Home Natural Motion Universal Gravitation Cold Fusion Pulsing Thrust ShuttleFactor Challenger Studies STEMnP Oil Spill Disaster



Natural Motion
Universal Gravitation
Cold Fusion
Pulsing Thrust
Challenger Studies
Oil Spill Disaster


To be added:


Failure Mechanisms

Cosmic Life Line

Sci Study of UFOs

Solo Sapiens

Philosophy of Science

READ highlights of our Works below, or go to our Webpages for more:

More Works and Research will be added later, for example:

  • AntiGravity Research
  • Anatomy of Failure Mechanisms in Defense and Aerospace Systems
  • Cosmic Life Line
  • Scientific Study of the UFOs
  • Solo Sapiens: Our Neighbors The Fire People
  • Philosophy of Science

Or, go directly to some of AbuTaha's major Reports and Papers, e.g.,

Wave-Induced Motion
Submitted to PTO to support and defend Patent Application, March 2002 (PDF 332KB)

Theory of Universal Gravitation and A Unified Interaction
December 1993 (PDF 189KB)

Formulas of Universal Gravitation and A Unified Interaction
December 1993 (PDF 480KB)

Cold Fusion - The Heat Mechanism
Journal of Fusion Energy, Vol. 9., No. 3, p. 345, 1990 (PDF 715KB)

Cold Fusion - The Correct Energy Balance Sheet
November 2009 (PDF)

The Problem with the Space Shuttle and the Space Program (Shuttlefactor)
Detailed explanation of the transient dynamic overshoot effect
1992, 2000, 2003 (PDF 970KB)

The Sensible Way to Space - 35 Years Late
World Space Congress, August 24, 1992 (PDF 1.1MB)

F = ma, Important Equation, Big Mistake
Submitted to Nature Journal, May 2005, (PDF)

Validity of the General Theory of Relativity
Submitted to a Physical Review Letters, July 1992 (PDF 331 KB)

Natural Motion

See our Patent "Method for Producing Natural Motion," #6,826,449, November 30, 2004 (on and Internet). 

Wave-Induced Motion
Submitted to PTO to support and defend Patent Application, 2002 (PDF 332KB)

Whereas quantum theories ran smack against reality, causality and common sense, the author shows that quantization and discontinuities are natural. For example, the modulating waves can be continuous but the modulated waves are always quantized and discontinuous. This work is the first synthesis ever to combine the quantum and atomic effects, Maxwell’s equations, and Newton’s mechanics in one clear picture that restores reality and causality. The paper should be of interest to all schools of medicine, science and engineering and to many schools of liberal arts. The motion mechanism (patent pending) will find applications in many areas, including, medicine, transportation, robotics, aeronautics, various industrial applications, toys and others.

Here is a brief description of the first successful attempt to move my body (165 lbs or 75 Kg) using the Natural Motion Mechanism. The two dc motors used in these  experiments are standard dc motors used in regular toys. The description below is from the Report, "Wave-Induced Motion," Section 5. Living Motions:

“I placed two small dc motors on a belt, which I wore so the motors were above my hip joints, simulating two giant motoneurons. I was apprehensive. Could the test harm my mind or my body? As always, I held the battery pack loosely in my hand so that if something went wrong, the battery would disconnect. I had tried this 100s of times before. It never worked. I finally touched the wire to the batteries. The two unbalanced masses rotated. I felt the pulses travel in my body. I changed the frequency, but nothing happened. I waited. Suddenly, my whole body began to lurch forward. In a split second, many thoughts crossed my mind. I felt as if two entities within me communicated about the unexpected events. It was as if my mind said, “we are moving,” which I knew; and another entity within me responded, “I know.” Then the distinct thought crossed my mind, “We are going to fall,” and I thought, “I know.Unprepared for success, my feet were still planted on the floor. I almost let go of the batteries. It was scary. Suddenly, my mind tersely ordered, “lift the right leg,” which I did, “lift the left,” which I did, “lift the right,” which I did. I moved like a mechanical robot to the end of the room. I stopped the test. It was unbelievable. That was the first time ever a person used mechanical means to induce his body to move.”

I established repeatability of the effect with a handful of tests, and with no medical supervision available, I discontinued the tests."

CAUTION: I must emphasize the need for "medical supervision" here. I did  the tests in the 1990s. In November 2004, I had a massive congestive heart failure. I was in a coma for days in the hospital, and I was given a few weeks to live then. The cardiology, pulmonary and other doctors  could not say what led to my near-death experience. I am not sure if  the experiments I did for years to move my hands, arms and whole body or to simulate motion-disorder diseases with my Natural Motion Mechanism caused my heart failure. BE CAREFUL!

"Self-motion denotes the motions produced from within the moving body. The author discovered that self-motion is produced by modulation of harmonic waves in the moving body- - - It is also shown how the resulting modulations produce the reported motions. By phase-locking the input harmonics, the author produced the first-ever, hitherto impossible, ideal low-pass filter behavior, or near perfect stepping motion, in physical bodies. The mathematics, physics and mechanics of the phenomena, and the steps to reproduce the results, are described in this paper.

The study led to sweeping conclusions. It is shown how Planck overlooked quantization in the classical wave theory and how Einstein placed the modulations in the exciting, rather than the excited, system in the photoelectric effect. It was Bohr who first proposed the modulations or coupling mechanism to explain the mysterious quantum and atomic effects. This author uses real working motion models and vivid natural examples to explain the modulation process. The dramatic conclusion (which really should not be dramatic) is reached: Waves are waves, and particles are particles; and confusion over this point should be over."

Unique Features of the Self-Motion Mechanism
Submitted to DOD, 1995

  • Energy is converted into motion in one step.

  • Power plant is small fraction of the total weight.

  • Diverse maneuverability: Turning on a dime or even moving sideways.

  • Emulates brain-muscle system.

  • Quantized steps correlate to quantum mechanics.

  • Vital to evaluate and treat motion disorder diseases, and to actuate artificial limbs.

The Mechanical Ultraviolet Catastrophe, Problems with Force, Energy and Momentum
Submitted to Physics Journal, December 1999

One hundred years ago, scientists encountered a strange problem in the behavior of radiation, which was dubbed the "ultraviolet catastrophe." It took nearly thirty years to settle the issue with modern "quantum mechanics." In the 1980s, I projected that incredible speeds could be produced with my Natural Motion mechanism. It took a lengthy effort to recognize that I was dealing with a situation similar to the ultraviolet catastrophe of one hundred years ago, which I call, "The Mechanical Ultraviolet Catastrophe."

