{
  "NASA_2011": {
    "source": "https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20110015567/downloads/20110015567.pdf",
    "equation": "eta_N(g) = P_elec / (mdot * Cp * T0,entrance) = (T0,12 - T0,14) / T0,12, printed p. 5 (PDF p. 9), Eq. (2)",
    "text_inputs": "printed p. 9 (PDF p. 13)",
    "plot_reading": "Figure 5, printed p. 8 (PDF p. 12), visually digitized from the embedded 749x426 px graph; approximate read uncertainty ±2 MW; not tabulated raw data",
    "Cp_sensitivity_kJ_kg_K": [
      1.0,
      1.2
    ],
    "status": "reproducibility question; cause unknown; no source values corrected",
    "provenance_correction": "An earlier project note gave the wrong equation page; Eq. (2) is printed p. 5 / PDF p. 9.",
    "follow_up_source_status": "Benyo 2013 Kent State dissertation, Chapter 5, repeats the same modeled power narrative; same author, not an independent reproduction; no actual NPSS deck or numeric Cp found in inspected passages."
  },
  "NASA_1980": {
    "source": "https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19800008626/downloads/19800008626.pdf",
    "nominal_conditions": "printed p. 3: 10 atm, 0.5 kg/s, 5 wt% Cs seed, 7 MW thermal input, 5 T field, Mach 2 entrance",
    "outputs": "printed p. 6: 87.5 kW and 153 kW gross output for area ratios 2.56 and 4",
    "boundary": "generator load output; no complete balance of magnet, cooling, seeding or other facility loads and no accelerator return"
  },
  "HVEPS": {
    "source": "https://dtic.minsky.ai/index/ADA471429",
    "source_id": "ADA471429",
    "source_sha256": "58BBB34829C30439F3D6AA1AC27E31430C01657DEF5E1F29F959598B4EE734BB",
    "test_3": {
      "peak_field_T": 1.48,
      "load_bank_power_kW": 6.52,
      "load_bank_evidence": "Measured operating point; Table VI; electrical output dissipated in the external resistive load bank",
      "active_channel_output_kW": {
        "value": 14.38,
        "evidence": "Post-test derived value in Table VI; active generator portion; excludes end-region losses"
      },
      "matched_load_maximum_kW": {
        "value": 14.8,
        "evidence": "Post-test load-line model estimate in Table VI; not the measured load-bank operating point"
      }
    },
    "reported_end_region_loss_percent": [
      25,
      60
    ],
    "limitations": [
      "The abstract calls 14.8 kW peak electric output, while the body Table VI places 14.80 kW in the calculated maximum-at-matched-load column; retain both context and body-table classification.",
      "The participant's preliminary 15 kW active-section statement is close to the paper's 14.38 kW active-channel derived output, but the source does not establish identical run, processing, or meter boundary.",
      "The AFRL 2–10 kW public range is compatible in scale with measured load-bank outputs across the listed tests, but AFRL does not state that it reports this exact boundary.",
      "Short-duration ground tests; no integrated accelerator loop, vehicle-bus closure, installed-system mass, or flight thrust benefit was tested."
    ],
    "analysis_points": [
      {
        "test": 1,
        "peak_field_T": 1.48,
        "combustion_efficiency_percent": 91.0,
        "load_current_A": 21.55,
        "load_bank_power_kW": 3.81,
        "active_channel_output_end_losses_excluded_kW": 6.55,
        "matched_load_maximum_posttest_kW": 8.24
      },
      {
        "test": 2,
        "peak_field_T": 1.48,
        "combustion_efficiency_percent": 85.0,
        "load_current_A": 10.85,
        "load_bank_power_kW": 3.2,
        "active_channel_output_end_losses_excluded_kW": 4.0,
        "matched_load_maximum_posttest_kW": 7.76
      },
      {
        "test": 3,
        "peak_field_T": 1.48,
        "combustion_efficiency_percent": 89.0,
        "combustion_efficiency_case": "mean; bounds omitted from plot",
        "load_current_A": 57.82,
        "load_bank_power_kW": 6.52,
        "active_channel_output_end_losses_excluded_kW": 14.38,
        "matched_load_maximum_posttest_kW": 14.8,
        "matched_load_low_efficiency_bound_kW": 15.98,
        "matched_load_high_efficiency_bound_kW": 15.19
      },
      {
        "test": 5,
        "peak_field_T": 1.8,
        "combustion_efficiency_percent": 81.5,
