Riemann's Contribution to Flight and Laser Fusion

wlym.com
  • No tags were found...

Riemann's Contribution to Flight and Laser Fusion

FeaturesCourtesy of Adolf BusemannShock waves: Understanding themwas essential for developing planesthat could break the sound barrierwithout destroying the aircraft. In anexclusive interview, aerodynamicistpioneer Adolf Busemann discussesthis and many of his other groundbreakingideas. /Above, Busemann(left) poses at the important 1935 Europeanaerodynamics meeting in Italywith two of his colleagues, Wieselsberger(center) and Ackeret.223342An FEF Proposal Based on Riemann's MethodBreaking the Impasse in Inertial Confinement FusionDr. Steven Bardwell and Uwe ParpartStrong shock waves, as Bernhard Riemann discussed them in an 1859paper, may be the answer to the current problem in laser fusion.Understanding why this is the case requires fusion scientists to take anew look at the concept of energy.An Interview with Adolf Busemann:Pioneer in Shock Waves, Supersonic Flight, and Fusion PowerBusemann was trained at Gottingen in the 1920s, in the Riemannhydrodynamicist tradition. His work on the V-2 rocket and supersonicflight led directly to major contributions in magnetic and inertialfusion.Exploding the H-Bomb SecretCharles B. StevensA firsthand account of the 1979 Progressive magazine court caseprovides some clues as to why the U.S. government went to suchlengths to^block publication of a technically incorrect article onthe H-bomb.Yes to Lorraine and yes to nuclearpower!—the rallying slogans on aposter of the broad-based pronucleargroup formed to save the 5,200 MWCattenom nuclear complex in Lorrainefrom the axe of French PresidentMitterrand.NewsSPECIAL REPORT15 Restoring Scientific Rigor in EducationFUSION REPORT17 What's Behind the Science Magazine Attack?Reviewing Laser Fusion Progress19 Classifying Scientific Progress: A Case Example20 Texas Tokamak Dedicated21 DOE Stalls on FED; Bouquard Reconvenes Advisory Panel60 European Panel Recommends Increased Fusion EffortINTERNATIONAL47 Launch of Ariane Puts Europe in Space Business47 Mexico: Economic Warfare Threatens Oil-for-Technology49 Group Formed to Defend French Nuclear Program49 Iraqi Reactor Could Not Build BombsNATIONAL50 Columbia Readied for Its Second FlightWASHINGTON52 Advanced Energy Budget in Holding Pattern; Worse to Come52 Remote Sensing; Is the U.S. Losing Its Lead?53 NASA's Beggs: Space Station Is Next


DepartmentsFrom the Editor's DeskThis issue offers readers a unique opportunityto look at the contribution ofthe 19th-century mathematical physicistBernhard Riemann: first, to see how Riemann'swork is essential today to solvingthe impasse in inertial fusion research(page 22); second, to see how a scientisttrained in the Gottingen tradition in the1920s, Adolf Busemann, used Riemann'smethod to make fundamental advancesin aerodynamics (page 33); and third, tounderstand how Riemann's 1859 paperwas the real secret in the Progressivecase (page 42).We are especially pleased to announce in this issue our publication ofan important book by Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg, The Physical Principlesof Thermonuclear Explosive Devices, which is must reading for readerswho want to fully understand what the government is trying to classifyand why such classification would inhibit basic scientific research (page44). And, don't miss the wide-ranging interview with author Winterberg(page 54).We also give you some homework! Readers are urged to sendtelegrams and letters of support to the group formed in France to defendthe nuclear industry from the antinuclear President Mitterrand (page 49).The address is Comite Pour Cattenom, 18 Place du Forum, Metz 57000,France. FEF supporters are also encouraged to join our campaign torestore scientific rigor to U.S. education (page 15). And, for those of youin the New York area, the FEF is sponsoring a special dinner to honorAdolf Busemann and his work, Thursday, Nov. 5, in New York City. Callor write the FEF for details.Finally, an apology: we regret any confusion we may have causedreaders in the September issue's cover story, "The World Needs 10Billion People." Pages 26 and 27 should have been numbered 28 and 29,and vice versa.Marjorie Mazel HechtManaging EditorFUSIONAT THE FRONTIERS Of SCIENCE AND ENERGVVol. 5, No. 1 Oct.-Nov. 1981EDITORIAL STAFFEditor-in-ChiefDr. Steven BardwellManaging EditorMarjorie Mazel HechtAssistant Managing EditorLydia Dittler SchulmanFusion Technology EditorCharles B. StevensWashington EditorMarsha FreemanBiology EditorCarol ClearyPhysics and Astronomy EditorDr. John SchoonoverEnergy EditorWilliam EngdahlArt DirectorAlan YuePhoto EditorCarlos de HoyosAdvertising ManagerAnton ChaitkinCirculation and Subscription ManagerPolly Johnson(212) 247-8820 ext. 667FUSION is published 10 times a year, monthlyexcept March and October, by the Fusion EnergyFoundation. Suite 1711, 250 West 57th St.,New York, N.Y. 10019, Tel, (212) 265-3749,Dedicated to providing accurate and comprehensiveinformation on advanced energy technologiesand policies, FUSION is committed torestoring American scientific and technologicalleadership. FUSION coverage of the frontiers ofscience focuses on the self-developing qualitiesof the physical universe in such areas asplasma physics—the basis for fusion power—as weli as biology and microphysics, and Includesgroundbreaking studies of the historicaldevelopment of science and technology.The views of the FEF are stated in the editorials.Opinions expressed in articles are notnecessarily those of the FEF directors or advisoryboard.Subscriptions by mail are $20 for 10 issuesor $38 lor 20 issues in the USA; $25 for 10issues in Canada. Airmail subscriptions toother countries are $40 for 10 issues.Address all correspondence to FUSION, FusionEnergy Foundation, Suite 1711, 250 West57th St., New York, N.Y. 10019.Second class postage is paid at New York.N.Y. and at additional mailing offices.Advertising RepresentativesFUSION'S European advertising representativeis Karl-Heinz Holz. Pf. 3329, 62 Wiesbaden,West Germany, Telephone (06121) 440277.Copyright G 1981Fusion Energy FoundationPrinted in Ihe USAAll Rights ReservedISSN 0148-0537USPS 437-370


The Current Strategic DebateThe debate over U.S. military posture has become more intense in the pasttwo months than at any point in the last 20 years. Although this debate appearsto be about contending weapons systems, the actual point of disagreement iswhether or not the United States will foster advanced technological development.Directly connected to this is the question of the direction of developmentof the whole economy.The generally downward trend of U.S. military capabilities relative to theSoviet Union has now reached the point of qualitative and rapidly acceleratingSoviet superiority, a fact recognized by even the most liberal pacifist side ofthe military debate.The point of Soviet superiority was reached just at the time that it becameabundantly clear, even to the professional skeptics, that a fundamental revolutionin military technology was about to take place. While many, includingscientists at the Fusion Energy Foundation, have been saying for the past threeyears that the introduction of directed energy beam weapons (lasers, particlebeams, microwave beams, and plasma beams are the currently known varieties)would redefine the central tactical aspects of military conflict, neither thesignificance nor the practicality of beam weapons came into general politicalcirculation until this spring's announcement by Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory of a spectacularly successful test of the X-ray laser.As this technological feat made clear, the Soviet capability to deploy suchbeam weapons over the next five years and the massive improvements inconventional ABM technology have destroyed the invulnerability of ourstrategic weapons (nuclear-armed ICBMs). For the first time since World WarII, one Pentagon commentator noted, the defensive position becomes strongerthan the offensive one.Wunderwaffen Versus DevelopmentA unique and provocative contribution to the strategic debate has appearedfrom Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (a founder and board member of the FEF), in aseries of recent papers published in the Executive Intelligence Review. La-Rouche's general contention is that leading circles in NATO are attempting aparody of the Nazi military policy of 1933-1945, to the point that the twowunderwaffen of the Germans have become the miracle weapons of the1980s—the Cruise missile and the Pershing II. LaRouche points out the politicalsimilarity between the "postindustrial" society proposals, which are used todayto justify the investment policies of Federal Reserve head Paul Volcker, and4 FUSION October-November 1981


the programs of Hjalmar Schacht, the finance minister under both Briiningand Hitler. Both restrict military policy to dependence upon wunderwar/en.As LaRouche summarized it: "NATO policy makers have insisted that militarypolicy must be subordinated to the effects of such a neo-Schachtian policy forthe USA, et al., obliging themselves to adopt a parody of Hermann Goerirvg's'Guns Instead of Butter' doctrine of arms and operations."These NATO planners argue that because the Nazis developed frontierquality military technologies under the terms of the Schacht-Speer austeritypolicies, we can replicate this achievement; because we have much greatergeopolitical assets than the Nazis, they say, we can succeed where the Nazisfailed.LaRouche describes the twofold fallacy of this argument:TheLightningRodFirst, the Nazi economy used up a previously established scientific andindustrial potential which no Nazi or kindred political economic ordercould produce. The correlated point is that we lack the technologicalresources comparable to those the Nazi regime appropriated in subjugatingthe German nation to its rule. In terms of the present state of oureducational system, the potentialities for producing, assimilating, andapplying technology in our industrial establishment and in the qualificationof and the extent of our scientific community, we are relatively farbelow the resources of the nation which fell into Hitler's and Schacht'shands. The Nazi weapon development center at Peenemunde expressesthe role of non-Nazi created scientific and industrial resources in developingan advanced military capability despite the contrary implications ofNazi economic, social, and cultural and political characteristics.A Question of MethodThe question of method for the creation and assimilation of new technologyis the crux of the matter for both the military and civilian success of a nation.The Nazis perfected a war-losing strategy (all NATO's fantasies aside, the Nazisdid lose the war)—a strategy that destroyed the industrial base, manpowerpotential, and cognitive capabilities of the German nation; they looted thequalities of mind that they inherited from the older generation, scientists likeAdolf Busemann, who is interviewed in this issue.What the United States must master today if it is to survive the present crisisin military and civilian terms—and these, after all, are essentially the same—isthe traditionalist military doctrine. As LaRouche summarized this: "The technologyof warfare should be defined in respect to a reference-policy of'Manhattan Project'-scale broad spectrum development and deployment ofrelativistic plasma-beam antimissile weaponry, combined with the strengtheningof the civilian-economic agroindustrial basis from in-depth logistical,mobility, and personnel features of military capabilities. [We must applyl'thecontinuing relevance of the great traditionalist republican military science ofAlexander the Great, George Gemistos Plethon, Leonardo da Vinci, NiccoloMachiavelli, Gottfried Leibniz, Lazare Carnot, and the Prussian state reformsof 1809-1810."It is impossible to develop an in-depth, war-winning capability within theconfines of an austerity program dictated either by Volcker, or as has beenrecently mooted, by the International Monetary Fund. Strategists who haveforgotten this should be forcefully reminded of the significance of the Naziweapons research programs. They should be reminded that the Nazis' V-1 andV-2 weapons are exactly the same as the Cruise missile and the Pershing; onlythe names are new.The role of advanced scientific education and research projects at thefrontiers of high energy density physics—like laser fusion—is indispensable.And, ironically, the scientific method required for the solution of theseproblems is identical to the political method required for their translation intosocial reality.My dear friends,No sooner had the various heads ofgovernment concluded their deliberationsat Ottawa, than I noted withsorrow once again that our sensibilitieswere being assaulted and ourgood sense abused by eminent personswrongfully insistent that the loweringof our own population is themajor objective of the human species.I too say, with Fusion, "The World• Needs More People!" And by way ofpresenting credentials in this newmovement you are building, I offer afew remarks from a brief essaypenned by a young Pennsylvaniaprinter in 1751, which is entitled,"Observations concerning the Increaseof Mankind and the Peoplingof Countries." Extreme modesty almostforbids me to point out that theauthor's reasoning on one or twopoints is entirely adequate to the refutationof the most "modern" argumentsdevised at Harvard and such, asto the supposed "necessity" of artificiallyrestricting the growth of population.To wit: It is frequently alleged thatimprovements in agriculture and industryare to be discouraged as theylead to "overpopulation" of the land,but that more primitive, "labor-intensive"techniques relieve this problem.Yet as the author of the "Observations"pointed out in our nation'sinfancy:"America is chiefly occupied by Indians,who subsist mostly by hunting.But as the hunter, of all men, requiresthe greatest quantity of land fromwhence to draw his subsistence, (thehusbandmen subsisting on much less,the gardener on still less, and themanufacturer requiring least of all,)Continued on page 6October-November 1981FUSION


Lightning RodContinued from page 5the Europeans found America as fullysettled as it well could be by hunters.. . ."It is also much argued that the improvementand increase of the populationof other nations engaged inmanufactures is a threat to our own,as suggested by Mr. Brzezinski's famousremark on Mexico, that hewould not allow "another Japan" onour border. Here is how the worthyprinter replied to such views whenthey were advanced on behalf of Britainagainst her American coloniesmore than 200 years ago:"In proportion to the increase ofthe colonies, a vast demand is growingfor British manufactures, a gloriousmarket wholly in the power ofBritain, in which foreigners cannotinterfere, which will increase in ashort time even beyond her power ofsupplying, though her whole tradeshould be to her colonies; thereforeBritain should not too much restrainmanufactures in her colonies. A wiseand good mother will not do it. Todistress is to weaken, and weakeningthe children weakens the whole fam-My."So sure was this author that theincrease of population was an indispensablemeans to the building ofnations that he put forward the followingtheorem:"The prince that acquires new territoryor finds it vacant. . . ; the legislatorthat makes effectual laws forpromoting of trade, increasing employment,improving of land by moreor better tillage, providing more foodby fisheries, securing property, etc.;and the man that invents new trades,arts, or manufactures, or new improvementsin husbandry, may beproperly called fathers of their nation,as they are the cause of generation ofmultitudes, by the encouragementthey afford to marriage."Correspondingly, he argued theneed to legislate a system of economyguaranteeing such prosperity andpopulation growth."Laws, therefore, that prevent such[needless] importations, and on thecontrary promote the exportation ofmanufactures to be consumed in foreigncountries, may be called, withrespect to the people that make them,generative laws, as, by increasing subsistencethey encourage marriage."Had the gentlemen at Ottawa buttaken this sage as their guide, theywould not have fallen into the errorof supposing that the world's difficultiesare caused by too many people,when it might better be said there aretoo few who know how to do whatmust be done.Yr. obt. svt.,SOUNDADVICE!Ausculatory problems and their identification require,of course, a highly trained ear. Nowhere willyou find a better guide on this subject than in thelistening records devised by George David Geckler,M.D. Designed for use by students — anddoctors as well — this two-record reference("Stethoscopic Heart Records" 91 B 02058) includesnearly all types of ausculatory findings —murmurs, arrhythmias and so on — and is designedto produce correct sound replication at the earwhen the stethoscope is held near the speaker.Thus the listener is exposed to this glossary of heartsounds under the most natural conditions. Othernovel techniques have been incorporated to assiststudent users, such as splicing silent tape betweenthe first sound, second sound, and murmur ormurmurs, so as to slow up the illustration of difficultpresentations without altering the naturalsound. In all cases, the nomenclature suggested inthe "Nomenclature and Criteria for Diagnosis ofDiseases of the Heart" has been adhered to rigidly.


LettersLousewort LamentsTo the Editor:Your "Lousewort Award" is appreciated(?), but a couple of questionsare in order.What kind of award do you deservefor grossly misquoting David Pimenteland me? Prof. Pimentel said that, ifAmericans were to reduce their annualprotein intake, as much as 75percent of the energy used to producefood could be saved. I said thatproduction, processing, and preparationof animal foods consumes 14 percentof the national energy budget.What is a Lousewort Award?Alex Hershaft, PhDMitre CorporationMcLean, Va.The Editor RepliesWe feel that Alex Hershaft andDavid Pimentel were correctly citedin the Lousewort Laurels award forMay. Basically, the Lousewort Awardgoes to persons or organizatons thatpropose retrogressive solutions to today'sproblems.To the Editor:I commend your choice of Elizabeth"Dottering" Gray for the JulyLousewort Laurels, but I was surprisedthat you cited a relatively minor andinsignificant contribution of Ms. Graywhile ignoring the body of her workin ethics. Her cited initiation of a"rights for the stupid" campaign isbut a minor aspect of her goal, whichis a campaign for the rites for all.Her primary concern, as I heard hershriek it at the April 14-15 meeting ofthe U.S. Association for the Club ofRome, is the total elimination of "thehierarchical ranking of the cosmos."She insists that the belief that any oneexisting thing—living, dead, organic,or inorganic—is morally superior toor has rights over any other thingmust be eliminated.She most emphatically campaignedfor the extermination of the Judeo-Christian system, which she equateswith Nazism because of the biblicalinjunction that man should rule nature.Stanley EzrolWashington, D.C.The Platonic ApproachTo EducationTo the Editor:You are to be commended for allyou are doing to help our nation findits way back to the road of progress.Your efforts to enlighten us to therich bounty available from fusion energyand space exploration is a greatsource of hope for civilization.In spite of all the excellent guidanceyou provide regarding the properthrust for our scientific research,there is one area of your "philosophy"I find very interesting and yetconfusing. I am referring to your philosophyregarding cognitive developmentin education.My questions are as follows:1. Do you place little or no valueTHE NOTEBOOKS OFLEONARDO DA VINCICompiled and edited fromthe Original Manuscripts by Jean Paul Richter$15.90 Two VolumesLeonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) was one of the greatuniversal geniuses of Western civilization and theepitome of the Renaissance Man. He was a painter,scientist, sculptor, city planner, musician, architect,and we are extremely fortunate that he recordedeverything that came into his mind over the course ofsome 30 years, and that these observations —both written and illustrated — have been preserved inthese two volumes.An Unbelievable Wealth of Material for the PracticingArtist and Art HistorianIncluding not only his own insights, but also the artisticknowledge of his day, the material on art is a detaileddiscussion of: linear perspective, light andshade, perspective of disappearance, theory of colors,perspective of color and aerial perspective, onthe proportions and on the movements of the humanfigure, botany for painters and elements of landscapepainting, sculpture, writings on architecture, observationson anatomy and physiology, physicalgeography, topography, philosophy, plus humorouswritings, letters, personal records, and miscellaneousnotes.Among the prolific and beautiful illustrations aresuch magnificent works as the great self-portrait;seven studies for the Last Supper painting; eightstudies for the cartoon of the Battle ofAnghiari; thirteenstudies for the lost Sforza Monument (the onlyrecords we have of what this sculpture looked like);eighty-seven drawings, sketches and plans of famousbuildings, churches, villas, architectural details, etc.;five anatomical drawings; thirty-five drawingsrepresenting his famous investigations in the proportionsand movements of the human figure, and innumerablestudies of arms, legs, and otheranatomical details; and much more.Over 700 illustrations. Reference tables to thenumerical order of the chapters. Appendices. Totalof 866 pp. 7%x10%.Dover PublicationsDept. PMS180 Varick St.New York, N.Y. 10014Please send me sets of Leonardo's Notebooks,order numbers 22572-0, 22573-9 at $15.90 per set.(Add $1.25 to cover total shipping costs.)New York Residents add $1.27 sales tax per set.)Total enclosed $Name


on development of deductive reasoningabilities?2. If you regard logic as essential tomathematics and science, how do yousuggest one develop logical, analyticalabilities?3. When you advocate developmentof creativity do you considerlearning of problem solving heuristics(strategies) as useful? How would yourecommend they be learned/developed?4. Do you know of any books orprograms that would be helpful indeveloping logical analytical skills andproblem solving strategy development?Rick SilversFayetteville, N.C.To the Editor:As a math and science teacher, Ifind myself in accord with your ideasrelative to education, government,and so on. My question is what bookscould you recommend covering thephilosophy and approach to teachingscience and math that best gets awayfrom the present trend that's killingthe intellect of our young people?J. MulhollandAnchorage, AlaskaTo the Editor:Children do not have the resourceof experience to think like adults.Why does it take so many words tosay "learn by rote first"? The theoryof math's construction can be learnedlater after we have more resourcesand then, at that, many may neverneed learn it.We certainly don't learn to drive acar by first taking it apart bolt by boltto see what makes it work.I hope after four generations ofexperimenting the educators will finallyrealize they had better get backto teaching a basic fundamental educationfirst or we may have to reinventthe wheel.Not "New Math," but "BackwardsMath"!John C. CarlsonOrangevale, Calif.To the Editor:I recently received the May issue ofFusion. I was very disappointed. Onpage 37 there is a discussion of Chomskyand Piaget. The author states,"Chomsky also divorces languagefrom mind." Yet the entire contributionof Chomsky to linguistics hasbeen to explore those ways in whichlanguage adumbrates the structure ofmind.In his book Language and Mind,Chomsky states: ". . . it is fair to supposethat the major contribution ofthe study of language will lie in theunderstanding it can provide as to thecharacter of mental process and thestructures they form and manipulate."I received my PhD in linguisticsfrom Ohio State, with a dissertation inthe theory of transformational syntax.Since I know that linguistics has beenseriously misrepresented in yourmagazine, how can I trust your articleson math and physics?Dr. Ronald L. NeeldNew Orleans, La.The Editor RepliesThere is a better kind of mathematicsthan either the antimath of the"New Math" or the rote memorizationadvocated by the "back tobasics" movement. For several thousandsof years, a Platonic current inscience—represented by Plato himself,Archimedes (but not Euclid),Leibniz (but not Newton), and Riemann(but not Maxwell)—has notonly taught mathematics using thismethod but has been responsible forall the major advances in mathematicalscience.The Platonic approach to education(sometimes called the Socraticmethod) starts from the realizationthat the subject of education is theprocess of concept formation. That is,a true teacher does not teach information,but rather, the self-knowledgerequired for a student to recreatethose ideas for himself. Ateacher must teach what Plato calledthe "hypothesis of the higher hypothesis"—themethod of self-consciouslygenerating quantitatively new knowledge.Contributions to the FEFare tax deductible!There are many useful tools in theteacher's armamentarium, includingalgorithmic methods and deductivelogic, but these are not the subject ofeducation. They are tertiary aspects ofsome disciplines, instead. When these"logical" topics are turned into thesubject of education, as is the essenceof Piaget, Chomsky, and linguisticsgenerally, not only is education destroyed,but also the capabilities forcreative thought in the student aredemolished.Plato's dialogues remain the bestsource of education in this method—especially the Timaeus, the Sophist,and the Parmenides. There have alsobeen inspired applications of goodteaching in many other books, andthe FEF is preparing a curriculum forscience and mathematics based onthese historical materials as part of itseducation campaign.October-November 1981FUSION 9


Under American law, an accusedis presumed innocent untilproven guilty. Under the scrutiny ofthe Environmental ProtectionAgency, any new pesticide, regardlessof how great the need or goodthe intent, becomes an accused andis presumed guilty until proven innocent.Speculation as to harmfuleffects to any insect, bird, fish, wildlifein its entirety, water, air, soil,and, finally, people other than thetarget bug can raise more questionsthan can be answered in a reasonablelength of time. The questionsraised do not have to be germaneto the problem and are seldom answeredsatisfactorily the first fewtries.Recent estimates are that it takes8 to 10 years and costs $15 millionto $20 million to develop a newcrop protection chemical, and thisdoes not include a plant to produceit. The time element is important inthat our most experienced, wisest,and oldest scientists won't begin anew search that they can't expect tofinish. In this way some of our bestminds are lost to the battle of foodproduction except in an advisorycapacity.Costs of finding, perfecting, andproving a chemical to the point ofobtaining a label are greatly increasedunder Environmental ProtectionAgency regulations. Thetime element and proving a chemical"not guilty" of any accusationmade are expensive activities. Scientistscost money, and the longerit takes the more it costs. Laboratories,personnel, and test plots extendedin proving the chemical"not guilty" increase the costs forscientific and factual evaluation.The legal work of meeting the regulations,filing documents, and finalizingthe application are expensive.Lawyers don't work for fun!Another major effect of the presentcostly regulations is that minorcrop uses, which are the primarycash crops for many farm producers,are neglected because it is notViewpointA SensiblePublic PolicyOn Pesticidesby Jim Buck Rosseconomical to pursue them. Thecosts in time and money exceed theexpected return. Such crops—vegetables,nuts, and other minorcrops—are very important in ourdiet. It may take wormy apples,peaches, tomatoes, and other acceptedfoods to convince peoplethat such crops need chemical protection.The only new crop protectionchemicals being developed arethose for major crop uses. Eventhese are slow in developing intousable compounds, not only becauseof the time and cost elementsbut because other chemicals—betteror not as good—reach the acceptablestage earlier.The unnecessary cancellations ofnew chemicals are based on suspicion,unfounded accusations, and,in the case of DDT, deliberate disregardfor scientific fact. This is disarmingthe soldier before sendinghim into battle.The Case of the Fire AntNot only do these cancellationshurt farmers; they also endangerhuman health and destroy the environment.A simple case is the EPAcancellation of Mirex for the fireant infestation in nine states. Thehuman population has sufferedmany deaths and thousands of casesrequiring hospital and medical attentionfrom fire ant stings, but nota single death from cancer directlyattributed to Mirex. In addition,thousands of acres of land are lostto crop production, housing development,public, and private uses.The comparative use, volume, andprofits were so small that AlliedChemical decided that it wasn'tworth the cost of doing battle withthe EPA and Environmental DefenseFund to prove the safety of Mirex.The Mississippi Fire Ant Authoritywas created to provide interim protectionand search for new solutions.Its resources, however, wereinadequate for an extended confrontation,and, even if it hadproven Mirex safe, the dictatorialpower of the EPA administrator issuch that he could have canceledthe registration and use as in thecase of DDT, which is still usedaround the rest of the world beneficiallyand without harm.The EPA will proudly point outthat it expedited the approval of alimited conditional label for Amdroto replace Mirex for fire ant control.Wonderful: We have a new tooltemporarily to be fully approved inthe future—maybe—but at whatcost? The price of 1 pound of Mirexbait to treat an acre was 29