Wave-induced-motion, produced by the superposition and modulation of waves trapped in the bulk, reveals peculiar effects unnoticed before. Energy seems to not be conserved, momentum is not conserved, and two distinct forces, accelerating and non-accelerating forces, are detected, measured and analyzed in wave-induced-motions. Infinite speeds, which seem to be attainable from simple mathematical projections, are simply not attainable. This paper discusses the above problems.

- - -The above results are in general agreement with measurements. Similar behavior is shown in Videotape that was submitted by the author to several professional organizations.

- - -The law of inertia, however, is strictly meant for frictionless motions. This matter requires resolution by the physics and other professional communities.

List of Self-Motion Models
1-hr Video Tape Demonstrations, 1999

Scientists and engineers will see HOW:

  • Energy is converted to motion in one step.
  • Modified propellers produce motion at lower RPM.
  • Power plant can be a fraction of total weight.
  • Mechanism produces stresses (unknown before) in aircraft, spacecraft, launch vehicles and other structures.
  • Bodies of different material and geometry respond in  motion.
  • Quantum and electromagnetic effects are produced mechanically.

Thrill collectors of your toys with drive-belts that can produce infinite gaits and motions in dolls, action figures, and other toys that stand on 1, 2, 3, or more legs. Put life in old and new toys.

Natural Motion, Levitation and AntiGravity
For details: See Natural Motion Webpage

Notice in particular that AbuTaha made absolutely no reference or claim to “levitation” or “antigravity” in his patent application, or his extensive report “wave-induced motion” or in any write-ups submitted to DOD, reputable journals, conferences or others. That was not done thoughtlessly.

...As described below, rather than put AbuTaha’s invention into critical tasks, such as, “surveillance and fighting terrorism,” Urban, DARPA and others were busy with fanciful profitable ideas: they were trying to use AbuTaha’s natural motion invention to produce antigravity!

...Stay tuned to Shuttlefactor’s antigravity webpage.

Back to Top

A Complete Theory of Universal Gravitation

Theory of Universal Gravitation and A Unified Interaction
December 1993 (PDF 189KB)

Newton combined force and mass in universal gravitation. Einstein bypassed the issue of force altogether: In general relativity, gravity is geometry. However, in both Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravitation, mass is the cause of gravity. When enormous gravitation is detected in the universe, scientists search for the massive bodies that cause the large gravitation. When those massive bodies are not discovered, mysteriously hidden masses, such as the black holes and dark unseen matter, are proposed. Matter is out there, but it is hidden.

Newton and Einstein's theories of gravitation do not explain some observed facts, and both theories contradict other facts.

In this Report, I show that the heat screened, or hidden, inside insulating surface layers, such as the Earth’s crust, is the cause of gravity. The mysterious free fall is explained by the same effect. The same mechanism works in the stars, planets, moons, and atoms. My theory gives accurate answers to anomalies, perturbations, observations and contradictions that remain unanswered, or unexplainable. Detailed Crucial Tests and Numerical Examples are included, along with the governing equations. I urge the reader to use a standard high school or college physics textbook side-by-side with this Report. That way, you will see how one Maxwell-like equation applies to all fields in physics.

I find that a sphere, such as the Earth, with insulating crust layer(s) acts like an insulated-electric-conductor, which obeys Gauss's law, where the internally screened-temperature, rather than the electric charge, is the interaction agent.

Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations held a great promise. If only the mechanical equations, i.e., Newton’s, could be written in Maxwell-like equations. Einstein spent considerable effort and time trying to express gravitational equations in Maxwell-like form, but he was not able to do the task. In this Report, you will see how to express the gravitational equations in Maxwell-like equations.

The analogy between universal gravitation and general relativity can be seen as follows. Rather than begin with Newton’s equation of force, which includes the product of the masses, general relativity begins with an equation of potentials, where the central mass M is replaced by the density. The equation of potentials, or Poisson’s equation, is directly related to Newton’s law. It was therefore inevitable that the general relativity tensor attributes gravitation to the mass, via the density of matter.

Validity of the General Theory of Relativity
Submitted to a Physical Review Letters, July 1992 (PDF 331 KB)

We show that the thought experiments used to develop general relativity did not include, nor consider, the basic “bouncing” motion. We also show that in the Einstein elevator, perfectly elastic balls fall together the first time, but that, subsequently, the motion of the balls is never synchronous…

In particular, we show that in accelerated frames, the action is a force-pulse, whereas in a gravitational field, the action is a series of uninterrupted force-pulses.

Bergman noted that the “principle of equivalence” is basal to general relativity; the “principle cannot be eliminated without destroying the theory as a whole.”3 Einstein himself (and Infeld) emphasized that without the principle, “our argument would fail completely.”4

No experiment whatsoever can distinguish a gravitational field from an accelerated reference frame.”5 We describe such an experiment.

Our reasoning is not limited to thought experiments. The mass of a Space Shuttle Orbiter is approximately 90,000 kg. If the thrusters provide 1-g acceleration in orbit, then a floating 1-kg elastic ball will appear to fall freely… and the astronauts will immediately know that they are in an accelerating frame, and not in a gravitational field.  

Comments from Dr. Gary D. Gordon, Senior Scientist, COMSAT (3/15/1994)

"The subject of this paper is fascinating. I find different individuals are satisfied by different answers. The question "Why do objects fall?" can be answered in so many different ways. A child may be told "you didn't hold on to it."

AbuTaha's Response to Gary Gordon (3/29/1994)

"... I have repeated the Cavendish tests with care to generate a quantitative database. A first-order effect can be produced by varying the temperature of the masses in the Cavendish experiment...

ANALEMMA: As you wrote, there are many ways to calculate the analemma, and the procedure is not simple. The enclosed figure shows four analemmas, (1) my calculated analemma, (2) your calculated analemma, (3) Sundial measured analemma, and (4) An analemma I derived from the velocity vector in the Ephemeris.

Your calculated analemma and the Sundial analemma are in agreement. On the other hand, my calculated analemma and the Ephemeris' velocity analemma are in agreement - - - The difference between the two sets requires explanation - - - Is the use of 2e justified?