        "load_current_A": 22.47,
        "load_bank_power_kW": 5.55,
        "active_channel_output_end_losses_excluded_kW": 7.25,
        "matched_load_maximum_posttest_kW": 8.09
      },
      {
        "test": 6,
        "peak_field_T": 1.8,
        "combustion_efficiency_percent": 77.0,
        "load_current_A": 28.36,
        "load_bank_power_kW": 5.83,
        "active_channel_output_end_losses_excluded_kW": 8.46,
        "matched_load_maximum_posttest_kW": 8.48
      },
      {
        "test": 7,
        "peak_field_T": 1.8,
        "combustion_efficiency_percent": 82.0,
        "load_current_A": 8.0,
        "load_bank_power_kW": 2.1,
        "active_channel_output_end_losses_excluded_kW": 2.98,
        "matched_load_maximum_posttest_kW": 6.94
      }
    ],
    "test_series_definitions": {
      "source_table": "Lineberry et al. 2007, printed Table VI, p. 27; measured/analysis distinction also discussed on printed pp. 19 and 23-27",
      "load_bank_power_kW": "Load dump power dissipation at the selected external resistive load; reported test operating point.",
      "active_channel_output_end_losses_excluded_kW": "MHD electric power output across the active generator portion, neglecting end losses per Table VI note 2; not interchangeable with load-bank dissipation.",
      "matched_load_maximum_posttest_kW": "Maximum power potential at matched load, derived from post-test load-line analyses per Table VI note 3; a model estimate, not the measured operating point.",
      "omitted_test": {
        "test": 4,
        "reason": "Not reduced for analysis because anomalous scramjet pressure data were observed."
      },
      "test_3_efficiency_bounds": {
        "low_efficiency_percent": 81.5,
        "matched_load_maximum_kW": 15.98,
        "mean_efficiency_percent": 89.0,
        "matched_load_maximum_kW_mean": 14.8,
        "high_efficiency_percent": 96.5,
        "matched_load_maximum_kW_high": 15.19,
        "source_note": "Table VI gives these bounds from analysis. Calorimetry note states accuracy +/-7.5%; no propagated uncertainty distribution is supplied."
      },
      "source_sha256": "58BBB34829C30439F3D6AA1AC27E31430C01657DEF5E1F29F959598B4EE734BB"
    },
    "source_access_status": "Official DTIC public reports search displayed an offline notice on 2026-10-02. The retained local PDF identifies itself as AFRL-PR-WP-TP-2007-233 / ADA471429 and matches third-party indexed metadata, but its byte identity to an official DTIC deposit is not authenticated.",
    "related_computational_paper": {
      "citation": "Gotoh et al. (2007), Computational Analysis of HVEPS Scramjet MHD Power Generation",
      "doi": "10.2514/6.2007-4015",
      "crossref_record": "https://api.crossref.org/works/10.2514%2F6.2007-4015",
      "evidence_class": "published computational analysis; not an experimental measurement",
      "full_text_and_machine_readable_data": "not located in bounded source check",
      "interpretation": "does not independently reproduce the AFRL test or close a common-boundary cycle balance"
    },
    "doi_numbering_note": "Crossref resolves 10.2514/6.2007-3880 to the HVEPS test-results title; 2007-3881 appears in at least one later bibliography and is treated as a likely miscitation, not universal proof of an error."
  },
  "recent_published_models": {
    "Ling_et_al_2024": {
      "title": "Numerical simulation on magnetohydrodynamic power generation channel of scramjet",
      "journal": "Journal of Propulsion Technology 45(11), 2024",
      "doi": "10.13675/j.cnki.tjjs.2205028",
      "publisher": "https://pubs.cstam.org.cn/article/doi/10.13675/j.cnki.tjjs.2205028?viewType=HTML",
      "evidence_level": "simulation values transcribed from publisher abstract; not independently reproduced",
      "magnetic_field_T": [
        1,
        2,
        3,
        4
      ],
      "generation_efficiency_percent": [
        22.5,
        22.3,
        22.0,
        21.5
      ],
      "enthalpy_extraction_rate_percent": [
        0.026,
        0.1,
        0.21,
        0.34
      ],
      "limit": "Full-paper definitions, model assumptions, benchmark and validation scope not yet independently reviewed. Channel model only; not an integrated propulsion loop or net-engine result."