IQ of 145 andCan't Remember?In just 15 to 30 minutes a day at homeyou can substantially improve your memory.Don Bolander, B.S., M.A., Litt.D.;Director of the Memory Training Institute''You have intelligence! You have ability! You have ambition! But, if yourability to remember names, facts, figures, faces and places isn V equal toyour intelligence, you will be held back in your business and social life,"says Don Bolander, Director of the Memory Training Institute.Whether you are an executive, doctor,teacher, engineer, lawyer, student, musician,controller, salesman, chemist or whatever,think of what it would mean to you if youcould recall instantly hundreds of facts andfigures that pertain to your work. But let's gofurther:WHAT WOULD IT MEAN TO YOUIF YOU COULD . . .• Instantly recall articles, reports, books,that you read weeks, months, or even yearsago and could quote verbatim sections fromthat material?• Instantly recall jokes, stories, anecdotes,things you read or hear, names and faces ofpeople you have met only once?• Instantly recall financial figures, prices,costs, inventory codes, treatments, legalcases, formulas or whatever detail is importantto you, details that facilitate your workbut at the same time impress and influenceother people?• Learn to remember a deck of cards inwhatever order you want, what cards havebeen played, what cards your opponents areholding, and what plays will gain you thegreatest benefit?• Never again forget an appointment, birthdayor other date, phone number or address.• Learn a foreign language or the words andmusic of a song with amazing speed?• Memorize a long speech and be able todeliver it without notes just the way youwrote it or after reading it only once?DEVELOP YOUR MEMORY POWERYes, unbelievable as it may seem, you cansubstantially increase your memory powerand do all of the things listed above—quicklyand easily at home. You can do so throughthe most fascinating, compelling, andremarkable program in memory developmentever offered.The program was originally developed byDr. Bruno Furst, perhaps the greatestmemory expert in America—and even theworld. His program has been taught as acourse in classroom sessions to thousands ofmen and women.But now the program is available to youfor use in your own home. Or you can carryone of the handy booklets with you, and absorbthe proven techniques as you ride theplane, train or bus.By spending 15 to 30 minutes a day, or anhour or two a week, you can quickly developthe kind of memory power that will enableyou to move ahead fast in your chosen work.Through the simple yet highly effectivetechniques presented in the program, you willsoon be able to dominate almost any situationby your ablity to remember. In a sense,you will have a computerized memory bankin your head.The benefits of the program are real. Whenyou have the ability to quickly and accuratelyquote facts, figures, costs, sources of information,statements of others, you gain newrespect and influence. You are looked to as aperson with great knowledge, education andability. You are looked to as a leader.INSTANT QUOTATIONDICTIONARY INCLUDED FREEIncluded with your Memory TrainingProgram will be a free copy of the InstantQuotation Dictionary containing4,800 quotations on 600 subjects.Yours to keep even if you return theprogram.10-DAY FREE TRIALWITH MONEY BACK GUARANTEEResults are so dramatic, the Memory Institutewill make the complete program available toyou with an equally dramatic FREE trial andguarantee. Under the terms of this unusualoffer, you can test the program for 10 days.Unless you are pleased and satisfied in everyway, unless you see immediate results, justreturn the program for a full refund of yourpayment. If you wish, you may charge theprogram to your credit card. There's noobligation, and the Instant Quotation Dictionaryis yours to keep whether you returnthe program or not.What Others SaySo far, I have progressed only through Session5, but the course has already surpassedmy expectations. — V. Martin, Lemoore, CAThe number system is unbelievable—and itworks! The course is easy to understand andreally does everything you said it would.—Mrs. W. Kutscher, Cape Girardeau, MOI utilize the principles in every phase of mywork. My busy day has been made easierthrough this program. Thanks for the opportunity.—J. P. Hamby, Lubbock, TXI strongly recommend it to anyone, whetheror not they think they already have a goodmemory. —J. L. Shumuay, Tempe, AZMemory Institute, 62 Eastview Ave.Pleasantville, N.Y. 10570, Dept. 209491


News BriefsA spirited crowd of labor and industryrepresentatives showing their supportfor Bailly Nuclear One in July.WASHINGTON NUCLEAR UNITS THREATENED BY HIGH INTEREST RATESNuclear units 4 and 5 of Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS),the nation's largest municipal power utility, may be canceled for financialreasons. Citing mushrooming cost projections, the "Don't Waste WashingtonInitiative" is trying to halt construction on the plants by subjecting every statebond issue, including future WPPSS bonds, to a public vote. Washington'sGovernor Spellman, meanwhile, has formed a commission of prominentbusinessmen who will conduct "a thorough economic analysis" of the plantsand look at potential alternatives.It won't take a major economic study to discover why the cost of the plantshas escalated so dramatically over the last several years. For the $2.5 billion inprincipal borrowed to construct the plants, the utility will pay more than $8billion in interest charges over the lifetime of the bonds, bringing the totalcost up to nearly $11 billion. (The cost for five units is up to $23 billion.)Interest charges on WPPSS bonds have risen steadily since construction onunits 4 and 5 began, from 5.86 percent for the first issue to 11 to 12 percent.If the plants are the victim of the Federal Reserve's high interest rate policy,one result could be a serious power deficit in the industrial Northwest by theend of the decade. According to a recent report of the Pacific NorthwestUtilities Conference Committee, without the addition of units 4 and 5, in ayear in which hydroelectric power is in short supply, the area could experienceas much as a 3,000-megawatt power deficit.BAILLY NUCLEAR ONE—CASE STUDY IN ENVIRONMENTALIST BLOCKAGEA decade of regulatory delays and environmentalist challenges may beresponsible for the cancellation of a second nuclear project, Bailly NuclearOne under construction by Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIP-SCO). This plant was first announced in 1970, but it wasn't until 1974 that itwas licensed by the Atomic Energy Commission (the predecessor of theNuclear Regulatory Commission). NIPSCO has issued an instructive sevenpagechronology of its unending court battles to build the plant. The upshotis that a plant originally scheduled for completion in 1976 is now estimated tobe on line in 1989. The projected cost of the plant, a small, 600-megawattfacility, has risen from $705 million to $1,815 billion.However, in issuing its second quarter report July 31, NIPSCO said that itmay now have to terminate construction entirely because of continuing"political and emotional factors, regulatory delays and other hostility." So farthe utility has invested $200 mi/lion in the plant, a sum that would have to bewritten off. The only construction that has taken place during the 11 years isthe digging of the foundation hole and driving of some test pilings for thefoundation. At one point there was even a court order against NIPSCOrequiring it to fill up the foundation hole.Courtesy of the Government of IndiaThe switchyard for the Narora Atomicpower station under construction inIndia.U.S.-INDIAN NUCLEAR TALKS END IN STALEMATETalks held in New Delhi in late July on ending the 1963 Tarapur nuclearaccord between India and the United States concluded in stalemate. Underthe terms of the agreement, the United States was to supply India's U.S.-builtTarapur atomic power plant with enriched uranium until 1993. However,because of the Percy-Glenn Nuclear Nonproliferation Act, the Reagan administrationis now arguing that it can no longer supply nuclear fuel to India.India grudgingly accepted the U.S. demand for "friendly termination" of theagreement at a first round of the talks in Washington earlier in the year. Thedeadlock in the second round of talks occurred when the U.S. delegation toNew Delhi, led by Assistant Secretary of State James Malone, insisted that Indiamaintain the safeguard obligations on the Tarapur plant and reprocessing of12 FUSION October-November 1981


spent fuel specified in the 1963 accord, even after the termination of theuranium supply agreement. This condition was unacceptable to India.India has pledged nevertheless to keep the plant in operation either byreprocessing the spent fuel to manufacture a uranium-plutonium oxide fuel(using its own reprocessing plant), or by obtaining enriched uranium fromanother supplier, possibly the Soviet Union or a European country.FUSION POPULATION STUDY SPARKS DEBATEFusion editor-in-chief Dr. Steven Bardwell held a briefing for press anddiplomats at the United Engineering Center in New York City )uly 29 to release"The World Needs 10 Billion People," his economics/population study refutingthe Global 2000 Report, which was featured in the September issue of Fusion.The briefing was attended by representatives from UPI and Tass wire services,O'v/7 Engineering and Spectrum magazines, and Dutch radio, and by diplomatsfrom Egypt and Swaziland. Bardwell's hard hitting attack on the Global 2000Report as the statement of a deliberate State Department policy for worldpopulation reduction, not an objective forecast, drew sharp questioning fromthe audience. "You mean scarce resources and water won't be a problem 20years from now?" one reporter asked. "Whether we have the resources tosupport a growing world population at increasing standards of living is entirelya question of investment policy today," Bardwell answered. "The assumptionof Global 2000 is that we won't invest in new technology."SYRIAN NUCLEAR PLANS ON TRACKlust days after the Israeli air strike against Iraq's Osirak nuclear researchreactor this summer, the Syrian Ministry of Electricity announced that it isproceeding with plans to select a contractor for preliminary work on buildingthe country's first commercial nuclear power plant. Syrian plans tentativelycall for having a nuclear power plant on line by 1991 to meet the country'sgrowing power requirements. Syria's electricity consumption is now growingat a 21 percent annual rate, but its known oil reserves are mostly low gradeand its hydroelectric power is declining.READER'S DIGEST PRESENTS AN INDIGESTIBLE VIEW OF FUSIONSome time ago, Reader's Digest commissioned an article on fusion energybecause, as editor David Minter told us, "Fusion seemed to be a possibility,and we wanted to bring it before our wide audience of 40 million readers."Although Minter and the author, Seamus McGrady, swear that they producedan "objective" and "favorable" article, their product, which appeared in theJuly 1981 issue, will give fusion supporters indigestion. First there is the choiceof title, "Is Fusion a Falling Star?" Then there is the subtitle: "This Longheraldednuclear process could—and may still—solve the world's energyproblems. •'But the light at the end of fusion's tunnel remains disappointinglydim."The author omits mention of the recent official and unofficial scientificreviews of fusion that recommend that the program move into the engineeringphase. Instead he quotes from a gloomy 1978 report, produced under formerenergy secretary James Schlesinger. Overall, Reader's Digest conveys a negative,antiscience impression: Fusion is nice, but "after three decades and $3billion in research, we still haven't achieved it."LOUSEWORT LAURELS TO RIGHT TO LIFE GROUPThis month's Lousewort Laurels award goes to the National Right to Lifegroup for selecting Dark Ages advocate Jeremy Rifkin as one of the mainspeakers at the group's national convention June 24. Rifkin, the author ofEntropy, was a leading participant in the proterrorist People's Bicentennialmovement in 1976 and is a board member of the Institute for Policy Studies,which supports many antinuclear groups. His speech to the Right to Lifers wasabout entropy (since the state of nature, God's original creation, must be theFusion editor-in-chief Dr. StevenBar dwellOctober-November 1981 FUSION ' 13


If your technologytouches on veterinarymedicine......the essentials byand for veterinarians*BASIC VALUES in liver,kidney, muscle, blood andbody fluidsPHARMACOLOGYof drug interactions, incompatibilitiesin solution, effectson tests and withdrawal timesfor slaughter animalsThe COMMONDISEASES tabulated byincidence, etiology, signs,control, treatment anddifferential diagnosisCARDIOLOGY presentingsigns and clinical evaluationand featuring...CONGENITAL DEFECTS inDOGS for 121 AKC breedswith examples in colormost pure state, any man-induced changes represent decay), stewardship ofnature, and the necessity to stop genetic engineering—all of which conveythat man might as well be a beast.NUCLEAR POWER AND THE MEDIAFusion Washington editor Marsha Freeman participated in a daylong conferenceon Informing the Public About Radiation and Nuclear Power inMaryland May 30. Sponsored by the Baltimore-Washington chapter of theHealth Physics Society and the National Institutes of Health, the conferencewas organized by Dr. Allen Brodsky, president-elect of the society, to bringtogether representatives of the nuclear industry, scientific community, andmedia to develop better ways of informing the public about nuclear energy.Claims by the media representatives—who included former New York Timesreporter David Burnham, Stuart Diamond of Newsday of Long Island, andsolar-power advocate Richard Pollack of Critical Mass, a Naderite publication—that reportage on nuclear power has been objective went largely unchallengedby the utility executives. Freeman, on the other hand, described the mobilizationlaunched by the FEF following the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 tocounter the media distortions. "There is a reason we titled our coverage ofTMI the 'Harrisburg Hoax'/' she said. "On the side of the media, there wasalmost no attempt to present facts, only create hysteria and fear."The only other speaker to address the political nature of the fight for andagainst nuclear power was the noted physicist Dr. Bernard Cohen.BUDGET CUTS THREATEN BARNWELL REPROCESSING FACILITYAllied Chemical and General Atomic Co. may be forced to close the nation'sonly commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing facility at Barnwell, S.C, officials ofthe companies announced during the budget debate in Congress. The Reaganadministration budget for 1982 eliminates the paltry $11 million for Barnwellthat was recommended by the Carter budget. As a result, the Reagan administrationis in the paradoxical situation of being committed to continuing theClinch River Breeder Reactor project, but of having de facto killed the fullfuel cycle reprocessing technology for the U.S. breeder. Because of the strictguidelines of the Percy-Glenn Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, industryrepresentatives have maintained that it is impossible for the private sector todevelop reprocessing technology on its own.The lack of reprocessing technology over the next decade or so not onlywill contribute to upward price inflation of uranium fuel costs, but also willexclude the most effective solution to the nuclear waste problem—recycling.PETER FONDA: A WHALE OF A STORYMany readers probably heard or read the national news story about actorPeter Fonda, who went bananas in the Denver airport July 24 and pulled apocket knife out to slash the FEF's poster "Go Nuclear—Feed Jane Fonda tothe Whales." Fonda was given a summons for destruction of private property.Not reported was the sequel to the story. Peter called the Los Angeles PoliceDepartment July 27 to try to file charges against FEF airport organizers in thatcity for endangering the life of his sister. This attempt failed, however, whenthe police intelligence division reported back that there were "no whalesknown to be in the vicinity of the Los Angeles airport."FEF INDIAN TOUR: A CORRECTIONDuring his tour of India last spring, FEF organizing director for India RamtanuMaitra addressed audiences at the Indian National Science Academy in NewDelhi, the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics in Calcutta, the Indian Institute ofScience in Bangalore, and the Physical Research Laboratory in Ahmedabad.We regret the errors in the names of some of these institutions in theSeptember issue.FUSION October-November 1981


Special ReportRestoring Scientific Rigor in EducationThe Fusion Energy Foundation haslaunched a campaign to restore toAmerican schools the classical curriculumof von Humboldt and BenjaminFranklin. Centered on the FEF's children'smagazine, The Young Scientist,the campaign will include conferencesand seminars around the country.Readers interested in participatingshould call or write the FEF in NewYork. Carol White, editor or TheYoung Scientist, is coordinating theeducation campaign.In his recent article "War AgainstLiberal Education Reforms," FEF founderand board member Lyndon H.LaRouche, Jr. has laid down thegauntlet to the pot-smoking teachers,pederasts, and basket-weavers whoare close to taking over our schoolsand are destroying the minds of thosestudents who otherwise have escapedthe plague of drugs and rock music.*•LaRouche exposes the forces whoare responsible for destroying the traditionof classical education in theUnited States, and he proposes majorcurriculum revisions that are essentialto reverse the present national slidetoward moral decadence.It is indeed no exaggeration to statethat present-day liberal education isone factor driving young people tothe use of drugs, not only because itdeliberately erodes moral values bypreaching tolerance for alternate lifestyles,but also because such noneducationevokes sheer boredom.The schools are so bad that it isalmost possible to sympathize withthose members of the Moral Majoritywho have succumbed to the shibbolethsof the fundamentalist and back-* Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "War Against'Liberal Education Reforms' " and "Principlesof the New Kameralist Curriculum,"The Campaigner, Aug. 1981.Special ReportCarlos de HoyosThe FEF campaign to restore scientific excellence to the American classroomwill lead off with the publication of The Young Scientist magazine for children10 and up. Here a seventh-grade science class at Intermediate School 187 inNew York City listens to Michael Masterov and Yaroslav Shoikhet discuss theirfusion science project, which is based on the premier issue of The YoungScientist.to-basics movements. But closer inspectionshows their remedies to beas bad as the disease; their apparentconservatism, thinly disguised liberalism.Science Versus OpinionThe Creationists in California whowon a court case requiring that alltheories of evolution be taught asmere opinion, on a par scientificallywith the account in the Book of Genesisin the Bible, are introducing preciselythat liberal pluralism that theyclaim to oppose, under the plausiblecover of fighting the admittedly perniciousideology of Darwinism. TheCreationists are in fact underminingthe notion of scientific rigor that,more than any particular facts thestudent may learn, is the essentialcontent of any adequate sciencecourse.Science is not a mere matter ofopinion. Darwinism is wrong preciselybecause it does not explain evolution.Even by the standards of his day, Darwinwas a vicious fraud who used thewell-known fossil record of evolutionto introduce a bestial ideology, 1 asreaders can confirm by reading Alexandervon Humboldt's beautiful bookCosmos, published before The Originof the Species. 2As the report on U.S. science educationcommissioned by PresidentCarter in Feb. 1980 warned, any fur-October-November 1981 FUSION 15


Special ReportSCIENCE EXPERIMENTSAND AMUSEMENTSFOR CHILDRENCharles Vivian73 scientific experiments are easilyperformed by children without theaid of parent or teacher. Using simplematerials such as steel wool,cotton, candles, compass, coinsand magnets and following step-bystepinstructions, a child can learnto make an air-screw, siphon, invisibleink, mariner's compass, pinholecamera, etc. plus learn how to makea vacuum, find a center of gravity,reflect sound, compress air, electrifya bubble, etc. Over 100 photographsand numerous line drawingsdepict equipment set-up anddesired results.Unabridged republication of 1963edition. 102 photos by S.A.R. Watts.Numerous drawings. $2.25A Tokamak Model in Every Science Classroom!The September issue of The Young Scientist magazine features in itsExperiments section a detailed account of how two 13-year-olds designedand built a simulated fusion tokamak power plant. The prize-winningproject (shown here) got its start after their science teacher at Manhattan'sIntermediate School 187, Herb Friedman, taught a class on fusionenergy based on an article in The Young Scientist.Published five times a year, The Young Scientist covers the frontiers ofscience—news and features on the topics students need to know tomake tomorrow's breakthroughs. For information on bulk orders of TheYoung Scientist, call or write the Fusion Energy Foundation.ther erosion in science education inthe United States will destroy the capacityof the average citizen to deliberaterationally on science policy. 3The Classical CurriculumThe claim of the fundamentaliststhat they would return American educationto some mythical, halcyonpast is destroyed, happily, by a lookat the actual content of education in19th-century America.American education in that periodwas modeled upon the best classicaltraditions of European education. Thefollowing course of study for a 14-year-old is taken not from the Wirszupreport on present-day Soviet education,although it compares favorably;it was typical of the 6,085academies employing 12,260 teachers,enrolling 263,096 pupils, and turningout thousands of elementary schoolteachers in the year 1850. Latin,Creek, French, German, Spanish, mechanics,hydromatics, pneumatics,light and color, optics, perspective,spherical trigonometry, astronomy,the natural history of vegetables andanimals, chemistry, and architecturewith fortifications were typicallytaught in three-year programs modeledon Benjamin Franklin's academyin Philadelphia.Franklin's academy was directlymodeled upon the academy proposalof Gottfried von Leibniz, which wasfamiliar to Franklin through his connectionto James Logan.It is the same program for Leibnizianacademies that LaRouche nowproposes as essential if this nation isto reclaim its posterity. He chooses asa 20th-century point of comparisonthe German educational system thatsurvived until the 1960s, which wasbased upon the 19th-century educa-16 FUSION October-November 1981Special Report


Fusion Reporttional reforms instituted by the vonHumboldt brothers.As LaRouche writes: "Examiningthe postwar Federal Republic of Germanyat closer range, there is nodoubt but that it was chiefly the Germaneducational system, based on theHumboldt program, which enabledthe nation's people to rebuild successfullyafter the treble horrors ofHitler, World War II, and the Britishdirectedpostwar occupation."In an accompanying piece, "Principlesof the New Kameralist Curriculum,"LaRouche develops in detaila positive proposal for the reform ofthe nation's schools. In his introductoryremarks he states:"The key to all education, bothgeneral and later specialist programs,is a rigorous redefinition of what constitutesthe body of knowledge which'must be mastered by any person asprecondition for full rights of citizenship."The education of all citizens offuture true democratic republics isbased on the assimilation of a scienceof history of the struggle to createsuch republics, against irrationalismand 'feudalist' oligarchism. The assimilationof a science of history cannotoccur without a cohering masteringof the true potential powers of literatelanguage. This must be language inthe proper broadest sense of thatterm: classical philology, classical poetry,classical musical composition accordingto the well-tempered laws ofcomposition typified by Bach, Mozart,and Beethoven, and mastery of theprinciples of physical geometry."If we are to win the war againstliberal education, this program mustreceive the widest possible circulation.There is not much time to waste.—Carol WhiteNotes1. See Carol Cleary, "Darwin: A Victim of HisUnfit Theory," Fusion. Jan. 1981, p. 82.2. The 1852 English translation of Cosmos byE.C. Otte is recommended.3. Science and Engineering Education tor the1980s and Beyond, prepared by the NationalScience Foundation and the Department ofEducation, Oct. 1980.4. Unpublished research of Mary Gilbertsonand Jon Pike.What's Behind the Science Magazine Attack?Reviewing Laser Fusion ProgressA derogatory review of the U.S.inertial confinement effort that appearedin the May 1 issue of Science,the weekly magazine of the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement ofScience, presents an opportunity toreview the actual status of the inertialfusion effort and examine the ideologyof the antifusion faction. The article,authored by William D. Metz, istitled "Ambitious Energy Project LosesLuster," with the subheading "Laserfusion, touted as a new energy source,has produced only fizzles; its militaryimplications now predominate."The Science article is curious notonly because it deliberately lies, butalso because the magazine recentlyturned down a factual article on thestate of inertial fusion research by Dr.John Foster, a vice president at TRW,who had headed up the DOE's inertialfusion review committee during theCarter administration.Metz's apparent purpose in attackinglaser fusion is to bring about thecomplete classification of the program,ditching the civilian energy applicationsand making it solely a militaryeffort. Needless to say, such amove would retard fusion progressand prevent the kind of scientific exchangeof ideas that historically hasfostered breakthroughs at the frontiersof science. Metz has set up histechnical arguments against the programto put fusion scientists in a Catch22: To refute his arguments, it is necessaryto report on material that iscurrently classified top secret.As Metz does not report, every majorindustrial-scientific panel that hasreviewed the inertial fusion programover the past decade has concludedFigure 1This 1976 projection for the succession of laser fusion experiments at LawrenceLivermore was presented by Dr. John L. Emmett, director of the LivermoreLaser program, before Congress March 11, 1976. The results projected for theShiva laser have been achieved.Fusion ReportOctober-November 1981 FUSION 17