Comments from Dr. Gary D. Gordon, Senior Scientist, COMSAT (4/06/1994)

"I was interested in your data on the accuracy of the Cavendish experiment. The results you quote show that the experiment is less accurate than what I had guessed.

Check out the first comprehensive Theory of Universal Gravitation, Including the Cause of Gravity. AbuTaha's Theory of Temperature-Gravitation and A Unified Interaction answers more questions than any previous Theory, e.g.,

  1. What is the cause of gravity?

  2. Why do bodies mysteriously fall with the same acceleration in a g-field? Think very carefully about this question. This was the most mysterious question about gravity 400 years ago; though today, the mystery is not noticed and the question is hardly asked.

  3. Why is gravitation greater in the poles than in the equator? Notice: Using Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, the shape and rotation of the Earth do not account for the full difference.

  4. Why is gravitation greater over the low ocean basins than over high continents?

  5. Why don’t massive mountains exhibit the gravitation-mass effect?

  6. Why the “large” gravitational pull over lowlands than highlands on the Moon?

  7. Why are orbits elliptical?

  8. How to derive the shape of an orbit?

  9. How to accurately predict orbital perturbations?

  10. How to accurately predict trajectory and orbital parameters?

  11. Why do satellites drift Westward?

  12. Why is the Moon’s center of gravity displaced Eastward?

  13. Why the enormous gravitation and meager mass in the Universe?

  14. How to shed light on dark matter?

  15. Why hasn’t the Hubble Telescope found black holes or, even, candidate regions? When this report was released (1993), Hubble had not yet detected any black holes. Today (2009), it is said that Hubble has detected many black holes. Of course, Hubble and all other observatories have not (and cannot) photograph any black holes. Black holes remain speculative, and are proposed to account for gravitational measurements that neither Newton nor Einstein's Theories of Gravitation can explain. AbuTaha's New Theory of Universal Gravitation explains black holes, other speculative "mass concentrations," the MASCONS, on Earth and the Moon, and dark matter.

  16. Why the predicted “hottest” stars turned out to be “cool”?

  17. Why couldn’t the astronauts of the Space Shuttle light two side-by-side candles in microgravity?

  18. How to explain the demarcation between heat and work?

  19. How to derive Maxwell-like equations for gravitational fields?

  20. What is the relationship between Kepler’s constant and the speed of light?

  21. Why did Newtonian mechanics fail in the quantum domain?

  22. Is temperature quantization more fundamental than energy quantization?

  23. What is the numerical value of the temperature quantum, or tempon?

  24. How to unify quantized Energy, Frequency, and Temperature in one Equation?

Back to Top

Cold Fusion Studies

Cold Fusion - The Heat Mechanism
Journal of Fusion Energy, Vol. 9., No. 3, p. 345, 1990 (PDF 715KB)

The assumption that deuterium, and not palladium, is the fuel in the Pons-Fleischmann experiments1 led to high expectations of cold nuclear fusion. The conversion of mechanical energy to heat was neglected in studying the phenomenon. Considerable strain energy is stored in metals when processed from the ore. The initiation, growth, and propagation of cracks in the bulk disturb this energy balance within the metal- - - In this paper, the work-of-fracture is shown to be the likely mechanism responsible for the excess heat in cold fusion.

It follows that the heat liberated in the Pons-Fleischmann experiments (4 MJ/cm3) is only a fraction of the maximum amount of heat that can be released by the fracture process- - -

- - -we may conclude that palladium, and not deuterium, is the fuel, just as coal, and not air (oxygen), is the fuel in that combustion. And just as combustion ceases when coal is turned to ashes, so the heat generation in cold fusion ceases when palladium is all burnt, or cracked.

Cold Fusion - Engineering Perspectives
Journal of Fusion Energy, Vol. 9., No. 4, p. 391, 1990 (PDF 825KB)

The disparity of heat output has been enormous, indicating that the controlling experimental parameters of the cold fusion process are not well understood.

Since residual stresses are greatly reduced by annealing, the embrittlement effect and the work-of-fracture are smaller, and the liberated heat is minor or absent.

The capricious behavior of deuterium and hydrogen embrittlement and, more importantly, the complex conditions required to ignite or maintain the fracture process explain some of the chaos that surrounded the early attempts to reproduce the results of the Pons-Fleischmann experiments. The objective of the earlier embrittlement studies was to minimize the fracture process. The objective of the cold fusion experiments, on the other hand, is to maximize the same process- - - If only one of the many factors mentioned above is neglected or miscalculated, then the results will be haphazard and random.

Cold Fusion - The Heat Source
April 30, 1989 (PDF 670KB)

This paper shows that the reported phenomenon is not "nuclear fusion," that the system is not fully enclosed, that the "maximum" amount of heat which can be derived does not justify commercialization, and that the energy mechanism responsible for the excess heat can be explained in classical terms. April 30, 1989.

Controlled Release of Stored Energy in Metals
Preliminary Cold Fusion Tests at the Royal Scientific Society, Amman, Jordan
October 22, 1990 (PDF 191 KB)

Preliminary experiments to release internally stored energy in metals were conducted at the Royal Scientific Society (RSS) in Amman, Jordan on October 22, 1990. By varying test parameters, hot-spots (38oC above ambient, see Fig. 2) were measured and recorded on the fractured surfaces of carbon steel samples. The tests demonstrated the propensity of metals to liberate heat due to mechanical work, or the-work-of-fracture, Ref. 1. The formation of cracks, voids, and other defects in electrodes used in the "cold fusion" process has already been confirmed in the United States, Japan, and elsewhere.

The experiments were preliminary in nature, and were conducted during the UNDP's sponsored TOKTEN (Transfer of Know-how Through Expatriate Nationals) mission of Ali F. AbuTaha to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and under the auspices of the Royal Scientific Society.

The experiments conducted at the Royal Scientific Society in Amman, Jordan, are the first of their kind and have demonstrated that considerable amount of heat can be produced by mechanical work on metals.

In all tests, distinct hot-spot(s) developed, and were recorded, on the fractured surfaces...

In all tests, the hot-spots persisted for several minutes, and the IR unit recorded slow dissipation of heat.

...The test program must aspire to determine the specific parameters to ignite, control, and terminate the heat-liberation process. This effort should lead to patentable discoveries and commercial benefits.

