

quote:

---

There is no point in me posting any more messages because it is just going round and round in circles and getting nowhere.

---

I respectfully submit that this is because you have not answered any of the fundamental questions of evidence that many here asked you, instead returning to the same responses of, essentially, "give me money and read the book." Had you responded to the valid concerns expressed by many here, the conversation may have not been so cyclical.

posted 08-10-2007 02:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurora:
Would you like to explain those three examples to me? That's the question. If you can, maybe you could explain them to the members of the message board.

---

quote:

---

I just want to make the point to you that you had ample opportunities to read the tasters which made it perfectly clear what the book was about and you published versions of "releases" on the thread. You of course had seen a much earlier draft with even more details.

---

quote:

---

Again, I request that you do not describe the book as a "conspiracy" at the top the thread as I don't believe that I ever described it such. It is a controversy - if of course people take the time to look at the alternative evidence objectively.

---

You wrote on your website: "...how NASA covered up the true cause of the explosion".

You also wrote: "NASA very carefully censored any images".

You may have never used the word "conspiracy" but you sure danced around it. You cannot make such claims and then expect people to overlook them.

You then wrote: "Have the decency and courtesy to read the 37,000 words Chapter 10 of the book A Life In Space THEN comment OK."

So, I read those 37,000 words. The chapter that you sent me to review claimed that members of the U.S. media and U.S. government officials worked to silence AbuTaha. That is the definition of a conspiracy.

quote:

---

I was certainly not going to give the entire Challenger story on a plate to CS and why on Earth should I?

---

quote:

---

...with people wanting to have the last word. I was as guilty in some postings.

---

posted 08-10-2007 03:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim Furniss: : Unfortunately French himself fell into the trap of wanting having the last word in his last posting which did no credit to him or to CS.

---

My last posting (above in the thread) reads, in its entirety:
"The book copy has been received via E-mail - thank you."

posted 08-10-2007 03:52 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurora:
Unfortunately French himself fell into the trap of wanting having the last word in his last posting which did no credit to him or to CS.

---

posted 08-10-2007 04:59 PM               

Any accusation of a Government agency cover-up is a conspiracy theory.

Books will sell and there is bound to be more to the book than Chapter 10. However I would buy this ebook at the moment as if I were to buy landing on the moon conspiracy books... to keep an open mind and try and believe the facts presented and form my own conclusion at the end. It gets you thinking out of the box and excercises the mind. Hey may even learn about lighting and photography tricks.

However any consiracy books stays on the bookshelf as far as I am concerned until an element of truth is found and then I will purchase it otherwise I will hunt around for the info elsewhere. I hope that there is a conspiracy, as with Lady Di and JFK! I heard a story of.... if anything happens to John Glenn on his flight the accident would be blamed on the Soviets due to the Bay of Pigs and the Cold War. Fascinating....

But where are the closeup pictures of SRB's under stress from the twang effect? On the pad. Or afterwards on recovery? From flights STS1 to 25.

I heard also that the SRB's to be used from Vandenberg were made of a different lighter alloy and WOULD have a high failier rate if allowed to fly due to there flexibility.

posted 08-11-2007 06:14 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurora:
If I go into a bookshop to see a book, I don't stand there reading it all then put it back on the shelf, or walk out of the shop without paying.

---

posted 08-11-2007 06:38 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurora:
The analogy I gave in the last posting regarding reading a book in a bookshop and walking out without paying still stands.

---

Even Amazon.com offers a "Search Inside" feature that allows customers to read the full text of many of their books online without ever paying for it.

And then there are the chapter reprints that regularly appear in magazines and newspapers to engage readers to buy the book.

posted 08-11-2007 12:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurora:
If FFrench produces an accurate and objective review of my book, especially the Challenger chapter, a lot of you are going to have very red faces.

---

posted 08-11-2007 01:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Even Amazon.com offers a "Search Inside" feature that allows customers to read the full text of many of their books online without ever paying for it.

---

posted 08-12-2007 10:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Smith:
I am really aghast at Ali's statement that Conservation of Energy may be invalid. Tell me more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
So as not to veer this thread completely off-topic, it's probably best that questions about Ali's theories outside the scope of the Challenger accident be addressed via e-mail.

---

As to the first post, the veracity of my statement was established in my previous posts with evidence from reputable source(s) — no less than Wright-Patterson experts before the Moon to Mars Commission, though it (my claim) is neither obvious nor self-evident. It is all related, i.e., my Challenger "dynamic overshoot" study was the springboard to my "pulsing thrust" invention (already established by DOD, NASA and others) which, in turn, was a springboard to the invalidity of the Law of Energy Conservation and more. I will show the "invalidity" of the important Law directly from my Challenger work, as described here and in my previous posts. Actually, this may be the best way to conclude my lengthy posts on "dynamic overshoot."