Fusion Reportthat there has been significant progresstoward harnessing inertial fusionas an energy source, and that thisprogram, along with the mainlinemagnetic confinement effort, shouldbe vigorously pursued as an essentialnational security goal.Metz begins by stating that the laserfusion program "has suffered a numberof setbacks . . . and the programis falling out of favor in some quartersof Washington." The facts are that the"setbacks" are largely the result ofschedule changes forced by inflation'sincreasing bite on the budget, andthat the "disfavor" is coming fromthose forces, like Metz, who don't seethe need for new high-technologyenergy sources and want to makelaser fusion military only. "Developmentof basic laser technology 'is amilitary program and it always hasbeen,' " Metz quotes one such sourceas saying.The other arguments Metz marshalsare that the leading pioneers of inertialconfinement research, EdwardTeller and Hans Bethe, feel that it hasalways been technically unfeasible asan energy source; that the largeamounts of radioactive debris fromthe "burned-up" fusion pellets wouldlead to a significant waste disposalproblem; and that coupling the energyfrom the laser beams into thefusion pellet to produce the compressionsneeded for net fusion energygeneration has not been accomplishedas promised.His conclusion is that laser fusionprograms such as that maintained bywhat he calls the "brash Californiaweapons facility, the Lawrence LivermoreLaboratory" (the leading U.S.inertial fusion research facility),should be returned "to the veiledworld of classical research from whichit originated" —in other words, classifiedresearch. Metz also all butopenly states that the top laser fusionscientists lied about their efforts toapply inertial confinement techniquesto the search for peaceful energysources in order to draw both fundsand bright young scientists into weaponsresearch.Far from being interested in expandingtheir "veiled world" ofFigure 2The most recent review of inertial confinement fusion, that by the director ofthe DOE inertial confinement program, Dr. Gregory H. Canavan, appeared inthe March-April 7987 Fusion. Nova 2, the upgrade of the Shiva laser to higherpower levels, is now predicted to go beyond breakeven in the mid-1980s. Ifnot for inflation, Nova would have reached this goal in the early 1980s.secret-military research, fusion scientistsat the national laboratories ofLawrence Livermore and Los Alamossince the beginning of the ManhattanProject have been primarily concernedwith the peaceful applicationof their scientific work.Some Real HistoryHistorically, the antiscience factionthat has classified scientific researchhas also continuously fought to preventthe development of nuclear fissionand fusion energy because theseconflict with their aim of retardingworld development. If not for thesuccess of this faction, fusion couldbe used today in the form of peacefulnuclear explosives to build canals,harbors, dams, and reservoirs, or tomine low grade ore deposits, enhancethe recovery of oil and natural gas,and retort oil shale in situ. Replacingthe fission bomb with an intensebeam of light or particles will providethe basis for the development of cleanhydrogen bombs for peaceful andmilitary purposes as well as for a newtype of inertial fusion energy.In the early 1970s, the inertial fusionpioneers won a major struggle to obtainsignificant declassification of inertialresearch and concepts to initiatethis primarily energy-directed effort.One result of this declassification wasthe publication in 1972 of a comprehensivearticle on laser fusion publishedin Nature (Vol. 239, p. 139, Sept.15) that is universally recognized asthe first general overview of laser fusionby supercompression.Here's what Metz says: "In the firstmajor publication after secrecy waslifted in 1972, two scientists fromLivermore, John Nuckolls and LowellWood, projected that breakevenlevelexperiments would occur during1973 and the next step, net energyproduction, would occur 'sometimearound 1975.' "In fact, the Nuckolls-Wood articledoes not give specific dates for predictingwhen "breakeven" or "energyproduction" would be achieved. Itdoes point to the possiblility that aslittle as 1 kilojoule of light energy maybe sufficient to generate an equal18 FUSION October-November 1981 Fusion Report


quantity of thermonuclear energy, "ifoptimally employed."The real yardstick in terms of measuringthe consistency of projectionsfor fusion research is to be found interms of what is predicted for the finalparameters of a power reactor. Nuckollsand Wood state: "Thermonuclearmicroexplosions producing on theorder of 10 7 to 10 9 (5 to 10 poundsTNT equivalent) are suitable for commercialpower production. . . . L[aserenergy] = 10 6 J." The latest laser fusionreactor designs, which consist of detailedstudies, project laser energiesof about 2 X 10 6 joules, and similartypes of pellet gains of 50 to 100.Bending FactsFurthermore, contrary to whatMetz reports, the inertial fusion programhas been able to stay prettymuch on schedule, despite majorbudget curtailments and numerousnew scientific problems. Efficientcoupling of laser energy to pellets hasbeen achieved for both the classifiedsoft X-ray and the unclassified directbeam approaches. Also, researchershave reached isentropic compression(that with no entropy change) of upto 100 times liquid density.The accompanying figures give theprojected status of the mainline inertialfusion program for 1976 and1981. The projection in Figure 1 waspresented to Congress in March 1976by Dr. John L. Emmett, director of theLivermore Laser Program. The resultspredicted for the Shiva laser havebeen achieved. The projections inFigure 2 are from the most recentlypublished review of the inertial fusionprogram, that of Dr. Gregory H. Canavanin the March-April 1981 issue ofFusion. As can be seen, Nova 2, theupgrade of the Shiva laser to higherpower levels, is predicted to go beyondbreakeven when completed inthe mid-1980s. The change in the projectiondate from the early-1980s isprimarily the result of inflation slowingdown construction.As for Metz's negative statementsabout the practicality of laser fusionreactor designs, Metz quotes not oneof the scores of detailed studies thathave been carried out over the pastdecade. The waste question, furthermore,is entirely spurious, since theamounts involved are small, and thetechnologies for waste exist today.And Teller and Bethe are both onrecord supporting a fusion-fission hybridsystem and have stated that thiscould be accomplished in a decade.As Fusion has consistently reported,it would be false to say that there areno basic scientific or technologicalquestions still to be answered in inertialconfinement research. In fact,the opposite is the case for inertial aswell as magnetic confinement. As fusionresearch has progressed over thepast decade, the number of unansweredbasic scientific questions hasincreased.This in no way undermines the contentionthat practical forms of fusionenergy generation can be confidentlypredicted as being within our grasptoday. The open-endedness of thescientific questions raised by fusionand plasma physics research actuallypoints to fusion's most attractive attribute:It can be continuously perfectedto more and more advancedforms of cheaper, cleaner, and moreefficient energy generation.Leading scientists and governmentprogram administrators have allegedthat the Science article may have beenthe product of direct collusion betweenMetz and the antiscienceforces who want to classify advancedscience and contain the kind ofbreakthrough developments thatwould permit economic and populationgrowth. Given the role of Metz'sprevious articles in Science that attackedthe magnetic fusion programat the same time that former secretaryof energy James Schlesinger wastrying to kill the program, such collusionwould not be surprising.It is also probable that the antifusioncampaign, including Metz's article,intends to impugn the credibilityof the inertial confinement scientistswithin the new Reagan administrationwho have an influential voice on crucialmilitary and technology decisions.—Charles B. StevensClassifyingScientific Progress:A Case ExampleThis exchange of letters is a recentcase example that demonstrates thechilling effect of classification on theadvancement of science and technology.Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg of theUniversity of Nevada's Desert ResearchInstitute in Reno proposed ina Dec. 2, 1980 letter to the Departmentof Energy Office of Inertial Fusiondirector, Gregory H. Canavan,that the DOE undertake a new andeconomical method to test inertialconfinement. His letter and Canavan'sFeb. 20, 1981 reply appear here in full.* * *Dear Dr. Canavan:The most critical question regardingthe feasibility of beam induced ICF[inertial confinement fusion] is not somuch the feasibility of the laser oraccelerator technology but the feasibilityof the high-density pelletcompression. Many scientists, like Dr.Teller (but also myself), feel uneasyabout the prospect to reach ~ 10 3times solid density by ablative implosion.But since the cost of the requiredlaser or particle beam accel-Fusion ReportOctober-November 1981FUSION 19


Fusion Reporterator is very large, a test of the crucialpellet implosion feasibility will be veryexpensive this way.Now, several scientists (includingmyself) have proposed to use soft X-rays rather than laser or particle beamenergy for compression, however,with the beams providing the primaryenergy source to produce the soft X-rays (or 10 6 to 10 7 °K black body radiation).I therefore suggest as an economicalway to test the pellet implosionconcept to use soft X-rays from anuclear underground explosion. Inthis proposal, the pellet would haveUniversity 01 Texas at AustinTexas Tokamak DedicatedThree hundred people attended dedication ceremonies for the newexperimental tokamak fusion reactor at the University of Texas at Austinon May 28. Built with a $10 million grant from the Department of Energy,the experimental device is available for research and training to all U.S.universities. The device has been operating under the direction of Dr.Kenneth Gentle since Nov. 1981, and more than 2,000 experimental"shots" have been conducted to date.Dr. John Clarke, deputy director of the DOE Office of Fusion Energy,was the keynote speaker at the event. Fusion is the "ultimate energysource," promising a virtually unlimited supply of cheap energy, capableof raising the standard of living of the entire human race, he said. Askedabout the threat of cuts in the fiscal 1982 fusion budget by the Reaganadministration, Clarke said that the new administration, in his view, iscommitted to the development of fusion and the "spirit" of the landmark1980 Magnetic Fusion Energy Engineering Act. Clarke said that thecurrent economic situation, typified by high interest rates, has causedReagan to feel a necessity to cut government spending across the board.Dr. William E. Drummond, director of the Fusion Research Center atthe Austin campus of the yniversity of Texas, praised the Texas AtomicResearch Foundation for supporting fusion research at the university forthe last 20 years. Presiding over the dedication, Dr. Gerhard J. Fonken,vice president for academic affairs at the university, extended an invitationto all present to the dedication of the first operative fusion reactorin Texas. "I can't tell you exactly when, but it will be sometime 10 or 15years from now," he promised.to be separated by many meters fromthe fission explosion, with narrow softX-ray reflecting tubes of differentpath-length going from the fission explosiveto the chamber containing thepellet. By using several tubes of differentpath-length, in combinationwith X-ray absorbing foils placed inthese tubes and to be burned out bythe intense X-ray flux, the requiredtime dependence of the compressionpulse could probably be produced.I do not know exactly how costlyan underground test really is, but itappears to me much less costly thanthe several hundred million up to abillion dollars required for a laser orheavy ion linac [accelerator] of the requiredenergy output. Such a test atleast could decide the feasibility onceand for all before going into largeexpenditures.In case there is DOE interest, theDesert Research Institute would askto obtain,.if possible, a modest subcontract,maybe in cooperation withEGG, to do some diagnostic work orwork related to it. Please let me knowif we even can submit a proposal.I also forward a copy of this letterto some prominent scientists who maybe interested in this.[Signed] Dr. F. WinterbergDear Dr. Winterberg:This is in reply to your recent letterdated Dec. 2,1980. Under DOE policy,we are unable to comment on certaincategories of information to personswho have not been granted access toRestricted Data or Formerly RestrictedData. Included in these categories isinformation which describes or attemptsto describe the design or operationof X-ray driven inertial fusiontargets. This policy is necessary to preventthe use of our comments as abasis to develop, by an iterative process,a design or concept that couldcompromise classified information.For reasons stated above, we cannotcomment on the contents of yourletter; similarly, it would not be possiblefor us to respond, on an unclassifiedbasis, to a contractual proposalfrom you.[Signed] Gregory H. Canavan20 FUSION October-November 1981 Fusion Report


DOE Stalls on FED;Bouquard ReconvenesAdvisory PanelThe Fusion Engineering Devicemandated by the 1980 fusion legislationis in danger of being stalled, atleast for the next year, because ofdelays in setting up its managementstructure, funding, and design, as wellas the stated reluctance of the DOEto pursue the project.The Magnetic Fusion Energy EngineeringAct of 1980 mandates that theDOE have a Fusion Engineering Device(FED) on line by 1990 to demonstratethe feasibility of integrating thecomplex fusion systems and producenet power. The first stage in this process,the law specifies, is "the creationof a national magnetic fusion engineeringcenter for the purpose ofaccelerating fusion technology development."The legislation requires that thesecretary of energy submit to Congressby July 1 a plan for establishingthe Center for Fusion Engineering, orCFE, which is to direct the engineeringphase of magnetic fusion development.The DOE report submitted to CongressJuly 7, however, stated that thedepartment had not yet come to "ajudgment on the advisability of establishingsuch a center"—even thoughthe CFE is not only mandated by thelaw, but ^as recommended in theDOE's own review of the fusion programcompleted a year ago.Critical for meeting the 1990 scheduleis the DOE funding of and commitmentto design and build the FED, andhere progress has been most disappointing.In the letter of transmittal tothe July 7 DOE report to Congress,Acting Energy Research Director N.Douglas Pewitt said that the Reaganadministration's policy is in "consonance"with the law, "but because ofoverriding fiscal constraints nowplaced on government activities, weare proceeding at a lower rate of accelerationtoward the same objective."Fusion ReportMarsha FreemanNo friend of fusion: Dr. N. DouglasPewitt, acting director of the DOEOffice of Energy Research.Pewitt, a holdover from the Carteradministration, is no friend of fusion.He stated repeatedly during budgethearings earlier this year that the fusionlaw was a "permissive piece oflegislation" and that the administrationwould not make a commitmentto build the FED. Without such a commitment,of course, there is no pointin establishing a new center to managefusion engineering.As an "interim" policy, Pewitt's Julyreport proposed to establish an "EngineeringFeasibility PreparationsProject" located at one of the nationallaboratories. But this proposal is simplyanother stalling tactic. It has alreadybeen agreed that the FED willnot be located at a national laboratory,so it is very unlikely that Congresswill accede to this type of delay.Hirsch Panel ReconvenedAs the DOE report was being prepared,Congresswoman Marilyn Bouquard(D-Tenn.) reconvened the fusionadvisory panel of the HouseScience and Technology Committee'sSubcommittee on Energy Researchand Production to study the feasibilityof "fast-tracking" the fusion program.Formerly headed by Dr. RobertHirsch, a past director of the U.S.magnetic fusion program, the panelwas commissioned in 1979 by formercongressman Mike McCormack whenhe chaired the energy subcommitteethat Bouquard now chairs. The Hirschpanel, as it was known, played anOctober-November 1981Stuart L«wi«/NSIPSFusion supporter: Leonard F. C.Reichle of Ebasco, new head of thefusion advisory panel.important role in preparing the wayfor the 1980 fusion legislation. Mc­Cormack was the law's chief sponsor.Now headed by Leonard F. C.Reichle, executive vice president ofEbasco Services Inc., the panel includesprominent fusion scientists, industryleaders, and Mike McCormack.Ebasco is the chief contractor buildingPrinceton's TFTR tokamak."The taxpayer can be saved 2 billion1980 dollars if the DOE will stop draggingits feet and move now into theengineering phase of fusion energydevelopment," Bouquard said in announcingthe panel's June 29 meeting.Sources on Capitol Hill report thatBouquard has written a letter to EnergySecretary Edwards protesting thecontent of Pewitt's report to Congressand that she may hold public hearingson fusion in the fall to continue toput pressure on the administration tomeet the requirements of the fusionlaw.How Much Industry Control?At the June 29 hearings, the panelheard a broad range of views fromindustry representatives on the involvementof industry in fusion engineeringdevelopment, specifically inthe establishment of the Center forFusion Engineering, the CFE.Two industry groups, the AtomicIndustrial Forum and Fusion PowerAssociates, stated that industry isContinued on page 60FUSION 21


An FEF ProposalBased on Riemann's MethodBreaking the Impasse inInertial Confinement Fusionby Dr. Steven Bardwell and Uwe ParpartTwo years ago the Fusion Energy Foundation publisheda proposal for a new direction in American laser fusionresearch. This article, which appeared in the March-April1979 issue of Fusion, was the first public discussion of thefoundation's proposal to use strong shock waves to induceisentropic compression of laser fusion targets. The dominantline of research, then and now, has been to use asequence of weak shock waves to accomplish the requiredheating and compression. During the past two years, theproposal has generated an intense, ongoing discussionamong physicists internationally. This article is a summaryof these discussions and an invitation for further commentary.THE PERSISTENT PROBLEM in the achievement ofcheap, unlimited energy from laser or inertial confinementfusion research is the ignition energy. Ignition can beinitiated only by a sharp, controlled, well-focused burst ofenergy sufficient to heat and compress a small amount offusion fuel, and this energy must do this at a repetitionrate of several times per second and an efficiency ofconversion of input energy to target energy of 1 percent.That is, 10 percent of the input energy must be convertedto driver energy, and 10 percent of this driver energy mustbe converted to pellet compression. If these conditionscan be realized, as one well-known plasma physicist said,the difference between laser fusion and magnetic fusionwill be as great as the difference between the Concordeand the Zeppelin!The lasers now used to heat these fusion fuel targets areimpressive machines. They are capable of delivering moreenergy to the surface of the fuel pellet in one pulse thatlasts a billionth of a second than the total energy the restof the world consumes during that billionth of a second.But this is not enough. These lasers are still a factor of 10away from laboratory achievement of breakeven, andeven more removed from the conditions required forcommercial fusion.In two articles that appeared in spring and fall 1979,Uwe Parpart proposed a new approach to achieve a moreefficient coupling of the laser energy to the pellet thatmight significantly increase the present tiny percentage ofdriver energy that actually goes to the compression andheating of the target. 1 The second article was titled "TheTheoretical Impasse in Inertial Confinement Fusion." Thatthere was at that time—and still is—a serious impasse inlaser fusion is not a matter of debate. The question underdebate is how to overcome that impasse.22 FUSION October-November 1981


Shiva laser target chamber. A needlelike target positioner is at the center, inside the chamber. The laser fusion targets,each about the size of a grain of sand, are mounted on the tip of the positioner.The strategy pursued by the national laboratories in theUnited States has been a "brute force" approach, buildingbigger drivers (lasers) on the assumption that the basicphysics of the target-driver interaction is understood andthat the problem is one of engineering optimal targetscoupled with bigger lasers. Our proposal was that thebasic physics of the driver-pellet interaction was insufficientlyunderstood, that the methods used by the nationallaboratories were insufficient for understanding this physics(specifically that the computer code used, LASNEX, wasinsufficient), and, finally, that there were several new linesof research that should be followed up because theyoffered good reason to think that the power requirementsfor laser fusion could be substantially reduced.The Basics of Laser FusionThe basic considerations that determine the physics ofinertial confinement fusion were outlined in an articlethat appeared in a spring 1972 Nature magazine by JohnNuckolls and Lowell Wood, both from Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory. 2 Their article not only remainstoday the best introduction to the problems of laserfusion, it is also surprisingly prescient of the difficultiesencountered in the succeeding 10 years of the fusionresearch program. If their article is read with an appreciationof the government security classification of scientificfacts that still plagues the program, it clearly lays out thebasic considerations of laser-induced fusion.The fundamental difficulty to overcome in the use ofintense laser beams (or particle beams) as the spark for afusion reaction is that it requires a high-density fuel. Sincethe amount of fuel that actually ignites is proportional tothe density and the cross section for the fusion reaction• ~ n (a),where $> is fraction of burn, n is density, and o is the crosssection (the probability that colliding fuel and nuclei willOctober-November 1981 FUSION 23


The Principles of Laser Fusion Target DesignThe laser fusion targets used todayare built so that the fuel doesnot actually absorb the laser light.Instead, there is a two-stage processof radiation absorption that transfersthe laser energy to the pellet.Initially, the laser light illuminatesthe outside of the pellet; the energymust be absorbed as efficiently aspossible at this point. However, thisenergy is relatively low grade (highentropy) and not suited forcompression of the fuel itself.Therefore, a second layer of thetarget is used to convert this laserenergy into soft X-rays that thenactually implode the fuel.This arrangement solves severalproblems inherent in the laser fusionprocess: It provides a highlyisotropic and uniform deposition ofenergy on the fuel, and it is a highlyefficient converter of electromagneticenergy to the hydrodynamicenergy of compression.The target designs using this intermediatestage of an equilibriumspectrum of X-rays (blackbody radiationtargets, also called holsraumtargets) are classified, but it is publiclyknown that the generation ofan intermediate X-ray spectrum isused in advanced target design. Thisidea was originated outside the nationallaboratories by Dr. FriedwardtWinterberg, and is describedin Fusion, Jan. 1981.This fact solves the mystery of theconstruction of the Shiva targetchamber illumination (see page 25)in which, in spite of the laser fusioncommunity's prolix comments onthe necessity of spherical depositionof energy on the target, uses ahighly anisotropic geometry forlaser illumination of the target. Itseems likely that a cylindrical targetis used to maximize the conversionof the laser light into X-radiationand that then this X-radiation iscontained inside the target shells,heating and compressing the fuelat the center of the pellet.Note that this principle is almostidentical to that used in the constructionof the hydrogen bomb,where the laser driver is replacedby a fission explosion whose radiativeenergy is converted to X-radiationusing a metallically dopedfoam or multifoil configuration.A small part of this informationwas declassified in fall 1980 whenthe Department of Energy publiclyacknowledged the role of soft X-rays and radiation in conversion inthe design of advanced targets forinertial confinement fusion. (This isreported in the April 1981 Fusion.)fuse), a simple calculation shows that for ignition to occuron time scales less than the inertial disassembly time (thetime it takes the pellet of fuel to explode), the density ofthe fuel must be greater than 10 26 particles per cubiccentimeter. That is, at the point that it ignites, the fuelmust be at a density approximately 1,000 times liquiddensity.This means that the driver energy must simultaneouslyprovide the ignition energy for the fusion reaction andcompress the fuel to the high density. The overall efficiencyof the ignition process, then, is the product ofthree efficiencies, the efficiency of the conversion ofelectrical energy into laser light, E,, the efficiency ofconversion of laser energy into pellet energy (basically, afactor of the absorption of light in the pellet), E r , and theefficiency with which the absorbed energy is used forcreation of the conditions for ignition of the fuel, E h . (Seebox on laser fusion targets.)Of most immediate concern is this last efficiency, E h , orthe efficiency of the hydrodynamic processes used toconvert the absorbed laser energy into compression ofthe pellet. The physics of this energy transfer revolvesaround the physics of the shock wave created by theabsorbed radiation. This is the shock wave that performsthe actual compression. To determine the properties ofthis shock compression, Nuckolls and Wood used thefollowing argument:(1) To be ignited, the fuel must be at a density of 600grams per cubic centimeter throughout the entire mass offuel.(2) The most efficient compression of this fuel will occurif the fuel can be maintained in its Fermi degenerate state.24 FUSION October-November 1981


The Shiva-Nova laser at LawrenceLivermore. The most remarkablething about the laser is the arrangementof the beams for illuminatingthe target in the targetchamber. Despite much public discussionabout the necessity forspherical illumination of the fusiontarget, the beam ports on Shiva arenot spherically symmetric. This indicatesthat, contrary to the publicliterature, the fusion fuel pelletsare also assymmetric. However,spherically symmetric illuminationof the fuel is achieved by the generationof soft X-rays.That is, the conditions for most efficiently compressingthe fuel exist when the fuel has a temperature low enoughto be maintained in this high-density, relatively low temperatureregime. If the fuel is heated above approximately100 electron volts at this density, it will lose its Fermidegeneracy and become difficult to compress.(3) The actual ignition temperature of 10 million electronvolts need be achieved only in a small central coreof the pellet, which represents about 0.1 percent of thetotal fuel mass. The burn of this small "trigger" will thenignite the rest of the fuel.The problem of maximizing the compression efficiencyof the pellet then becomes reduced to finding a way ofcompressing the fuel to very high densities without heatingit significantly. There are several issues that must beaddressed on this question of heating, but most importantfor this discussion is the question of the properties of theshock wave required to achieve this compression. 3 Thedesired shock wave is called isentropic because there iszero entropy change (or no heat generation) across theshock front. The achievement of isentropic compressionhas been the goal of the laser fusion program for morethan 10 years. 'Where the Inertial Confinement Program Stands TodayUsing this conception of the experimental conditionsthat it must reach, the laser fusion program has progressedconsiderably toward the achievement of these goals. 4However, the ignition of significant thermonuclear burnin a fuel pellet remains far off. Current estimates are thatthe laser energy must increase by a factor of 5 to 10, thedensity of compression by a factor of 10, and the temperatureby another factor of 10. The result of these combinedincreases will be a 1,000-fold increase in the burn (theamount of fusion energy) achieved. The strategy used bythe mainstream of the U.S. fusion effort to achieve isentropiccompression has been dependent on a basic propertyof shock waves—that a shock wave will propagateisentropically if the pressure differential between theundisturbed medium and the shock itself is small. Thisdifferential is usually called $:5 = P/P 0 .If this ratio is nearly 1, the shock wave will propagateisentropically through any medium, regardless of the relationsamong pressure, compression, and temperature inthe medium (its equation of state). 5 Thus, Nuckolls andWood's original idea was to use a series of carefullyshaped and timed laser pulses to generate a series of weakshock waves. These shock waves would be timed so thatthey would all converge at the center of the pellet simultaneously,mimicking the compressional effects of a strongshock wave, but without subjecting the pellet to thenonisentropic compression that a strong shock wavewould have induced. In fact, this idea of a tailored pulseto produce nearly isentropic compression is the originalcontribution of Nuckolls and Wood upon which all subsequentoptimistic forecasts of laser fusion have beenbased.The hope of the U.S. laser fusion researchers is that ifthey use these tailored pulses, the only significant problemremaining is to construct large enough drivers to ignitethe fusion reaction. They are convinced that the basicOctober-November 1981 FUSION 25


physics involved in the pellet compression and ignition isunderstood and that the process of isentropic compressionby weak shock waves is sufficient to achieve ignition.The FEF's 1979 ProposalTo understand the new approach to laser fusion suggestedby Uwe Parpart and the Fusion Energy Foundationin 1979 requires a more detailed picture of the energyrequirements for the compression process.Figure 1 shows the relationship between pressure andvolume for several different strategies of compression. Onthe left, a, is the trajectory in the state space for a mediumundergoing isentropic compression, where all the energygoes into the compression of the medium and the minimumpossible goes into its heating. In the center, 6, is thetrajectory of a strong shock wave compression, startingfrom the same pressure and volume, with the assumptionthat the medium behaves like a gas (that is, has anequation of state like a gas). In the case of the strongshock wave, it can be shown that the energy used in thecompression is divided equally between compression andheating. Thus, as the figure shows, the final volumeachieved along this trajectory, called a Hugonoit adiabat,is larger than that achieved by the isentropic compression,and so the compression is smaller. In other words, half ofthe compression energy was "wasted" on heating the gas.On the right, c, the figure illustrates the strategy of thenational laboratories for achieving isentropic compression.Strictly speaking, it can be shown that isentropic compressioncan be attained only when there is no discontinuityat the shock front; that is, when there is no shock wave.However, the amount of entropy produced goes as thethird power of the pressure discontinuity: 6(S n - So) = 1/ 12T 0 (a 2 Wd P*) S (P, - P 0 )3where S equals entropy and T is temperature. That is, thechange in entropy before and after the shock wave isproportional to the third power of the pressure change.Therefore, a weak shock wave can very closely approximatethe isentropic trajectory. Note that the slope of theHugonoit adiabat at the initial point in state space is thesame as that of the isentropic trajectory, so that if a weakshock wave is used for a very short compression (a smallchange in pressure), the resulting change in volume willbe very close to that achieved by the isentropic compression.As shown in the figure, a series of weak shock wavescan then provide nearly isentropic compression.Mathematically, the change in pressure provided by theshock wave is related to the change in volume by thefollowing expansion, in terms of volume and entropy, inthe neighborhood of the initial point: 7P, - P„ = (aP/aV) 5 (V, - V 0 ) + y^P/aV^V, - V 0 H+ y^P/aV^v, - V„)3 + (eP/eSMS, -S 0 ) + ....Now, in the case of the isentropic trajectory, by definitionS, - S„ = 0, so that the maximum compression is definedby the conditionP, - P 0 = (eP/aV^V, - V 0 ) + %(8'P/aV') 5 (V, - V 0 )'+ yaWaV'MV, - V 0 P + ....Figure 1TRAJECTORIES FOR COMPRESSION OF A GASThe "state space" plotting the volume against the pressure of a gas is a useful way of comparing differentcompression strategies. These three graphs show the possible compression techniques for a gas starting from agiven volume (X axis) and pressure (y axis) P 0 , V 0 . Figure a shows the path for isentropic compression, whichachieves the maximum volume change for a given pressure difference, P, - P 0 . A shock wave, which mustproduce some entropy during compression, cannot result in as great a compression, as shown in b, where theHugonoit adiabat is traced along with the isentrope (the dashed line). Figure c shows the approximation of theisentrope with three shock waves, each of which propagates along the Hugoniot adiabat, H a , H b/ and H c .'26 FUSION October-November 1981