Cold Fusion Articles and Editorials 1989 - 1991 (PDF 820KB)
Cold fusion theory takes critics' heat, Florida Today, May 6, 1989
FIT engineering expert spurns fusion theory, The Orlando Sentinel, May 6, 1989
Jordanian Researcher explains heat in cold fusion, Jordan Newspaper, June 6, 1989
Cold Fusion Explained, Access to Energy, December 1990
Fadeout for cold fusion, The Washington Times, January 30, 1991

"I believe the cold fusion story is at last nearing its end with an explanation provided by materials engineer Ali AbuTaha in two papers to be published in MIT's Journal of Fusion- - -

To explain AbuTaha's explanation, let me start off with a high-school puzzle: what happens to the energy stored in a compressed spring when you dissolve it in acid?" Professor Petr Beckmann, Access to Energy, December 1990.

Cold Fusion - The Correct Energy Balance Sheet
November 2009 (PDF)

"The Correct Energy Balance Sheet was missing from the initial 1989 and subsequent pronouncements of cold fusion, or nuclear fusion at room temperature, or low energy nuclear reaction (LENR)- - - 

Anyone with the above Energy Balance Sheet deserves a Congressional Hearing, and that was what P&F, the University of Utah, and cold fusion got on April 26, 1989- - - 

To me, one number stood out: 4 million joules per cubic centimeter, 4MJ in a bouillon-sized cube. It takes tens of donkeys to haul that much energy in the form of logs of wood. I concentrated on this number- - - 

Still, no one has come forward with a clear-cut energy balance sheet for cold fusion. So, let's do it together here in plain language- - - 

It was the negligence of the scientific community to incorporate this energy term for 20 years that led to the message of the CBS 60-Minutes program in the first place- - - 

The Table is dramatic. It shows that P&F did not exceed break-even and could not even achieve break-even- - - You see, the cracked (or spent) Pd must be melted again to get rid of the cracks and rebuild the crystallographic structure to start another round of random metal burning, metal cracking, or metal rusting and heat generation."

Back to Top

Pulsing Thrust: Advanced Rocket Propulsion

The Sensible Way to Space - 35 Years Late
World Space Congress, August 24, 1992 (PDF 1.25MB)

Doubling an electric force, as in the voltage-doubler which is used in most radios and television sets today, has been used effectively and profitably in electronic engineering for more than 30-years. The same process, which could double physical forces, such as the thrust in rockets, has been completely overlooked, misunderstood and mishandled in aerospace engineering. Rather than turn the excess force into great benefit as has been done in electronics, the excess force, which occurs naturally at the start-up of rocket engines and motors has been the source of many problems for space systems. We describe how thrust-doubling, like voltage-doubling, can be done by clamping and rectifying the thrust force to achieve unprecedented performance from satellites, launch vehicles, and related systems.

…The above facts have been masked by the common practice in science and engineering of indiscriminately referring harmonic motion to the equilibrium position.

The peak rectifier gives at its output a voltage that is equal to its peak input voltage, which by the action of the clamper is, Vo = 2Vs.8 Thus, the input electric force, or voltage, is doubled at the output.

There is nothing magical about the voltage-doubler or its force-doubling effect and the circuit is found in modern radios and television sets, providing reliable, economical and profitable products and operation. Similarly, a physical force, such as the thrust of a rocket engine, can be clamped, rectified, doubled and used to achieve greater safety, reliability, unprecedented performance, and economic advantage. The force-doubling-process will revolutionize aeronautics and astronautics, as it has done in electronics for 35 years.

…Since the beginning of the space program, only the steady-state thrust force, which comprises half of the attainable performance, have been known, listed, or used. At no time has force magnification by dynamic overshoot been listed, analyzed, or used with these (Scout, Delta, Atlas, Titan, Saturn) and other launch vehicles in propulsion textbooks.

The doubling of the total impulse, or 100% improvement in performance, of the INTELSAT thrusters was not particularly noted as such by the engineers before. The effect was simply described to be only a “more efficient” performance, e.g., “It can be seen that the thruster becomes more efficient as the pulse number becomes larger;” (Ibid). A 100% improvement is more than only an improvement in efficiency.

We emphasize that a design based on Fo is an inferior one, and that space systems designed to the overshoot forces, 2Fo, are ineffective. The former is destined to fail catastrophically or fatigue prematurely, and the latter is wasteful. Why burden the total mass of a launch system and reduce its performance to resist the overshoot force for only a fraction-of-a-second?

Method for Substantial Increase in Effective Thrust
Patent Application, September 9, 1992 (PDF 745KB)

A method comprising the application of thrust in rocket engines and motors in sequential short-pulses to maximize or magnify the effect of the applied forces, by up to 100% in the ideal case; where each pulse is of sufficiently long duration to produce the maximum or desired transient magnification effect, which is also known as the dynamic overshoot; and where the pulses are applied with sufficient frequency to rectify the thrust, or force, near the peak dynamic overshoot value before the magnification effect is lost to other forms of unusable energy, such as, heat.

Articles on Pulsing Thrust
Pulsing engines could boost Shuttle Loads, by Tim Furniss, Flight International, 16 - 22 September 1992, p. 44
Pulsing engines could double thrust, Professional ENGINEERING, UK, October 1992, p. 15

AbuTaha says that the implications of dynamic overshoot have never been recognised before and systems would need extensive alterations before the principle could be adopted. However, he believes that pulsing engines could revolutionise space travel.

Use of the concept on Ariane 4’s first stage alone could double the performance of the three-stage vehicle, says AbuTaha, enabling it to achieve single-stage-to-orbit capability, which could also apply to the Atlas, Titan and Delta rockets.

Pulsing Thrust - Bragging Rights (Parts I and II)
For Details: See Pulsing Thrust Webpage

The “dynamic overshoot” saga was gruesome (see Shuttlefactor webpage). At one point, someone from the Office of Vice President Dan Quayle asked AbuTaha, “Can this “dynamic overshoot” be turned into something useful, like an invention?” “Actually, there is more than one invention in the concept,” answered AbuTaha. Months later, he called VP Quayle’s office to tell them that he invented a method, which he called “Pulsing Thrust,” to “double” the thrust of rocket engines and motors; and that the invention was based on the “dynamic overshoot” ideas. The VP Office told AbuTaha to take it to NASA. 