Fig. 11 here (from my shuttlefactor report) shows the NASA illustration of "thrust" build-up for two SRMs. I mentioned before McDonald's traces for 26 Motors published in reputable journals. His traces are similar to those in Fig. 11. My comments apply to both.

After ignition, the SRB thrust rises to 2.9 million lb. You can barely see it, but the vertical coordinate goes up to 3 million lb. How much dynamic overshoot does McDonald show in his measurements? Zero! How can that be? McDonald has to answer that. My explanation: Thiokol and NASA measure "pressure" in the boosters (with pressure transducers) and convert (as with a calculator) the pressure readings to "force." This is wrong. I had added the "dynamic overshoot" with the red-dotted lines in the Figure. Notice the sinusoidal (or bell) shape of my first red dotted line and, in particular, the "spike" shape of the second.

How great is the dynamic overshoot for the SRBs? The dynamic overshoot magnification factor for the SRBs is about 96.9, say, 97%. How do we know that? When using the stiffness, damping ratio and other parameters as reported by Dr. Allan McDonald himself, we get the 97% magnification factor from straightforward transient analysis. So, the parts of the Shuttle experience about 5.7 million lb force at lift-off, and not 2.9 million lb force, as Thiokol and NASA show in their diagrams. Real life is different; the magnification factor is less than 97%, but it is absolutely not 0 (zero).

Why wasn't the "dynamic overshoot" captured before in the SRB tests? Certainly not maliciously, the engineers used "pressure transducers," in their tests. As I wrote ad nauseam — the pressure does not overshoot —the 100 lb lady does not become 197 lb because she steps suddenly on a weight scale, but the weight scale will surely feel the 197 lb. One of my points was this; if we are going to design the Shuttle to withstand 5.7 million lb, then let's be smart and use the "dynamic overshoot" to benefit, i.e., use my "pulsing thrust," which can keep the thrust at 5.7 million lb. Please no smart remarks. This is the theoretical or ideal case. Whatever we get is a boon; even 5 or 4 million lb thrust is great. Strengthening the Shuttle over the years to counter "excessive lift-off forces" exacted severe payload weight penalties.

My detractors may say that they used "strain gages," and the gages did not show the overshoot. I used plain, biaxial, tri-axial and other fancy strain gages (because they were cheap) to catch the ephemeral effect long before. I couldn't. The time response of the gages is too slow. You need more sensitive sensors. How about accelerometers? Great idea? Yes. It is not my idea. NASA and Thiokol did that before, they had accelerometers in the vicinity of the SRBs' field joints. I studied their measurements and found the "dynamic overshoot" in the SRBs! That came up in my meeting with the large team of engineers at KSC in October 1986, and a Thiokol engineer was allowed by the senior NASA officer to attend the meeting. In the meeting, the guys called it, "lifoff spikes," you can see it in Fig. 13 (also from my shuttlefactor report — Commission, Vol. II, p. L-121). The Thiokol engineer gave me his card after the meeting, but I didn't follow up with him. Thiokol's engineer was there for the sharp left turn of Hansen; I wasn't. It is legitimate to ask, was McDonald told about the subject of discussion of my KSC 1986 meeting?

The spike tells a clear story, All you need is Newton's F=ma. The acceleration jumps up, the force, F, goes up. It is this simple. The spike occurs at about 330 milliseconds after ignition. So, there you have all the information to calculate the "dynamic overshoot" for the SRBs and compare it with actual measurements. I am not going to get into the math here, you'll find that in my report, which Hansen writes took forever to evaluate. It is a waste of life to try to prove that "2+2 ¹4," because "2+2=4." It is also a waste of life to try to prove that there is no "dynamic overshoot" at SRB thrust build-up, because there is. Since Dr. McDonald was at KSC at the time of the Challenger accident, he could have himself instrumented or produced Fig. 13.