It is not hard to show, on the other hand, that in thegeneral case for any shock waveP, --P,- (a P/8V) 5 (V, - V„) + li^P/WW - V 0 )>+ (V, -V a )' [\ &V/V%- 1/12T 0 (8P/»S) V ]. . . .The compression from a shock wave is the sum, first of all,of three terms that appear in the zero entropy equation(above) plus another term proportional to (aP/aS) v . Thus,there are three salient points about the comparison of theisentropic trajectory with the Hugonoit trajectory.(1) Since we are compressing the gas, V-, — V 0 is negative,and the negative sign on the term proportional to (aP/aS) vmeans that the entropy increases as the shock wavepropagates through the medium.(2) This increase in entropy decreases the volumechange achievable by a given change in pressure. This isthe result of the diversion of some of the energy fromcompressing the medium to heating it. The greatestcompression achievable occurs when all the terms proportionalto (S, - S 0 ) are zero.(3) There are two ways to make these terms zero. First,the change in entropy itself may be zero, as in theisentropic case. However, these terms would also be zeroif the partial derivative (3P/aS) v were zero. This is the cruxof the matter. The Nuckolls and Wood strategy is toapproximate the conditions of (S, - S 0 ) by using weak shockwaves. Our proposal took the opposite course. We proposedto arrange the compression so that the derivative(aP/aS) v is zero.The Equation of State of the Fusion FuelThe Fusion Energy Foundation proposal was motivatedby a detailed reexamination of Bernhard Riemann's 1859paper, which assumes, in effect, that the second conditionis always satisfied and the isentropic conditions alwaysoccur in the formation of a shock wave. 8 Since the early1900s, Riemann's paper has been extensively criticizedbecause of his allegedly incorrect treatment of the energyand entropy jump-conditions. However, the essentialpoint is that Riemann's treatment of the shock wave, aswe shall show, more closely approximates the importantfeatures of the most interesting shock waves than thecurrently accepted treatment does. The difficulty turns onthe correct equation of state to use in describing themedium through which the shock wave propagates. 9 Ingeneral, the equation of state is a functionP(V,S) = pressure.That is, the pressure is some function of the volume andentropy. This equation is not, strictly speaking, a thermodynamicsequation; rather, it is usually a phenomenologicaldescription of the system, containing an implicit descriptionof the elastic forces that hold it together.In the case of a gas, the pressure depends on both thevolume and entropy in some tightly coupled way. For anideal gas, for example, the equation of state isAIPBernhard Riemann: His method is essential for fusionresearch today.}E(S,V) = 1/( Y - DVi-v exp [( v - 1) S/R], y = C P /C V ,where S equals entropy, V is volume, R is gas constant,and C is heat capacity. This is equivalent to the more wellknownform PV = nRT, (where n is the number ofparticles).However, as Hans Bethe seems to have been the first tonote, for liquids this equation of state is dramaticallydifferent, because the energy depends on the addition oftwo terms 10E = A(S) + B(V), where A and B are arbitrary functions.Therefore, the equation of state is in the form of twoindependent equations:P= -aB/aV and T= aA/aS.That is, the pressure and volume on the one hand, andthe temperature and entropy on the other, form two pairssuch that one member of each pair determines the otherdirectly without any interaction from the other pair.For a material with this equation of state, the keyderivative (aP/aS) v , is always equal to zero! In such asystem then, strong shock waves would provide as efficientcompression as weak shock waves, and would be equal tothat of the isentropic compression for the same pressuredifference. This phenomenon has been observed in severalsystems in which shock waves propagate throughmatter that is characterized by strong self-interactions.During World War II, for example, it was studied inconnection with underwater detonations; more recently,it was studied in connection with the cores of collapsingstars. 11October-November 1981 FUSION 27


Riemann's essential physical insight was that a strongshock wave could create a change of state the result ofwhich would be a new phase that had an equation of statecharacteristic of a liquid. This point is central: The shockwave does not function merely as the means by whichenergy is deposited on the laser fusion target. If this wereits only purpose, then there would be no advantage to astrong shock wave over a weak one. But more is goingon. The shock wave, if it is strong enough, will create anew condition of matter so that it can then compress thematter more efficiently.The 1979 FEF proposal consisted then of the conjecturethat the use of strong shock waves for laser fusion wouldhave the advantage of creating a change of state in thefuel that would result in isentropic compression of thepellet regardless of the strength of the shock wave. Thisconjecture suggested that magnetic or quantum interactionswithin the pellet would change its equation of statefrom that characteristic of a gas—strongly coupled pressureand entropy—to that of a liquid—decoupled pressureand entropy. 12If this change of state occurred under the influence ofa strong shock wave, it would open up a whole new areaof experimental research, with new physics and newpossibilities for coupling the radiation and the pellet. Inaddition, the compression of the pellet would be assuredto be isentropic, and hence maximally efficient. The FEFproposal concluded that both the efficiency of radiationcoupling, E r , and the efficiency of compression, E h , wouldbe markedly increased by the use of strong shock wavesfor compression.New Results on Fluidlike Equations of StateFurther FEF research has provided two directions for thepursuit of this conjecture, both of which point toward theverification of the proposal concerning the relation betweenstrong shock waves, changes of the equation ofstate, and efficient compression schemes.In the early stages of the laser-pellet interaction, theradiation hitting the pellet creates a plasma that surroundsthe fuel, called the corona. This ambient plasma, and notthe cooler, un-ionized core of the pellet, is the part of thepellet that actually interacts with the incident radiation.Under some circumstances, it has also been observedexperimentally that the interaction of the radiation andthe plasma generates exceedingly intense magnetic fields,fields in excess of 1 to 10 megagauss. Some researcherssuggest even higher fields in similar radiation-plasma interactions.13It is clear, then, that the relevant equation of state forthe compression process is not that of a gaslike plasma,but rather that of a magnetized plasma. Under the conditionsfound in the corona of some current targets, themagnetic energy density is roughly comparable to theplasma (kinetic) energy density, so that the effects of themagnetic fields must be taken into account. More important,the magnetic effects turn out to be tremendouslybeneficial for the compression process and should beencouraged. As we will now show, using the strong shock28 FUSION October-November 1981wave to produce a change from a gaslike plasma to amagnetized plasma induces a change in the equation ofstate such that the resultant plasma has a fluidlike equationof state and can be compressed isentropically with a strongshock wave. Here is a physical mechanism inducing thechange described in the FEF's 1979 proposal.When there is a strong magnetic field in a plasma, themotion of the plasma becomes almost two-dimensional.The particles are tied to the field lines and the energeticsof the plasma are determined by the near impossibility ofcross-field motion by the plasma. In effect, the field linesact like lines of charge that move in the field created byother line charges. The equation of state for this situationhas been derived, and given the considerations above,can be applied to a laser-created plasma. The energy hasthe exact form required for the decoupling of pressureand entropy: 14E as E 0 InV - E 0 ln(1 + E 0 / kT) + C,where E 0 and C are reference energies constant for oursituation and k is Boltzmann's constant. Since it can alsobe shown that 5 is only a function of T,S = kin (1 + E 0 / kT) - E„/T,the derivative that determines the efficiency of compressioncan be evaluated and is found to be zero:(3P/aS) v = -[3/3S (8E/aV) s ] v = 0.Thus, the strong magnetic field creates a new kind ofplasma, whose compression characteristics are those of aliquid rather than a gas.There is one complication with this equation of statethat should be noted. If one tries to calculate the pressuredirectly in a "thermodynamic equation of state," the resultis a negative or zero pressure. This is closely connectedwith the existence of a phase change predicted by theenergy equation at a threshold value of the temperature.At this temperature the system condenses into a pair ofcounterrotating closed magnetic circulation cells. Thiscondensation, well known in the hydrodynamics of twodimensionalfluids, has been shown in a number of numericalsimulations, both of fluid equations and "particle"simulations using long charged rods or vortex lines. 15 Thisnew state is difficult to analyze thermodynamically becauseit is characterized by a negative temperature andfinite volume phase space, and hence has no quiescentequilibrium. 16 In this respect, it does closely model ahighly magnetized plasma, which also is inherently dynamic,and in order to be "stable" it must have nonzerovelocities and currents.The Energy QuestionFor considerations here, -the energy relation must beseen as primary, and it is the energy transfer characteristicsof the medium that determine its behavior undercompression by the shock wave. Thus, even without a


Figure 2COMPUTER SIMULATION OF ISENTROPICCOMPRESSION USING WEAK SHOCK WAVESThis computer-produced graph shows a successionof two weak shock waves used in the isentropiccompression of a spherical fuel pellet. The computerhas plotted the density of the fusion fuel, which isindicated by the closeness of the contours, the linesperpendicular to the radial lines. The closer the linesare together, the higher the density. The two areasof closely spaced contours are shock waves propagatingtoward the center of the pellet. The simulationwas done for a conical section of the sphericalpellet only, since the same compression occurs forall such conical sections. The accompanying crosssection of the pellet consists of a hollow fuel coreand a spherical outer shell that is irradiated by thelaser. The acceleration of this outer layer creates theshock wave and the resulting compression. Theseparate shock waves are produced by increases inthe intensity of the laser pulse. The strength aridtiming of the shock waves is such that they convergeat the center of the fuel pellet creating the densityand temperature conditions necessary for a fusionreaction.Iclearly identifiable equilibrium pressure, the considerationscomparing isentropic compression still hold.The generation of magnetic fields of such great intensityin the laser fusion plasma is the subject of much currentresearch, but this research has generally been thought toshow that the magnetic fields so generated are either toosmall to affect the absorption of the radiation by thepellet, or, on the other hand, are detrimental to thisabsorption. As a result, researchers have generally designedpellets that minimize the formation of magneticfields; they have not tried to use these fields as part of anoverall process of reconstruction of the plasma propertiesaimed at efficient compression.It turns out, however, that the generation of thesemagnetic fields is closely connected to several mechanisms,all of which generate vorticity, large-scale order,and a cascade of energy toward these coherent magneticfield structures. The role of the shock wave itself ingenerating vorticity is not currently studied, but it figuredlargely in the initial studies of the relation between theequation of state and shock waves. 17 In fact, von Neumannshowed that there is a close relationship between theequation of state, the conditions of isentropic compression,and the generation of vorticity by a shock wave. 18These considerations all lead in the same direction: Theshock wave does more to a medium than deposit energy;it acts to restructure the medium, creating changes in stateand large-scale ordered motion (like magnetic fields andvortices), and it introduces qualitatively new phenomena.The example of a shock wave actually indicates a moregeneral problem of the nature of energy in dynamicsystems. Energy, properly considered, is not a scalar measurebut rather an indicator of the capability of a system toundergo qualitative change. The deposition of a largeamount of energy in a system results not so much in itsundifferentiated heating but in changes of state, newmodes of energy containment, and the like. Energy mustbe conceived of as that potential of a system for continuedevolution. If the system does not have the means of"containing" that energy in its present form, it will evolveso as to be able to. This Leibnizian idea of energy aspotential work is central to a correct understanding ofshock waves.There is a second direction in which the FEF shock waveproposal pointed out the possibility for a new equation ofstate, that of quantum interactions. The sort of new interactionsthat account for superconductivity seem ideal forinducing the strong coupling that would result in a liquidequation of state. In the case of the energy densitiesrelevant for laser fusion, it was even remarked in the firstNuckolls and Wood paper that the later stages of compressionwould be conducted on a solid that was Fermidegenerate; that is, which had undergone a phase change(as a result of the shock wave!) to a state whose internalenergy relations are determined by the quantum mechanicsof electrons. This idea of Fermi degeneracy, it shouldOctober-November 1981 FUSION 29


e noted, is not actually a description of what the electronsmay be doing as much as a prescription for the calculationof appropriate averages approximating the bulk propertiesof electrons in this state. It leads to an equation for thepressure that satisfies the condition for isentropiccompression: ,P = KN 5 " 3 V 5 - 3 + nV25 [(kT) 2 / K 2 (N/V)


sion schemes by noting, as pointed out above, that a Fermidegenerate state will support isentropic compression fromany strength shock wave because of the structure of itsequation of state. Such compression exists; the questionis how to obtain it both before and after Fermi condensation.Third, the crux of the argument, then, is that we knowthe equation of state well enough to rule out the exoticstates described above. This may perhaps be the case forthe pellets now in use and for future target designs. Butthis fact is more a statement of the experimental philosophyof the program than a statement about physicalpossibility. The current research program depends veryheavily on an interaction between a set of computercodes, most notably LASNEX, that are used to interpretexperimental results and the experiments themselves.LASNEX is not a theoretical description of the laser fusionprocess as much as it is a phenomenological collection ofprevious experimental results. The next experiment is thusalways constrained to reproduce previous results and socannot, in this conservative environment, ever produceanything qualitatively new. When anomalous results areseen experimentally, results that do not conform to theCourtesy of Or. Winston BoalickA stably self-organized magnetic structure in a plasma. Fusion scientist Dr.Winston Bostick, who has described the physics of these self-generating, magnetic filaments in a fusion plasma, has proposed a "hybrid" approach tofusion combining magnetic and inertial techniques. This approach has alsobeen proposed by Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg.predictions of the computer code, they are downplayed.If they do not offer the immediate possibility of more'efficient compression, they are ignored.Similarly, experiments are designed, of necessity, withinthe bounds of the existing computer codes. New interactionsthat are not in the computer codes will be excludedfrom the considerations affecting new target designs.Thus, experimental progress becomes a self-fulfillingprophecy to a large extent. A small, well-delineated areaof possible parameter space gets very thoroughly mappedout and pellet design, driver, and geometry get optimizedwithin this goldfish bowl; this is a local optimization thathas little sense of the global configuration. Might therenot exist new regimes that differ in some parameter by anorder of magnitude from the current experiments (likemagnetic field) and that would totally change the physicsof compression and absorption? 20 In principle, such regimescannot be ruled out, but the current researchstrategy will not find them. Of course, the equation ofstate for the current regimes is reasonably well known,but what does this say about other possibilities?Fourth, the Fermi equation of state certainly seems tobe an exception to what we have just said. Here is anequation of state that is well knownand well tested. We can reply onlythat such confidence perhaps is agood hypothesis but is not sufficientto rule out other possibilities. Ourignorance of the actual dynamics ofthe electron itself, which can be describedby no existing theory, or highdensitycollections of electrons, is afact. Perhaps high magnetic fieldschange the statistical considerationson which the Fermi equation of stateis based. Perhaps the rapidly changingtemperatures and pressures result inthe Fermi equation of state (an equilibriumlaw) being overwhelmed byother phenomena. Perhaps, more important,the equilibrium predictionsof the equation are relevant on differentlength scales, whereas the energeticsof the fusion pellet are determinedby localized energy considerationsof solitons, filaments, or thelike. All these possibilities are at leastas plausible as the current assumptionthat the equilibrium statistical mechanicsof a Fermi gas apply to theelectrons in a fusion target.Fifth, the final objection to our proposalis that even if isentropiccompression and new states of matterexist, they are not fundamentally differentfrom the normal ones; that is,they contain energy in the same wayand result in the same final compressionand heating. This argumentOctober-November 1981 FUSION 31


amounts to saying that if the new states behaved in thesame way as the classical ones, there would be no differencebetween them. This may be true, but our point isthat the new states are different. At the very least, theyhave the potential of concentrating energy in very highlynonequilibrium structures. These nonlinear structures arecharacteristic of physical systems whose internal energy isdominated by strong "interparticle" interaction, the samegeneral condition necessary for liquid equations of state.Some researchers pursuing this line of thinking haveproposed a "hybrid" approach to fusion combining magneticand inertial techniques. Winston Bostick and FriedwardtWinterberg have described different aspects of thephysics of compression of intense, self-generated magneticfields that might ultimately provide the most efficientpath to fusion ignition. The idea is to take the short timescale, high energy densities that inertial confinement offers,and combine these with the possibility of long-lived,stable self-sustaining magnetic structures that the plasmacreates itself.Some General ConsiderationsThe inertial confinement program historically grew outof the nuclear weapons design program and continues toexist in close symbiosis with it. This close relationship hasbeen beneficial in many respects, but it has also bred anunjustified smugness about the physics of laser fusion. Tobe sure, our scientists are probably smart enough to makelaser fusion work like a small bomb, but most likely thereare better ways of accomplishing the same end, a few ofwhich we have proposed here.New physics like that of solitons, high magnetic fields,and so on, must be investigated. Regimes in which thesephenomena are dominant need to be studied. New computercodes that allow global studies of these other statesneed to be written and experiments need to be performedto test them.Specifically, we think that a series of experiments tostudy high-intensity laser-generated magnetic fields inlaser fusion pellets would be very profitable. Here are thesorts of questions that must be answered:What is the relevant physics of this field generation indifferent temperature density regimes?How can magnetic fields be increased in laser-createdplasmas?What is the equation of state of a strongly magnetizedplasma? What are its compression characteristics?How does the changed plasma affect overall pelletefficiencies?We suspect that the design and study of pellets that aremade to optimize magnetic field generation will be strikinglydifferent from small bombs. They will be bigger thanconventional pellets, they may benefit from longer wavelengthirradiation, and they may be much less demandingin terms of surface finish.The challenge of Riemann's method for inertial confinementfusion research, however, runs deeper than anew experiment or new equations. Riemann proposes adifferent conception of energy—energy seen as the potentialfor transformation. In this sense, energy does notso much affect existing particles or modes of a system asit changes those modes or creates new particles. It is thegenerator of new interactions. Energy pushes forwardorganization of matter. 21The example of the strong shock wave is an explicit casein which energy, if intense enough, can be used notsimply for the quantitative increase of density and temperature—asin the weak shock-heating of a pellet—butwhere it changes the qualitative characteristics of thesystem. These new states can then interact totally differentlyfrom the way they do in the original system.To take an example from a different range of energydensities: Atoms don't bark, but some collections of atomsdo. We suspect the same is true of plasmas.Steven Bardwell is editor-in-chief of Fusion magazine,and Uwe Parpart is director of research for the FEF.Notes1. The first article, "Riemann Declassified— His Method and Programfor the Natural Sciences," appeared in the March-April 1979 issue ofFusion, p. 24. The second article, "The Theoretical Impasse in InertialConfinement Fusion," appeared in the Nov. 1979 issue of Fusion, p.30. The FEF proposal was also presented at the American PhysicalSociety Nov. 1979 meeting of the plasma physics division in Boston,Mass., and appears as an abstract in the APS Bulletin the samemonth.2. J. Nuckolls, L. Wood, A. Thiessen, and G. Zimmerman, "LaserCompression of Matter to Super-High Densities: Thermonuclear(CTR) Applications," Nature, 239:139 (1972).3. This is described in detail in Charles B. Stevens's article on the annualplasma physics meeting of the America Physical Society, Fusion,March-April 1981, p. 21.4 For a summary of this progress, see G. Canavan, "The Prospects forInertial Confinement Fusion," Fusion, March-April 1981, p. 30.5. For a standard reference on shock waves, see Ya. Zel'dovich and Yu.Raizer, Physics of Shock Waves and High-Temperature HydrodynamicPhenomena (New York: Academic Press, 1966).6. Zel'dovich, p. 59.7 Zel'dovich, p. 64.8. This article, "On the Propagation of Plane Air Waves of Finite Amplitude,"was translated by the authors and appears in the InternationalJournal of Fusion Energy, 2:1 (1980).9. See H. Bethe, "The Theory of Shock Waves for an Arbitrary Equationof State," National Defense Research Committee, Division B. Report171 (1942); also, J. von Neumann, "Theory of Shock Waves," InCollected Works, pp. 178-202.10. Bethe, "The Theory of Shock Waves."11. H. Bethe et al„ "The Pressure Wave Produced by an UnderwaterExplosion, I, II," National Defense Research Committee, Division B.Reports Nos. 252, 281.12. This insight resulted from discussions with Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg.13. See "The Pinch Effect Revisited" by Winston Bostick in the InternationalJournal of Fusion Energy, 1:1 (1977), in addition to the referencesBostick mentions.14. C. Seyler, Jr., "Partition Function for a Two-Dimensional Plasma in theRandom-Phase Approximation," Physical Review Letters 32:515(1974).15. Y. Salu and G. Knorr, "Numerical Solutions of the Three-DimensionalElectrostatic Guiding Center Plasma," Plasma Physics 18: 769 (1975),in addition to the references therein.16. D. Montgomery and G. Joyce, "Statistical Mechanics of 'NegativeTemperature' States," Physics of Fluids, 17:1139 (1974).17. Von Neumann, "Theory of Shock Waves," pp. 182-184.18. Von Neumann, "Theory of Shock Waves," pp. 189-190..19. See. for example, Nuckolls, Wood, et al.. "Laser Compression ofMatter."20. See R. Kirkpatrick, "An Overview of Design Space for Small FusionTargets," Nuclear Fusion 19:69 (1979).21. Note that we are not referring here to the Prigogine-inspired theoriesof dissipative structure.32 FUSION October-November 1981


An Interview withAdolfBusemannBritish AerospaceEditor's NoteAdolf Busemann is one of the most outstanding exponentsof Riemann's hydrodynamic method in this century.Although he is not well known outside the realm ofsupersonic hydrodynamics, his intellectual influence haspenetrated deeply into all aspects of plasma physics,aerodynamics, and the theory of shock waves. The intelectualhistory of this remarkable figure is recounted inthis interview, which was conducted by Fusion editor-inchiefDr. Steven Bardwell in the summer of 1979 whenBusemann was 78. Busemann is currently professor emeritusat the University of Colorado. He holds many distinguishedhonors from various countries and is a memberof the U.S. Academy of Engineering.Busemann's research falls into three general areas,which coincide with the three primary research laboratoriesin which he worked. The first of these was anindependent institute near Gottingen University, wherehe worked under Ludwig Prandtl, leader of the Germanhydrodynamicist school; Busemann continued these researchesin Dresden. This first period of his researchconcerned the formation and propagation of shock waves.Adolf Busemann, summer 7979. Busemann'spioneering work on aerodynamics in the 1930s wasessential in the development of airplanes that couldbreak the sound barrier without crashing. At the topof the page, a schlieren photograph of a modelsupersonic plane showing the shock waves that formwhen the plane is tested in a wind tunnel.33


The immediate context for the research was work on theaerodynamic problems of wing design and jet turbineconstruction for flight at supersonic speeds.The problem of supersonic flight had fascinated researchersand military thinkers since the first days of flight.But one outstanding feature of the problem had dominatedall considerations: At velocities greater than thespeed of sound, shock waves are generated. And theseshock waves, because of the nearly singular nature of theair disturbances they generate, make it difficult to maintainstable, controllable flight at supersonic velocities. Even so,the fabled Mach 1 (the Mach number is the ratio of thespeed of the aircraft to the speed of sound) was nearlyreached by a German airplane using jet engines in 1945—the ME-163, which reached Mach 0.86.Concentrating on the problem of the optimal design ofturbine blades, Busemann discovered during the Gottingen-Dresdenphase of his work some of the critical featuresof steady-state shock waves. The most famous of theresults of this research was his development of the Busemannbiplane, a configuration of two aircraft wings thatcompletely eliminates drag at supersonic speeds (see Figure1). Although this plane was never built, it had atremendous impact on the design of supersonic aircraft,on the scientific understanding of aerodynamic drag, andon the general problem of the propagation of shock wavesin two dimensions.The insight into Busemann's method provided by hiscomments in this interview is quite striking: His primarymotivation in the development of his theory was to eliminatethe inefficiencies in turbines. To accomplish thisend, Busemann realized that the properties of shocksupon reflection and turning were essential. This realizationled to the experiments and the analysis of schlierenphotographs of "dark spots" in the wind-tunnel flows.Using a quite intuitive geometric interpretation of themotion of the shock waves, Busemann realized that itshould be possible to completely eliminate the trailingshock lines if a set of "interfering" shocks could beproduced by a second wing. The Busemann biplane wasthe result.Out of this research, Busemann became interested inthe focusing of shock waves as well as their destructiveinterference. This extrapolation of his work on aerodynamicswas taken up in his work at the German rocketlaboratory at Peenemiinde just before and during WorldWar II. Busemann's comments on the Nazis' science programare revealing.As can be seen, the results of the work that Busemanndid during that period have had a tremendous influenceon the course of inertial confinement fusion research.Busemann wrote several papers on the focusing of shockwaves, partly as a study of how to avoid the concentrationof shock waves in flight and how to design "shapedcharges," configurations of chemical explosives that focusthe detonation of shock waves on a target. These papershave become essential ingredients in the design of advancedfusion fuel targets in inertial confinement fusion(see Figure 2). The energy concentrating capabilities ofthese configurations, especially Busemann's conical configuration,have led many researchers to expect that chemicalexplosives can be used to ignite a fusion reaction. Infact, a Polish team of scientists reported in 1978 that theyhad generated a significant number of fusion neutrons inan experiment using high explosives in Busemann's conicalconfiguration!After World War II, Busemann moved to the UnitedStates in 1947 and worked with NASA at Langley Field inVirginia. There, Busemann studied the aerodynamic forcesand surface heating of the starting and landing of spacevehicles, while his more famous colleague, Wernher vonBraun, designed the propulsion systems at NASA's Houstonresearch center. As a sideline of this work, Busemanndirected a seminar on electrodynamics, in the course ofwhich he made some critically important discoveries onthe existence and properties of magnetohydrodynamic(MHD) vortices. These vortices, which he compares totheir hydrodynamic analogues, have turned out to be acentral feature in most high-energy plasmas. In the pasttwo years, Busemann's work in this area has receivedrenewed interest because it is now thought that the fusionmachine that can most closely approximate the "natural"plasma vortex configuration will be the easiest to controland heat to ignition conditions. These new machine designs,like the spheromak and the reversed field pinch,are all variations on Busemann's MHD vortex.* * *Question: The Fusion Energy Foundation has done aconsiderable amount of historical research on Riemannand the Gottingen school of mathematical physics. Ourwork has shown over and over again that the work thatthe Gottingen school undertook was the most productive,containing the deepest insights into scientific questions offusion, for example. More recently, we have done somevery specific research on the role of shock waves andshock phenomena in laser fusion. Out of that work cameour attempt to do a new appreciation of Riemann's work.In doing that, we came across a whole series of researchesthat I think are largely unknown—in the United States, atleast—by yourself, Karl Guderley, and the people in Germanyin the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, researches that arenot appreciated in this country at all. A lot of currentresearch seems to be going through that same materialagain. What I would like to do in this discussion with youtoday is to get your insight into that history—why certainthings were done, what was done, and the importance ofthose things today.In the early years, in 1914, we already had a wind tunnelfor studying supersonic speeds. We saw a lot of blackthings in the photos that were not always shocks. Sometimesit was when the humidity of the air was high; thenthere would be some black spots on the photographs,too. But the important thing was the shock. In supersonicsituations, you cannot avoid getting shocks, no matterhow low the angle of the tip [the wing].This was already Prandtl's main interest at Gottingen.34 FUSION October-November 1981