As the sole inventor of the method to ”double” the specific impulse, isp, of engines, AbuTaha expected “sole source procurement” with DOD and NASA. That was the Law. Sole source procurement means that you, and only you, submit initial proposals for the work. Everyone was agreeable. AbuTaha was invited to go to Edwards, and he expected invitations to WPAFB, LeRC and other Centers.

From AbuTaha's Letter to the Aldridge Moon to Mars Commission, March 2004:

I am the first and sole inventor of the propulsion process, which I called in the early 1990’s “Pulsing Thrust.” There are more than 1,000 communications on record, with DOD (Wright-Patterson, Edwards, Space Command, etc.), NASA (HQ, JSC, MSFC, Lewis, etc.), the Congress, academia and the aerospace industry and communities...

Back to Top

ShuttleFactor Studies

The Problem with the Space Shuttle and the Space Program [Shuttlefactor]
Detailed explanation of the transient dynamic overshoot effect
1992, 2000, 2003 (PDF 970KB)

You are about to plunge into a technical controversy that surrounds a massive engineering error, which has plagued the Space Shuttle, satellites, space probes and observatories. A serious error in the initial 1972 design of the Space Shuttle has undermined the effective operation and performance of the system. A first-order effect, known as the “dynamic overshoot,” was completely overlooked by the aerospace engineers since the beginning of the space program. The mistake went unnoticed even after the extensive Challenger Accident Investigations. The “dynamic overshoot” design error is described at length in this Report. The nature and the magnitude of the error are easy to perceive and there is plenty of supporting evidence. You will see why rockets built during the early stages of the space program had the bad habit of exploding on the launch pad and why every launch vehicle that was built experienced failures or outright explosions during development. You will see why many missions to Mars, Venus, Jupiter and elsewhere have either experienced serious malfunctions or were lost altogether. The same mistake explains why the Shuttle has averaged less than 5 problematic missions per year, instead of the originally planned 60 flawless annual flights. This Report describes how, when, and why the mistake happened.

You might say, “I am not a rocket scientist, will I get it? The answer is YES. The simple example below clarifies the issues that we will discuss in this Report to technical and non-technical readers. The reader should look not only to the nature and the magnitude of the massive error, but also to the thinking of the rocket scientists and engineers involved in the mechanical-structural-dynamic design of the Space Shuttle and the other space systems.

With or without preloads in the struts, something was terribly wrong with the liftoff loads for the Challenger. The "preloads" in the struts caused great confusion, to me and to the NASA engineers. We were as confused as the 100-lb lady I mentioned on Page 44, which is reproduced here:

"Suppose the weight of the lady gets out of hand and she reaches 175-lb. She finds this rather upsetting. To comfort herself, she sets the adjustment knob on the scale so that the dial reads -75 (minus 75) lb. Now, when she checks her weight, she sees the familiar, or desirable, 100-lb weight. In essence, the lady is putting preload in a spring. If she now steps suddenly on the scale, things will get very confusing. The overshoot reading will not be 200-lb, as she would have desired. The overshoot reading will not be 350-lb, which is the correct peak overshoot, if she did not preload the spring in the weight-scale. The peak overshoot she will see on the dial will be 275-lb. This value has nothing to do with her desired weight, 100-lb, or her actual new weight, 175-lb, or the correct maximum overshoot, 350-lb, or the desired overshoot, 200-lb. Of course, with the exception of the preloaded spring, all the other parts in the old bathroom scale will be subjected to the full overshoot, or 350-lb. I use this example because after I discovered, in 1986, that the engineers preload the struts that connect the External Tank to the SRBs, the haphazard loads in the struts finally made sense." (see Page 44).

The preloads in the Shuttle struts camouflaged the massive dynamic overshoot mistake.

"The "dynamic overshoot" blunder is one mistake that produces a thousand problems in a system like the Space Shuttle. This Report shows that instead of fixing the one mistake, the engineers fell into the trap of fixing the thousand problems one at a time. The mistake: (1) complicated the assembly, operation, maintenance, and management of the Shuttle, (2) delayed Shuttle flights, (3) drastically reduced the number of Shuttle flights, (4) increased the weight of the system, (5) reduced its payload capacity, (6) dramatically increased the cost of Shuttle launches, and (7) exposed the astronauts to tragic accidents."

Bridging Knowledge Gaps in Space Systems (PDF 16KB)
Letter to Augustine Committee (7/30/2009) 

"The National Academies, NSF, GAO and others agree today that “knowledge gaps” and shortcomings in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects have undermined modern systems, especially, space systems. The shortcomings produced cost overruns, schedule slippages, problematic operations, expensive maintenance, short life and random failures. Bridging the knowledge gaps is vital to reinvigorate our space program, economy, education and world leadership."

The Correct Way to Handle Transient Loads
May 19, 1993

Early in the century, the explosion of temperamental boilers killed people and destroyed industrial and residential centers. Halfway through the century, jet powered aircraft crashed unexpectedly, killing people and causing considerable losses. In the beginning of the space program, the hallmark of rockets was the huge explosions soon after ignition and the destruction of valuable payloads and launch facilities. Then there were the nuclear reactor incidents: Three Mile Island (TMI) which frightened a large community and a nation, and Chernobyl which devastated communities and shocked the world. What these systems have in common is that they are pressure-activated, and the mechanical engineer plays the central role in their design, construction, operation, safety, and reliability. Where are we today?

Have we (mechanical engineers) overlooked something fundamental in our work? The answer is a resounding yes. One basic error has undermined the safety, reliability and economy of important systems throughout the century.

…The nature of the error can be appreciated from the observation that the pressure does not overshoot, nor should it be expected to overshoot.

…The boosters were repeatedly strengthened, particularly, after the Challenger accident; and the number of uses should have gone up, and not down. Yet in 1990, three segments failed irreparably after only one (1) mission. At this rate, we are not going to Mars; we are not going back to the Moon; and we will hardly make it to low earth orbit; which is where we are today (May 19, 1993). Something is fundamentally wrong in mechanical engineering. Something is fundamentally wrong in the mechanical curricula and textbooks. A radical change in mechanical engineering education and practice must take place to remedy the fundamental oversight.

Transient Loads in Nuclear Power Reactors
Letter to ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers), May 20, 1993 (PDF 650KB)

…to find some 20 pages that will highlight the problem, particularly, in pressure vessels, including, nuclear reactors as we discussed yesterday. Most of the papers are lengthy, with greater emphasis on the same problem in aerospace systems, and include specific numerical examples from real systems. I believe the enclosures and the following commentary will provide a glimpse of how the transient loads have been [mis]handled in nuclear reactor pressure vessels and related hardware. I will be glad to answer your, or other experts’, questions.