    },
    "Liu_Wu_Meng_2025": {
      "title": "Performance analysis of scramjet including magnetohydrodynamic power generation after combustor",
      "journal": "Journal of Propulsion Technology 46(8), 2025, article 202502049",
      "doi": "10.3724/1001-4055.202502049",
      "publisher": "https://www.spacejournal.cn/tjjs/cn/article/id/7ba55439-82c5-4689-9788-7d7ed496ce35",
      "pdf": "https://www.spacejournal.cn/tjjs/en/article/pdf/preview/7ba55439-82c5-4689-9788-7d7ed496ce35.pdf",
      "reported_case": {
        "flight_mach": 7,
        "altitude_km": 29,
        "enthalpy_extraction_percent": 0.5,
        "magnetic_field_T": 2.5,
        "load_factor": 0.4,
        "specific_impulse_penalty_percent": 3.58
      },
      "sensitivity_cases": [
        {
          "enthalpy_extraction_percent": 0.5,
          "specific_impulse_penalty_percent": 3.58,
          "magnetic_field_T": 2.5,
          "load_factor": 0.4
        },
        {
          "enthalpy_extraction_percent": 0.9,
          "specific_impulse_penalty_percent": 6.43,
          "magnetic_field_T": 2.5,
          "load_factor": 0.4
        }
      ],
      "evidence_level": "published zero-dimensional scramjet model with variable specific heat and equilibrium-chemistry treatment, coupled to analytical post-combustor MHD extraction; baseline and MHD module checked against different references",
      "fulltext_audit": {
        "date": "2026-10-01",
        "access": "Publisher-indexed PDF text was available for selected pages; direct PDF retrieval returned a publisher IP-block page, so complete visual page-by-page review was not possible.",
        "baseline_validation": "One Mach-7, approximately 29.16-km combustor test point; reported relative errors include Mach 2%, static temperature 4.65%, and static pressure 17.28% at the isolator station.",
        "mhd_validation": "One simulated 80 mm channel case was compared with CFD, not with a physical MHD-generator experiment; 2.5 T field, nominal 8 S/m CFD conductivity, and three electrode pairs.",
        "source_locations": "Model equations printed pp. 5-6; baseline comparison printed p. 7, Table 2 and Figs. 3-4; MHD-to-CFD comparison printed pp. 9-10, Table 4 and Figs. 7-8; engine output trends printed pp. 10-11, Figs. 9-14.",
        "independent_reproduction": "Not performed."
      },
      "limit": "The two Isp penalties are model predictions for post-combustor extraction, not measurements and not a closed generator-to-accelerator loop. Baseline test-point comparison does not experimentally validate the MHD module. Selected publisher-indexed PDF text was reviewed, but the publisher blocked direct PDF retrieval and complete visual verification. No installed mass, auxiliary bus closure, or uncertainty propagation is claimed."
    },
    "Lieu_2026": {
      "title": "Reduced-Order Evaluation of Superconducting Magnetoplasma Propulsion in Aircraft and Rocket Flight",
      "author": "Richard Lieu",
      "journal": "Aerospace Science and Technology",
      "article": 113752,
      "doi": "10.1016/j.ast.2026.113752",
      "online_date": "2026-09-06",
      "publication_status": "In Press, Journal Pre-proof",
      "publisher": "https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1270963826021280",
      "evidence_level": "Reduced-order screening model; aircraft and space-rocket applications are separate; publisher abstract and indexed highlights reviewed, full text not independently reviewed",
      "aircraft_example": {
        "mach": 7,
        "altitude_km": 30,
        "capture_area_m2": 0.5,
        "modeled_thrust_increment_kN": 5,
        "ideal_flow_power_MW": 11,
        "post_loss_electrical_power": "plausibly tens of MW, per abstract"
      },
      "does_not_establish": [
        "measured thrust or flight performance",
        "a closed MHD generator-to-accelerator loop",
        "conversion of the separate 515.7 kJ/kg ideal inlet kinetic-energy change into electricity",
        "a spacecraft or aircraft demonstration"
      ]
    }
  },
  "NASA_2013_dissertation": {
    "record": "https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/r/etd/search/10?clear=10&p10_accession_num=kent1369153719",
    "full_text_pdf": "https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/ws/send_file/send?accession=kent1369153719&disposition=inline",
    "local_sha256": "6671E45A4BA6C6A66B1434AB6E78ED56EA7E29443C4F46DA6D2C5EB87D5406FC",
    "locators": "Chapter 5 printed pp. 80–102 / PDF pp. 102–124; extracted-power discussion §5.4.2 at printed p. 92 / PDF p. 114; NPSS example file list Table 5.1 at printed p. 82 / PDF p. 104; model figure Figure 5.5 at printed p. 91 / PDF p. 113.",
    "findings": "Same-author expanded dissertation repeats the 2011 NPSS extracted-power range and relevant Mach-point prose and provides more context for stations and allocation. Its Table 5.1 lists generic example file names but not the case deck or pointwise outputs. No numeric Cp value was found in the reviewed passages.",
    "evidence_status": "follow-on source by the same author; not independent confirmation, correction, or runnable model reproduction."
  }
}