The NASA Marshall engineers easily captured the "dynamic overshoot" for the base bending moment with strain gages in 1982. The overshoot was measured, but not understood. That was the SSMEs' 1.1 overshooting to 1.9 million lb, which needlessly, I might add, some have ridiculed my using these numbers. Why was this overshoot captured with ease in 1982, but not the SRB's overshoot in 1986? I mentioned it in my report as follows,

quote:

---

The base bending moment overshoot happens leisurely. It is not a sudden spike that can be easily overlooked. It does not involve the mix-up of the overshooting forces and the non-overshooting pressures. Its frequency of oscillation is very low, about 0.25 Hz (Commission, Vol. II, L-35). Its oscillation is visible to the naked eye. Its response time to the first overshoot is relatively long, about 2.01 seconds, from Eq. (9). It is measured directly with strain gages at the SRBs' holddown posts. Its maximum value is easy to calculate.

---

How does "dynamic overshoot" become "pulsing thrust?" A simple portrait is given next. Just study Fig. 1. Here, you see hypothetical dynamic overshoot traces that result from rhythmic and repeated application of sudden pulses. For a split second, the dynamic overshoot force exceeds the suddenly applied force. The effect was measured for both the SSMEs and SRBs, and countless other systems. We need to start-stop-start-stop etc. It's complicated, but that's where the great engineers in the Air Force, NASA, Industry and elsewhere come in.

Next, get rid of the start-stop lines. How do you do this? By clamping and rectifying the pulsed signals in Fig. 1. The result is shown in Fig. 2. I am showing the 200% theoretical limit knowing full well that we will not achieve it. The great engineers of NASA and DOD have not reached 200% yet, but they proudly, and rightfully, declared to the Aldridge Commission that they crossed the 100% old limit, which was imposed by "Energy Conservation." Some will want to know immediately, how much did NASA, DOD, Lockheed Martin and others achieve. Smith will agree that the important thing for the dialogue here is that the 101, and even the 100%, levels were surpassed.

In summary, my Challenger dynamic overshoot study (1986) is correct, and my pulsing thrust invention (1992) is also correct and it was unique when I filed for a Patent on the invention.

Steve will note that once the 100% limit was passed, the Law of Energy Conservation became invalid. We all remember the "perpetual machines." We couldn't cross the 100% line before. And yet people kept on trying and trying. You couldn't do it. A senior physicist wrote me, about my dynamic overshoot analysis, "You can't get something from nothing." This is how I earned the call names, "certifiable crank" and "one of numerous sidewalk rocket scientists." But, I wasn't shouting perpetual machines. The problem is in our understanding of the most important Law in physics, engineering and other subjects — the Law of Conservation of Energy.

I mentioned before the Air Force 3 5-yr phase program on my "pulsing thrust" invention. I did not hear about it only from the Aldridge Commission hearings in 2004. I knew about it from the start and, as I said before, I tried to get on board the program. The engineers, who took "my" invention, closed all doors in my face!

Steve's "Tell me more" shows that someone understands. That's important, but it brings us to the boundaries set up by the moderator. Do the experts from DOD, NASA, Lockheed Martin and elsewhere understand the problem, as I describe it here? I don't know. I had contacted NSF, NASA, DARPA and others about it and tried to make arrangements to disclose my results, but round one crumbled. Maybe, round two will work, but that was interrupted grand style by the "conspiracy" subject of this thread. I spent a lot of time correcting spelling and simple language mistakes. It'll now take a while to clear the conspiracy mess. Every time I glance the words of Rizz, "Ali AbuTaha, who I'm certain has better things to do," I feel guilty. I should really go back to work, but I continue to post here. Hopefully, Rizz and others agree that these posts have been useful. And, please understand I don't have things to send by e-mail now.

I don't know how the "numerous sidewalk rocket scientists," that Hansen equates me with, discover, invent or innovate. I know how I do it; not only with detailed technical analyses, but with thorough background study. Here is a glimpse of my background study of Energy Conservation:

quote:

---

In writing about E=mc², which is related to the Law of Energy Conservation, Einstein used the conditional "if" in referring to the Law. "If the Law is correct?" kind of sounds like the great man had something in mind. His contemporary, the great French Mathematician Physicist Poincaré, wrote a lengthy paper on the subject and concluded with the question, "What exactly is conserved?" Poincaré declared the Law a tautology, in my words, a song we learn in school and chant the rest of our lives. In "Six Easy Pieces," the late Feynman went through the subject in detail for his students and he concluded with, "In the last analysis, we do not understand the conservation laws deeply." Niels Bohr proposed dumping the Law altogether to get around some quantum problems. I can go on and on with the great debates of Hertz, Mach, Boltzmann, and others about the Law. The historic roots of the issue are much deeper.

---

quote:

---

"Dear Mr. AbuTaha,

This letter will answer your request for support by Martin Marietta Corporation for services related to your "pulsing thrust ‘technique'" by explaining why we believe the "technique" is neither viable nor realistic. We trust you will now close-off further efforts with us on this matter.