There is no indication whatsoever that the pressure-time profiles are the forcing function in transient conditions.

This is fine if the transient is measured separately and directly. But, the transient parameters are not even included. The pressure measurement is strictly the “forcing function” and it must be used to derive the transient response analytically, which then requires interpretation.

While most other papers that I have reviewed show simple conversion of pressure to stress, this paper shows that the “transient” concept is very seriously muddled.

Similar curves are very popular in aerospace systems. Actually, they are the only kind available for rocket engines and motors, jet engines, etc. The measured pressure very nearly tracks some computer predictions. Well of course they should. The two are the same parameter!

I recommend that you do not accept the common clichés: We know about transients; We always take the forcing function and derive the response, etc. If the forcing function and the response look like the curves shown in the enclosures, then the transient is not understood, let alone derived.

Yet, not one single paper presented a true “transient response.” I emphasize again that a pressure measurement shown to be similar to some computer code, or vice versa, is not a transient analysis. It is the same parameter shown to equal itself, which it should.

See also, “Radiation Embrittlement and Surveillance of Nuclear Reactor Pressure Vessels: An International Study,” Conference sponsored by IAEA, ASTM Committee E-10, 1981; and similar references.

Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors In Transient Conditions
Letter to Dr. Stanislav Fabic, June 3, 1993 (PDF 925KB)

Reference to your letter of May 29, 1993, it concerns me a great deal that you could not recognize the enormity of the widespread error described in my write-ups. The safety, reliability and economy of important systems, including nuclear reactors, have been (and continue to be) severely compromised by the lack of understanding of transient loading conditions. This is not simply a matter of “a different opinion about causes-and-effects;” it is about a clear understanding of the causes and the effects, as they are. Since your views will be persuasive to the NRC, ASME, and others, I will clarify some matters and I hope that you reconsider your earlier conclusion.

…a clear distinction must be made between the pressure (cause) in a vessel, and the stress (effect) in the materials that make up the vessel.

…that the force magnification I propose is like “getting something for nothing.” I am including a couple of pages from Machine Design and Vibration textbooks, which show the doubling effect. In two simple steps, the equations simplify to: F = 2F.

It just happens that in all the technical papers and the panel discussions, in which you participated, on the safety of nuclear reactors in transient conditions, the stress is derived directly from the pressure readouts. The stress simply follows the pressure. There is no overshoot in the stress. This means that there was no transient analysis whatsoever, correct or otherwise; even though the word “transient” was widely used. The practice was done even when the pressure build-up occurred in less than 10 milliseconds. At this rate, Sir, the “forcing function” is nearly a unit-step-function; and correct transient analysis will show that the effect of the load on some parts of the system is nearly doubled… The pressure-time curve is not the transient response.

The problem is trivial, but it is not obvious, though it is very important.

You are thinking in terms of pressure fluctuations, which you call in your letter “pressure overshoot.” This is a central part of the problem. The pressure does not overshoot. My weight does not magnify when I step suddenly on a weight scale… there is a distinct difference between the pressure fluctuation and the force overshoot. These differences have not been taught at the undergraduate or other levels.

Other transient experts recently dismissed my assertions out of hand because they say that modern pressure transducers are extremely sensitive and, hence, must pick up the transient response. Please refer to my enclosed figures (6a). The pressure transducers do not, and cannot, measure nor detect the overshoot! These experts consider my assertions idiotic. I repeat, the pressure transducers do not, and cannot, measure nor detect the overshoot!  

From "Dynamic Overshoot" to "Pulsing Thrust"
For Details: See Shuttlefactor Webpage

The initial launch of the HST was delayed for 2 weeks while AbuTaha’s assertions were investigated. At the time, Vice President Dan Quayle, White House Chief of Staff John Sonunu and NASA Administrator Richard Truly traveled to the Johnson Space Center (JSC) to check out the HST situation, as described on local DC television news.

The leaders returned from JSC in Texas. AbuTaha’s concerns were apparently refuted. He did not hear from anyone about it. The Hubble was launched. We almost lost the HST, a national treasure. The news concentrated on a problem with a mirror. There were other problems with Hubble, including solar panels, gyroscopes, and other important systems. NASA would later reveal that “fuses” on the Hubble were changed because of the transient “dynamic overshoot” effect.

For months, AbuTaha tried to find out what was the NASA rebuttal that allowed the launch of the HST. He was asserting “dynamic overshoot” of 70 to 100%. NASA was asserting that “dynamic overshoot” was only 1 to 3%. The difference between the two assertions exceeded the built-in safety margins for the Space Shuttle. The astronauts were potentially flying with a vehicle that had zero or negative safety margins.

AbuTaha was unyielding in his position. NASA was unyielding in its position.

Finally, a Congressional Staff member, who attended briefings about the JSC-HST rebuttal, told AbuTaha that NASA had shown the officials actual test results that showed “overshoots” of 1-3%. Impossible. How could that be?...

Back to Top

Challenger Accident Studies

AbuTaha's reports on the Challenger accident are rather extensive, and the original reports will be added later. Some photos showing unique events can be found in the messages posted on (see below). Other photos and video clips of unique events, that were completely overlooked in all other studies of the accident, will also be added later. These will include clear evidence of the Challenger Crew Cabin after the explosion, the failure of the O-ring seal joint eight-seconds after lift-off, etc. For now, if you are familiar with the Challenger investigations record, you might want to look for, and identify, the dramatic evidence yourself.

Challenger Crew Cabin Again (2009)

I developed a completely different “sequence of events” for Challenger from lift-off to, and beyond, the explosion that we all saw on television. There were many unique events that were missed in all the other investigations. The important events are supported with clear evidence. One event was the real Challenger Crew Cabin (CCC) tumbling far away from all the other debris after the explosion.

In 1986, I discovered that what NASA identified as the CCC after the explosion, in the films, was a piece of debris, and I also captured the real Crew Cabin in the film record. I showed the evidence to a distinguished member of the Rogers Commission, officers from NASA, and others. The subject was emotionally charged then. Everyone thought it better not to release my finding publicly, and I agreed - - -

In the case of the space program, as in the case of the economy and other vital national issues, the Obama Administration was dealt a fold hand: Seat belts designed with wrong evidence for vehicles that don’t exist.