Courtesy of Adolf BusemannThe seminal Volta meeting on supersonic aerodynamics in 1935. Busemann is second from the left, second row. To hisleft is Karl Wieselsberger, von Karman's successor at the University of Aachen. In the front row are Genera/ Crocco(right), president of the meeting, and his son.He had lots of people working on high speeds duringWorld War I. After the war was over, Germany wasn'tallowed to work on practical airplanes anymore. Ofcourse, in turbines, too, you very often have supersonicspeeds, at least in the first stages of the turbine—not inthe later ones. But Prandtl's researchers just wanted to getan idea of the compressible flow for any kind of application.The application for airplanes seemed out of reach orsuppressed.Question: Was there already research on supersonic flowin turbines, say in the 1920s?Yes. I worked as an engineer and had learned in college,of course, about steam turbines and things like that. Theywere already invented. Therefore, we wanted to see howto make them most efficient—how to get the most energyout, put the least into a reversed flow, and reduce energylosses. But Prandtl's researchers were a little bit spoiled,because at the first Mach, at around 1.6, when two linesindicating pressure changes are going through each other,they stay straight—it doesn't look like they interfere witheach other. They were spoiled because that was wherethe lines should have changed their curvature from oneside to the other, but near the turning point there wasjust no curvature at all.Therefore, when I came I wasn't so spoiled. I said whenthis is not so linearized, finite disturbances have to interferewith each other. When one goes through the otherone, it has to change its direction. And of course, theMach number in the wind tunnel that I had at that timewas already a little bit lower. There was already a visiblecurvature in a certain direction, and therefore when Icame in I worked a little bit more on how to produce apicture predicting the interference of two crossing Machwaves.Question: What year was that?I got my doctorate in 1924, and then I went to workwith Prandtl in 1925. I stayed with him until 1931, when he"sold" me to Dresden. Those were bad times.There was a young assistant there at Dresden who diedbefore he was 33, and then there was a free opening.Those were pretty bad years. Some people didn't know ifthey should change their subject of study. America alsohad very bad times then. But when you lose a war, youcan't be so much better—even when Germany had justrecovered in 1929-30 and therefore seemed kind ol highup, and America seemed to be very low.Because of the economy, Prandtl couldn't keep so manypeople at his institute. The ones who could got other jobs.At a certain institution for aerodynamic research, they toldthree people, "One of you has to go. You select him."The workers came back and said, "Well, we would rathertake two thirds of our salaries and stay on here."Question: When did you go to Dresden?Prandtl couldn't keep everybody at Gottingen, so I wentto Dresden. I had already agreed to a 10 percent smallersalary there. And then all of a sudden, one year or another,the governor of Saxony said that everyone had to give upone tenth of his salary. So I lost not only my voluntary 10percent at Gottingen, but another 10 percent. One or twopeople said it was illegal. But they said it couldn't behelped; it was the government's order. So I lost 20 percent.October-November 1981 FUSION 35


Effective gap-to-chord ratioFigure 1THE BUSEMANN SUPERSONIC BIPLANEBusemann's design of a drag-free supersonic wing is a classical study in shock wave dynamics. The ordinaryreflection of a shock is shown in a. The arrows show the direction of the fluid flow (the flow of air around thewing): As long as the flow is parallel to the wall (or wing), there is no shock wave. Thus, as shown in b, bybending the wall, the reflected shock can be "canceled" by an expansion at the corner.The Busemann biplane at zero lift is shown in c. As the wings travel through the air at a'velocity V 0 , part of theexpansion wave at the corner cancels the compression wave from the leading edge of the opposite plane andproduces the symmetrical pressure distribution shown. The wave drag is zero.At slightly different speeds, the waves begin to leak out, as shown in d. Busemann describes this as the wingsacting like a nozzle. The graph, e, shows the drag as a function of the geometry of the wings, along with thereflections of the shock waves required to produce the various occurrences of zero drag.Surprises like this don't go so well when you can't affordto live on less than the total amount of your salary.Question: Was there a laboratory there in Dresden?In Dresden there was a laboratory for applications ofaerodynamics for engineering turbines and things likethat. And although you weren't supposed to say it, it wasfor airplanes, too. While I was at Dresden I got invited tothe Volta meeting [the 1935 European meeting in Italy thatlaid the foundation for supersonic aerodynamics]. Andthere we could say that Dresden was working on applicationsto aviation—but for 100 years in the future. But itdidn't take long—just 10 years later Germany had a war.Question: Were you thinking of those turbines for jetengines, or was it still the aerodynamic question of wingdesign?We had supersonic wing shapes, to have less drag andlots of lift. That was the subject I got to talk about at Volta,since I had worked on that. They invited all the peoplewho had worked on high speeds to the meeting in Volta,Italy in 1935. The subject was high-speed subsonic andsupersonic flight. And they invited all the winners of theSchneider Cup to talk about how they had built theirairplanes for this special use and what their thinking wasabout engine changes, the wings, and things like that.Question: Did Germany enter the Schneider Cup race?No. We were not allowed to enter. The first race was in1913, I think, and the last one was in 1931. But during theFirst World War, there were no Schneider Cup races. Idon't know whether Germany had a chance to take partbetween 1913 and 1914; and in 1918, they told Germanyin the peace treaty, "no more airplanes anymore for you."We would supposedly only try to make war with them, toshoot things and throw things at other countries.Prandtl, Ackeret, and I were invited to Volta. Ackeretwas another pupil of Prandtl. He is now 80 years old. He'salive in Switzerland.* He talked about wind tunnels.Prandtl talked about the experience of the early years. Italked about lift at supersonic speeds. And von Karman[Theodor von Karman, a Hungarian scientist working inGermany who emigrated to the United States beforeWorld War II] talked about drag at supersonic speeds.* Ackeret died March 27, 1981 at the age of 83.36 FUSION October-November 1981


I had the Busemann biplane. The idea was, when youare interested in getting no lift, you can use two surfacesand send the waves back, and they cancel each other outin between.You can have this cancellation at lower Mach numbers,at a higher concentration of shock waves, so that you canhave a finite volume of parameters that makes no wavedrag.Of course, it makes a lot of friction drag, especiallywhen you have four surfaces instead of two—the outsideand the inside. The friction drag is at least doubled. Andwhen you have separation, you may have more than justfriction drag; therefore, you have to be very careful aboutit. That was von Karman's idea; it was his business to talkabout that.Question: What about your work on the conical focusingof shock waves?During the war I wanted to write a book about my newideas, but I wasn't allowed to do it, since I was so muchinvolved in secret things that even when I didn't intendit, they might just pop out.I gave the introduction to a secret meeting about shapedcharges. The Academy [German Academy of Sciences]wanted one speaker, as a member of the Academy, andthey chose me. These [pointing to one of the view-graphshe used in his talk] are steady flows, and I made anotherview-graph to represent nonsteady flows. I wanted topublish this, but they didn't allow me.In this nonsteady flow, if you want to put it on twodimensionalpaper, you can put the time in one directionand then there's only one direction left. Therefore, youcan study nonsteady pipe flow created by pistons on bothends. I extended my studies to nonsteady waves goingthrough a conical pipe. This focuses the pressure. (That'swhat people like—to make shaped charges, so that theycan put them on a jeep or something, and then it reallymakes a hole.)Question: This is the idea the Russians use extensively intheir work on fusion. This idea of the conical focusing ofshock waves comes from you. is that right?Yes. Since I had only one direction left, I could onlymake a circle—a cylindrical one or spherical one, so thatI didn't have to make changes except on one radius. It isusually nicer to have one dimension, or three dimensions,or something odd-numbered. If it's even numbered, themathematics of it is sometimes a bit harder. Therefore,when I make a steady flow, I can make it only twodimensions. I make the drawing on a plane, and then Ican show the space in one direction only, and there mustbe an identical thing around in however many directionsyou may wish [that is, it must be independent of the othercoordinates]. Therefore, I could make it spherical, and thatwas what they liked best.Question: When did you start that work?After I was through with the work on the steady flowone, I started work on nonsteady flow in Dresden.Busemann's background in hydrodynamics, specificallythe dynamics of fluid vortices, led naturally to his discoveryof plasma vortices that today have important applicationsin magnetic fusion. The photograph here shows flowpatterns forming around a model aircraft being tested ina water tunnel. The vortices generated over both wingsprovide aerodynamic lift.Question: You had a paper in 1942 or 1943 on self-similarsolutions to spherical shock waves?Yes. That was my introduction lecture at the secretmeeting I mentioned, since I wasn't working on explosives,but on nonsteady gas dynamics.Question: So it was in the late 1930s in Dresden that youstarted on this research on shaped charges?No. Just on nonsteady gas dynamics. The steady dynamicswere now finished—at least what you could put downin two dimensions—and the other ones had to wait untilthey invented movable wings. For nonsteady dynamics,you'd have to open the wing up and close it, and how canyou do that on an airplane? And you'd have to makehinges on it, doing that when you have no lift.But, you see, the flow that I drew on that biplane is notunique. It can be what I'd like it to be. It can be at thesame time a choked thing; and then it would spill the airaround on the sides instead of going through the middle.When the flow in the inside is not exactly what I want itto be, then it doesn't go through—the same amount offluid doesn't go through, but comes back. You see, whenwe choke the flow for a while, then the airplane goesthrough sonic speeds. Then the flow goes around, and itdoesn't come back to this one [pointing to one wing ofthe biplane] unless it starts from the sides where there isan opening and then goes around; and it doesn't comeback to this one [pointing to the other wing in the biplane(see Figure 1c)] unless it starts from the sides where thereis an opening, and then goes slowly through the middle.Question: So it was in the late 1930s that they wereworking on these supersonic wing designs and the rest intheir wind tunnel. Were you still at Dresden then?Yes, and I built my wind tunnel. But then, when Hitlerdidn't care about the conditions of the peace treaty andOctober-November 1981 FUSION 37


started to fly again, there was a new center in Braunschweig.There I built my own wind tunnels. I came to ) von Braun. We Germans talked to each other so that wetunnels, but rocketry, too. It was then that I got to knowBraunschweig in 1936. Then I had a really different, transsonickind of a tunnel, with a very large diameter, and a ment. When they had experience, they told me about it,didn't spend a million reichsmarks on the same experi-supersonic tunnel with a small cross section. And I also ) and when we wanted a new experiment, we told eachhad a rocket test facility in the country. It was in the ! other. Of course, it is sometimes very good for twocountry, because a lot of people who invented rockets 5 different people to test the same thing. But we were notdied from the explosions; therefore, we couldn't build in i supposed to do that.the neighborhood of the town. But I had to go there a Icouple of times every month to see what they were doing. Question: What was the motivation for the research youTherefore, my problem was at that time not only wind i did on self-similar solutions in spherical geometry?Busemann's design of a conical focus for shock waveswas published in 1942 in Luftfarhrtforschung (vol. 79, p.737), the same journal that published K. Guderley'sfamous paper on self-similar solutions to the focusingof shock waves in a spherical geometry. Two of theview-graphs used in Busemann's secret 1940 talk onshaped charges are reproduced in a and b. Busemannreports that the initial motivation for these focusingFigure 2CONICAL FOCUSING OF SHOCK WAVESideas came from the conception of a dimensionalconstraint on the propagation of shock waves. Thus, ahighly symmetrical geometry is chosen, such as asphere, cylinder, or cone. The cone and sphere sharethe property of having a zero-dimensional focus (apoint), as opposed to the cylinder with a line focus.The result in practical terms is a technique for thegeneration of almost unlimited pressures at the focus.Some of the geometrical considerations in the reflection,interference, and concentration of shock wavesare shown in a and b. These flows are all steady, but itis possible to generalize these techniques if the numberof space dimensions is reduced by one, and then totreat nonsteady flows. Busemann notes that his firstnonsteady solutions, which are important in aerodynamics,were just adaptations of the conical supersonicsolutions.Laser fusion research today uses this idea to generatethe pressures and temperatures necessary for ignitionin a spherical target. The figure on page 29 shows aspherical compression scheme used at Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory for laser-compressed fusionfuel, using the geometry of Guderley.The conical geometry proposed by Busemann hasbeen extensively investigated in the Soviet Union, andhas resulted in the first fusion reactions produced byan electron beam (by Leonid Rudakov in 1976) and bychemical explosives (by a Polish group under the directionof General Kaliski). The theoretical work on theSoviet conical pellet design appeared in a paper by V.A. Belokogne in 1965 (see c). The Polish configurationis shown in d.38 FUSION October-November 1981


The similar solution was, I had no more than twodimensions.Question: But did this come out of research for explosivedesign, or for jet engines? I am thinking of the paper byGuderley, for example, that appeared at the same time asyour paper in the Luftfahrtforschung on cylindrical focus?Zylindrische Verdichtungschicht, Yes, sometimes wehad real vortices; sometimes we had questions in ourwind tunnel—there was not an understandable way ofhow the flow went around certain bodies we put in there.Sometimes we had people during the war who wanted tobuild a new kind of airplane for the Germans, and thenwe had real problems. They were, of course, secret, andwe couldn't talk about them. But they needed our windtunnels, because they did not have wind tunnels for allspeeds in their own factories. And then they came to us.Guderley was very good at applied mathematics. I talkedto him, and I could use him for a lot of problems. I wasmore in mechanical engineering work than elasticity.When I earned my doctor's degree and came to Prandtl,I learned to have ideas about the flows, so that I had it inmy head and didn't need wind tunnels for everything. Inthat way, I learned to construct them; but, of course, youcannot construct wind tunnels in three or four dimensionson your drawing board. Therefore, it was a little bitoversimplified when we did it in two dimensions. But wehad ideas about what would happen at the end of theairplane, when the air can go around it instead of theother way. Then there were the vortices that Prandtlneeded in order to explain the drag related to the lift.Question: There's a lot of work that was done on thefocusing of shock waves—cylindrical spherical focusing.What was that directed toward? In fusion research, this isreally the key problem. Can you concentrate the compressionfrom a shock wave? Can you use reflections to amplifyit? Can you bring it down to a point? And that work wasalready going on in the 1940s in Germany. To me, that'sfascinating, because the basic problem today was researched25 or 30 years ago in tremendous detail.At that time our idea was more to get rid of strongshocks, not to make them stronger. It was only my conethat couldn't help but to get stronger and stronger all thetime.Question: But nobody looked at that for compressionresearch?We sometimes were interested in finding out howdifficult it is to live with these detached strong shocks, tosee whether to make a wedge or something. We wantedto know whether that really helps to reduce the drag, orwhether these things have a boundary layer separation asa part of what happens there, too, so that the drag looksmuch higher than it really should be by itself. We did alot of things in our workplaces with just mathematics andthinking, but when there was a problem that really had tobe solved, we could get enough money to put it in thewind tunnel. That was usually a little bit more expensive.On the other hand, when anybody didn't have a problemto work on, he would be drafted.Question: Did anybody think at that time of somethinglike a fusion reaction—of using the very high densities ofhigh temperatures that these focused shock waves couldgenerate?Not for fusion, but we thought about making the explosionsa little more concentrated, so that when somebodyhad a big shield, any bullet would make a big hole in it.But, of course, every day it was different, and therecould be a change. If anybody who worked on theseproblems was not important anymore, he would have togo to the war. And then we would have to change oursubject to something that Hitler thought was important.But he really had few ideas that we thought were importantoverall. Only when the Americans came over thereflying higher up and we had no guns that could shootthat high, only rockets that could fly that high, did Hitlercall for a meeting. His people came to ask us to improvethe bullets and the cannons, to kill the enemies that wereflying so high. And then afterwards they said to Hitler,"Yes, we can make it." "And how long will it take?" Hitlerwould ask. "Three years," they said. "Oh! Three months,that's all I can give you," Hitler would say. So they had topretend that they could find something in three months.He was a crazy guy. Therefore, it was very hard to have acertain group of people working for you.Question: So that work was mostly for the design ofsupersonic airplanes?There were people in Munich or Nuremberg whoworked on supersonic airplanes. Oh, there was also thisthing called a buzz bomb that flew with a high velocity.And the one that flew with really supersonic speed was,of course, von Braun's. In order to try out Hitler's bombs,they had to have an airplane to put them underneath.Question: The same idea today is the Cruise missile....We were really interested in having a good picture ofwhat goes on in supersonic flight, or what happens whenyou get closer to the velocity of sound—what makes youunstable, or gets the lift down or the drag so high thatnothing can help you.But in order to keep my people paid, I had to adjustthem to what Hitler thought was important. Therefore,when those people couldn't make any kind of gun withthe necessary range, Hitler asked whether von Brauncould make a rocket that would go high enough to killthe airplanes that were coming and throwing bombs.We even had this silly thing—the buzz bomb—that hada gasoline engine that went putt, putt. It made a lot ofnoise, because it opened and closed in alternation. Itspath was controlled by its tail, and when the tail got stuckon one side, it made a circle. And the circle was exactlythe total length at which distance it was supposed toexplode the bomb. So it fell on the people who sent itup! The silly tail was supposed to steer the thing to theright point, but it very often got stuck on the left-handOctober-November 1981 FUSION 39


side. It made an exact circle and boom! That was the buzzbomb. And from Belgium, where they tried to launch thebombs against London, they made the circle so large thatit was just the distance from where they were to London.There were lots of things we had to do during the war.And they threw out even von Braun because von Braunsaid: "When you send a bomb against a foreign country,an enemy country, you have to put it on the target—youcannot just throw it, because London is too big—a 10-mileradius circle is too big. It is illegal to kill people too; youshould kill things that are made for the war." Therefore,von Braun tried to make a guidance on the bomb, andafter one year when the guidance didn't work, Hitler said,"He's delaying the thing," and sent him away.Hitler put in another man, the man who made the trainsfor Russia. (The Russians had a different kind of track, andtherefore this man had to make trains that worked onlyon the Russian track, or that could change from one trackto the other.) This man got the job to make the bombsready in three months; they said von Braun was notinterested in wars, because he was so slow.Under Hitler, you really could get into trouble withoutdoing anything bad. People would finger you because ofsomething you did for a different reason. At that time,our publications were often secret. Therefore, I cannotalways find the work I did at that time—unless my paperswere in a big box that the Americans found so that theywere not burned.Germany the same day, when they found out through theSecret Service that I had contacted the Americans.While in England, I had wanted to raise a little bit ofmoney. I had three girls almost at the end of school—college age—and, of course, we had lost all of our savingsin the inflation right after the war. I just wanted to tellthem, look, in America I could get a job for more money.They actually told me they tried very hard to "sell" me,but nobody wanted me; no university, no other place ofresearch. So the British allowed me to go away, but theycalled me, of course, a persona non grata.I was in England from June 1946 until February 1947.Then they sent me home, and in May 1947, the U.S.Occupation forces picked me up to be transported toAmerica. I came to NASA, since both the Navy and theAir Force were fighting over who would get me—neithergot me.Question: I think that much of that research is still secretin the United States.Some was translated after the war.Question: But it's still secret here. You say that most ofyour work was done not for research on shaped charges,however, but mostly for aerodynamic research?Yes, the part I did on it. But when I was supposed togive an introductory talk on these shaped charges, I justdemonstrated the things you can do with the waves thatgo in focus.Question: Did you come to the United States in 1945?No. I was on the English list. The English soldiers sawthat America was getting all the German scientists, andthey knew that the British needed some too. So they putme as one of the first scientists on the British list. But thepeople in Britain said, the thing that we need is notchiefs—what we need is Indians to help. During the warthey had a lot of women and others who wanted to help,but they went home after the war and didn't work in thelaboratories anymore.After six months, there I was in several different placesjust talking about results that we got during the war. Theybrought me to a lot of universities, but nobody wantedme. So I finally asked my American friends whether therewas still a chance to come to America. And then, becauseI did that by going to the American embassy, I was—whatdo they call it in England when they don't trust you anymore?—a persona non grata. I was sent back home to40 FUSION October-Novembe1981


Question: In some of the research I've done in plasmaphysics, your work in magnetohydrodynamics in the 1950son vortex formation is very important. How did that workstart—the work you did on plasma or magnetohydrodynamicvortex motion? That work seems very different fromaerodynamics.Yes, but it was a new subject, and in research you haveto keep up to date when you are a senior research man.Therefore, I had seminars with people who worked onthis problem. You see, at first I was an electrical engineer,because when Germany lost the First World War, I tookevery subject that I thought was important for Germany.Therefore, I studied electrical engineering too, includingelectrical physics. My physics teacher in the TechnischeHochschule (high school) was very nice to me and taughtme everything about relativity, which was new at thattime. I studied it in 1923-24. I had learned fluid dynamicsmore from electricity, and, therefore, when they startedthis magnetohydrodynamics, I would go back and do itthe proper way. I mean that electricity is not a real flow,but for magnetism, you need electricity. And that was myold subject, which I used to compare hydrodynamics withelectricity. Therefore, it was easy for me to be the boss ofthe magnetohydrodynamics seminar in Langley Field.You see, when you begin a new subject, the youngpeople have no prior experience; they've learned it onlyfrom books, but I could compare it with the things I hadlearned before and played with already, so I could be animportant man in this seminar.Question: What relation do you see between the researchon vortex motion and shock waves?The electricity had no shocks. I don't know; we nevermade a real application. There were other NASA centersthat were working on magnetohydrodynamics. I workedon magneto only for a short time, and then I came toBoulder in order to make this a center of excellence inaerospace. Well, the space things were so important thatwe worked on vortices only on the side. We had to makereal space progress.Question: Did you work with von Braun on space rocketsand that kind of thing?No. He was in another area. I was in Langley Field,where we did see supersonic parts and things like thatwhere they built the equipment for Langley. Magneto wasjust a side subject that we worked on. You see, when youwork on the same chapter day and night, you get yourselfinto a corner. Sometimes you are better off if you leaveit and come back after a week and you say, why didn't Isee this before? Of course, when it's a very importantsubject, and has to be done by October, say, you can't gointo something else at night. At Langley we sometimeshad to work on a certain problem that they gave us, andsometimes in between we had a little bit of time off, sothat we were not stuck on the same old thing. Very oftenNASA asked us to tell them about supersonics or abouthow to get out to space. The different space researchcenters didn't get money for everything. They had aspecial subject matter in which they had to prove theycould work well. We worked in this aerodynamics business,what goes into space and gets out of orbit into theatmosphere. As for rockets, of course, it was von Braun'sproblem in Houston. Some guidance people were somewhereelse—at the Ames Research Center, I think.But when von Braun had a question about supersonicdrag or lift or whatever, or whether the proper flowswould come automatically or had to be readjusted, ofcourse he would direct the question to the Langley Center.Question: How long were you at NASA?I was with NASA from 1947 to 1964, and then I camehere, to the aerospace section of the University of Colorado.My problem was that because I had secret information,I was not allowed at Langley to tell the Germansto give me my earned retirement pension. They told methat I couldn't be dependent on a foreign government. Iwas to be retired from Langley Field not later than age 70,but before I reached their retirement age, I accepted theinvitation of the University of Colorado to come and holda "lifetime" job.Adolf Busemann: A TributeBusemann was a giant in the field of aerodynamics. He was able to use applied mathematics and simplegeometrical constructions to solve the most complicated of nonlinear aerodynamic and fluid dynamic problems.For example, he created the now-famous Busemann "apple curve"—mathematical-geometrical constructions thatvery cleverly allow you to follow isentropic flows through parameter space. At Langley Field, where he was chiefscientist, Busemann taught dozens of classes in many areas—kinetic theory, electrodynamics, the physics of aerodynamicsand applied mechanics. He was able to take very complicated physics problems and draw analogies tosimpler mathematical systems, which could then be solved. If you were to ask Busemann, he would tell you thatTheodor von Karman was one of the greatest aerodynamicists of this century. Yet von Karman was a generalist; heworked in a number of areas of applied mechanics. Busemann worked in fewer areas, but his physical insights faroutshone those of others in the field.—Dr. William Grossman, research professor of plasma science, New York University, Courant Institute ofMathematical Science.On Nov. 5,1981, the Fusion Energy Foundation will honor Adolf Busemann and his work in a special dinner andaward ceremony in New York City. We would appreciate letters and greetings for presentation at the event fromreaders who worked with Busemann.October-November 1981 FUSION 41