We have had this "technique" reviewed by certain expert and, I might add, "openminded" personnel, from our Michoud and Denver Divisions so that we received a cross-section of opinions from engineers, scientists and "students" of propulsion systems. They are unanimous in their assessment that the "technique" is, quite simply put, scientifically and physically invalid: It violates the basic "conservation of energy" laws.

Although certain analogies of a doubling technique may be correct for electrical systems (e.g., voltage doubler), its application to space launch propulsion systems is not. First of all, the work confuses fluid dynamics, and dynamics. It is true (1) that a dynamic system subject to a sudden force results in a displacement essentially twice that of the same force applied gradually and (2) that this displacement is approximately the same magnitude that would be produced by a steady force of twice the magnitude. But, this does not mean that the sudden application has produced a doubling of the force, but only that the displacement is oscillating about the steady value. The same argument would also imply that the force was zero at a slightly latter time. It should also be noted that a dynamic system, driven with an oscillating force at a resonance frequency, could have displacement oscillating between plus and minus infinity. Such displacement is limited only by the time of application of the force and the damping of real physical systems.

Secondly, the "technique" is flawed in its failure to distinguish between available (total) pressure and static pressure. An optimum ideal nozzle brings the rocket propulsive gas to ambient static pressure at the exit plane; optimum real nozzles are, of course, different because of viscous losses and heat transfer to the nozzle as well as the difficulty of production of a nozzle with a variable exit area.

Frinally, and stated as basically as we can, there is only so much impulse available from the propellant in solid motors or in the fuel for liquid engines. Thus, impulse (available energy) does the work of lifting the rocket vehicle; to get twice the energy from the same amount of chemical propellant is, simply, not possible by trying to adjust the rocket's thrust level. The argument that heat losses and stress forces on the engine are the energy losses that the "pulsing technique" will "capture" imply rocket engines are only 50% efficient; modern propulsion systems are far better than 50%.

The idea that the Space Shuttle without SRBs and with pulsing SSMEs can result in a payload capability of 232K lbs (vs. today's maximum payload weight of 65K lbs. (with SRBs) is a mirage.

Martin Marietta has no further interest in the "technique" and any investment of time or money is not justified."

---

Tim will get upset at me for my next point. He is trying to change the thread title from "conspiracy" to "controversy." But this will get him in more trouble, and he doesn't seem to know it. A "controversy" requires two sides. He leads one side and its legion. He added my name on his copyright without my knowledge, and I hope he didn't enlist me in his legion, also without my consent or even knowledge. Who is the other side? Is it NASA, the agency? Or, is it NASA, the people? If the latter, what are their names? Is it Thiokol or McDonald? I am not telling Tim that their legions will obliterate his. I am saying there is no controversy. The "dynamic overshoot" hullabaloo was over in 1992 — I will say more about these things in future posts, especially, if necessary.

Some unscrupulous people embezzle from other people. I accused some of stealing my works, and everyone read about it in this thread. If Tim Furniss is furious that people stole my works, and without giving me tribute or compensation, I'd ask him to look in the mirror. It took me a while to put it together. I read the early posts on this thread and tried to make sense of things. Then it became clearer to me with the Pearlman-Mason exchange. I'd ask Tim, what was my work doing in the Praxis' Logs? Did Praxis pay you to write, what Mason now calls, "the offending section" or were you a volunteer in the cause of NASA, the space program, or education, or whatever? How much did they pay you for my work? Did you tell Praxis that my consulting fees are steep, and that you and your co-authors could do it for cheap? That's what Dr. Mason got. Mason referred to my work as "offending" and you haven't posted one word about it here — I'll have more to say about this. So far, I only read Pearlman's quotes from the Logs and I was tempted to ask him or Mason to send me the "offending" pages. With your pretense of publishers, TV producers and other great opportunities I let you have some of my material, but I assure you not all of it. Did you tell Praxis, Mason and your co-authors that some sections I sent you were clearly copyright-marked, with my name, not yours? I know my work, and my copyrighted material was infringed on and ineptly presented. You should write to Mr. Horwood, Dr. Mason and Praxis about the infringement. I will.

Mr. Furniss, I cautioned you "in writing" not to claim that you and I, or you alone, investigated the Challenger accident and that "we," together, or you alone made great findings, discoveries and theories about it. Just read the above MM letter. Do you know what those experts were saying? Don't think for a moment that Dr. McDonald, one of our premier aerospace engineers, missed it, and you found it. And don't think because of the way I spar with our scientists and engineers that I don't know and respect their qualifications and professional achievements.