Another Launch Vehicle: Letter to Aviation Week, May 1993

- - -TSTO will have “a substantial performance margin to offset weight gains typically experienced…” Why start with a performance margin only to offset inevitable weight gains? Why the habitual practice: design it, construct it, test it to find out what will fail, redesign it, reconstruct it, redesign, reconstruct, etc.? Why not design it right the first time? Why not construct it right the first time?

For nearly seven years now (1986-1993), I have cautioned that if we continue on the above path, then we are not going to Mars, we are not going back to the Moon, and we will hardly make it to low earth orbit; which is where we are today. (Compare this with the present situation in 2009).

On “The Challenger Launch Decision” by Diane Vaughan, March 1996

Sieff and Ross note that Vaughan is not an expert. Early in her book, Vaughan admitted that she initially thought the O-rings to operate like a “Nurf ball.” It takes guts to admit that. The rest of her book shows that she eventually thoroughly understood the nuances of the infamous joints. How do I know? I did many analyses and tests of joint rotation in the early 1970s, long before NASA discovered the effect in the boosters after 1978.

The following messages were posted on in 2007. More messages are found in the Challenger Studies webpage. You can find the complete colloquy on

collectSpace Post #101 (June 29, 2007)

Hello Mr. Pearlman and everyone. This is Ali AbuTaha (#101).

Ten years ago, someone told me that rude remarks were made about my work and me on the net. I checked it out and decided not to dignify the ill informed, ill qualified and ill-mannered folks, though they belonged to respectable organizations, with answers. I had not heard from Tim Furniss for a number of years and I was happy to hear about his book and his Chapter 10 on the Challenger investigations. I respect Tim for caring about our American space program as if it were his own...

collectSpace Post #114 (July 24, 2007)

I had actually found one of my old Challenger photo albums and began to post some photos on this thread, e.g., the fire below and through the right wing at lift-off. The process was interrupted.

On the same page, the “minimum reusability design objectives” for the Redesigned SRM are given at “19 reuses.” Soon after McDonald’s paper in the learned journal, booster segments on Atlantis failed – badly – after 1 (one) use. I urge Hansen to read my shuttlefactor report.

collectSpace Post #116 (July 31, 2007)

Between T+50 and T+60 seconds, only one major event is listed in the official “STS 51-L Sequence of Major Events,” (Commission, Vol. I, p. 37): The appearance of “flame on RH SRM” at T+58.788 seconds. Yet for the same interval, I had discovered numerous “Major Events” as described below.

collectSpace Post #120 (August 12, 2007)

"I am really aghast at Ali's statement that Conservation of Energy may be invalid. Tell me more."

Back to Top

New STEMnP Discoveries

Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Philosophy

Letter to the National Science Foundation
May 12, 2009

What Is The Present STEM Work All About?

There is a conspicuous “knowledge gap” between the Galilean-Newtonian mechanics and modern energetics. This is the sudden jump taken from the concept of force to the energy conservation principle, which should be familiar to all physicists and engineers. According to the textbooks, the sudden jump is taken to simplify problem solving. But failing to bridge the “gap,” 20th century classical physics remained incomplete and modern physics lacked a vital cornerstone in its development. The last serious attempts to bridge the gap were taken by Hertz, Mach and Boltzmann at the end of the 19th century, but as noted by Einstein, Poincare and others, the central problems were not resolved. The basic blocks to bridge the “gap” were available to great 17th century scientists, including Hooke, Newton, and Leibniz, but the “gap” was left undone. Although great advances were made in physics and mathematics in the 18th and 19th centuries, the Bernoulli’s, D’Alembert, Laplace, Lagrange, Fourier and other mathematicians of the time did not resolve the “knowledge gap.” The “incomplete physics” devastated 20th century technology and, I dare say, led to the present serious problems, recently recognized by everyone¸ in the design, procurement, cost, schedule, operation and maintenance of modern defense, aerospace and other systems. I addressed some of these issues in my GWU Engineering Program, “Anatomy of Failure Mechanisms in Defense and Aerospace Systems,” in 1989. My present Work fills the “knowledge gap” and more.  

Restoration in Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy
Unsolicited Proposal, May 2005

True Form and Meaning of the Conservation of Energy and Momentum

Background: The laws of conservation are called the most sacred principles in physics and the backbone of many subjects. For over 300 years, experts attempted to develop the conservation laws as part of the Mechanical Program. In the end, Henri Poincare asked, "What exactly remains constant?" in energy conservation, and Dr. Albert Einstein summarized the effort as follows, "Science did not succeed in carrying out the mechanical program convincingly, and today no physicist believes in the possibility of its fulfillment."

Lecture: AbuTaha has pursued the Mechanical Program persistently for half a century. He will show how everyone, including Sir Isaac Newton, mishandled the conservation laws. AbuTaha will explain, "What exactly remains constant?" in energy conservation. He will derive and show the correct mathematical form and true meaning of the conservation laws. This will profoundly impact many subjects in the arts and the sciences.

F = ma, Important Equation, Big Mistake (PDF 40KB)
Submitted to Nature Journal, May 2005

Find out why Newton credited Galileo for The Second Law of Motion:

"The "vis viva" is not hidden in the deep obscurity of the Principia. The vis viva is in plain view, on Page 1 of the book- - -

To differentiate his "motion" from Leibniz's motion, Newton did a strange thing in the Principia- - -

No one noticed Newton's choices for 300 years. The choices made for awkward writing by Newton, from which he was unable to recover for forty years after the initial publication of the Principia.

Bouncing Harmonic Motion and the Compton Effect
Submitted to Physical Review Letters, July 1992
Invited Paper to the Conference on Lasers in Science and Technology, Amman, Jordan, July 1993

  1. This paper followed my extensive dynamic transients analyses (1986-92) of Space Shuttle design - see ShuttleFactor Report. This Work led to the invention (1992-94) of the pulsing thrust method. All our Works lead to the important discoveries that are described (and will be added) in the STEMnP web page.

  2. Fig. 6(c), not discussed in this paper, gives the simplest geometric derivation of the energy levels of the hydrogen atom; see my comment in the Figure: "Areas of semi-circles in descending levels are exactly proportional to energy levels in hydrogen atom." Physicists will be fascinated by the incredibly simple geometric derivation of a very important concept in modern physics: Simply calculate the areas of the half-circles. I was astonished to discover the mathematical relationship. Euclid could have done it.