Exploding the H-Bombby Charles B. StevensThe Secret That Exploded,* the recently published autobiographicalaccount by Howard Morland of the 1979Progressive magazine court case, detonates a number ofbombshells about the celebrated case in which the governmentattempted to block publication of Morland'sarticle "The H-Bomb Secret." But the book leaves unexplodeda number of even bigger bombshells about theclassification of vital scientific information—in particular,that pertaining to the development of fusion energy.As Morland's book recounts, in spring through fall 1979,the U.S. Justice Department waged a six-month civil lawsuit to bar The Progressive, a Wisconsin-based antinuclearmagazine, from publishing Morland's article, arguing thatthe article contained sensitive information on the workingsof the hydrogen bomb.The Fusion Energy Foundation entered an amicus curiaebrief, showing that the so-called secrets that the governmentwanted to keep classified had been out in the openscientific literature for more than a century and that whatwas really at issue was a deliberate policy of classifyingresearch vital for broad-based scientific progress. The FEFhad already published a series of articles that made publicfor the first time the scientific origins of the H-bomb inthe 1859 paper on shock waves by the German mathematicalphysicist Bernard Riemann and the developmentof those ideas by leading German hydrodynamicists andaerodynamicists of the Gottingen school during the 20thcentury.After the U.S. government abruptly dropped its caseagainst the The Progressive in Sept. 1979, the magazine'smanaging editor, Samuel Day, jr., reported that both theFEF's friend-of-the-court brief and the government's unwillingnessto take on the FEF's arguments directly hadbeen pivotal in the government's decision.Now, Morland's book fills in many details of this story.First, The Secret That Exploded confirms that it was thewide circulation of articles on the H-bomb in Fusionmagazine and in New Solidarity, an independent semiweeklynewspaper that had published the story by FEFauthors, that led the government to abruptly pull out ofthe case.Second, Morland certifies that Fusion and New Solidaritywere the first to publish the essential details of the H-bomb design developed by Edward Teller, Stan Ulam, andtheir collaborators in the late 1940s and early 1950s.Third, evidence contained in Morland's book demonstratesconclusively that the entire Progressive case epi-sode was in fact targeted against Fusion and New Solidarity'srevelations about (1) the connection betweenRiemann's theoretical work and the development of thehydrogen bomb, and (2) the contemporary work of Sovietscientist Dr. Leonid Rudakov on inertial confinementfusion, drawing on the same German hydrodynamicisttradition.The most explosive point raised by the Progressive case,though this is not recognized by Morland, was, in fact,that the FEF analysts had been able to arrive at theirunderstanding of the secret H-bomb design through theirappreciation of Riemann's method, specifically, his workon shock waves.Morland's book, furthermore, contains sufficient evidence,when combined with other crucial evidence thatwill be presented here, to demonstrate that the "Progressiveassignment" was run under the direct managementof leaders of what might be called the antiscience "Wellsian"tradition—technocrats like Fabian Society memberH.G. Wells himself, who are dedicated to containing thespread of advanced technology, and cite the threat ofnuclear proliferation and other bogus considerations tojustify their suppression of technological advances. The* Howard Moreland, The Secret That Exploded (New York:Random House, May 1981).42 FUSION October-November 1981


SecretA firsthand account of the 1979 Progressive magazine courtcase provides some clues as to why the U.S. governmentwent to such lengths to block publication of a technicallyincorrect article on the H-bomb.Progressive operation was conceived and run by Mc-George Bundy, former head of the Ford Foundation, andMorton Halperin, of the Washington-based Center forNational Security Studies. Both individuals are formerNational Security Council members and play a controlling,behind-the-scenes role in guiding the street-level activitiesof the environmentalist groups.The Real H-Bomb SecretThe diagram of the H-bomb on page 45 is taken fromMorland's book. As author Morland notes, the diagramwas first published in the Oct. 15, 1976 issue of NewSolidarity in an article by Uwe Parpart, the FEF's researchdirector. Morland reports that he did not realize when hesaw it that this diagram "was the most explicit of all, andapparently the most complete and correct"—until governmentscientists unintentionally certified that this was thecase during the Progressive case litigation in 1979.Ironically, as Morland states in his book, his own article"The H-Bomb Secret; How we got it—why we're tellingit," was incorrect on two key points concerning the designof hydrogen bombs. These two points had been the majorconcern of the Fusion and New Solidarity articles.The first point was that soft X-ray radiation generatedby an atomic fission bomb explosion plays a key role inigniting the fusion fuel in a hydrogen bomb.The second point was how that particular form of energyis utilized to generate shock compression of fusion fuel tohigh densities.The FEF analysts' insights on these two points wererelated to their 1975 prediction that Rudakov, the leaderof the Soviet electron-beam fusion research effort, and histeam of scientists at the I.V. Kurchatov Laboratory inMoscow could be expected to make key experimentalbreakthroughs in the near future. This prescient remarkwas based on a general analysis of Rudakov's theoreticalWhat the government wanted to keep secret in the Progressive case has been in the open literature since the 1850s—the scientific method of Bernhard Riemann. Here, author Howard Morland is the center of attraction in MilwaukeeMarch 27, 1979, after a U.S. district judge issued a preliminary injunction to keep The Progressive magazine frompublishing his article.October-November 1981 FUSION 43


work on the nonlinear mathematics and physics of plasmabeam injections—work that the FEF analysts had determinedto be qualitatively similar to Riemann's work.Furthermore, the FEF analysts had come to the generalconclusion that the type of fusion research involved inboth the development of the H-bomb and laser fusion—that is, inertial confinement fusion—represented the mostfruitful area of investigation for extending the frontiers ofbasic scientific research. The work and concepts of Riemann,moreover, would be essential for any theoreticalcomprehension of the processes and problems arising ininertial fusion research.When the FEF communicated this analysis to the leadingAmerican inertial fusion scientists, they responded quiteskeptically. However, Rudakov's subsequent announcementthat he had indeed achieved a significant experimentalbreakthrough triggered a storm of discussion andcontroversy in these scientific circles.The storm was heightened when Rudakov, during a July1976 visit to the United States, gave a series of publiclectures at the U.S. fusion labs describing how he hadutilized soft X-rays generated by the interaction of hiselectron beam with a thin gold foil to achieve minuteamounts of fusion reactions.When the FEF's Oct. 1976 Newsletter (the predecessorto Fusion magazine) and New Solidarity reported on thecontents of Rudakov's presentations and its implicationsfor the development of inertial fusion as an energy sourceas well as for military applications, the Rudakov revelationsbecame the subject of major news stories across theUnited States.During 1977 and 1978, the FEF obtained official U.S.government documents, under a Freedom of InformationAct request, that demonstrated that there had been aconcerted effort to suppress all evidence of Rudakov'spresentations. In particular, the documents showed thatthe attempted suppression was originally demanded byand to some extent directed by the Atomic WeaponsResearch Establishment of the British government.But it was not actually until Dec. 1978 that the FEFanalysts discovered the direct link between Riemann'swork and the development of the crucial concepts uponwhich both the H-bomb and inertial fusion are based. Thiswas an 1859 paper in which Riemann developed for thefirst time the concept of shock wave and then applied itto determine how to achieve the isentropic compressionof matter—the densification of matter without an increasein its entropy. 1 In order to achieve the supercompressionof matter to high densities—the most critical condition toproduce successful H-bombs and inertial fusion systems—it is essential that the entropy of the matter not increaseduring the compression.The relevance of Riemann's work to fusion, it should benoted, was pointed out 30 years before in the 1949 remarkof John von Neumann, one of the leading mathematicianswho worked with Edward Teller on the development ofDemystifying theScience of the H-BombThe physics involved in the various configurations ofhydrogen fusion weapons is described in detail for thefirst time in public literature in a new book titled ThePhysical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosive Devicesby the distinguished fusion scientist Dr. FriedwardtWinterberg. This book, published by the Fusion EnergyFoundation in August, describes the basic physicalprinciples upon which the most concentrated energysource—inertial confinement fusion—as well as themost destructive weapon are based. As Winterbergexplains in the introduction, his purpose in writing thebook was to demonstrate thatthere are no secrets surrounding thermonuclearexplosive devices and that all the basic physics isaccessible in the open, published scientific literature.. . .My purpose is not to be sensational but, rather,to demystify the secret of the H-bomb. For it is notthe secret of the H-bomb that protects us fromthermonuclear annihilation but, rather, the correctpolitical decisions by our leaders. To cover up theirown political inability it is, of course, understandablethat governments try to make their peoplebelieve it is secrets that protect them. I hope thauthe publication of this book will not only contributein demystifying the whole business of secrets,but also make the public aware that a belief insecrets is dangerous, wishful thinking.The FEF is publishing Winterberg's remarkable bookon the physics of thermonuclear explosions to makeaccessible to working scientists outside the classifiedgovernment programs, as well as to the layman, thescientific principles that are the basis of the mostpromising energy source of the future—controlled fusion,in particular inertial confinement fusion.The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear ExplosiveDevices can be ordered from the FEF for $11.50 postpaid.44 FUSION October-Novembe1981


Fusion has argued that the real issue in the Progressive case was a deliberate policy of classifying research vital forscientific progress. The correct diagram of the H-bomb (above), which was reprinted


fense Information, a private think tank that is one of thekingpins in the international disarmament movement,gave Morland his assignment; it was Johnson who putMorland in touch with Sam Day, the managing editor ofThe Progressive, and arranged for Morland to write theH-bomb secrets article. (As for Johnson's think tank, DerStern magazine reported in early 1981 that the Center forDefense Information had provided the West German"greenies" with the maps of German nuclear weaponsinstallations that the environmentalist groups have usedto plan occupations of those sites.)Sam Day was very quickly able to fulfill Morland's openambition to become an "amateur atom spy." Despite theradical antinuclear associations of Day, Morland, and TheProgressive, Day was able to arrange a complete nationwideVIP tour of the U.S. nuclear weapons productionsfacilities for Morland.After his tour, Morland wrote his H-bomb secrets article.As Morland reports and documents, the article was technicallywrong. Despite this, however, the government,after getting hold of a prepublication draft from Day, wentto court to suppress the article's publication. This actionwas directed by then secretary of energy James R. Schlesinger.The course of the case, as Morland relates it, is a bitconfusing—and this is clearly because Morland didn't fullyknow what he was in the middle of. The chief point thatMorland makes is that the government based its case forsuppression on the fact that his article was technicallyflawed:The government's affidavits. . . contended that Icould not possibly have derived the conclusions inmy article from the sources I had enumerated, andthat I therefore must have had access to secret documents.... In their secret affidavit. . . the interestingassertion [was made] that there were errors in mydescription that did not follow logically from anythingI cited, and which I must therefore have purposelyintroduced to conceal my sources.As Morland's book tells in detail, in the course of thecourt proceedings, the government itself corrected TheProgressive article's flaws! Even stranger, the correct designfor the H-bomb was submitted to the open courtrecord during the proceedings, but it was never commentedupon by the government. The correct design isthat which had appeared in Fusion, New Solidarity, and inthe FEF's amicus curiae brief.Morland states in his book that he was mailed thecorrect diagram in an envelope with the return address ofthe Naval Research Laboratory on it. An accompanyingunsigned letter pointed out that the enclosed diagramfrom the New Solidarity article "would have been stampedSECRET (CNWDI)" had it been submitted to the Departmentof Energy for classification.At this point it should be noted that Dave Johnson, whooriginally set up Morland to write the article, is the formerbrother-in-law of this writer. I know that he was informedabout the 1976 New Solidarity article, and that he was alsovery well informed about the article's pertinence to thedesign of H-bombs.In a telephone interview with me this spring, HowardMorland was quite surprised to learn this, since, accordingto him, "Dave never told me about that." Johnson, whoset Morland up to do a story exposing the H-bomb secret,had never mentioned any of this information to Morland!The pieces of the Progressive case fall into place onceJohnson and Day's connections are established. Johnsonworks closely with Morton Halperin, and Day is closelyassociated with McGeorge Bundy. As noted above, Halperinand Bundy are both figures who are at the helm ofcommand of the zero-growth, antinuclear, and nonproliferationgroups.As Morland relates in his book, Halperin directly involvedhimself in the court case. And the book alsoprovides circumstantial evidence of McGeorge Bundy'sinput into Day's activities.BacktrackingAs Fusion had maintained from the beginning of theProgressive case, the case was at least indirectly targetedagainst the Fusion Energy Foundation and its efforts toend the classification of scientific research that is criticalto the inertial confinement fusion program. Now, throughthe publication of Morland's book, it appears that thisoperation was successfully stymied by the timely action ofthe FEF in publicly responding to the attempted setup.Even Progressive managing editor Day had to note the keyrole of the FEF's amicus curiae brief in determining theoutcome of the legal proceedings. And author Morlandhas now begun to suspect that he was used from the startas an unwitting patsy to get the case into court. Apparently,the optimal scenario was to have the article publishedand then have the government win the case andproceed with the prosecution of the FEF.This plan was upset when in the March-April 1979 issueof Fusion, Uwe Parpart detailed the connection betweenRiemann—and his published writings—and the developmentof inertial confinement fusion. The plan was furtherupset when Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg, professor of physicsat the Desert Research Institute at the University ofNevada and a pioneer in inertial confinement fusionoutside the government-controlled programs, collaboratedwith the FEF in getting out the story of the scientificroots of the H-bomb. 2Therefore, the Progressive operation was turned into asmokescreen: The H-bomb secrets story with its antinuclearangle was used to cover up the real secret of theimportance of Riemann's method for scientific progresstoday.Notes46 FUSION October-November 19811. "On the Propagation of Plane Air Waves of Finite Amplitude." Thearticle was translated Into English for the first time by Uwe Parpart andDr. Steven Bardwell of the FEF, and appeared In the InternationalJournal of Fusion Energy, 2:1 (1980).2. See for example Wlnterberg's "Some Reminiscences About the Originsof Inertial Confinement," Fusion, Nov. 1979, p. 41.


InternationalLaunch of Ariane RocketPuts Europe in Space BusinessWith the second successful testlaunch of the European-built Arianerocket on June 19, it is now clear thatEurope is in the space business to stay.The Ariane rocket, a cooperativeeffort of the 11-member EuropeanSpace Agency (ESA), is an expendablerocket that will for the first time giveEurope the independent capability tolaunch satellites into space.In a recent interview, Wilfred Mellors,director of ESA's Washington,D.C., office, told Fusion that therewere three main ways in which thelaunch was significant."The overriding importance of thesuccessful launch," he stated, "is thatit proves that the modifications thatwere made after the second testlaunch failed last year were correct.The burn of the rocket was extremelysmooth."Second, this is the first time thatEurope has effected the launch of twosatellites with one vehicle." This isimportant for reasons of economics."Third," Mellors commented, "wenow have a geostationary meteorologicalsatellite over Europe that willbe working within a month. Meteorologistshave been waiting anxiouslyfor this satellite to go up, and wehope to get data starting in mid-August."Mellors explained that the UnitedStates had launched a weather satellitefor the Europeans in 1977, but theimager failed after two years, hamperingcontinuous weather forecastingfor the continent. Until now onlythe United States and Soviet Unionhave had reliable launch capabilities.The ArianeThe Ariane, which is being built forESA by Aerospatiale of France, is aliquid-fuel three-stage rocket, similarto the U.S. Delta and Centaur expendablerockets. ESA expects theAriane to be competitive with thecomparable U.S. rockets when it becomesoperational in 1982. It may alsobe competitive with the reusableSpace Shuttle for certain kinds of payloads.The Ariane's payload capacity isnow 3,749 pounds but second andthird-generation Ariane rockets areplanned that will bring the capacityup to 5,324. Even with the currenttechnology, Ariane can put two satellitesinto geosynchronous orbitabove a spot on the Earth 16 minutesafter liftoff.ESA has scheduled the last test flightfor Feb. 1982 and hopes to put thesystem into operation immediatelyafter that.International CompetitionThe 6th to 23rd flights of the Arianescheduled through Dec. 1985 are alreadybooked solid. These launcheswill include ESA's Halley's Comet missionscheduled for 1985 and otherscientific missions. But the greatestinterest is coming from developingsector nations, which have previouslybeen dependent upon the U.S. spaceagency for satellite launches.A consortium of Arab nations hascontracted to launch two communi-ESA's Arianerocket.cations satellites—Arabsat 1 and 2—in1983 and 1984. The second satellitelaunched by the Ariane in June wasan Indian-built Apple communicationssatellite.Aerospatiale has set up a new companycalled Arianspace to marketspace on the Ariane, and on June 11the French company signed a memorandumof understanding withBoeing Aerospace in the United Statesfor joint marketing. Boeing is buildinga platform for the Ariane that willallow the multiple stacking and servicingof satellites.—Marsha FreemanMexico: Economic WarfareThreatens Oil-for TechnologySevere economic warfare hasthrown some obstacles in the way ofMexico's economic growth, makingit more difficult in the near term forMexico to achieve an "oil-for-technology"trade framework with theUnited States.In late May, a group of oil multinationalsled by Exxon began topressure Mexico to slash its oil prices,justifying their demands by citing thetemporary world oil glut.At first, Jorge Diaz Serrano, directorof Petroleos Mexicanos, the nationaloil industry, acceded to the pressure,dropping Mexico's prices a full $4 perbarrel. But the Mexican economiccabinet, headed by President JoseLopez Portillo, charged that the actionwas "precipitous," and in somethingof a political earthquake, Diaz Serranowas relieved of his duties June 7. OnJuly 1, the new Pemex director, MoctezumaCid, announced that negotiationswere underway to raise theprice back up $2 per barrel.All-out oil warfare immediately began.Exxon canceled 175,000 barrelsOctober-November 1981 FUSION 47


Internationalper day (bpd) of imports, the secondlargest Pemex contract. (Spain is thelargest with 200,000 bpd.) Severalother U.S. multis joined the de factoboycott, plus several governments, including,most surprisingly, France.The French cancellation of its 100,000bpd contract badly tarnished the imageof "friend of the Third World"that Socialist President Francois Mitterrandhad assiduously cultivated.The fact that the boycott had nothingto do with so-called blind marketforces became apparent with the simultaneousappearance of a rumorcampaign designed to collapse theparity of the peso with the dollar.Foreign exchange traders in New Yorksoon revealed the real game beingplayed by saying, in a series of interviewsin the weekly Executive IntelligenceReview, that there was onlyone thing Mexico could do to keepits head above water: cut back on itsindustrial development plan.BlackmailThis is the same type of blackmailthat earned former energy secretaryJames Schlesinger such opprobriumin 1977, when he used the pretext ofprice to rip up already negotiatedU.S.-Mexican gas contracts, derailingeconomic cooperation between thetwo nations for more than two years.Schlesinger's real policy, as stated inprivate, was to prevent the emergenceof a new "Japan" south of theborder.The fact is, however, that every dollarMexico does not get for its oil isa dollar Mexico does not spend purchasingcapital goods and other importsabroad, 70 percent of whichcome from the United States. U.S.­Mexican trade soared to $32 billion in1980, making Mexico the third largesttrade partner of the United States.More important, Mexico's oilbasedindustrialization program is thekey to its continuing political stability—morethan an indifferent topicfor a northern neighbor that shares a2,000-mile border.Mexico Strikes BackMexico seized on France for its initialcounterattack. On July 4, Mexico'sIndustry Ministry issued a terse87-word announcement stating thatbecause of the French cancellation,Mexico was prohibiting French biddingin major Mexican developmentprojects, worth an estimated $1 billion.The root issue, as Lopez Portilloexplained later at a press conference,was that Mexico's sales of oil to Francewere embedded in an oil-for-technologyframework that had been negotiatedstate to state. One portion ofthe deal could not be canceled withoutthe rest tumbling down as well.The original deal, negotiated by formerFrench president Giscardd'Estaing and Lopez Portillo in March1979, was a model for North-Southrelations based on transfer of industrialtechnology.The vehemence of the Mexicancountermove caught French PresidentMitterrand and his ministers offReduced oil revenues may force cutbacks in Mexico's capital goods imports.Above, the Pemex petrochemical facility in Veracruz.guard. There was a flurry of diplomaticactivity, and on July 18, theFrench and Mexican foreign ministersannounced in Paris that the 100,000bpd of oil imports would be resumedon mutually acceptable terms as ofAug. 1, 1981. Several U.S. multis tookthe hint and also made their peacewith Mexico.In late July, President Lopez Portillodenounced what he termed "an internationalplot against the peso," reservingspecial words of condemnationfor Mexicans who fell for"information terrorism" coming fromoutside the country and had begun tosell the peso for dollars.But Lopez's strongest condemnationwas for the pincer movementagainst all Third World economies—the simultaneous decline in ThirdWorld commodity prices and the risein their borrowing costs resultingfrom the high interest rate policy ofthe U.S. Federal Reserve.The DamagePrice and export declines of thepost-May period have cut into Mexico'soil revenues, and on July 10Lopez Portillo announced a 4 percentcut in the government budget, thefirst since Mexico's oil takeoff fouryears ago and probably only the firsttaste of further austerity measures thatwill be required.Nevertheless, Mexico's developmentis not fundamentally breakingstride. Growth is still expected toreach 7 percent this year, led by theenergy sector, petrochemicals, andcapital goods. This projection is downonly slightly from the past three years'extraordinary 8 percent per yeargrowth rate.Lopez Portillo has repeatedly distinguishedbetween the Reagan administrationand those financial interestsrunning the economic warfare againsthis country. The goodwill seemsbased on the successful personalmeeting of the Presidents at CampDavid the second week of June, and,if reinforced through further personaldiplomacy, could cushion some of therecent damage.—TimothyRush48 FUSION October-November 1981 International


A (our group sponsored by the CCT trade union federation views a model ofthe Cattenom project.Group Formed to DefendFrench Nuclear ProgramA "Committee to Save Cattenom'!'has been formed to defend a vitalnuclear complex in northeasternFrance against the attempts of thegovernment of Socialist PresidentFrancois Mitterrand to halt its construction.The Cattenom complex, which isprojected to include four 1,300-megawattreactors, is located in the Lorrraine region, near the coal and steelregions of Luxembourg and the Saardistrict of West Germany. When completed,Cattenom will enable Franceto export nuclear power to this entireindustrial belt.Two of the four reactors, owned bythe state utility company, Electricitede France, are nearing completionand employ 1,800 workers. A totalworkforce of 4,000 will be required tocomplete construction of the four-reactorinstallation.Cross-Party SupportThe committee was initiated byleaders of the French affiliate of theFusion Energy Foundation, the EuropeanLabor Party, and the Metzbranch of the "Young Giscardians,"the youth group that backed formerpresident Giscard d'Estaing in his bidfor reelection last spring. It has sincebeen joined by the Gaullist mayor ofCattenom and the head of the RepublicanParty in the Moselle departmentin Lorraine.Broad support for the project alreadyexists among area residents. Forexample, the Communist Party-linkedtrade union federation, the CGT, organizeda 1,400-strong demonstrationin the nearby town of Thionville infavor of completing all four reactorswhen the government threatened tocut back the project for environmentalistand budgetary reasons this summer.And the Lorraine Chamber ofCommerce unanimously voted up aresolution urging the government inParis to maintain the constructionschedule because the complex is vitalto the region's economy and employment.According to one of the project'ssubcontractors, September is theturning point in deciding whether thefinal two reactors can be built, as it isthe deadline for the civil engineeringplan and assembly of 2,200 additionalworkers. If decisions are not madequickly, the workforce will scatter andcost overruns will become morelikely.Supporters of Cattenom fear thatdelay is precisely the tactic the governmentwill use to kill the project—by holding a long debate, duringwhich time the necessary deadlinesare missed. They also note that PresidentMitterrand, who campaigned ona platform of full employment, cannotassail this nuclear project directlywithout discrediting his governmentin the politically important Lorraineregion.Iraqi Reactor Could Not Build BombsIraq's French-built nuclear researchreactor, Osirak, destroyed by Israelijets June 7, was not part of any nuclearweapons-building program. This isthe conclusion of a technical reportprepared by Fusion Energy Foundationspecialists in June, which explainedhow the technical specificationsof the reactor itself, as well asthe safeguards surrounding its use,make it. highly unlikely that the facilitywas being used to produce a bomb.The Iraqi facility is a 70-megawattswimming pool-type reactor, a standarddesign for a research facility. Thefuel for the reactor consists of about25 pounds of highly enriched uranium-235,irradiated in France.The FEF technical report explainedthat Iraq does not have the capabilityto handle the fuel for any purposeother than loading it into the reactorcore; this would require the use ofhot cell, a heavily shielded apparatusfor remote-control handling of radioactivematerial, which Iraq presentlydoes not possess. Iraq also lacks thechemical processing facilities to concertthe U-235 reactor fuel into thepure uranium metal required for anatomic bomb. Nor does the countryhave the industrial capability to machinethe uranium metal into the precisionshapes that must combine intoa perfectly shaped sphere just prior todetonation of an atomic bomb.Even if the Iraqis overcame theseContinued on page 61InternationalOctober-November 1981 FUSION 49