Have I changed my position drastically since the first post? I came on this thread to defend Tim as a journalist, and at his repeated requests. I did that, and my words speak for themselves. But the recent sudden change to a "joint investigation" of the Challenger Accident by Ali AbuTaha and Tim Furniss is completely unacceptable to me, and I told Tim that in writing. Completely unprepared and under difficult circumstances, I posted a number of facts about my work. Didn't Tim also investigate the accident? If anything in my posts in this thread is his, he can claim it openly here, and we'll spar about it. If he made other distinctive discoveries about the accident, post them. The sudden change in me is due to the revelations in this forum. Some of you may think that the Furniss' effort (for his book and his chapter 10) is a joint effort between us. This is causing me great embarrassment. Tim is nearly accusing French of wanting to open a Lemonade stand to sell copies of Tim's book. I don't want any part of that, especially, by someone who seems to have had a Lemonade stand with my work for a number of years. I am not done with the Praxis book(s), and I understand there may be other books about my work without credit, reference or compensation. Tim should list here everything (books, lectures, magazines, etc.) in which he, or others of his associates, used my material for profit, especially materials that had my copyright marks on them. Tim should also know that I don't have the patience and courtesy that Robert, French and others extended him so far on this thread. Of course, I wish Tim great success with his book.

Let me return to the MM letter. I mentioned the late Wilbur Pritchard before. Bill read the letter very carefully and we discussed it at length with my mathematical analysis and diagrams. He asked someone in his office to check "if Norm (Augustine) could see us for lunch" at the MM HQ, a few blocks from Bill's office. A few minutes later, the phone rang; Mr. Augustine was out of town. I don't know how often those guys dined together, but that was not a "polite" rejection as some may say; Mr. Augustine was out of town. Perhaps, the distinguished Chairman of LM today should still read the letter, and his office should put it in proper historic perspective in light of the great achievements made to date.

posted 08-13-2007 11:14 AM               

As Engineers, we DO NOT throw jabs and punches at each other! We present ideas and theories with technical data to back them up. The Martin VP used technical data and known relationships to illustrate his points. Then you say he is wrong because you apparently don’t understand his response. I think this is where most conspiracy theories come from; someone just not understanding.

For the not-so technical readers of this board: All of the Engineers that read this board could argue these conspiracy theories, and most of what Ali says. They are just smarter than me to keep quiet and not stir the pot. The Martin VP did not discuss the relationship between increasing thrust at the cost of something else. To put it in terms Ali likes, there is no free lunch. We can easily show how to get more thrust, at the cost of expending more fuel. The Martin VP used a very good term called impulse. You can’t get twice the energy but you could get twice the thrust, at the cost of fuel. He just didn’t go into this as he didn’t see the need to. He also did not discuss elastic bending either. Some things are just assumed when talking to Engineers.

In more terms for Ali’s readers, pick up the ruler on your desk and flex it a little. Oh my gosh! Could you bend it without breaking it? How is that possible? Dynamic overshoot should have caused it to fail….Ali likes to use lots of big words, but he also avoids discussing other big words with sound engineering principles. Like the other Engineers here, I won’t argue these or any other points. I just had to speak up after this latest blatant “jab” at Engineers! How does one become the VP of a major Aerospace company and NOT understand the basics of Engineering?

I won’t engage in this conspiracy thread any more (I know I already said that). For the record, maybe Ali could tell us his degree and where he received it. I think he should also provide us the patent number he refers to “when I filed for a Patent on the invention.”, or maybe he just filed it and it wasn’t granted…

Boy, I’m glad I don’t have Robert’s job…

posted 08-13-2007 01:52 PM               

I'll wait for the film, then...

posted 08-13-2007 03:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by FFrench:
Is that the general consensus? I was most of the way through writing up my review of the draft Furniss provided me, for posting here. Happy not to do so if people prefer: do people here still wish to read it?

---

posted 08-13-2007 03:55 PM               

That's just not fair. If someone is trying to sell a theory (in this case the conspiracy, controversy, or cover-up) why shouldn't we be able to challenge it?

The read between-the-line-remark on my part to Robert was my vote to shut this one down. I do agree with that.

posted 08-13-2007 05:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by FFrench:
Is that the general consensus? I was most of the way through writing up my review of the draft Furniss provided me, for posting here. Happy not to do so if people prefer: do people here still wish to read it?

---

Let Macbeth answer your question:

"I am in blood stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o'er."