Hi Kevin,
This is from an older thread, but the comment did not get through. Basically, it is this. What is wrong with a COP of 1.68 on the early rounds of development of a new technology? It is almost as if Vortex, with all the claims floating around, has become jaded by expectation levels of COP which are unrealistic. I would love to see a Rossi device, or Mills device, or Mizuno device confirmed at COP 1.68, so long as this number was rock-solid … as in a rocket thruster, since there is more to the advantage than energy gain. Basically – Any confirmed OU level over 1 - would overturn about half of physics; and is up there with the most significant inventions of all time. And we have to assume that a first prototype of any thruster is below the eventual level. But anyway - for rocketry – NASA is not as concerned with OU as with “specific impulse”. The important figure of merit for this thruster then becomes: For the BLP Rocket engine, a maximum theoretical Isp of 21,000 seconds is predicted as compared to approximately 500 seconds for an H2/O2 chemical rocket. That is huge. Of course, this “predicted” figure may contain the usual Mills hype, since the Rowan demo was not really “independent”. Mills and Janssen are reported to be personal friends. But with the possibility that the 40:1 thrust improvement (isp) when looked at in a finished rocket is only 4:1 improvement, in reality (i.e. if we reduce the BS level by a factor of 10) NASA should have stuck with this device IMO even if the COP was not extravagant. Hmm….Perhaps they did stick with it… and the project is now black. Black as in Morgan Freeman’s role in “Chain Reaction” … okay… that was only Hollywood and that kind of thing seldom happens, right … From: Kevin O'Malley COP was from 1.06 to 1.68. No wonder they never pursued it. Take a close look at Janssen’s microwave thruster at Rowan – how could NASA not have jumped on that?