NationalColumbia Readied for Its Second FlightWhen the Space Shuttle OrbiterColumbia takes off on its second flightSept. 30, it will be the first time inhistory that a spacecraft has flown ona second mission. In fact, the minimaldamage to the orbiter on its maidenvoyage April 12 enabled NASA tomove up the time schedule on thesecond flight, STS-2, to a 24-weekturnaround.The second flight will last nearly 125hours, or 83 orbits, compared withthe 54-hour first flight. Whereas theinitial Columbia flight was aimed attesting the orbiter's main system, proceeding"by the book," the secondflight is designed to submit the vehicleto potential problems that couldarise and to enhance the capability ofthe system.For example, the commander of theSTS-2, Air Force Col. Joe Engle, willtest the automatic landing system,which Commander John Young didnot use on the first flight. This computer-guidedsystem will be used toland the Shuttle when the spacecraftbegins operating on a routine basis.NASA also plans to transfer 1,000pounds of propellant used in the OrbitalManeuvering System (OMS) toan alternate control system, therebysimulating a situation in vi|hich one ofthe OMS units fails. This simulatedfailure will take place when the orbiteris preparing to reenter the Earth'satmosphere and needs the OMS tomake orbital changes.The PayloadThe main change on the secondflight will be the addition of a scientificpayload in the cargo bay, bringingthe total payload weight up to anestimated 17,676 pounds.The bay will hold two importantpieces of equipment: a Remote ManipulatorArm built in Canada and apallet built by the European SpaceAgency (ESA) with five experimentsmounted on it. These will be exposedto the space atmosphere when thepayload bay's doors are opened.The experiment package, known asOSTA-1 for the first payload of NASA'sOffice of Space and Terrestrial Applications,will consist of new types ofEarth remote-sensing technology forimproved observations by future satellitesystems.The largest piece of equipment onthe OSTA-1 pallet is the Shuttle ImagingRadar Experiment. This 30-footlong antenna will send and receiveradar signals that will be used to createimages of the Earth's surface foruse in geological exploration. Whencombined with Landsat imagery, scientistshope to be able to locate mineralswith the radar data.The Shuttle Multispectral InfraredRadiometer (SMIRR) will also carryout geological mapping from space.Ground-based data have indicatedthat the infrared range is preferentiallyabsorbed by rocks containingdifferent minerals, so the SMIRRcould help determine the electromagneticsignature of various rocktypes and their mineral contents.FILE, or Feature Identification andLocation Experiment, is an on-boarddata management technique that isdesigned to aid sensors such as SMIRRand the Imaging Radar Experimentidentify specific kinds of scenes fromwhich to gather data. FILE will attemptto select for specific data, such asvegetation, bare ground, water, snow,or clouds. Other data will be sup-Artist's conception of the manipulatorarm, to be tested on STS-2.The Orbiter Columbia on the launchpad for STS-1. The boosters on eitherside are designed for 20 launches.pressed by the system. If, for example,a scientist wanted information onwheat growth, FILE could help himsift the data for images with fewclouds in areas where wheat is theprimary crop.An experiment for the Measurementof Air Pollution from Satellites(MAPS) will measure the unique radiationabsorption lines that carbonmonoxide forms as it travels upwardsthrough the Earth's atmosphere.MAPS will measure the carbon monoxidelevel at an altitude of 4.3 to 4.9miles and 6 to 7 miles, in the Earth'stroposphere.Finally, the fifth pallet experimentis an Ocean Color Experiment thatContinued on page 5950 FUSION October-November 1981 National


Inside EnergyNatural Gas:Our Barely TappedEnergy Resourceby William EngdahlNatural gas is potentially one ofthe world's most valuable primaryenergy resources, even thoughhistorically, it has been treated as a"poor cousin" to crude oil.Its actual supply and attractivenesshave yet to be realized. In fact, untilthe 1973 OPEC oil embargo, U.S. naturalgas was regarded largely as anobstruction in the search for oil. However,natural gas, or methane, is oneof the few primary energy sourcesthat represents useful energy in itsnatural form. (Oil must be refined,uranium converted into thermal energy,coal into heat, and so forth). Forthis reason, it is the fuel preferred byindustry and other end-users when itis available.Despite natural gas's extreme attractiveness,political pricing restrictionsin effect since the 1950s havesuccessfully kept one of the world'smost useful and abundant energy resourcesfrom its logical development.The subordination of this particularhydrocarbon by both the multinationaloil majors and parochial coalinterests is a fascinating story.Today, because of the Natural GasPolicy Act of 1978—an almost accidentalproduct of the Carter era ofenergy policy chaos—natural gasdrilling has begun to increase significantly,especially in uncontrolled,deep (below 15,000 feet) formations,where the high exploration costs andrisks are somewhat offset by the abilityto command upwards of $8 per1,000 cubic feet of gas. Yet, the vastpotential of U.S. natural gas reservesis still largely untapped.A comprehensive report recentlyreleased by Dr. Wolf Haefele statesthat we have consumed less than "8percent of the estimated global resources[of natural gas] with a goodpart of this being burned away wastefullyin the major gas-producing regionsof northern Africa and the PersianGulf because there have been nomeans for transporting the gas to distantmarkets such as those in WesternEurope." 1The Haefele report, which sees naturalgas emerging as a major energysource over the next decades, estimatesglobal conventional gas resourcesat some 9889.6 trillion cubicfeet (tcf). For comparison, total U.S.natural gas consumption runs about20 tcf/year.In the United States alone, reservesare equally impressive. In a speechlast spring, Harry C. Kent, director ofthe Potential Gas Agency at the ColoradoSchool of Mines, announcedupdated resource estimates based onthe recent exploration and discoveriesin the Rocky Mountains and otherregions. 2 Kent's committee now calculatesthat Alaska contains some 276tcf of undiscovered recoverable conventionalnatural gas, ah amount thatcould fill current U.S. demand almostto the end of the century. If we addthe committee's estimate for thelower 48 states, we have an estimated820 tcf, more than a 40-year supply.A new administration and changedattitude in Washington offer somepromise that this resource will becomeincreasingly important, if deliberaterestrictions on its end-use areremoved or mitigated. Untangling thecomplexities of the entire Natural GasPolicy Act is a topic for another column,however. Suffice it to say thatnatural gas policy has too long layhidden under the shadow of othercarbon-based energy sources.Notes1. Wolf Haefele, et al., Energy in a Finite World:Paths to a Sustainable Future. Report by theEnergy Systems Group of the Int'l. Institutefor Applied Systems Analysis, (Cambridge,Mass.: Ballinger, 1981).2. Hatty C. Kent, "The Outlook for RemainingU.S. Gas Reserves Based on Recent Explorationand Development Activity." Speech tothe Eighth Energy Technology Conference,Washington, D.C., March 11, 1981.One recent authoritative report estimates that the United States has enoughuntapped natural gas to fill current U.S. demand for more than 40 years.Inside Energy October-November 1981 FUSION 51


WashingtonAdvanced Energy BudgetIn Holding Pattern; Worse to ComeNone of the Department of Energy'sadvanced energy programsmade it through the past months'budget-cutting process unscathed,but for the time being most managedto hold on to the majority of theirprojects.The magnetic fusion program, oneof the principal battlegrounds of thisyear's budget debate, maintained itsfiscal 1981 level of funding. However,this leaves the final budget at least $50million short of the amount mandatedby the Magnetic Fusion Energy EngineeringAct of 1980. The design workfor the congressionally mandated FusionEngineering Device (FED) is notupgraded or accelerated in the fiscal1982 budget, nor has the Reagan administrationformally decided to givethe go-ahead for the FED, to have iton line by 1990 as scheduled. (SeeFusion Report, p. 21 for details.)In early July, the Senate-House authorizationconference settled on a$473.5 million level for fiscal 1982.However, the House AppropriationsSubcommittee on Energy and Watercut that figure to $447 million, ensuringthat no new project starts or upgradeddesign work on the FED willtake place. As of this writing, theappropriations committee on theSenate side has yet to act on theDOE's fiscal 1982 request for magneticfusion. If the Senate appropriatesmore than the $447 million figure,then the appropriations bill will go toSenate-House conferenceMHD Lobby FormedOne of the advanced R&D programscut to zero in the Reagan administration'sbudget was the magnetohydrodynamics(MHD) programfor efficient energy conversion. In response,contractors and potential utilityusers of MHD technology bandedtogether for the first time andlaunched a lobbying effort that succeededin restoring $29 million, al-The Reaganadministration has notdecided to give thego-ahead for the FED.most half the fiscal 1981 funding forthe program.The formation and activities of thisusers group was one of the main topicsof discussion at the MHD conferenceheld at the University of Tennessee'sSpace Institute June 15 to 17,the 19th Symposium on EngineeringAspects of MHD. In his address to themeeting, Dr. Heinz Pfeiffer of PennsylvaniaPower and Light reportedthat more than a dozen utilities havejoined the lobbying group, and hechastised the scientific and industrypeople involved in MHD developmentfor not taking "the informationand potential value of MHD to decision-makers"sooner.Pfeiffer recommended that the advancesin coal research coming out ofthe MHD program be brought to theattention of policymakers on a regularbasis.. Breeder Program Back on TrackA similar industry mobilization tookplace last spring in response to thethreatened shutdown of the ClinchRiver Breeder Reactor in Tennessee,the only U.S. demonstration fastbreeder project. When the authorizingHouse Committee on Science andTechnology voted to terminate theproject in June, industry contractorssolicited statements of support fromgroups such as Scientists and Engineersfor Secure Energy. These wereentered in the Congressional Recordby the committee leadership alongwith the minority's probreeder position.A Senate-House conference committeehas now authorized $228 millionfor Clinch River in fiscal 1982,and the appropriations committeesare expected to follow suit.Prospects for FY 1983By mid-September, the DOE andother federal agencies must submittheir budget requests for fiscal year1983. The prospects that the advancedenergy programs will continue tosqueak by without major cutbacks arenot good, Capitol Hill sources report.With interest rates still at record highlevels, and no letup in the budgetcuttingfever in Washington, industry,the scientific community, and thepublic will have to maintain a highprofile if the DOE's advanced R&Dprograms are to survive and go forward.Remote Sensing:Is the U.S.Losing Its Lead?Recent congressional hearings onthe U.S. remote sensing program revealednot only that the United Stateshas no plans to launch new remotesensing satellite systems after 1983,but that France is on track to surpassthe U.S. lead in this area in 1984.The hearings, held July 22 and 23by the space subcommittees of theHouse Science and Technology andSenate Commerce Committees, wereprompted by concern in Congressthat the United States is falling behindother nations in this important area ofspace applications.The United States pioneered Earthremote sensing in the 1960s with itsmeteorological satellites. These delicatedevices have since gathered dataon crop conditions, agricultural pestsand diseases, snow cover in the win-52 FUSION October-November 1981 Washington


ter, spring water runoff, and manyother aspects of land and sea conditions.The data have opened up enormouspossibilities for agriculturalmanagement, storm and disaster forefcasting, and minerals location.A French LeadIn his opening statement to thehearings, Sen. Harrison Schmitt (R-N.M.), the former Apollo astronautand geologist who chairs the SenateSubcommittee on Science, Transporrtation, and Space, summarized therecent progress in remote sensingtechnology:"The instruments carried by theAmerican satellites of the Tiros andNimbus series in the 1960s, which offereda ground resolution on the orderof 1,000 meters, were the first toreveal the potential of space as a vantagepoint. Second-generation rehmote sensing instruments, with a resolutionon the order of 100 meters,were developed during the 1970s forthe Landsat series of satellites. . . . The1980s will see the introduction of satellite-borneinstruments with resolutionsin the order of 10 meters, whichwill open up many new fields of application."Schmitt then revealed that this quotationwas taken from the introductionto the brochure for the Frenchremote sensing system, called SPOT.The USA, Schmitt stated, has no developmentprogram to follow theLandsat D series of satellites, whichwill be operational in 1983. The IOmeterresolution satellites will not belaunched by NASA but by the French!Because of budget cuts, NASA'sR&D program for remote sensing satellitetechnology has been eliminated,and there is now no doubt the Frenchwill be ahead of the United States by1984, when the SPOT satellites arescheduled to be launched.Both congressional subcommitteesare considering alternatives to get industryto take over part of the operationsof Landsat satellites, groundcollection stations, and data processingfacilities now funded by NASA, tofree up NASA funds for advancedR&D work in remote sensing.An artist's conception of construction in space.NASA's Beggs: Space Station Is NextAt confirmation hearings June 17,incoming NASA Administrator JamesM. Beggs, a former General DynamicsCo. executive, identified a permanentspace center as the most importantnext-step for the space program."It seems to me that the next majorstep is a space station because thatwill make a lot of other things possiblein space in the future," he said.The NASA confirmation hearingswere held by the Senate CommerceCommittee's Subcommittee on Science,Technology, and Space, chairedby former astronaut Sen. HarrisonSchmitt (R-N.M.). Dr. Hans Mark, thenew deputy director and former secretaryof the Air Force, concurredwith Beggs, stating, "I think the nextstep is development of a permanentpresence in space."The Space Shuttle's astronaut corpsand space supporters in the Houseand Senate are already waging a lobbyingeffort for a space station, andNASA is now conducting preliminarydesign studies for the Space OperationsCenter.The new NASA administrators werealso asked their views on the futureNASAof NASA's space science program andthe military use of space.Beggs said he hoped the space scienceprogram could be rejuvenated,as "planetary exploration has been agreat benefit to the country and ahallmark of the agency."On the much debated militaryquestion that came up during thedevelopment of the Shuttle, Markstated, "I support the space act whichseparates the civilian from military activitiesin space," though he addedthat separating the two functions isdifficult when the same vehicle (theShuttle) is to carry both kinds of payloads.Mark said he supports the proposalof Senator Goldwater for a fleetof 10 Shuttle orbiters, some of whichwould be dedicated to military uses.Expand NASA's MandateSchmitt challenged the new NASAteam to also think about expandingthe space agency's mandate to dealwith other transportation issues."Would you see adding a maritime,rail, and automotive R&D effort to theNASA charter?" Schmitt asked. Beggsreplied that "this should be studiedmore in depth."Washington October-November 1981 FUSION 53


FEF NewsAn Interview with Dr. Friedwardt WinterbergOpening the Frontiers of ScienceDr. Friedwardt Winterberg, a pioneerin inertial-confinement fusion,was the featured speaker on a universitytour sponsored by the Fusion EnergyForum of West Germany May 25through June 5. Winterberg lecturedon the importance of fusion for basicresearch and space exploration to studentsin Aachen, Bonn, Giessen,Karlsruhe, Kiel, Mainz, Munich, andStuttgart.Well known in Germany, Winterbergwas educated at German universitiesand was a student of thegreat physicist Werner Heisenberg.His lectures generated lively discussionfrom the student audiences, especiallyon the subject of nuclear energy.While in Stuttgart, Winterbergwas interviewed on a topical newsprogram on prime time television onthe future of fusion.Winterberg, currrently a professorat the University of Nevada in Reno,is considered the father of impactfusion tor his early work in thermonuclearignition by hypervelocity impact.He received the 1979 HermannOberth gold medal of the HermannOberth-Wernher von Braun InternationalSpace Flight Foundation for hiswork on thermonuclear propulsion.Winterberg's book. The Physical Principlesof Thermonuclear ExplosiveDevices, was published by the FEF inAugust.This interview was conducted byJonathan Tennenbaum, director ofthe Fusion Energy Forum.Question: What do you see as thesignificance of fusion, and what areits prospects?During my lecture tour here inWest Germany, I have heard thatsome scientists have predicted thatcontrolled fusion could not beachieved before the year 2050. I don'tThe moment controlledfusion is achieved,development canand will proceedwith tremendous rapidity.And I believe we willachieve controlled fusionduring this decade.know who made this prediction, butI consider it completely wrong. I amrather certain that by the year 2000,fusion will have been meaningfullyachieved in the sense that it will alreadybe in use for the production ofenergy; it will also be used to solveother problems, problems that havenothing to do with the production ofenergy, but are of tremendous importancefor basic research in general.I am thinking of space travel. Byusing nuclear-powered rocket engines,it will be possible to transportgigantic payloads at greatly increasedspeeds throughout the solar system.I am also thinking of the applicationof fusion to particle accelerators inhigh-energy physics, by means ofwhich it will be possible to achieve adeeper fundamental understandingof nature.Question: Now that that Space ShuttleColumbia has had a successfulmaiden voyage, the possibility of puttingmen in orbit on a scheduledflightbasis lies open to us. How doesthis milestone contribute to the prospectsfor fusion-powered spacetravel?The two developments have a veryinteresting and very close interrelationship.First of all, from now on wewill be able to regularly put men inorbit with a device like the SpaceShuttle; that is, a device with relativelylow acceleration. But with the applicationof fusion power, we will be ina position to put very large payloadsin orbit at an extremely low cost incomparison with the Space Shuttle.Let's remember that it is very expensiveto put payloads in orbit withthe Space Shuttle, and probably willremain so. We are not just puttingmen in orbit; we want to establishwhole industries there, and so equipmentconstitutes the largest part ofthe mass to be transported. Throughthe use of fusion, it should be possibleto build magnetically driven cannonto achieve shots that reach very highspeeds—perhaps 10 kilometers persecond. These shots can pierce theatmosphere, and in this way can putlarge payloads in orbit at a very lowcost—perhaps one thousandth of thecost by the Space Shuttle.With these payloads in orbit, wecan construct large spaceships withnuclear-powered rockets, which inturn can push out to Mars, to Jupiter,54 FUSION October-November 1981 FEF News


or even to the outer limit of the solarsystem to Pluto, and carry payloads ofmillions of tons. Then we could buildwhole observatories and scientificcolonies on these planets or theirmoons.Question: When can industrializationof the solar system begin, and howdoes this relate to the talk about limitsto growth and the end of industrialsociety?The large-scale industrialization ofthe solar system could begin perhapsby the middle of the next century,when fusion rockets will have beenextensively developed and tested andobservatories will exist on the planetsor on the moons of the larger planets.As I picture it, this should be possiblefrom the year 2050. This industrializationcould then contribute on anunlimited scale raw materials that aregradually being exhausted or are becomingscarcer on Earth, putting themto use for further industrial development.Question: Recently, the InternationalInstitute for Applied Systems Analysis(NASA) in Vienna published a studytitled "Energy in a Limited World,"which claimed that fusion power canmake no significant contribution tothe world economy before the year2030. What do you think of this viewpoint?This study appears to be based onthe principle of futurology, a pseudosciencethat makes linear extrapolationinto the future from known facts.Such linear extrapolations haveproven to be wrong again and again.Of course, I too must engage in certainextrapolations in formulating myown forecast, and it may well be thatI am still judging the matter much toopessimistically. Remember that in1903, when the first airplane flew,almost nobody considered it possiblethat we might be walking on theMoon in less than the span of a man'slifetime. In fact, less than 30 yearspassed from the development of thefirst liquid-fuel rockets in the early1940s to the first Moon landing.FEF NewsMsx Planch Inllltut*Spending cutbacks are hitting the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics inCarching and other West German laboratories. Pictured here, the Institute'sAsdex tokamak, Europe's largest tokamak.We are always strongly inclined tounderestimate the tempo. Rememberalso that about 1920 the question wasraised in the United States whetherair passenger service was possible betweenNew York and Chicago. At thetime, the answer was that it wouldnever be possible, because the Alleghaniesstood in the way.So I would like to stress thatthe moment controlled fusion isachieved, development can and willproceed with tremendous rapidity.And I believe we will achieve controlledfusion during this decade.Question: You have yourself designednew technologies for use ininertial fusion. Isn't that an exampleof a development that could not havebeen foreseen by linear methods?Yes, I think that's a very good example.Technologies were developedduring the mid-1960s with which verypowerful electron beams could beproduced—beams of up to millionsof amperes. At an earlier point, in the1950s when fusion research began,these technologies were not yetknown. Now another possibility hasopened up much more recently inthe concept of magnetic isolation,where not only electron beams butalso ion beams of many millions ofamperes can be produced.With these intense ion beams wehave new stimuli and new potentialitiesfor achieving not only inertialfusion but also magnetic fusion. Hereis the connection: In magnetic fusion,as attempted so far, essentially, gasdischarges are induced. These dischargesexcite streams of electrons inthe plasma, inducing a flow of electronplasma.So now we have a technique bywhich we can produce ion beams ofincredible strengths. Theoretical investigationsshow that a plasma becomesextremely stable when suchion beams are fired into a plasmainstead of electron beams. This cannotcome about through a gas discharge,which can only lead to electronbeams, but with the help ofmagnetic isolation—that is, with amagnetically isolated diode—the desiredion beam can be produced. AllOctober-November 1981 FUSION 55


FEF Newsthe problems that have provokedplasma physics until now and posedenormous difficulties, suddenly disappearinto thin air.Question: At the time, people saidthat the magnetically isolated diode(MID) couldn't possibly work.When I first proposed this concept—thatwas 10 or 12 years ago—itwas completely ignored. A few yearslater, a very prominent man explainedthat magnetic isolation belonged inmore or less the same category as theperpetual motion machine. He declaredin a letter published in thejournal Nature that anybody who proposedsuch a thing should build aworking model, just like the patentoffice official who required the sameof inventors of perpetual motion machines.Since then, however, theprominent man has stated that thiskind of perpetual motion machinereally works, even though true perpetualmotion does not.Today MID is being used, for example,at Karlsruhe. They are alsopursuing inertial fusion there, and indeedwith ion beams generated byMIDs—albeit initially on a smallerscale than in the United States.technologies, which as allied technologiesfor fusion lead to decisive newperspectives, as with the productionof intense ion beams. In my opinionit will not be done simply with magneticisolation as such.What we need immediately aremagnetically isolated diodes that cangenerate ion beams of extremely highquality. The beams produced by thismeans are not so far of the desiredquality. So it has been not at all easyto focus on a tiny spot.produce fusion than heretofore imagined.Question: In the Federal Republic,not only is there no increase in investmentin fusion, but resources arebeing cut back, as for example atGarching. What do you think of thissituation?Basically, we should not recommendcutbacks, since that wouldmean dispensing with the know-howof this high-powered technology, andQuestion: That brings us to anothertheme. In the Federal Republic verylittle is being done in the field ofinertial fusion. Do you think moreshould be done, and why has so littlebeen done until now?In the mid-1950s there was a debateover what course fusion researchshould take, organized and led byProfessor von Weizsacker's administration.At that time it was decidednot to enter the field of inertial fusion,but to concentrate solely on magneticfusion. The state of inertial confinementtoday thus reflects a decisiontaken very early, but which may yetbe reversed, as we see in Karlsruhe.Question: How in your opinionshould research in this field be carriedforward?I would say that we should puttremendous emphasis on these newMembers of the Fusion Energy Forum organizing in Munich. "They aredefinitely contributing a great deal to the formulation of a positive energypolicy."A laser beam is a beam of higherquality; sunlight or the beam of aflashlight represents only a poor qualityby comparison, since unlike lasersit cannot be focused on a point. Wemust do research on the focusing ofion beams to extremely fine dimensions.If we succeed here, then weshall have completely new perspectivesand unforeseen breakthroughs,which will make it much easier todispensing with the experts who havea wealth of knowledge about it. Andin financing particular projects, greatemphasis should be put on the latesttechnologies, as in the project underwayat Karlsruhe. There must be amultitude of approaches underway—say, 10 to 100 times as many as now.Then the Federal Republic wouldachieve importance on a world scalein this area, much as the Federal Re-56 FUSION October-November 1981 FEF News


public has achieved importance in thefield of high-energy physics with thesynchrotron electron accelerator inHamburg.Question: Recently in Bild der Wissenschaft[Image of Science, an antitechnologyGerman magazine], theSocial Democratic member of parliamentSteger expressed the view thatthe Federal Republic should eventuallyput an end to fusion research—when, say, projects like JET [the JointEuropean Torus] failed to produce thedesired results.It we terminate this research now,it would be comparable to havingended aeronautical research on theeve of the invention of the airplane.Put yourself in 1900, when all theprojects that had been tested untilthen had failed—for example, airrplanes driven by steam engines. Whatif we had given up and said, it won'twork, let's throw in the towel? Theairplane would never have been developed,and people would havegone around saying, we can go n(j>further. We would be living today a$in the era before 1903.So it would be a tremendous mistake,since there is no doubt thatcontrolled fusion is possible in principle.No doubt whatever. It's not aquestion of whether one or anotherproject achieves its goal, or evenwhen it does. Aeronautics is a perfectexample here. There was the Zeppelin,and there was the airplane. Bothworked, and it may be that both inertialfusion and magnetic fusion willwork, or also a third method that weare not yet working on today or thatis not yet known to us. So it would bea mistake to say since the one won'twork, the other won't work: "If theZeppelin fails, forget about that airplaneidea."It would be not only sad, it wouldbe stupid. Because there is no questionbut that fusion will work. Wedon't know whether all the experimentsthat are planned will click orwhether just some of them will. Butthen, even when one experimentfails, you still have the expertise, andthat is the most important investment.You have all the know-how, and itcan be put to work on another project.Question: At your lectures, the questionwas often raised whether we stillneed fission, since fusion is so promising.We need fission in any case. Thefirst fission reactor was brought intooperation in 1942. With fusion we arestill in the situation in which fissionfound itself prior to 1942. By contrast,fission now has decades of technologicaldevelopment behind it. This isconspicuous in the fact that we haveavailable to us nuclear power plantsIf we terminated fusionresearch now, it would becomparable to havingended aeronauticalresearch on the eveof the inventionof the airplane.producing electricity on a large scale.We cannot afford simply to wait untilfusion reactors come on line. Weneed fission if only as an interim solution.If nuclear power plants are notbuilt in the Federal Republic, and thenuclear energy program comes to ahalt over the next 10 years, then thiswill lead, with inescapable certainty,to the economic collapse of the FederalRepublic.Question: What about the problemof waste disposal?This is where lies are spread amongthe people. It is claimed that theproblem of waste disposal has notbeen solved. In fact it is completelysolved, in technical detail. But ofcourse, if you don't build a wastedisposal center, you can't deal withany wastes, any more than you can flythe airplane if you don't build anairport.Question: Many people say weshould rely more on solar energy. TheIIASA report I mentioned says thatsolar energy will be more importantthan fusion over the next 50 years.What is your opinion?By no means. That is completelyinsane. Solar energy is too inefficient.No amount of research can changethat. No matter how much money ispoured into solar energy research, infact, no research can alter the limitsof solar radiation. Then people willsay we should build solar powerplants on or near the Sun. Unfortunately,that cannot be done. Solarenergy is like the emperor's newclothes—it isn't there. The best youcan do with solar energy is to makewarm water. And that is really all.There are even people who proposeto introduce solar power in Sweden.Now, since Sweden is oftenovercast, and is relatively close to theNorth Pole, it isn't clear to me howthis Is supposed to work. It would bea truly hopeless enterprise. The otherargument, that the Third World hasplenty of sun, is also wrong. Evenunder the most favorable conditions,solar energy is still very uneconomical.Solar energy is insanely expensive.Because it is so inefficient, we wouldneed gigantic collector panels. If wewanted to supply the United Stateswith solar power and used the mostfavorable region—the AmericanSouthwest—we would cover thousandsof square kilometers just withcollectors, not to mention what theoutcome of a sandstorm would be.Question: But we could also say thatfusion is a form of solar energy.Precisely. The Sun is actually a giantfusion reactor. If we want to collectsolar energy at the Earth's surface, wecan only do so in two dimensions,that is, by means of collector surfaces.Its incidence is very irregular, andapart from cloudiness, there is nosunshine at night, as everbody knows.FEF NewsOctober-November 1981FUSION 57