Harmonic Oscillations in Force Fields
Submitted to Physical Review Letters, July 1992

The common practice of referring oscillations to the position of equilibrium has masked the most important features of harmonic motion in gravitational, electric and nuclear force fields. We show that oscillations in force fields are distinctly different from simple harmonic motion. We clarify how the distinct difference between the two motions lies in the forcing functions responsible for each type of oscillation. Whereas simple harmonic motion is strictly the result of an externally applied force-pulse, or impulse, of short duration, force-field-harmonic-motion is strictly the result of a series of force pulses supplied by the field itself. Field forces sustain oscillations in the fields, and it is therefore incorrect to cancel the effect of these forces by modeling symmetric motion about the equilibrium position.

The SHM model is usually referred to the equilibrium position (Fig. 1) which leads to symmetry, simplicity and mathematical elegance… This stratagem cancels the effect of the field force itself, and it obscures the correct behavior of an important parameter of the oscillations… Careful examination shows that the SHM model is not representative of oscillations in force fields.

The mass travels between 0 and –2x, and not between –x and +x; and the spring restoring force ranges between 0 and –2kx, and not between –kx and +kx.

The same considerations must also be made when using Lagrange’s equation, the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, or other methods to determine the motion of particles, such as, the electron, in a force field.

We hope that capable scientists, mathematicians, engineers and, even, philosophers, will inquire into and develop the many vistas that the new concepts offer.  

Back to Top

ShuttleFactor and BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Disaster

The epigraph to the ShuttleFactor page states that “Factor” is One Mistake that Produced A Thousand Problems and Ruined the Space Program. Did the same ShuttleFactor fundamental engineering mistake play a role in the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil well disaster? 3-Numbers for the Blowout Preventer (BOP), the last line of defense for the oil well, which failed to stop the oil from surging into the Gulf, were discussed in a Congressional Hearing on June 17, 2010. The 3-Numbers show troubling facts that have not been reported before, e.g.,

1.        The safety margin for the BP Deepwater Horizon BOP (25%) was smaller than the safety margin for the Space Shuttle (40%). This means that the operators, managers, inspectors and visitors on the Deepwater Horizon rig were exposed to greater risks than astronauts blasted into space.

2.        The dynamic overshoot loads mentioned above indicate that the actual safety margins for the DWH BOP were negative, which explains the widely reported problems with the well and its eventual failure.

3.        The new BOP design may not be adequate for safe operation.

These facts are discussed in detail in this Report, which will be useful to BP and the other oil-drilling Contractors and to Investigators from the Congress, the National Commission, and others. In addition to immediate engineering action to remedy technical shortcomings, the small, zero and negative safety margins in deepwater oil systems may require temporary regulations and deregulations to prevent similar disasters.

Table-1 Safety Margins for the Space Shuttle and DWH Blowout Preventer


Space Shuttle

Deepwater Horizon

Blowout Preventer

Safety Margin



One glance at this Table shows the bad news in plain language to everyone. The Table gives Legislators and Investigators a clear picture of the situation on hand. The Table gives clear-cut input to ask incisive and decisive questions. I would like to know what questions the Members of the Congress would have asked in light of the above simple Table, e.g.,

·         Do you know that the safety margins for the DWH Blowout Preventer were smaller than the safety margins for the Space Shuttle?

·         Did you know that the Deepwater Horizon personnel were exposed to greater risks than astronauts blasted into orbit?

·         Are personnel on other rigs exposed to similar risks?

·         How did this marginal design come about in the first place? etc.

Table-5 Safety Margins for the New Blowout Preventers with Dynamic Loads

Rated Pressure

Applied Pressure

Dynamic Load Factor


Maximum Load

Safety Margin

20,000 psi

12,000 psi


18,000 psi

11 %

20,000 psi

12,000 psi


20,400 psi

-2 %

20,000 psi

12,000 psi


22,800 psi

-12 %

At best, the safety margin for the New Blowout Preventer will be 11%, much smaller than the safety margins used with manned rockets! Very likely, the New Blowout Preventers will have negative safety margins – invitation to disaster. We said earlier that the Congress cannot legislate safety margins, but it must act when the safety margins for deepwater oil wells are smaller than the safety margins used for manned and unmanned spacecraft. The Congress must also act when the safety margins for such critical systems are negative.

Applying the above Dynamic Load Factors to the Blowout Preventer that failed on the Deepwater Horizon oil well and using the pressure loads discussed in the June 17 Congressional Hearing (12,000 and 15,000 psi), the safety margins for the failed BOP were –17%, -26% and –34%, respectively; all negative values. This indicates that the start-up transient dynamic overshoot was the most likely cause of the Gulf disaster. Based on extensive personal experience with modern engineering systems, these negative safety margins can also explain the problems encountered with the Deepwater Horizon well before the accident.

More seriously, if the DLF for the Blowout Preventers is, say, 1.7, then the New BOPs may not be adequate at all. For example, using the applied pressure of 12,000 psi, the maximum applied load will be (12,000 psi x 1.7) 20,400 psi, which exceeds the rated load for the New BOPs (20,000 psi) discussed in the Congressional Hearing. This means that the safety margins for the New BOPs will be negative! What then? Should the rated (or design) load for the New BOPs be, say, 25,000 psi? The safety margin for this case is about 22%, again smaller than the safety margin used with the manned Space Shuttle! The evaluation must not stop here. If the oil Companies cannot calculate or measure the DLF for the oil wells, then the Codes require the use of a DLF of 2, e.g., as NASA did with the BSMs mentioned earlier. The maximum loads for a Deepwater Horizon-like well must then be 24,000 psi (2 x 12,000 psi). In this case, a Blowout Preventer with a rated or design load of 30,000 psi will still have smaller safety margins (25%) than manned rockets. The numbers mentioned here are not number games; the numbers directly affect the safety and risks of oil wells.

Back to Top

[ Home ] Natural Motion ] Universal Gravitation ] Cold Fusion ] Pulsing Thrust ] ShuttleFactor ] Challenger Studies ] STEMnP ] Oil Spill Disaster ]

Comments or Questions; send mail to:
Copyright © 2010 Ali F. AbuTaha