FEF NewsThe inconstancy of sunlight makes itan even more uneconomical proposition—andsubstantially so. But withfusion, where we produce an artificialsun on Earth, we can collect the energyin three dimensions. The concentrationof energy is thereforehigher in the extreme. We won't needthousands of square kilometers, butcan work with very small spaces. Wehave a highly concentrated energysource. The concentration of energyin fusion is much, much higher, millionsof times greater than in chemicalcombustion.Question: What impression do youhave of the work of the Fusion EnergyForum from your recent tour?First of all, I have been very impressedwith its members. They are allvery energetic and intelligent youngpeople with a genuine interest in thecommon good. They are definitelycontributing a great deal to the formulationof a positive energy policyin the interests of the Federal Republic.This they are doing through theireducation of the public on the truthabout nuclear energy, fusion in particular.Question: You have spoken beforethousands of listeners here, especiallyin the universities. What do you thinkof university students in the FederalRepublic?The universities constitute a widefield, where through education manyadherents can be won for an energypolicy beneficial to all. I don't believethat all students here are environmentalist"greenies." That's just nottrue. Many students are committed tonuclear energy, and many are undecidedbecause they hear all mannerof propaganda, including bald-facedlies. Your campaign to spread thetruth and to educate the students onfission and fusion is a contribution oftremendous importance. Given thepositive results we see here now, Ibelieve your campaign can succeed ifyou carry on with the approach youhave used so far.FEF Dossier AvailableEnvironmentalists Handle Nuclear PRIn the course of investigating slandersof the FEF circulated to U.S. utilityexecutives, the foundation discoveredthe equivalent of the fox beinghired by the chickens to help designtheir coops; namely, a top environmentalistfirm, Ogilvy & Mather International,now handles the publicrelations for the U.S. nuclear industry.After further research, the FEF compiledand issued a dossier on Ogilvy& Mather, the advertising representativefor leading one-worldist and environmentalistcircles, and their buyoutof the public relations firm ofUnderwood & Jordan. For many yearsUnderwood & Jordan has been thekey public relations voice of Americanelectric utilities and nuclearpower companies.Ogilvy & Mather's May 1981 acquisition,one of the least publicized ofthe recent wave of "flight capital"takeovers of American companies byforeign and foreign-linked firms, isprobably the most dangerous to theU.S. national security, the dossier says.Among the clients represented byOgilvy & Mather International are theWorld Wildlife Fund, Royal DutchShell, three British government institutions,and the Principality of Monaco—clientsthe FEF has documentedto be leading opponents of industrialprogress and the widespread implementationof nuclear energy."American utilities and energycompanies are now being advised bythe same firm that is the publicitybrains behind the world environmentalistmovement," the dossier states.In fact, David Ogilvy, the formerBritish espionage expert who foundedthe advertising firm, is one of theexecutive council members of theWorld Wildlife Fund and personallyplans its publicity campaigns againsthigh-technology energy production.Ogilvy & Mather International alsorepresents the Bronfman family-controlledJoseph E. Seagram & Sons ofCanada, placing the advertising firmnear the center of the recent wave offoreign takeover attempts of U.S. industry."Underwood & Jordan did not objectto the takeover," the dossier continues,"which put Ogilvy & MatherInternational in public relations controlof the Edison Electric Institute,the association of investor-ownedutilities; of many individual utilities;of several nuclear firms; and of Americansfor Energy Independence,among others."Many of the utilities affected havenot even been informed of the takeover.However, electric power companiesnationally have been receivingadvice from New York and Washington-based'analysts' to forget nuclearpower as an option, on the groundsthat energy consumption is droppingand nuclear power will never againbe a justifiable capital investment.This directly defies current U.S. administrationand congressional policy."The dossier noted that this advicehas been associated with slanders ofthe FEF, its 200,000-circulation Fusionmagazine, and its contributing authors.In March, the Edison ElectricInstitute mailed out to all its membersa package of materials slandering theFEF, which had already been judgedlibelous by the High Court of France(see Fusion, Aug. 1981, p. 58). In June,an Underwood & Jordan vice presidentadvised an author against publishingin Fusion an article critical ofthe science budget cuts. This targetingof the FEF is now understood to becoordinated by Ogilvy & Mather Internationaland its environmentalistclients.Five hundred copies of the dossierwere mailed out to utility executives,scientists and engineers at the nationallaboratories, government energyofficials, and trade union leaders.Copies are available from the FEF.Please enclose a self-addressed,stamped envelope.58 FUSION October-November 1981 FEF News


Houston Spaceweek Conf.Refutes 'Limits to Growth'The world renowned astrophysicistDr. Krafft Ehricke elaborated his theoryof the "extraterrestrial impera Tfive" as the answer to limits to growthideology before an audience of 150 atthe FEF's conference celebrating naftional Spaceweek in Houston July 8.Ehricke, a pioneer in rocket andmanned space flight development formore than 30 years, began his keynoteaddress with a point by point refutationof the arguments of the C/obal2000 Report, prepared by the Carteradministration and still policy of theHaig State Department."Every single advance since photosynthesisin the negentropic developmentof this biosphere has, togetherwith its benefits, created newproblems to be solved," Ehricke asserted."The antitechnology movementsuse the appearance of suchproblems to assert that there must beno more advance. But we must notbe preoccupied with the problems,but with the solutions. If we allowourselves to be stopped by the problems,we will become the weak linkin the overall development of thebiosphere. I don't want man to go••NnMHanHHHDHnBiHmnBaandown in infamy as the weak link!"Ehricke located the necessity ofman's conquest of space in the contextof the principle of the continuingdevelopment of the universe and thebiosphere of the Earth. He then outlinedthe three stages of the explorationand development of outer spaceopened up by the success of theSpace Shuttle: space industrialization;space urbanization; and what hetermed divergence, the effects on humanevolution of living in space.Putting Man into SpaceFuture astronaut Dr. Claude Nicollier,a Swiss astrophysicist from theEuropean Space Agency who is trainingfor the Space Lab mission, joinedEhricke on the program, along withJim Hudson, a supervisor for RockwellIndustries, and Carol White, editor ofThe Young Scientist. The conferencewas greeted by a spokesman forHouston Mayor James McConn.Krafft Ehricke and Carol White at the FEF's Spaceweek conference in Houston.Nicollier gave a presentation on thework of the European Space Agency,which is preparing for a Shuttle flightin collaboration with NASA in 1983.This mission will carry the EuropeanbuiltSpace Lab into space in the payloadbay of the Shuttle for importantin-orbit experiments.Hudson introduced a NASA film onthe first flight of the Space ShuttleColumbia with a discussion of thepromise of the future flights of thereusable Shuttle, whose thrust, he remindedthe audience, is 100 timesgreater than the first rocket that putan American into orbit in 1962.The focus of Carol White's speechwas the necessity of immediately reversingthe cuts in NASA's budget,which threaten important programs;and she reported on the FEF's proposalfor a NASA budget of $14 billion,more than double the presentamount, but the equivalent spent onspace by the United States at the peakof the NASA program in 1966.The conference, which was attendedby area FEF members, localofficials, and a representative of Texascongressman Bill Archer's office, wascovered in the Houston Chronicle,the Houston Post, and the ABC-TVaffiliate.The December issue of Fusion willfeature an article by Ehricke on theextraterrestrial imperative, which willexplore the physiological, aesthetic,and immunological changes inhumanevolutionary characteristics that willresult from living in extraterrestrialenvironments.Columbia ReadiedContinued from page 50will attempt to provide a scientificmap for finding schools of fish, locatingby color the concentrations ofgreen chlorophyll, characteristic ofalgae. The distribution of algae willthen be mapped with temperature inorder to locate schools of fish.This mapping will also provide dataon ocean pollution that will bechecked with data from ships andlow-flying aircraft. The experimentwill concentrate on the region nearthe Canary Islands, off the coast ofPeru, and along the east coast of theUnited States off Cape Cod and Georgia.—MarshaFreemanFEF News October-November 1981FUSION 59


European Panel RecommendsIncreased Fusion EffortA high-level scientific review committeerecommended to the EuropeanCommunity in early July that it"remain in the front line of fusionR&D [through] a steady continuationof the European Fusion Programme.. . . The main objective of the programmefor the coming decades mustbe to prove the feasibility of fusion asan energy source and to search foroptimum ways of fully exploiting itspotential."To accomplish these goals, theDOE Stalling on FEDContinued from page 21ready to manage, plan, and overseethe fusion program's entire engineeringeffort, not just the Fusion EngineeringDevice, and that industryshould take over the role of the CFE.Other individual companies, in particularthose aerospace companieswith many years of experience in government-sponsoredspace and defenseprograms, expressed anotherview. The role of the CFE should notbe "overly ambitious," said Dr. DonaldKummer, representing the fusionprogram of the McDonnell DouglasAstronautics Co. Its function shouldbe "planning, programmatic, andtechnical administration in support ofthe Office of Fusion Energy" in theDOE, he said.Kummer emphasized that the roleof the CFE must be "clearly delineated.. . . When the boundary conditionsfor the CFE are not fixed, it isinevitable that the national laboratories,universities, or industry will findthat their traditional roles are beinginfringed and they will protest."Another aerospace representative,Pete Staudhammer of TRW, stressedthat the engineering phase must be apartnership between the laboratoriesand industry, and he recountedTRW's experience in the late 1950'sballistic missile planning, in which industryprovided the systems engipanelproposed a 30 percent fundingincrease in fusion R&D over the comingfive years.The 11-member committee includedscientists from European universitiesand representatives from thenuclear, aerospace, and electrical industries.It was chaired by ProfessorK. H. Beckurts, a senior vice presidentof Siemens, A.G.The committee report recommendsthat the Joint European Torus (JET)tokamak fusion device, now underneering and technological direction'for the Department of Defense.Staudhammer also warned that "thefuture of the magnetic fusion programmay well be in jeopardy . . .because of lack of proper funding,"a reference to the fact that the Reaganbudget has given fusion $60 millionless than the 1980 legislation for the1982 fiscal year.Dr. Harold Agnew, who has bothindustry and lab experience (as a formerdirector of the Los Alamos NationalScientific Laboratory and nowas president of General Atomic Co.),then summarized what he calledthree prerequisites for the transfer offusion technology to industry.First, he said, there must be a strongnational commitment to the engineeringphase of fusion that does notchange with each administration; second,strong industrial leadership mustbe available; and third, the knowledgeconcentrated in the laboratoriesmust be accessible to industry as thefusion program moves into the engineeringphase.Finally, panel member Mike Mc-Cormack reminded the witnesses andother panel members that the FEDwill not be a commercial demonstrationreactor but an engineering device,so the concern by some representatives,such as the AIF speaker,that utility end-users be involved inthe FED, is premature.—MarshaFreemanconstruction in Britain at the CulhamLaboratory, "push ahead as fast aspossible" and that it be brought tofull operation and be prepared foroperation with the deuterium-tritiumfuel that will be required in commercialreactors.The JET is a tokamak approximatelythe size of the Princeton TokamakFusion Test Reactor, scheduled for a1982 completion, and it is designed toreach energy breakeven, thus demonstratingthe scientific feasibility ofmagnetic fusion. The JET program isnow about two years behind theTFTR, and the European Communityis expected to decide shortly to burndeuterium-tritium fuel in the reactor.An International EffortAn important recommendation ofthe report is to "initiate a substantialand well-balanced program in fusiontechnology, mainly focused on thesolution of the technological problemsof NET [Next European Torus],making use of relevant experience infission reactor technology."In this recommendation, the panelis echoing the results of recent reviewsof the U.S. and Japanese fusionprograms, which concluded that fusionwas ready to enter the engineeringand technology developmentphase. The panel suggests that the EC"intensify activities on the conceptualdesign of a next step device ... bysetting up a NET study team," andthat a "high-level Fusion TechnologySteering Committee advising the [EC]Commission on the activities of thesecond stage" be created.Increased international cooperation,particularly with the UnitedStates, will be crucial for the engineeringphase, the panel suggests; inareas such as the magnetic mirror,'where Europe has no program at all,it should be willing to send peopleand possibly hardware to the UnitedStates to increase its participation inthe advanced U.S. program.The panel recommends against beginninga fusion-fission hybrid developmentprogram, which would usethe neutrons produced in the fusionprocess to breed fuel for conventionalreactors, but it does suggest that thepotential for such systems "be periodicallyreviewed." The panel also rec-60 FUSION October-November 1981


ommends continuing the small Europeaninertial fusion program.To push the JET program forwardand embark on an engineering phase,the report calls for a budget of about1,500 million European CurrencyUnits (about $1.5 billion) over theperiod from 1982 to 1986, comparedto the 877.1 million ECU formerlyprojected for 1979 to 1983. Discountinginflation, this is approximately a30 percent real increase over the fiveyearperiod.The report also addresses the loomingproblem of a shortage in scientificmanpower. "The average age of thestaff working on fusion R&D in theCommunity is about 45 years," thereport states. "In about 15 years time,when these staff retire, most of theknow-how acquired in 30 to 40 yearsof R&D efforts will disappear rathersuddenly, unless new staff is trainedand introduced in the system in timeto allow an adequate transfer'of thisknow-how."To counter the manpower shortage,the report recommends a EuropeanFusion Research Fellowship programwith 30 to 50 well-paid positions foryoung scientists and engineers.Although the panel notes that "theroute to commercial fusion will belong and costly and involve the solutionof extremely difficult technicalproblems," it states that the U.S. MagneticFusion Energy Engineering Actof 1980 and the spring 1981 recommendationsof a Japanese fusion revieware built on a "worldwide consensusthat the potential advantagesof harnessing the energy source ofthe stars on earth are so enormousthat they justify this very considerableeffort."ViewpointContinued from page 10Congress provided legislative authority"to require a substantialamount of new, precise, and sophisticateddata, and established "uniformcriteria" to be used in assessing pesticidesafety. Congress apparently intendedfor all pesticides used in theUnited States to be evaluated accordingto a set of uniform criteria andequally stringent standards.The EPA was delegated with theauthority to implement the provisionsof the FIFRA amendment, along withthe basic safety requirements that alreadyexisted under the Milleramendment. Passed in 1954, theMiller amendment to the FederalFood, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requiresthe establishment of tolerancesfor pesticide chemicals in or on rawagricultural commodities, either asresidues remaining on food productsafter harvest, or those chemicals thatmight be intentionally added afterharvest to fresh or processed commodities.The EPA was also delegated theDelaney amendment passed in 1958.This amendment further providedthat "no additive shall be deemed tobe safe if it is found to induce cancerin man or animal."The constant pressure on the EPAfrom various groups, and Congress aswell, coupled with the strict requirementsfor pesticide registration containedin the various federal laws, isprobably responsible for most ofthese problems.I believe that pesticide registrationprocedures should adequately andrealistically assess risk versus benefit,and minimize unnecessary testing,costs, and time delays.I suspect the agency may have respondedby overreacting to someclaims or charges by antipesticidegroups that were unfounded or overstated.However, the federal lawsare written in such a way that the EPAmay not have much choice in its man-•ner of response. We in Mississippihave experienced some of the problemsfirst hand in the loss of Mirexfire ant bait, 2,4,5-T, DDT, and Silvexfor forestry uses, to name a few.I should add that the EPA has beenresponsive to our requests for exemptionsto allow the use of unregisteredpesticides in emergency control programsutilizing the synthetic pyrethroidsand other new pesticides forcontrol of cotton bollworm and tobaccobudworm on cotton. We havealso experienced the conditional registrationbenefits, which speed upregistration of pesticides. However,with two years' loss of a control programwhile fire ants multiplied in the230 million infested acres and spreadto millions more, and with the newmaterial costing 10 times as much, thiskind of cooperation can, and will, killus sooner or later.In my judgment the first stepneeded to bring order out of chaos is"defanging" the Delaney amendmentof 1958 and allowing the EnvironmentalProtection Agency to exercisejudgment in weighing costs and benefits.Once this dam is broken, theother restrictions should graduallygive way to a sensible public policy.Jim Buck Ross is the commissionerof the Mississippi Department of Agricultureand Commerce.Iraqi ReactorContinued from page 49and other obstacles through a miracleof ingenuity and foreign assistance,there is still the matter of the safeguards,the report stated. Iraq operatesits nuclear facilities under theauspices of the International AtomicEnergy Agency, which requires thatthere be foreign observers either inthe facilities or with access to them atall times. The IAEA surveillance includesintensive chemical assays, onsiteradiation detection equipment,time-lapse photograhy, and seals,whose explicit purpose is to guardagainst the diversion of nuclear materialsfor bomb production.The FEF report also found that thepossibility of Iraq's constructing a plutoniumbomb from the small quantitiesof U-238 present in the fuel isremote. The extraction of weaponsgradeplutonium requires sophisticatedisotope separation techniques,which Iraq does not possess.As for the common argument thatIraq has so much oil, it could notpossibly need nuclear as an energysource, this reasoning ignores the factthat Iraq has the most ambitious industrialdevelopment program of anyMideast nation, and has plans to usenuclear as its principal energy sourceafter its oil reserves are used up inindustrialization.October-November 1981 FUSION 61


FUSIONclassifiedClassified section advertising rates: $70 per column inch. Width of column 2 3 Ae inches. Ads are available in 1,2 or 3 column widths.All camera-ready copy must be received by the 20th of the month, and insertion orders by the 13th of the month, one month prior tothe on-sale date (which is the last week of the month 2 months preceeding the cover-month). If photo or artwork is in layout, add $20for non-camera-ready copy. Submit copy for non-camera-ready ads by the insertion order deadline.Make checks payable to the Fusion Energy Foundation, 250 West 57th St., New York, N.Y. 10019. For more information call AntonChaitkin (212) 247-8820.Energy-PowerINDUSTRY OPENING FOR ENGINEERSWe are the nation's largest recruiting specialiststo the energy-power industries. Are youinterested in covering energy related job opportunitiesthru a single confidential source inthe eastern, western or entire USA? Instead ofsending a resume to a P.O. Box number, whynot cover this vital industry by contacting agraduate engineer who knows it inside out?Then call or send your resume to one or both!Dan Heagerty, P.E.Power Services, Inc.2162 Credit Union LaneN. Charleston, S.C. 29405(803)572-3000Paul Nugent. B.S. eng.Western Power Services1201 Jadwin AvenueRichland, WA 99352(509) 943-6633After receiving your resume, prior to client contact,we will call you CONFIDENTIALLY to understand yourprofessional goal.FOSSIL * NUCLEAR * ALTERNATE SOURCESDRAWINGS OF REMBRANDTedited by Seymour SliveUpdated Lippmann, HofstededeGrootedition, with definitive scholarly apparatus.All portraits, biblical sketches,landscapes, nudes. Oriental figures,classical studies, together withselection of work by followers. 500 illustrations.Total of 630pp. 9V« x 12%.Two-vol. set $15.00GRAPHIC WORLDS OF PETERBRUEGELTHE ELDERPeter BruegelAll 63 engravings, 1 woodcut: landscapes,seascapes, peasant weddings,stately ships, allegories, sins,Don't Star on TVs'* Lo ve-a-CanaT':Cover steel drums stored outsidewith our tough polymeric drumcover. Unlike cheap plastic coversours withstand weight of full drumsstacked 4 deep on pallets and last foryears in Alaskan winters or Floridasummers. Sorry, we offer no protectionagainst law suits caused byschool boards who may unseal themand let in the water. We do offer 3sizes to snuggly fit open head,closed head and the new DOT 17Hdrum. None for empty heads.Warren Chemical Co., Inc.9430 L-S Rd., Seabrook, MD 20806(301) 459-7090.Send. . copies of The Story of Mapsorder #23873-3 at $6.00.Shipping: Add $.75 for one book and $1.25 for2 or more books. New York residents add 8%sales tax. Total enclosedMail to:Dover Publications Department PMS180 Varfck Street New York, N.Y. 10014NameAddressCityState-Zip_AdvancedTechnologyMaterialsforNuclear RadiationShieldingBulk MasonryConstructionPothole Repair(Asphalt or Concrete)Masonry MaintenanceWm. Cornelius Hall, Managing DirectorMetallic Mortars International, Ltd.10 Lower Abbey StreetDublin, 1 IrelandTel. (01)74-28-26


How can we assurethat there will be anew generation ofAmerican scientists?READWar AgainstLiberal SchoolReformscoming in the next issue ofCampaigner$24/year (10 issues)$2.50 single copy


Order While They Last!The latest in the Academy Seriesof educational recordings"Musical MastersDialogue"HAR-2Three voice Ricercare fromThe "Musical Offering"* J.S. BachInFantasy and Sonata in c minorK. 475/457 * W.A. MozartSonata in c minor Op 13("Pathetique") * L. V. BeethovenThese three works are the result of successivestudies on the same musical ideaby the three greatest composers of the18th century. Their programming onone recording defines a unique study incompositional method performed by thesensational Italian pianist, Carlo LeviMinzi.J 9 (plus $ 1 for postage and handling)• Please send me copies ofHAR-2• I am interested in the AcademySeries, please send me moreinformationOrder from: Platonic HumanistSociety, P.O. Box 1034, Radio CityStation, New York, N.Y. 10101


What would you give to learn a second language?(Try $125.) And what's it worth to your company?There's a premium being paid for language-knowledge inAmerica today—and it's not only in the export trade. In multinationalcompanies, in major cities, even on the factory floor,a second language marks you as the potential spokesman,the well-educated leader, the man or the woman to askabout foreign ways.And travel is so much more fun when you can meet peopleand talk their language. Now you can. Easily. Painlessly.All thanks to this 50-lesson do-it-yourself Berlitz® languagecourse. Available in French, German, Italian or Spanish—it'syours for only $125.00.Packaged solidly in leather-type binding, the Berlitz ComprehensiveCassette Course contains:1. Ten introductory lessons in a 90-minute long first cassette tofamiliarize you with the spoken language.2. Forty additional lessons on five convenient 60-minute cassettes,making a total of SVz hours of recorded instruction in all.3. 6 illustrated workbooks to use with the tapes, each containing 50pages of easy-to-understand, concise information to help you speakwith the least difficulty. 300 pages, in all, to get you on the way tofluency in a second language.4. A specially prepared, easy-to-use Rotary Verb Finder will helpyou with irregular verb forms—once you're ready for grammar.This course avoids the dry and the dull—mixes voices, soundeffects and useful text in the delightful manner only Berlitz,the world's best known language instructor, can offer. Andcassettes don't scratch, don't warp and don't unwind—last almostindefinitely. Best of all, they are easy to stick in yourpocket, take along on a trip or use in the car.Prepare yourself for a rewarding future. At the same time,enjoy the social advantages only a second language can bring.For $125.00, choose the course you need to start talking likea native. Use the coupon and order today.


The Riemannian TraditionThe hydrodynamic method of Bernhard Riemann, particularlyhis 1859 paper on shock waves, has been an essential-andoften secret — ingredient in the development of thermonuclearfusion energy, supersonic flight, and the hydrogen bomb. Thisissue of Fusion looks at Riemann's influence in each of theseareas.• Steven Bardwell and Uwe Parpart discuss the impasse in inertialconfinement fusion research and present a proposal forbreaking this impasse using Riemann's concept of shock waves.• Fusion interviews Adolf Busemann, one of the most outstandingproponents of the Riemannian tradition in this century.A giant in aerodynamics, Busemann has also made majorcontributions to magnetic and inertial fusion.• Charles B. Stevens reviews the Progressive case, the government'sattempt to block publication of an article on theH-bomb. As he shows, what the government wanted to classifywas not the bomb, but Riemann's theoretical work.Above: Participants at the 1935 European aerodynamics conference atVolta, Italy, a milestone in the development of supersonic flight. AdolfBusemann is fourth from left, third row. Theodor von Karman (white coat) isat his left in the second row; Ludwig Prandtl is fifth from left, first row.Below left: Computer simulation of two shock waves propagating through apellet containing deuterium-tritium fusion fuel. See page 29.Below right: The November 1979 Progressive article. As Fusion hasdocumented, the so-called secrets that the government wanted to classifyhave been in the open literature since 1859.The cover: The front cover photograph, showing shock wave formation around a testmodel of the space shuttle in a wind tunnel, is courtesy of Ames Research Center.NASA: cover design is by Virginia Baier.

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines