From Carnol to Fusion - FTP Directory Listing

wlym.com

From Carnol to Fusion - FTP Directory Listing

MAGAZINE OF THE FUSION ENERGY FOUNDATIONDecember 1978$2.00/ESFrom Carnol to Fusion


FUSIONFeaturesMAGAZINE OF THE FUSION ENERGY FOUNDATIONDecember 1978Vol.2, No.3ISSN 0148-053718Lazare Carnot and the Leibnizian MachineDr. Morris LevittCarnot, an engineer who was the architect of industrialhumanism in France, gives us insights on machines andenergy that are still relevant today.34The Technology for Fusion: From PLT to TFTRMarsha FreemanThe evolution of tokamak construction at Princeton providesa model for industry, scientists, and technicians to meet thechallenge of developing commercial fusion machines.EDITORIAL STAFFEditor-in-ChiefDr. Morris LevittAssociate EditorDr. Steven BardwellManaging EditorMarjorie Mazel HechtEditorial AssistantCatherine CaffreyArt DirectorChristopher Sloan4048Nuclear Steelmaking: The Building Block for Nuplex CitiesIon GilbertsonMass producing nuplex cities will require vast amounts of steel,and the best way to increase steel production is to gonuclear.I Don't Make Hypotheses —I Manufacture DataCarol WhiteThe real crime of Aristotle, Ptolemy, Newton, andCyril Burt is not their scientific frauds, but theirdeliberate propagation of a cult of irrationality.Graphics AssistantGary GenazzioAdvertising andBusiness ManagerKenneth MandelCirculation ManagerJeanne LaudonFUSION is published monthly, to times a yearexcept September and April, by the Fusion EnergyFoundation. 231 West 29th Street. 13th floor. NewYork. New York 10001.Subscriptions by mail are $18 (or 10 issues or $34lor 20 issues in the USA and Canada. Airmailsubscriptions to other countries are $36 for 10issues.Address all correspondence to Fusion EnergyFoundation. P.O. Box 1943, New York. New York10001Second class postage paid at New York. NewYorkThe FEF publishes a wide variety of material forthe benefit of decision makers and the interestedpublic. The views of the FEF are stated in the editorials.Opinions expressed in signed articles arenot necessarily those of the FEF directors or thescientitic advisory boardCopyright Q December 1978Fusion Energy FoundationPrinted in the USAAll Rights ReservedNewsWASHINGTON8 Fusion Program Under the Antiinflation Axe9 The Energy Act: Less Energy at Greater CostINTERNATIONAL10 Japan Announces Crash Fusion Effort11 IAEA Head Eklund: Third World Must Go Nuclear12 Kapitsa's Nobel Prize Should Have Been for FusionNATIONAL14 Court Gives EPA a Free Hand on Carcinogens14 Union Magazine Hails First Indiana Nuclear PlantCONFERENCES15 The 1978 APS Plasma Physics Meeting:Leading U.S. Scientists Urge Fusion DevelopmentDepartmentsEDITORIALSCALENDARLETTERSTHE LIGHTNING RODNEWS BRIEFSRESEARCHBOOKSFEFNEWS


EditorialsFusionDevelopmentOr 4th PlaceFor the U.S.The United States is still capable of turning out masterful engineering andconstruction projects, as this issue's article on fusion technology and thePrinceton tokamaks makes clear. But even in those few areas, like advancedfusion research, where the United States is maintaining a marginal technologicaledge, it is becoming more and more difficult to find engineering andtechnical specialists to fill the relatively small number of existing positions. Forthis reason, the common response to the Fusion Energy Foundation's proposalfor an Apollo-style fusion effort is, "Where is the skilled manpower going tocome from?"Although this is a legitimate question, it is an upside-down approach tofusion policy. Precisely because the nation has suffered such deterioration inthe quantity and quality of its skilled workforce, we need a pacing program—fusion—to reverse the trend. In fact, the trend is probably more severethan most people recognize. Some of the nation's most honored scientists estimatethat the United States is now or soon will be in fourth place internationallyin terms of overall scientific research —behind the Soviet Union, WesternEurope, and Japan.The general situation can be measured by the falloff in enrolled and graduatingstudents in science and engineering, a decline that parallels the sharpdrop in R&D funding since its leveling off in the 1966-1968 period. For example,the number of graduate students in physics has been approximately cut by athird in the last decade, falling from 11,043 in 1968 to 7,743 in 1975. During thesame period, undergraduate engineering enrollment fell from about 80,000 in1968 to 70,000 in 1975. Overall, U.S. investment in research and developmentas a percentage of the GNP has dropped 33 percent since 1965.The correlated economic effects of the scientific decline have been equallystriking. During the past 10 years, the United States has increased its rate ofproductivity by only 2 percent per year. This is a lower rate than that of anyother industrial nation, and five times lower than Japan. Even more telling,when the rate of increase of productivity is plotted against the rate of increaseof per capita energy consumption, the United States (along with the UnitedKingdom and Canada) shows the worst performance in the advanced sector (seegraph).It is not simply our nation's scientific and technological capacities that arebeing destroyed, but the quality of U.S. labor power—a quality that has historicallybeen based on the higher material and cultural living standards that thenation pursued. A few dimensions of the crisis were reported in the Wall Street/ourna/ Oct. 16. Even in the aerospace and machine tool sectors, the Journaldocumented, there is an acute shortage of engineers, machinists, computerprogrammers, and other skilled technicians, to the point where certain companieshave been unable to fill top skilled positions after several months ofadvertising. And at the other end of the spectrum, the U.S. Office of Educationestimates that one out of every five adult Americans is functionally illiterate.A national commitment to fusion development can reverse this degeneration.We must begin from the top down promoting the most advanced andbroad-based scientific and technological research and development. New,high-technology industries radiating in concentric circles around fusion R&D, avast nuclear export program, and general industrial renovation will provide thematerial basis for rebuilding a scientific culture and a sense of national purpose.In fact, the scientific renaissance that a crash fusion program will necessitateis even more important for our nation's future than the unbounded materialresources the achievement of fusion energy will make possible.FUSION


CalendarDecember4-6Energy and Southeast Asia;Energy Economics, LNG Manufacturing,Energy Policy and OutlookCouncil for Energy StudiesSingapore5-6MHD ConferenceControl Data Educational CompanyWashington, D.C.10-141st Brazilian Energy CongressUniversidade Federal de Rio de JaneiroRio de Janeiro10-15ASME Annual Winter MeetingASMESan Francisco12-13MHD ConferenceControl Data Educational CompanyLos AngelesJanuary3-516th Annual Solid StatePhysics ConferenceInstitute of PhysicsLondonThe Japanese WayThe Carter administration has a lesson to learn from Japan. The Japanesehave a $220 billion ten-year energy program featuring nuclear power andfusion; they have given top priority to restoring high growth in the worldeconomy; they have fought to bolster the U.S. dollar, and they have proposedand begun to institute long-term Third World economic cooperation and developmentprojects. They have also offered the United States a $1 billion packagefor joint fusion research.But the real lesson behind these impressive programs is that Japanese policyepitomizes the principles of technologically advancing economic growth uponwhich this nation was built, principles often referred to as the American Way.This similarity is not coincidental. The founding fathers of modern Japanwere the Meiji, who from the time of the 1868 Meiji Restoration undertook totransform their backward, feudal nation into a modern industrial state withinone generation. As their model, the Meiji founding fathers chose America;explicitly the economic thinking of Alexander Hamilton and Henry Carey. FromContinued on page 44-5Laser Plasma Interactions ConferenceInstitute of PhysicsLondon29-311st Topical Meetingon Fusion Reactor MaterialsDOE, ANS, Electric Power Research Inst.American Insti. of Mining, Metallurgical,and Petroleum EngineersMiami BeachReaders wishing to have their eventspublished in the Calendar are invitedto write: Calendar, Fusion Magazine,P.O. Box 1943, CPO, New York, N.Y.10001.FUSION 3


Continued from page 3America came the idea of industrial protection, the creation of a national bankto promote industrial capital formation, and development through science andthe mass education of the population.The Meiji tradition is very much alive today, as it was in the years of the socalledpostwar economic miracle of japan. The core of this guiding philosophyis expressed in the contemporary Japanese phrase "knowledge intensification."In short, this means that the economic growth and technology transformationmust come by shifting the emphasis of the economy to areas of more highlyskill-intensive—that is, knowledge-intensive—production. Specifically, thisconcerns areas like nuclear energy, computer technology, and highlysophisticated heavy industry that has an increasing use of computerizedproduction processes.Like the American founding fathers, today's Meiji thinkers do not envisiontheir development program as a short-term plan nor one confined to domesticmatters. It is a Grand Design based on the knowledge that if mankind is to havea future, we have a responsibility to take the potential for progress today as faras we can go.The Japanese think big. It's a lesson the Carter administration cannot affordnot to learn. Especially since—as the Japanese themselves are well aware—thefull success of their ambitious global program depends on reexporting theAmerican Way to the United States, and harnessing American industrial mightto the knowledge-intensive revolution.THE NUCLEAR DEBATEIN MEXICOThe fight to develop a major nuclearenergy program in Mexico andthe Fusion Energy Foundation's centralrole in this effort have been frontpagenews in the Mexican press, asthis letter from noted Mexican cardiologistDr. Demetrio Sodi Pallaresattests. The Sodi Pallares letter wasoriginally published in the MexicoCity daily newspaper Uno Mas UnoOct. 79 as a reply to a series of frontpagearticles by Mauricio Shoijet, anArgentinian devotee of solar powerwho had attended the founding conferenceof the Mexican FEF affiliate inAugust.The nuclear issue has continued inthe news as the Mexican Congressdebates a new nuclear regulatory lawdesigned to reorganize Mexico's uraniumand nuclear industries and to preparefor a large-scale nuclear expansionprogram. Mexico's first nuclearplant, the twin reactors of LagunaVerde, is due to come on line in 1182,and the government plan calls for 20nuclear reactors to be in operation bythe year 2000.Since the appearance of the Shoijetarticles, which criticized the FEF andits pronuclear program as "imperialist,"the Mexican FEF affiliateorganized a highly successful pronuclearconference in Torreon, an industrialcity in the northern state ofCoahuila. More than 100 personsattended the meeting to discussMexico's task in developing a nuclearprogram, in particular the developmentof the necessary skilled laborforce.To the Editor:Under the title "The Science andTechnology of Provocation," a seriesof articles by Mr. Mauricio Shoijet appearedOct. 5, 6, and 8 that involvedthe Fusion Energy Foundation andthat were lacking in fact. For this reasonI am writing this letter, to clarifyand emphasize certain points.The FEF is an international associationof scientists with different politicaland religious beliefs. Forexample, the FEF includes socialistscientists, like physicist Cecilia Sotode Estevez, and Catholic scientists,like the author of this letter, Dr. DemetrioSodi Pallares, a member of theinternational advisory board of theFEF. What unifies the members of thisorganization is their love of universalscience, their humanist conviction,and their opposition to all Malthusianpolicies, which —outside of all naturallaw—want to limit populationgrowth.The FEF believes that the developmentof the creative capacities of thehuman intellect requires scientificprogress—progress including heavyindustry and the nuclear industryorientedalways toward humanistends, such as peace and love amongall men on earth.I was truly amazed that Mr.Schoijet identified all supporters ofhigh technology as agents of imperialism.I was perplexed by his expressionsof sympathy for the Egyptianpeasants who "are today so poorbecause of the unfavorable ecologicalconsequences of massive systems ofenergy generation." I can only ask Mr.Schoijet if he is opposed to technologyand progress.The 'Soff SolutionTo fight imperialism, Mr. Schoijetpleads for limiting "technologicaldependence," which seems correct tome. But the very strange solution heoffers is inadmissable. He suggeststhe adoption of "soft, unsophisticatedtechnologies," "unconventionalsources of soft energy," and "thegreatest possible use of labor power."If the developing countries shouldtake this kind of medicine, and for anindefinite period, their people wouldbe condemned to the severity ofunskilled labor—enfeebling work atlow wages. This would consign man tosickness and ignorance. It wouldcreate a permanent and long-termshortage of skilled jobs to assimilatethe industrial technologies of the future,and it would force acceptance ofthe same foreign monopolies that thecolumnist asserts he is fighting.I want to point out that I belong tothe FEF for three fundamentalreasons:(1) The FEF conceives of the worldin which we live and of the universe in4 FUSION


TheLightningRod8The Aug. 24 founding conference of the FEF Mexican affiliate drew 80representatives of business, industry, government agencies, trade unions, andpress.its totality as a negentropic system inwhich there are unlimited possibilitiesfor development and availableenergy.(2) Human intelligence and itscreative power are the only means toachieve the increasing developmentat a constantly accelerating pace, ofthe world in which we live. Thisimplies a constantly increasing negativegrowth in the world's entropy.(3) As a consequence of the above,human life must be defended in allrespects, fetal life, birth, growth,development, maturity, and old age.Creative intelligence in each period ofhuman life is the earthly "prime;mover" of the world-universe system.Reductionist systems, such as abortionand antinatural birth control,are entropic; for although it may becovered up, the damage done to thewoman is done to her entire person.On the basis of these principles isit possible that Mr. Schoijet still believesthat the FEF is an imperialistorganization? To support what I'msaying, it is worth repeating one of thefundamental principles of the FEF,which Eric Lerner [FEF director ofphysics research] summarized as follows:"Any increase in the population signifiesa greater capacity to produceand consume. The death of any individualis a loss to all. Hunger, illness,and the damage to the creative abilityof any person, thus is my hunger, myillness, and damage to my creativity."Antiscientific, AntihumanistI can only hope that the columnistwill reflect upon his attitude, which,in these times, seems to me to beantiscientific and, what is worse, antihumanist.I also hope that Mr.Schoijet will come to appreciate thenegentropy of the universe that Codhas put in our hands, as well as thehumanist position of the FEF, becauseintelligence like his is needed for theestablishment of a peaceful world forall of humanity, without distinctionof race or creed.Dr. Demetrio Sodi PallaresMember of the InternationalAdvisory Board of theFusion Energy FoundationEx-President of the MexicanNational Academy of MedicineMy dear friends,Knowing as you do the humblepride I took in placing the Colonies'postal service on a surefooted, speedybasis, you will understand why recentnews coming my way about postalirregularities has raised my bloodpressure. It seems that numerousletters —including some requestingsubstantial orders of Fusion magazines—havefound their way into thecircular file rather than onto thecircuit. Keeping in mind the principlethat a man need not ask a robber tosteal from him again in order to ascertainhis enduring character as a thief,Fusion's publishers understandablysuspect corruption in the postal serviceitself.They have come to me, the postalservice founder, for aid. My firstruminations on the problem could notget me beyond the irony of this turn ofevents. The national postal servicewas established by me as a specificaid to scientific and political correspondence,one might even say the"fusion" of a nation and its intellectualleadership. Has this gain in efficiencynow been turned to the purposesof pure and simple fraud?This struck me as unlikely, for,sadly, I am told by many reliablefriends that the postal service has noreputation for efficiency at all, thesedays. Even thieving has to be proportionalto the means at hand! And inthis case, 1 have been informed by thesame good authorities that the mechanicalcapabilities of the postalservice were decreased dramatically.After further pondering, and, I mustContinued on page 62FUSION 5


News Briefs1980 ENERGY BUDGET SLATED FOR OMB CUTSInformed Washington sources report that the Office of Management andBudget will severely cut the proposed 1980 fiscal year budget for the Departmentof Energy, submitted to the OMB in September by Energy SecretarySchlesinger. The 1980 magnetic confinement fusion budget, the sources said,will probably remain at the fiscal year 1979 level of $350 million. Schlesinger's» proposed budget had included an increase in magnetic confinement fusion to$365 million, barely enough to keep pace with inflation.In addition, the fusion design studies for the Engineering Test Facility, thenext tokamak planned after Princeton's TFTR, are under the administration'santiinflation axe. The present three design groups — Princeton, Oak Ridge, andGeneral Atomic — will be consolidated into one project located at Oak Ridgeat an overall cut in funding.The OMB cuts are expected to cause bitter DOE infighting in the competitionfor funds.Zulf ikar AHBhuttoTHE BHUTTO PAPERS: NUCLEAR LEADER FACES DEATH SENTENCEIn a telegram smuggled out of a Pakistani prison Sept. 20, former PakistanPresident Zulf ikar A!i Bhutto wrote UN general secretary Kurt Waldheim that hewas being "subjected to brutal hardships ever since the coup d'etat of July 5,1977," and he named his strong nuclear program as one of the reasons he wassentenced to death by the Pakistani junta. Bhutto is being held incommunicadowhile the Pakistan Supreme Court reviews the junta's death sentences."The conscience of the world community gets aroused when the representativeof a firm is arrested for alleged blackmarketing of currency," Bhutto wrote,"but what happens to the same world community when the undisputed leaderof his people is subjected to physical cruelty and mental torture for inter-aliawaging a dauntless struggle against oppression, for valiantly upholding thebanner of justice for the Third World and for equipping an Islamic state withnuclear capability."To answer the junta's charges against him, Bhutto has produced a 319-pagedocument, "Statement of the Appellant," which was also smuggled out of thecountry. The statement reviews in detail Bhutto's fight to bring his country intothe nuclear age and the sabotage against this nuclear project, for which henamed Henry Kissinger.We quote from part of the Bhutto statement:"I have been actively associated with the nuclear programme of Pakistanfrom October 1958 to July 1977, a span of 19 years. I was concerned directlywith the subject as foreign minister, as minister for fuel, power, and naturalresources, and as minister in charge of atomic energy.. . Assiduously and withgranite determination, I put my entire vitality behind the task of acquiringnuclear capability for my country. I sent hundreds of young men to Europe andNorth America for training in nuclear science.. . .We were on the threshold offull nuclear capability, when I left the government to come to this death cell."SOUTH KOREA TO BUILD 40 NUCLEAR PLANTS BY 2000President Park Chung-hee of the Republic of Korea told the French newspaperLe Figaro Nov. 4 that his nation is determined to build 40 nuclear powerplants by the year 2000. France is now discussing the sale of two nuclear plantsto South Korea. The country has one plant in operation, four under construction,and two more being bid on by international suppliers; all seven areplanned to be in operation before 1986.In an interview with the Executive Intelligence Review the same week, Dr.Bong Suh Lee, assistant minister for planning and administration in the SouthKorean Ministry of Energy and Resources, elaborated on the nuclear program:6 FUSION


". . Our projection is that the economy will probably grow at a rate of 10percent for the next 10 years or so.. . And if that is the case, certainly we willneed a lot of power. And if we need a lot of power, we will have no choice butto rely on nuclear rather heavily... .""We will have to have something close to 40 nuclear power stations by theyear 2000. Whenever we say 40 units, then people get really surprised and askhow you can afford 40 units. And my answer is if our economy demands 40power stations, then certainly we will be able to afford 40. It pays for itself. It isa matter of the general economy leading and power supply following."AUSTRIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM LOSES REFERENDUMIn the first nationwide referendum on nuclear energy in Western Europe,Austrian voters Nov. 5 refused to allow the $530 million Zwentendorf nuclearpower plant to begin operation next year. The vote was 50.47 percent to 49.53percent, a margin of 30,000 votes. Informed sources also reported that at least70,000 ballots were invalidated.Although Austrian Chancellor Bruno Kreisky and his Social Democratic partysupport nuclear energy, he has promised to abide by the referendum and scrapthe plant or begin a costly conversion to coal. The West German-designed reactor,a massive capital investment for a country with Austria's 7 million people,was designed to provide power for the entire country.Both opposition parties, the conservative Austrian People's Party and theliberal Austrian Freedom Party, opposed the reactor and were joined by thenation's environmentalist and proterrorist left wing. This unlikely coalition ofconservatives, liberals, environmentalists, and some neo-Nazi opponents ofKreisky, was aided by environmentalist groups in neighboring West Germany,who viewed the referendum as a back-handed way of attacking West GermanChancellor Helmut Schmidt's strong nuclear energy program. The environmentalistcampaign centered around their claim that a nuclear accident wouldcontaminate Austria's tourist image.As columnist Christian Guery commented in the French Le Figaro Nov. 7,"We do not see what democracy has gained with the referendum."NEW ALL-STAR JOINS ENVIRONMENTALIST TEAM"The orange-bellied mouse threatens to hold up construction of a $2 billionpower plant in California, thus joining such other endangered species all-starsas the orange-footed pimpleback, the snail darter, and the furbish lousewort,all of which we are said to need more than electricity," the Voice of Business,the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's press organ, recently wrote. "But there'shope," said the Voice. "The Mexican duck has just been banished from the listby the Fish and Wildlife Service, due to a timely discovery that it does notexist."LOUSEWORT LAURELS TO ALL-WET STERNGLASS STUDYDr. Ernest Sternglass, professor of environmental science at the University ofPittsburgh, is notorious among the community of nuclear engineers and physicistshere and in Europe for his wild statistical analyses that purport to provethe dangers of nuclear fission. His latest unsubstantiated statistical analysis, forwhich we are awarding him this month's lousewort laurels, was relayed to usfrom a reader in Pittsburgh. In a press release reported on CBS affiliate KDKAradio, Sternglass claimed that a new study showed that those college-age childrentoday who were born during the 1950s—before air and ground testing ofnuclear weapons was prohibited—scored lower on their SATs (scholastic aptitudetests) if their mothers lived in rainy areas. The radio report did not mentionwhat other variable Sternglass included in his correlation. As soon as we receivethe study, we promise readers a full review.


WashingtonSchlesinger Uses Antiinflation'As New Excuse to Cut FusionThe administration's cost-cuttingcampaign has provided Energy SecretarySchlesinger with a new excuse toweaken the fusion program and otherhigh-technology projects. Two daysafter President Carter's Oct. 24 pressconference announcing an antiinflationpolicy, the Department of Energyfusion office received a memorandumoutlining the effect of the 50 percenthiring freeze on the division: In orderfor anyone to be hired into the DOEfusion office, the memo stated, twopeople will have to leave.According to the fusion office, the10 or so vacant positions in the divisionwill now be "frozen" and cannotbe filled unless there are more divisionresignations. The cut in manpowerwill have a serious effect on thecentral coordinating role of the fusionoffice in overseeing the experimentsin the various laboratories and it willhamper the quality of leadership thatthe fusion office can provide.In addition to the personnel cutbacks,the DOE informed the fusionoffice that travel expenditures wouldbe slashed 27 percent. Since thefusion research and developmentprogram oversees facilities scatteredaround the country, and since personaldirection and evaluation areoften required, the travel reductionwill have serious consequences. Also,this month the key division scientistswere not able to attend the plasmaphysics meeting of the AmericanPhysical Society in Colorado, and it isexpected that the travel restrictionwill affect the division's ability toparticipate in future scientific conferences.Most serious, according to one DOEspokesman, is that the unavailabilityof funds may hamper U.S. participationin the international tokamakexperiment under the sponsorship ofthe UN International Atomic EnergyAgency. The DOE had sent representativesto the initial meetings ofEuropean, Soviet, and Japanese fusionscientists, but there may not beenough money to send U.S. scientiststo the continuing discussions on theUnitor tokamak proposal at the IAEA'sVienna headquarters. In other words,the current leadership of the UnitedStates in the international fusioneffort may depend on whether thefusion office can afford to buy planetickets.These latest cuts in fusion officeoperations are separate from the goslowfusion research budget that DOEsubmitted to the Office of Managementand Budget in September forfiscal year 1980. DOE proposed anincrease of $35 million for the magneticconfinement fusion budget for atotal of $365 million —an increase thatbarely keeps pace with inflation.Other Divisions AttackedSeveral DOE scientists, in particularthose who have been the backbone ofthe high-technology research programwithin the department, have been hitwith the antiinflation axe, under theruse that suddenly their work hasbecome unnecessary and is being eliminated.For example, Dr. WilliamJackson, who headed the DOE'smagnetohydrodynamics programuntil he was removed from thatimportant position last winter, wasinformed Oct. 27 that his division oftechnical analysis and special projectsin John Deutch's Office of EnergyResearch was being abolished. If hewished, Dr. Jackson was told, hecould report the following Monday toa different division within the office,at a cut in civil service classificationand status.Dr. Jackson is one of a group ofcompetent scientists who have beenforced out of leadership positions inthe DOE over the past month. Thesehave included Dr. C.W. Cunningham,who led the nuclear division in RobertThome's Office of Energy Technology,and Dr. Nelson Sievering,deputy assistant secretary for internationalaffairs, in charge of internationalnuclear cooperation.8 FUSION


As Schlesinger knows, it takes 33,333.33 windmills to equal the power outputof one nuclear plant.The Energy Act—Less Energy at Greater CostNow that the nation's first noenergybill has been signed into law,Energy Secretary James Schlesingerplans to introduce number two in thenext congressional session. The noenergysequel will include a combinationof low-technology solar powerand coal liquefaction measures. Inaddition, President Carter has pledgedto let the price of domesticallyproduced crude oil rise to worldmarket levels, by revising the crudeoil tax proposal, which was cut out ofthe first energy bill, or by permittingthe legislated authority that sets oilprices to expire in 1979, which wouldgive the oil companies the additionalrevenues.There is every reason to believe thatenergy policy in this next session willcontinue on as a sort of guerrilla warbetween Congress, which is concernedwith long-range energy production,and Schlesinger's office,which is more concerned with energyshortages and conservation. Thequestion is whether President Carter,having claimed a victory on gettingenergy bill number one through areluctant Congress, can now respondto the wishes of Congress by getting anew energy secretary who has somecredibility for the job. It is no secreton Capitol Hill that Schlesinger'sdepartment is in shambles and thatthe secretary's capabilities are oftencalled into question.The Energy Act in BriefIn brief, here's what the NationalEnergy Act will do:Through a combination of fiveseparate legislative acts, the NEA willraise the price of primary fuels, raisethe price to consumers of electricpower, institutionalize the idea ofconservation as an energy alternative,and pour government tax monies intoexpensive, retrogressive energytechnologies.The NEA never addresses the questionof producing more energy. Infact, Energy Secretary Schlesinger didnot even pretend that the legislationwould improve the nation's energysupply; instead he pledged the opposite:"The NEA represents an historicturning point. The era of cheap andabundant energy is recognized to beover.. . The purpose of the NationalEnergy Act is to put into place a policyframework for decreasing oil imports."Having less energy will cost thenation more. Ironically, two weeksafter the energy bill's passage, PresidentCarter announced a campaign tocut inflation, partly by cuttinggovernment spending and balancingthe federal budget. Yet, Carter'sprized energy act will fuel inflation byincreasing the government's contributionto nonproductive investment andby pushing the Consumer Price Indexsteadily upward with rising energycosts.Conservation InstitutionalizedThe National Energy Conservationand Policy Act of 1978, one of the fiveNEA bills, is the primary vehiclethrough which billions of dollars willbe wasted on patchwork measures toimprove energy conservation. Insteadof spending tax dollars on newconstruction to replace 100-year-oldschools and turn of the century housing,this act mandates insulation andpaste for cracks to improve energyefficiency. The provisions include $5billion in federal loans to improvehome conservation, $200 million ingrants for home weatherization, $100million in loans for residential solaruse, and $900 million in grants forschools and hospitals for conservation.Additional millions will be spent toenforce federal energy efficiencystandards for buildings and to setelectric appliance energy standardsfor industry. The act reasons that asprimary and electrical energy costsFUSION 9


skyrocket, consumers will be moreand more willing to add gadgets totheir homes to keep in the little heatthey can afford.Nonproductive InvestmentCongress greatly modified theoriginal Schlesinger coal conversionbill, which it recognized as the moststraightforward antiindustry part ofthe proposed NEA. The major provisionof this part of the bill is to prohibitthe use of natural gas or oil infuture utility power plants. Sinceindustry plans virtually no oil- or gasburningpower stations, the bill haslittle meaning.However, it does include an $800million loan program to enable utilitiesto meet pollution control standards.This nonproductive investmentis a sure bet for forcing up electricpower rates. Industry sources haveestimated that the cost to industry ofmeeting all pollution control standardswill drain multibillions ofdollars out of real investment intonew capacity to meet future powerneeds.By far the most ridiculous andpotentially expensive bill in the NEApackage is the Energy Tax Act. Inaddition to providing tax credits forresidential insulation and conservation,this bill gives a gigantic boondogglefor what are otherwisecompletely noncompetitive (costlyand inefficient) alternate technologies.Tax dollars will now subsidizedevices like windmills, whichcould never compete on the openmarket with large-scale, centralizedpower generation and use.The bill mandates for a nonrefundableincome tax credit for the residentialinstallation of solar or wind equipment—upto a maximum credit of$2,200 for an expenditure of $10,000.Business tax credits also are providedfor industrial investment in alternateenergy property development. Inaddition, incentives will be extendedfor development of geothermalresources through an investment taxcredit. Another part of the NEA, thePublic Utility Regulatory Policies Actof 1978, established a loan program toaid in the development of smallhydroelectric projects.—Marsha FreemanInternationalJapanAnnouncesCrash FusionEffortJapanese Prime Minister TakeoFukuda has been meeting with hisnation's fusion scientists to map out astrategy for harnessing Japan's scientificand industrial manpower in aprogram for full-scale fusion development.According to Japanese sources,the discussions have included a proposalto increase the current Japanesefusion effort, now about $200 millionper year, to double that amount nextyear—well above the U.S. Departmentof Energy's projected 1980 fundinglevel of $365 million.Scientific experts have advisedFukuda to set up a special budgetexclusively to step up the governmentefforts to develop fusion systems,reported the Mainichi News Oct. 28.Japanese scientific experts also advisedFukuda to select members of thejoint Japan-U.S. committee on scientificand technical cooperation by theend of 1978, so that the two nationscan begin cooperating in the developmentof new energy resources. Accordingto embassy representatives,U.S. Energy Secretary James Schlesingerwill meet with Prime MinisterFukuda Nov. 6 on his way back fromChina, and agreement is expected onthe outlines of the Japan-US. cooperation.Reports from various sources,including Science magazine, theEnergy Daily newsletter, and U.S.DOE scientists who went to Tokyo inThe American way: lapan's Fukuda [I.)is backing U.S. high technology like theSeptember, indicate that the Japaneseconsider fusion cooperation so importantthat they will be willing tocompromise with Schlesinger on otherparts of the joint research proposal.The Fukuda initiative, made public inthe United States last May, posedjoint fusion research and developmentas the priority for Japan-U.S.cooperation. Secretary Schlesingercountered that fusion alone was notenough and that the Japanese mustcontribute money to the DOE's coalliquefaction program, SRC II.The coal liquefaction program,which U.S. industry has been veryhesitant to invest in, will be paid forpartly by West Germany and Japan.Each nation has agreed to pay between$175 and $200 million over fiveyears, or 25 percent each of the totalproject cost. The Japanese haveagreed to go along with this arrangementmainly because they understandthat their long-term fusion commitmentrepresents a focus for a positivediplomatic relationship into the nextcentury, and that they will not be ableto conclude the fusion agreements10 FUSION


IAEA Head Eklund:Third World Must Go NuclearDoublet III tokamak, while Schlesingerpushes coal liquefaction and sunshine.without some kind of compromisewith Schlesinger.The details available on the Japan-U.S. fusion cooperation indicate thatthe prime candidates here for an infusionof Japanese funding are GeneralAtomic's Doublet III tokamak in SanDiego and Princeton University'sTFTR. The Doublet may receive asmuch as $30 million from the Japanese,enough to upgrade the device forthe purpose of reaching the Lawsoncriterion of energy breakeven.The proposed plan is to share instrumentaltechniques and data fromthe Princeton TFTR and the JapaneseJT 60 tokamak and to initiate jointfusion materials testing, which willinvolve work at Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory and Hanford Laboratory inWashington State. The materials testingcould mean up to $175 million inJapanese funds.In addition, the Japanese have proposeda joint theoretical institute forthe study of plasma physics and jointexperimental work in high-energyphysics, funded at approximately $75million over five years.UNITED NATIONS, N.Y.-ln hisannual report to the United NationsGeneral Assembly Nov. 5, Dr. SigvardEklund, head of the InternationalAtomic Energy Agency, strongly criticizedthose who "persist, irrationally,to maintain that nuclear power leadsto proliferation." Eklund demandedthat nuclear power, particularlynuclear breeder technology, beshared as rapidly as possible with thedeveloping sector.In an unusually strong show ofsupport, the General Assembly votedto accept Eklund's report and passedtwo resolutions backing up the thrustof his remarks."Hiding behind terms like 'appropriate','soft' or 'intermediate'technology there are many wishfulthinkers today who would have aworld where the developing countriescan make do with windmills, whilethe industrial world contents itselfwith zero growth and consumes thefruit of past achievement," Eklundsaid."Let me repeat that there should beno mistake: Small nonconventionalenergy sources may provide the bestway of meeting the energy needs ofsmall, rural communities but theycannot turn the wheels of industry ofany country, nor can they help it toeventually attain a self-sustainingeconomic base, nor can the industrializedworld maintain its standard ofliving without expanding energyconsumption."Reminding the major industrialpowers of their commitment tonuclear power development at theJuly 1978 economic summit meetingin Bonn, Eklund said: "Despite thiscommitment at the highest level, theintroduction of nuclear power hasslowed down considerably or evenhalted in some countries." He thenascribed this to the "incrediblecomplexity of the regulatory and juridicalprocedures that nuclear projectsmust now contend with."The main function of the IAEA,Eklund told the General Assembly, isto provide "reliable and impartial"energy planning studies, technicalassistance, and training to developingnations.Strong SupportThe General Assembly not onlyaccepted Eklund's report but passedtwo resolutions introduced by SaudiArabia calling for a conference on thepeaceful uses of atomic energy fordevelopment in 1981 or 1982, and thestrengthening of the IAEA's technicalassistance programs. On suggestionfrom Pakistan, the conference resolutionwas amended to eliminatereference to a 1977 General Assemblyresolution that had linked the issue ofnuclear energy to nuclear proliferation.Pakistan also strongly emphasizedthe applicability of nuclear power tothe poorest of the developingcountries, rebutting the thesis offormer West German ChancellorWilly Brandt that nuclear powermight work in the "advanced developingcountries" but that only solarpower, windmills, or wood burningcould be appropriate for the poorestnations. The Brandt view has beenpublicized by some UN institutions,like UNCTAD, the UN Commission onTrade and Development, the InternationalMonetary Fund, and theWorld Bank, which are committed to"appropriate technologies," solarpower, and other forms of inefficient,nonconventional energy production.The IAEA, which plans to expand itsmembership to include new ThirdWorld members, is strongly influencedby protechnology forces inEurope. The collaboration in theongoing UN session between Europeanand Third World forces tostrengthen the IEAE is expected tohave a positive influence on thecurrent UN debate on the New InternationalEconomic Order.—Leif JohnsonFUSION 11


Kapitsa's PrizeShould HaveBeen for FusionThe dean of Soviet physics, PetrLeonidovich Kapitsa, was awarded theNobel Prize for physics last month, forhis work in low-temperature physics.Kapitsa, who is 84, received the prizejointly with two U.S. Bell Laboratoriesscientists who discovered the experimentalevidence for the existence of ageneral background of radiation in theuniverse.Ironically, Kapitsa is being awardedthe Nobel Prize for his work ondeveloping refrigeration systems,which was only a secondary goal ofhis research efforts in superfluidityand other experimental fields. Theaward should have been for hiscontributions to fusion development.Kapitsa was a pioneer in efforts todevelop fusion energy, which hedefined as the key technology to providethe necessary rate of "energydensity" for solving the world energycrisis. Kapitsa described the conceptof increasing power density as theessential attribute of any energy technologyin a 1975 speech to the SovietAcademy of Sciences (see box).The main thread in Kapitsa's scientificresearch has always been energyproduction and transformation fromthe standpoint of both large-scaleindustrial applications and the theoreticalfrontiers of physics research. Heplayed a leading role in the Sovietfusion research effort in the late1940s, and he developed the technologyof microwave generation,which he was also the first to apply togenerating hot plasmas. This work isactively pursued today in fusionresearch, and it is also the direct forerunnerof laser fusion research.MisinformationThe Western press has made theKapitsa award the subject of a misinformationand slander campaignagainst Soviet science. The manufacturedinformation is as follows: (1)Kapitsa is a leading Soviet "dissident,"Petr L. Kapitsa: Acknowledgedof Soviet scienceleaderkidnapped by Stalin in 1934 when hereturned to the Soviet Union for abrief visit; (2) Kapitsa completed hiswork in low-temperature physicswhile at the Cavendish Laboratory inGreat Britain in the late 1920s andearly 1930s; by implication Kapitsa'sgreat achievements in lowtemperaturephysics are not at allrepresentative of Soviet science; (3)besides being a Soviet prisoner for thepast 44 years, Kapitsa was actuallyincarcerated by Stalin in 1946 whenhe refused to work on the developmentof nuclear weapons:The truth is that Kapitsa has beenawarded two Stalin Prizes, five Ordersof Lenin, the Red Banner of Labor,and the Hero of the Soviet Unionaward; he was made director of theInstitute of Physics Problems, chairmanof the Coordination Council ofthe Moscow Physicotechnical Institute;and since 1955 he has beeneditor-in-chief of the leading Sovietscience journal, the journal of Experimentaland Theoretical Physics.Furthermore, Kapitsa was elected tothe Praesidium of the Soviet Academyof Sciences in 1957; he has writtenscores of articles for the leadingSoviet press; and he was the first tocall for the Soviets to develop nuclearweapons, in a speech delivered in thefall of 1941, as well as the first toadvocate use of the A-bomb on theNazis.In reality, Petr Kapitsa personifiesthe humanist roots upon which themodern institutions of Soviet scienceare based. Moreover, as an acknowledgedleader of Soviet science, hehas directly contributed to theSoviets' adoption of the "GrandDesign" and "new world economicorder" policies of the French and WestGerman governments.When Kapitsa completed hiseducation as an engineer, A.F. loffe,the father of Soviet nuclear scienceand a collaborator of V. Vernadsky inrunning the Soviet Academy of Sciences,directed him to go to Rutherford'sCavendish Laboratory in Britainin 1921 to study the nuclear physics ofthe West. Soviet science was thenalmost completely embargoed byWestern science.At first, Kapitsa's application towork at Cavendish was rejected byRutherford, but his persistence finallywon him a minor appointment. Hisconsummate engineering and scientificskills led to his rapid promotionto deputy director of Cavendish in1924, to membership in the RoyalAcademy, and finally to his ownlaboratory, the Mond Laboratory, forlow-temperature physics research, in1933. (The entire Mond Lab was purchasedand transported to the SovietUnion by the government in 1934.)Science and IndustryWhen Kapitsa came to Britain in1921, Rutherford's Cavendish Lab wasat the forefront of nuclear physicsresearch. However, Rutherfordpolicy-makers adamantly denied thatthe great energy potential of theatomic nucleus would ever havemajor practical applications. Influencedby Vernadsky's work, Kapitsabelieved not only that nuclear energywould find useful application, butalso that scientists would make significantprogress in nuclear researchonly if they had useful industrialapplications in mind.Kapitsa pioneered the developmentof technology for concentrating largeamounts of energy for various uses innuclear experiments. He developedthe apparatus for pulsing large elec-12 FUSION


trical currents to generate intensemagnetic fields; and he was the firstto apply these intense magnetic fieldsto the Wilson Cloud Chamber, anapparatus that permitted scientists totrack atomic and subatomic particles.In this, Kapitsa developed the mostessential tool of experimental nuclearphysics.To perfect his sytem for producingintense magnetic fields, Kapitsaexplored various ways to refrigeratethe magnetic coils. Electrical resistanceis the chief limit to the amountof current that can be passed througha coil, a limit that decreases withdecreasing temperature. Kapitsatherefore sought to develop refrigerationsystems with the lowest temperatures,resulting in a refrigerationsystem that used hydrogen as theworking fluid. He then exploredhelium as a refrigeration fluid.Later he refined an existing technologyfor liquifying hydrogen andhelium, applying this in the SovietUnion to liquify air, producing liquidoxygen. In 1970, Western countriesalone used Kapitsa's technologyto produce about 53 billion cubicmeters of oxygen, about half of whichis used in the metal industry and therest in the chemical industry and inrocket technology. In 1941 Kapitsareceived the Stalin Prize for this work.Kapitsa most emphatically deservesthe Nobel Prize for his work onrefrigerators but, characteristically,this was only a by-product of workthat revolutionized that field andcreated an entire new field of physicsresearch —superfluidity. In 1962,Kapitsa's student Lev Landau receivedthe Nobel Prize for developing atheory of superfluidity to explainKapitsa's prior, pioneering experimentalwork.Even today, superfluidity is beingdirectly applied to the technology offusion reactor design, as seen in themost recent Nuwmak tokamak reactordesign of the University of Wisconsinin which superfluid helium is used tocool the magnets efficiently Superfluidityrepresents an essentialcomplement to the study of selforganizingstructures found in plasmaphysics.—Charles B. StevensKapitsaOn EnergyAnd ProgressAnnual per capita GNP in dollarsIn a speech to the Soviet Academy of Sciences in honor of theAcademy's 25th birthday Oct. 8, 1975, Kapitsa emphasized that thedevelopment of fusion was necessary for the increased "material wellbeing"of populations. He outlined the energy-density criterion forjudging the appropriateness of any energy-producing technology topower a mode of production more efficient than the present industrialsystem, and emphasized that fusion was the only suitable technology forproviding for world growth today. In addition, Kapitsa thoroughly discreditedsolar energy and geothermal and wind schemes as "unrealistic"and inefficient. Excerpts of the speech follow.It is generally realized that the basic factor determining the developmentof people's material culture is the creation and utilization of energyresources.. The role of energy in the national economy is wellillustrated by the curve in the figure. On the horizontal axis is the percapita value of the Cross National Product for various countries, and onthe vertical axis is a per capita representation of energy resources. Withinthe limits of normal fluctuation, it is apparent that there exists a simpleproportionality. Therefore, if people are deprived of energy resources,their material well-being will undoubtedly fall.. .I will confine my self to a survey of the laws which define the developmentof large-capacity energetics and which are related to the naturallimitations on the density of energy flux. As will be apparent, these limitationsare often not taken into account, and that leads to expenditureson projects which are known to be without prospects. This will be thebasic theme of my report.All energetic processes of interest to us boil down to the transformationof one type of energy into another, and this takes place according to thelaw of conservation of energy. The most commonly used forms of energyare electrical, thermal, chemical, mechanical, and now so-callednuclear. The transformation of energy can usually be viewed as takingplace in a certain volume, through whose surface one form of energyenters and transformed energy comes out.The density of the yielded energy is limited by the physical propertiesof the medium through which it flows. In a material medium, the powerof energy flow is limited by the following expression:U < vF,where v is the velocity of diffusion, usually equal to the speed of sound, Fcan be either mechanical or thermal energy, and U is a vector. In stationaryprocesses, div U [the variation of energy flux from place to place inthe medium] determines the magnitude of energy transformation intoanother form. . . .FUSION 13


NationalCourt Gives EPA a Free HandWith Carcinogenic Substancesquences of the OSHA proposal. Toquote from the testimony of JohnHanley, the chairman and presidentof Monsanto Company:Enormous Burden"What we are seeing, is an epidemicrise in the discovery of experimentalcarcinogens —materials whichare suspect simply because of animalIn a decision that will have serious s that directs EPA to guard against t or laboratory tests, or, in some cases,consequences for U.S. industry, the 5 incompletely known dangers."simply because they are related toUnited States Court of Appeals ruled i The ruling opens the door to the i something on a suspect list.... Ifthis month that "the Environmental I antiindustrial environmentalists who 0 exposure controls for a large numberProtection Agency does not need to > have attempted to ban everything 1 of substances were required beyondestablish a direct link between cancer r from saccharin to hair dye as carcinoithe limits which prudence dictates,in man and a toxic chemical beforegens.substantial engineering changesprohibiting its discharge.. . ."Along similar lines, the Occupaiwould be required in plants. The arbitraryThe court stated: "In effect, they[the defendents from the electronics >industries] assert EPA must demonstratetional Safety and Health Administrationhas extended its public hearings 5on a proposal to give OSHA arbitrary /listing of several hundred cate-gory one chemicals would create anenormous engineering and technicalthe toxicity of each chemical it t power to ban substances from the ; burden on industry. We would have toseeks to regulate through studies > workplace. OSHA's proposed ruling ; generate much new science, with nodemonstrating a clear line of causationwould enable the agency to prohibit t reasonable expectation that our efandbetween a particular chemical I any substance once it decides that the ; forts would make any real contribu-harm to the public health or the i substance was proven or suspected to ) tion to occupational health. ..Theenvironment. We do not agree." be dangerous.proposal would curtail the veryFederal law, the court said, gives EPA ^ Nearly all the testimony to date has sciences we need to help solve the"an ample margin-of-safety provision i emphasized the destructive conse- riddles of cancer causation."Laborer UnionHails Indiana's1st Nuke PlantThe Laborer's International Unionfeatured as a lead story in this month'sunion magazine the news that the NuclearRegulatory Commission hasapproved full construction of thelong-delayed nuclear power stationon the Ohio River near Marble Hill,Indiana.Titled "Nuclear Energy Plant inIndiana Making Einstein's DreamReality," the article proudly hails thecritical role its skilled and semiskilledmembership has played in bringingthe benefits of nuclear energy to theAmerican people. "Nuclear developments,"the monthly states, "haveproved a boon to mankind in suchfields as medicine and the othersciences.. . In the area of providingpower for man's use in his homes andindustry, nuclear is perhaps the principalanswer to the world's impendingpower production crisis."Debunking the scare stories of the•environmentalist groups, the monthlyquotes from the Massachusetts Instituteof Technology Rasmussen report,which demonstrates the excellentsafety record of today's nuclearplants. "Opponents of nuclear energyignore the great benefits and magnifythe risk.. , Nuclear power productionmeans that electric bills will not be ashigh as they would be if more costlyfuels were used, such as gas or coal,"the article states.The $1.85 billion project, the firstnuclear plant in Indiana, is expectedto begin partial operation in 1982 andfull operation in 1984.14 FUSION


Conferences1978 APS Plasma Physics MeetingScientists Urge Fusion DevelopmentScores of major scientific and technicaladvances toward harnessingfusion power were announced at theannual meeting of the AmericanPhysical Society's Plasma PhysicsDivision in Colorado Springs, ColoradoOct. 30 - Nov. 3 (page 17), but themain focus was the "politics offusion." As stressed in the majorpresentations, the Carter administration'sgo-slow fusion program has to—and will be—turned around as fusionresearch breakthroughs proliferate inthe coming months.The APS meeting, the largest annualU.S. fusion conference, included1,500 fusion scientists from 20 countriesand 1,100 research papers.The first day of the week-longmeeting was capped by invited papersin a session titled "Social, Politicaland Economic Aspects of ControlledFusion." During two presentations onthe "International Aspects of FusionResearch" and "Current Status of theMagnetic Fusion Program," Dr. EdwinKintner, director of the U.S. FusionOffice in the Department of Energy,detailed what the chief features of thefusion community's political strategymust be.Kintner began by outlining theCarter administration's present policyassumption that fusion cannot bedeveloped before 2025. Then, notingthe recent success of the PrincetonPLT tokamak reactor in obtainingbreakeven fusion temperatures, Kintnerpredicted that the advancesthat will certainly be achieved overthe next six to eighteen months willforce the United States to reassess thispolicy and to reorient its program atleast to realize commercial fusion bythe 1990s.In his presentation on "InternationalAspects of Fusion Research,"Kintner noted that some factions ofthe Carter administration have opposedinternational collaboration infusion research because of their generalpolicy against technology transfer.Kintner added, however, that thesuccess of the fusion programdepends on international collaboration.In this context, he reviewed theunprecedented offer last spring ofJapanese Prime Minister Fukuda formajor joint U.S.-Japan developmentof fusion power, pointing out thatFukuda had recently restated Japan'scommitment to develop fusion asquickly as possible before the JapaneseDiet.Up to this point Kintner had outlinedthe scientific, technical andpolitical status of fusion powerdevelopment. He then quoted fromthe final sections of his ArtsimovichMemorial Lecture delivered at theAug. 23, 1978 Seventh InternationalConference on Plasma Physics andControlled Nuclear Energy Researchin Innsbruck, Austria:*"... I would like to speak on athought first proposed by Artsimovichwhich seems especially pertinent toour circumstances and for the individualsand programs whose leadershipis represented so well in this auditoriumArtsimovich wrote in 1970that there were three main reasons formastering controlled nuclear fusion:first, it would provide access to practicallyinexhaustible energy sources;second, it did not require formation ofgreat quantities of radioactive byproducts;and finally—a philosophicalreason —success in developingfusion for the practical benefitof all mankind would reestablish theself-confidence of scientists in themselvesand in science.. . ."In the United States, and I sense tosome degree in the rest of the world,science has lost its own internal confidenceand the confidence of the laypublic in it. The assumed certaintythat it is 'good' to penetrate the darkcorners of nature with the illuminationof the human mind is beingquestioned. Science is held responsiblefor the doubts that it has raisedabout the existence and nature ofKintner: "We should proceed withconfidence."Cod, as explained by medieval man,with all the moral questions thosedoubts raise. Science is blamed forthe development of weapons whichcan end civilization in seconds.Science is charged with providing themodern industrial processes whichcontaminate the environment andallow the population to increase tothe point that life is not as full asmany wish. Science is feared when itbegins to experiment with the morefundamental aspects of genetics."And so, in many places, there is aturning of the back on science andscientists, at least in those areaswhich might be oriented towardfurther development of modernapplied technology. Some scientistshave accepted this value judgment.Many of the most brilliant haveturned from working on or supportingany subject, including fusion, whichmight have direct, practical results."Perhaps it is precisely in thiscontext that we should examine andtry to learn from the life and contributionof Lev Andreevich Art-• For the full text of Kintner's ArtsimovichMemorial Lecture, see Fusion. October 1978.FUSION 15


simovich. If we in the fusion communitycan build on the greatbeginning which has been made andcarry forward with the developmentof fusion —hopefully, optimistically,enthusiastically working togethertoward providing unlimited energy,the fundamental energy of the universe,in a controlled, environmentallybenign manner—we canonce more believe in ourselves and inscience as the noblest, most constructiveactivity to which the mind of mancan be turned. We may help reestablishthat no one need fear shiningthe bright searchlight of the humanmind on the many remaining darkcorners of our understanding of theuniverse around us."We have made great progress inthat direction. We are on the thresholdof accelerating our pace. We arenot yet at 'the beginning of the end,'but we may be 'at the end of thebeginning' of the most difficult technologicaldevelopment man has everattempted. We can and shouldproceed from this point with confidence—theconfidence Artsimovichexpressed in the quotation with whichI began, 'Nevertheless, there can beno doubt that our descendants willlearn to exploit the energy of fusionfor peaceful purposes.' "Thus Kintner made absolutely clearto the audience of 1,500 fusion scientiststhat the chief goal of the fusionprogram is igniting a renaissance ofhuman reason mediated through thespecific and scientific and technicaladvances of fusion researchers overthe coming months. This, Kintner insisted,must be the immediate tacticalstrategy of the fusion community.Foster: Next Five Yearsthe Most ExcitingOn the third day of the meeting, Dr.|ohn Foster, vice president of TRW,made a major presentation on"Fusion: What Emphasis?" Foster'sspeech followed the presentation ofthe Maxwell Prize to Dr. Richard Post,one of the pioneers in fusion researchand chief developers of the mirrormachine approach to fusion at LawrenceLivermore Laboratory.Foster, who heads up TRW's EnergySystems Division, is currently thechief advisor to the Carter administrationon fusion research representingindustry's viewpoint, and he is chairmanof the DOE Ad Hoc Panel onFusion. In the early 1960s, he wasdirector of Lawrence Livermore Lab,and in 1965 he was appointed directorof the Department of Defense divisionof research and engineering.Foster outlined the Carter administration'senergy plan for the UnitedStates over the next 22 years, based ona 3 percent rate of economic growthand primary dependence on coal andoil until the end of the century.Although this looks good on paper,TickEx'79Georgia World Congress CenterATLANTA, GEORGIA, USA_, , February 27-March 2, 1979The AnnualWorld Fair for Technology ExchangeTHE ONE MAJOR MARKET FOR BUYERS and SELLERS of TECHNOLOGYMost successful multinational companies regularly scour the world for innovations at highcost. Now, In one place — Atlanta, Georgia — February 27 through March 2, 1979 — moreexecutives, more inventors, more licensees, will be gathered together and available for seriousdiscussion than can be reached through years of diligent travel effort.TechEx is the opportunity to meet with more people with like interests — to exchange, notonly technology, but the experience and know-how of business and professional people whohave, for many years, concentrated their efforts in licensing, new product development,joint venture, and acquistion. These contacts result in new ideas, new methods, a fresh approachand practical solutions to the problems of innovation, new product development,production methods and marketing techniques.TechEx Is the market place where the action Is on the floor. Discussions leading to licenseagreements, joint ventures, etc., go on from dawn to dusk at the stands between the inventors/licensors,and the potential developers/licensees. Often these meetings continue onthrough the night at their hotel suites.COMMENTS FROMTechEx PARTICIPANTS"The Fair offered an excellent opportunityto make contacts and obtaininformation on new developments.The firms and personspresent were really interested and itmay be expected that some of thesecontacts will develop into interestingbusiness." Hans Milbom4P VKRPACKUNGEN GMBH,West Germany"First of all, when we attend fairs,they are general fairs. Genera] fairsdo not mean anything to us. Becausethis one is called a specific fair intechnology, I think we know in advancewhat we were going to find.Phis is the reason why I think thisWorld Pair is very much more profitablefor us in comparison to generallairs." Julien Keita,COMMUNAUTE ECONOMIOUE deI'AFRIQUE de l'OUEST(CEAO),Africa (Ivory Coast, Mali, Mauritania,Niger, Senegal, I'pper Volta)16 FUSION


Foster said, its fundamental premisemakes it very unlikely to succeed.Referring to industry studies, mostlikely a recent Westinghouse study,Foster reported that by 1985 newnuclear fission plants will not beassured of fuel supplies for their full30-year lifetimes.Therefore, Foster predicted, theadministration will shortly have tochange its policy on reprocessing andstorage of nuclear waste to acceleratenuclear power plant construction andto increase fuel supplies. Foster citedin particular the fusion-fission hybridreactor as a "national need," essentialfor the national and economicsecurity of the United States in thefollowing way.First, he referred the audience tothe policy of not developing fusionuntil 2025 put forward by JohnDeutch, DOE assistant secretary forenergy research. Foster noted inpassing that "Congress has not yetreached a decision on this, policy."Next he outlined the "remarkable,incredible progress achieved in fusionresearch, both magnetic and inertial,over the past few years and months.The next five years will be the mostexciting years in the history of fusionresearch. We will certainly achieve afusion burn, but we must look beyondjust good physics." Foster continued,however, that we are not and will notbe prepared to apply these achievementsof magnetic and inertial fusionburns to our national needs until webegin to establish the next phase offusion development, the industrialphase.Referencing the forthcoming invitedtalk by Dr. Hans Bethe, Fosterthen explained that the fusion-fissionhybrid reactor must become a majorfocus of U.S. industry. The hybridgreatly eases the physics and technicalrequirements for harnessingeconomically feasible fusion energyand greatly accelerates the rate atwhich fusion can become the majorsource of energy for the world, hesaid. One hybrid fusion reactor cansupply the fuel of five to ten or morefission power plants. But, Fosternoted, it is chiefly the responsibilityof industry to see that the hybrid isdeveloped.Fusion Advances AnnouncedHere are some of the most important advances in fusion and plasmaphysics research announced at the APS meeting. More detailedevaluations will appear in the next issue.(1) The Princeton Large Torus tokamak at the Princeton Plasma PhysicsLaboratory continues to proceed to higher temperatures, about 70 milliondegrees, with a stable plasma and what appears to be better confinementof electrons as the plasma gets hotter in the center of the discharge.(Theelectrons previously have not been contained as long as the positiveions.)(2) Experiments on the PLT conducted during the weekend before theconference indicated that radio wave heating was just as efficient asneutral beam heating. (The PLT has up to 3 megawatts of neutral beamheating potential and over 5 megawatts of wave heating. The breakthroughexperiments at Princeton in July used only about 2 megawatts ofbeam heating.)(3) The eight-beam carbon dioxide laser, Helios, at the Los AlamosScientific Laboratory reports achieving 100 million fusion neutrons,comparable to the same output achieved at Lawrence Livermore Laboratoryusing equivalent power level glass lasers. The Livermore Shiva laserteam reports over 10 billion fusion neutrons in their latest shots.More important, the Los Alamos Helios reported two shots in whichthey got a significant delay between the time of maximum compressionand neutron release. This indicates that the fusion fuel is being compressedto more than five times liquid density before being ignited. Thisprocess is key to achieving the so-called adiabatic or isentropic compressionneeded for high-gain energy-producing laser fusion pellets.(4)The Oak Ridge National Laboratory's ISX-B tokamak reports initialresults indicating the achievement of a beta (the ratio of plasma to magneticpressure, a critical index of economic feasibility) of more than 2percent.(5) Experimental confirmation was reported at Sandia Laboratory inNew Mexico that intense electron beams can be deposited efficiently inthin foils, a phenomenon first reported by Soviet Academician and topfusion scientist L.I. Rudakov in his electron beam fusion experiments.(6) Major new experiments by A.Y. Wong of the University of Californiaat Los Angeles on basic research on self-organizing structures in plasmaphysics.Foster complimented Kintner's directionof the U.S. Fusion Office, saying"the US has an outstandingfusion program." Foster also underscoredthat the tremendous breakthroughsin fusion research were aresult of international collaboration,probably referring to the contributionsof the Soviet-Union. In conclusion,Foster repeated Kintner's earliercall for rekindling the scientific spiritin the United States, insisting that thismust be the immediate political strategyof the fusion community.During the discussion period, thisauthor questioned Foster on how thesituation in fusion research could beturned around, given the Carteradministration's recent rejection of aWestinghouse proposal to developcommercial laser fusion on a 50-50basis and its obstruction of theFukuda proposal. Foster pointed tothe audience and stated: "You mustturn the situation around, throughyour achievements over the comingperiod."Bethe: Fusion-Fission Hybrid EssentialOn the last day of the conference,Nobel Laureate Dr. Hans Bethe madeContinued on page 62FUSION 17


Lazare CarnotAnd the Leibnizian Machineby Dr. Morris LevittLAZARE CARNOT, WHOSE WORK laid the basis formodern mechanical engineering practice, is one of theselect number of historical figures most responsible for thedevelopment of the technology-based republic. In fact, tounderstand Carnot's work in its broadest epistemologicalimplications for economics and physics permits us to fullygrasp the scientific and economic implications of thefusion technology era immediately before us.Carnot was the first scientifically trained engineer tofully appreciate the concept of energy efficiency: the ratioof the amount of energy of a given form —relative to themaximum possible amount (the energy input) —actuallyutilized by a machine for productive purposes. Carnot'sgreat contribution was to recast the most advanced formulationof the general science of mechanics of the 18thcentury, the Leibniz-Euler Principle of Least Action, tomake clear the relationship between efficiency and theconditions governing motion and interaction in a physicalmachine. He showed that the maximum efficiency isrealized when a machine with constrained motions undergoessmooth enough motions to satisfy the Principle ofLeast Action, the condition usually obeyed only by freelyinteracting bodies.Carnot's achievement is of immediate relevance today intwo important ways. First is his conception of greater efficiencyas an increase in the throughput of productiveforms of energy. The onset of fusion means a revolution inthe efficiency of energy productivity both as a quantumleap in the conversion and amplification of electromagneticand thermal energy via plasma-fusion-plasmaprocesses and as a quantum leap in world economic productivityvia the enormously increased efficiency of integratedagroindustrial complexes (nuplexes) powered byfusion energy. We need a new scientific conception ofLazare Carnot, known as thearchitect of industrial republicanismin France, mobilized the nation'sscientific resources to give the FrenchRepublic an in-depth militarycapability, as well as making notablecontributions to science. His work onthe science of machines and hisconception of geometrical motions,derived from the Neoplatonic physicsof G.W. Leibniz and his disciplesEider and Bernoulli, provide stillrelevantinsights into the relationshipbetween energy and machines as weenter the fusion age.A statue of Lazare Carnot,erected in 1882 at his birthplacein Nolay, is shown here framedby components of an electrical generator.FUSION 19


efficiency appropriate to these two great transformations,just as Lazare Carnot and his son Sadi provided such newconcepts for machines and engines.The second point that makes Carnot's work important tous today is his conception of the connection betweenenergy throughput and the nature of the mediatingphysical processes. The Principle of Least Action, as hedeveloped it, provides a critical juncture between twophysical domains. Relative to the domain of entropicprocesses it is the upper bound of efficiency; but relativeto more general processes, like the self-concentration andtransformation of energy in plasmas, least action defines alower domain of efficiency. The problem is that physicstoday conceptually ends at just that boundary.In both nuclear physics and plasma physics, ourpresent inadequate understanding of basic processes, aswell as recent anomalous results in high-energy particlephysics,* demand more fruitful theoretical approaches tothe field-particle problem. This field-particle question isfundamental to understanding how the world works: whythe existence of single particles cannot be accounted forby the fields of interaction between particles, and why thelaws of interaction can qualitatively change as the numberof particles or field intensity (energy density) is varied.As an older and wiser Werner Heisenberg put it in 1976,the year of his death, we must see beyond the surface symmetriesof physics to hypothesize "the underlying(dynamical) law."**Ignoring Heisenberg's advice, physics today approachesfundamental problems like someone who has been struckon the head while at work. Upon regaining consciousness,the victim can still skillfully perform his job, but he is stuckwhen presented with a new problem because he can'tremember how he got there or how he learned his trade.The purpose of this article and the series on humanistscience and the unified field problem is to contribute tocuring such amnesia.As the series will show, we can summarize all that isessential about the positive content and deficiencies ofcontemporary physics by examining the contributions of ahandful of critical figures over the past three centuries—Lazare Carnot, Christian Huyghens, Joseph-Louis Lagrange,Joseph Fourier, Max Planck, and ErwinSchroedinger. Along with other works referred to here, thisseries of articles will demonstrate both the continuity andthe indispensable role of the Neoplatonic-humanist outlookand institutions for scientific progress.Although the scientific contributions presented here arenot uniquely due to these few individuals, in all cases theirwork represents the necessary condensation or qualitativeadvance of physical theory, through the noetic activity ofthe preconscious, into forms crucial for further conceptualprogress.More specifically, their work was critical in generatingthe three essential principles of contemporary physics: (1)Huyghens Principle, (2) the Principle of Least Action, and(3) the Principle of Quantization of Energy. These principlesconcern, respectively: (1) how energy propagates inspace; (2) what principles govern the mechanical transmissionof energy; and (3) the compacting of energy intodiscrete units. Each principle can be generalized from itsoriginal context and the three can then be synthesized intoone unified conception. Present physics, in fact, can besummarized in just one sentence!These principles are not independent; they are differentaspects of the unitary lawfulness of physical process. Thatlawfulness, as we will show, is not reducible to so-calledconservation laws that are determined by the same principles.Rather, lawfulness is the higher-order process of theself-development of the physical universe.This was the issue for Leibniz versus the enemy ofhumanism, Newton,t as it was for Plato against Aristotle:the lawfulness of the universe as a whole, the cosmos. Theparticular (or the particle) participates in that higherlawfulness through the process of self-differentiation andself-development of the universe. For the Neoplatonist,energy is a live force; the universe is alive with energy andits transformations. The Newtonian sees only the deadparticles and the occult forces between them; for him, theuniverse is a machine doomed to run down.Lazare Carnot was the epitome of the humanist technologist,basing his practice on Leibnizian science andpolitical economy. Through his application of theuniversal energy principle to the general class of machines,he forged a critical link between theoretical and appliedscience. That link was crucial for subsequent industrialprogress. What is more, Carnot's treatment of the mechanicsof machines directly embodies the worldview that isstill indispensable to solution of fundamental scientificproblems today.As in Carnot's time, the fight for progress today is notjust a question of growth versus no growth; more fundamentally,the battle lines will be drawn by the scientificepistemology that prevails in shaping the future.Carnof $ Humanist RootsOne of the richest periods of humanist scientific andtechnological development was the 50 years spanning thelast quarter of the 18th century and the first quarter of the19th.t This was the age that witnessed the establishment ofFrance's great Lcole Polytechnique and that produced thebrilliant work of Gaspard Monge, Lagrange and Fourier,Lazare and Sadi Carnot, and their many students and collaborators.This work not only laid the basis for the entiretyof modern dynamics, but, through Cauchy, Dirichlet,Gauss, and Weierstrauss helped to initiate the seminalmathematical contributions of Riemann and Cantor. InFrance today we know this tradition directly in the continuumphysics of Henri Poincare' and Prince Louis DeBroglie.The quality of this period is not lost on those who knowsomething about how West Point was created and howAmerican engineering science got its start. Nor is it lost onEuropean republicans in the tradition of de Gaulle, whoare today working for the realization of the Giscard-Schmidt design for global economic and scientificprogress.Less readily understood, however, is the way in whichthese accomplishments draw upon the earlier organizingof the networks of Gottfried Leibniz and Cardinal Mazarin20 FUSION


Lazare Carnot (left) in an 1813 portrait by L. Boilly. His son Sadi is shown (top right) in his Ecole cadet uniform from aportrait painted the same year by L. Boilly. In the accor ipanying illustration, Napoleon is reviewing cadets in thecourtyard of the Eco/e Polytechnique in 1814. Napoleon faih 'dto carry out Carnot's plans.and the plan for a "Christian commonwealth of Europe."Lazare Carnot, the political and scientific genius behindthe Ecole, was the product of these networks. Since thismeans that he was not a lacobin, nor a deist, nor a Newtonian,it is worthwhile, prior to considering Carnot'sscientific theories, to see just how his faction arose.The Carnot family was from the staunchly Catholic andpromonarchy province of Burgundy, and Lazare was sentin his youth to the Oratorian College d'Autun.The Oratorian monastic order was established in 1611 byCardinals Richelieu and Berulle, with help from Descartes,as an explicit counterpole to the Jesuits and their useless,reactionary Aristotelian dogma. Seeing themselves asrecruit from among its teachers and students some of theirmost trusted military, scientific, and economic advisors.In the late 17th and early 18th centuries the AbbotsMalebranche and Houtteville brought something new anddecisive into the Oratorian schools—Leibniz and Bernoulli.The Leibnizian method mediated against some ofthe more reductionist elements of Cartesian epistemologyand brought the quality of education to a point wherescientific genius of the order of a Monge, Carnot, orFourier could be produced. (Fourier's Benedictine Abbeyat * Eric Auxerre Lerner. was "The modeled End of Quarkery." on the Fusion. Oratorian October-November program.) 1977;and It is "Quarks not surprising, on Way Out?" therefore, Fusion. July to 1978. find p. 48. Carnot, from his"Werner Heisenberg, "The Nature of Elementary Particles," PhysicsToday. March 1976.builders of the French nation, the order organized theirtCarol White. "The Royal Society," Fusion. December 1977-Januaryteaching instead around Saint Augustine, Plato, and the 1978: and Science Is Politics." Fusion. May 1978.Christian-Platonic tradition in literature and the arts. They t This section was written in collaboration with Dr. Henry Moss, who isbrought this directly to the sons of the important noble andbourgeois families who supported the crown. They alsocompleting a larger study on 17th and 18th century French scientifichumanism, including a complete political biography of Carnot. Avaluable source of biographical and scientific material on the Carnottaught what was called the new science of Kepler, Galileo,family is provided by the writings of Professor Charles C Gillespie ofHuyghens, and Descartes as an undertaking consistent Princeton, which are listed in the reference section.with the Augustinian mission of the church. With the greatfamilies of De Broglie and Savoy among the patrons of thisorder, Mazarin and his protege, Colbert, were able toFUSION 21


position on the Directory in 1796, appointing two Oratorianmasters, Lakanal and Danou, to the job of designingfor the fledgling French republic the world's first publiceducational system. Characteristically, each school wasequipped with a full scientific laboratory.After graduating from the college, Carnot entered theEcole du Genie at Me'zieres, the outstanding military engineeringschool in Europe. Here again Carnot was at thecenter of intense discussion of the Mazarinist industrialpolicies and the Leibnizian scientific epistemology.The Mazarin policies were most closely associated withthe tradition of Marshal Sebastien Vauban, who, alongwith Marshals De Broglie and Turenne, made up the gutsof the French armed forces under Louis XIII and Louis XIV.In 1675, Vauban established the Corps des Ingenieurs duGenie Militaire as the brains of a vast scientific humanistorganizing force that built the army into the most advancedmilitia in the world, laid plans (along with Colbert)for the industrial development of France and Europe, andcalled upon the king to initiate vast, urban-basedcolonization of the new world.In 1672 to 1675 the feudal particularist interests aroundthe Houses of Conde, Orleans and the Dutch Orangespulled a coup against the Mazarinists and underminedtheir policies. With the revocation of the Edict of Nantesand the French-Dutch wars, Colbert, Turenne, De Broglie,and Savoy were isolated from the court, and afterHuyghens and Papin were driven out of France, theColbert-founded Academy of Sciences became dominatedby the aristocratic pseudoscience of La Mettrie, Condillac,Diderot, and the British Royal Society. It was Vauban'sCorps du Genie that kept alive the tradition of Leibniz,Bernoulli, and, later, Euler and that fought in Paris againstthe encroachments of the so-called Enlightenment. TheMe'zieres was the most outstanding immediate center forthis tradition, along with its sister institutions the Ecole desMines, the Ecole des Ponts et Chausees (bridges androads), and the Ecole d'Artillerie—all products of the workof Vauban.At the Me'zieres there was consistent agitation forpolicies of expanded urban and technological growth forthe French nation, and for the mobilization of the armedforces to lead the way. Coulomb wrote memoires callingfor the integration of all the technical corps and theircentralization at Paris. He called for the priority of peacetimedeployment of the engineering corps. Carnot wrotememoires calling for a national commitment to apply thelatest results in dynamics to the massive technologizationof industry.Neither Coulomb nor Carnot stopped at the level ofpolitical agitation. Under the guidance of the Abbe CharlesBossut, who introduced Leibnizian topology and Bernoulli'sHydrodynamica into the Mc'ziires, and throughthe teaching of the gifted Gaspard Monge, who introducedthe geometry of Leonhard Euler, Coulomb and Carnot wereboth able to make important contributions to the moderntheory of machines. Far from the hollow speeches of theacademy, Coulomb and Carnot developed their theorieswhile on garrison duty! It is not surprising, then, thatCarnot used the Me'zieres as the explicit model —down to22 FUSIONLazare Carnot was responsible for developing the industryand militia that permitted the in-depth military defense of theRepublic. His colleagues at the Ecole Polytechnique exthetransfer of equipment—upon which to construct theEcole Polytechnique. Nor is it surprising that he appointedas the initiating staff Monge, Bossut, Prony, Lamblardie,and others from the engineering tradition.When the French nation was threatened by Britishinstigatedforeign war and the Jacobin levelers in Paris,Carnot took his case directly to the Lesiglative Assembly,playing a leading role on the education and military subcommittees.When the Girondist and then the Montagnardregimes refused to prosecute the war and sabotaged thenation's ability to mobilize its vast natural and humanresources, Carnot went directly, on mission, to the armies,where he consolidated immense political power among theartillery, engineering, and logistical corps and among botharistocratic and nonaristocratic patriotic officers. Throughhis role in organizing the defense of the northern front,Carnot gained sufficient political clout to force his wayonto the otherwise hostile Committee of Public Safety.From this position of power, he organized the greatdefense of 1794, and after his famous Levee en Masse, the


not just an exceptional practitioner of mechanics or amechanical engineer, although his work proved indispensableto both fields. He proceeded from the standpointof humanist political economy; namely, that a moresuccessful economy is the result of a population that bettermasters the lawful ordering of the physical universe.More specifically, Carnot knew that the classical principlesgoverning the operation of machines, such asconservation of energy, must be subsumed by the principlesof development of human society. He knew that thedesign and application of machines are determined by theneed to increase the productivity of the economy as awhole. These are epistemological conceptions withoutwhich science cannot function.It is not surprising, therefore, that in his abstract scienceas well, Carnot at least implicitly recognized thatmechanical principles are not the last word in physics.perimented with an early air force, using heated-air balloons.Above, French troops fighting the victorious battle of Fleurus,June 1794, aided by their air force.great offense in 1795. Through the Levee Carnot directedthe mobilization of the entirety of the nation for the militaryeffort and for the immediate establishment of a trueindustrial republicThe offense of 1795 secured Prussian and Spanishneutrality and laid the basis for Carnot's dream of a greatcontinental system that would break William Pitt's powerand destroy the British looting system once and for all. TheCoup of Fructidor ended these plans and Napoleon fell farshort of the humanist industrial policies of Carnot. Despitethese setbacks, Carnot succeeded at making industrialrepublicanism a permanent part of the French nationalidentity. Equally important, he left behind him in the formof his scientific followers and of institutions like the fccolePolytechnique, the basis upon which the modern republicanismof de Gaulle could be built and upon which it couldbe linked, through the Grand Design, with the tradition ofFranklin and Hamilton in the United States.This paper will focus specifically on bringing to light acrucial feature of Carnot's scientific outlook. Carnot wasThe Essay on Machinesand the Principle of Least ActionLazare Carnot's major scientific works are the following:the 1783 fssay on Machines (Essai sur les machines engeneral), later generalized in 1803 as the Principes fondamentauxde I'e'quilibre et du mouvement (FundamentalPrinciples of Statics and Dynamics); his 1786 essay submittedto the Berlin Academy prize competition on theinfinite, and published in 1797 in fully developed form asthe famous Reflexions sur la metaphysique du calcul infinitesimal(Reflections on the Metaphysics of the InfinitesimalCalculus); and his own favorite work, theCe'ometrie de position of 1803. He also published in 1801De la correlation des figures en geometrie.The original fssay on Machines is most important forpurposes here. Because the essay is so thoroughly Leibnizianin its method, it provides the essential conceptuallink between Huyghens's geometrical optics and subsequentcrucial developments in geometrical mechanicsand analytic heat-radiation theory. Most important,Carnot's work reveals the actual motive-force of the Leibnizianmethod. We shall approach this method in twosteps.First, the basic principles of Leibnizian physics: One ofthe most vulnerable flanks of the Cartesians to theNewtonian onslaught was the gap between Descartes'stransfinite principle of perfection and his principle ofconservation of momentum, the inappropriate cornerstoneof Cartesian physical dynamics. Perfection as Descartesand Leibniz understood it meant the continual increase inhumanity's ability to comprehend and control the physicaluniverse through the ever-higher ordering of thepredicates of scientific knowledge. This process of evolutioncannot coexist with the principle of conservation ofmomentum. It must be due instead to the transformationof the forms and efficiency of energy.As Leibniz and his followers recognized, the problemwith building an invariance principle around the "quantityof motion" (or momentum, the product of the amount ofmatter, the mass, times the velocity of displacement of themass) is that you are flung back into the perniciousdichotomies of the Newtonian universe. The velocity termFUSION 23


(a)Steel ballsFigure 1LINEAR MOMENTUMLinear momentum is the product of mass timesvelocity for an individual particle. For a group ofparticles, it is the vector sum of the individualmomenta. For two particles approaching along acommon line and colliding, as shown, the momentumalong any axis must be the same before and after thecollision. That is the principle of conservation ofmomentum, which in the simple case shown takes theform:mjVi — m 2 V 2 = m 2 V 2 — mjV'jIf the masses are equal and the initial velocities areequal and opposite, the total momentum of the systemis zero. Conservation of momentum means that"empty" space is homogeneous; wherever the particlesgo, the total momentum remains zero.If there is no interaction, then the total energy is ofthe form (Vim^? + Vim 2 \/}). If m, = m 2 and V, =V 2 and the particles collide and stick together, then theenergy appears to discontinuously go to zero. In reality,the process of interaction transforms the energy intoother forms. This process of energy transformation isthe invariant of the physical universe, and not somestatic total quantity of momentum.(b)Wax ballsin the quantity of motion is measured against absolutespace and time frames, but the conservation of linearmomentum (see Figure 1) means that you could not detectany arbitrary linear displacement of either a moving bodyor the "absolute" space as a whole!A simple example suffices to show why the actualphysical universe cannot be built up from as simple a principleas conservation of linear momentum. Consider twoparticles of equal mass moving toward each other withequal velocities. Suppose that the particles are eitherperfectly hard or perfectly sticky. What happens at thepoint and moment of contact? The two bodies cannotpenetrate or separate from each other, and the preservationof the linear sum of the momenta produces anaggregate body that just sits there, motionless.The real world doesn't work that way! (Nor, as Bardwellhas shown, is the real world representable by the billiardtable.)*The Leibnizians asked: What dynamical quantityindependentof the unknown quality of microscopicimpact and interaction —is related to the active transformationof the physical universe and to humanity'soperations, efficient to transform the ordering of thephysical universe? That question serves as a natural introductionto the concepts of force, work, and energy.The net vector result of all the physical interactions towhich a static or moving body is subjected is called theforce acting on it. In a given physical manifold, the integralof the vector product of force times displacementthrough which it acts,JFdl = W,yields the scalar measure of reproducible transformationswithin an invariant manifold, the moment of activity,known more familiarly as work. (See Figure 2 for a discussionof force and work.)A simple example, well known to Carnot from Bernoulli'swork, was the expression for the work necessary toraise a weight and potentially recoverable in the weight'sfall. The work done in lifting a brick is represented by asimple expression. The gravitational force is very nearlyconstant, and if at each instant the lifting force is justovercoming it, the lifting force is F = mg. Suppose thedistance lifted is H. Then the work done is just W= mgH.If you look at the units in which this form of work is expressed,mass x (distance/time 2 ) x distance,you quickly find that it consists of mass times the square ofvelocity, as shown in Figure 2. Therefore, the dynamicscalar equivalent of force realized as work is notmomentum, but quantity of motion in realized motion.This is what Leibniz and his followers called vis viva orlive force. It is known today by that less exciting term,kinetic energy.Now we come to the second step, the real problem ofNeoplatonic investigation of work and energy. How isconservation of vis viva incorporated into a coherent con-24 FUSION


ception of self-reflexive change in the physical universe?That is the problem of reintegrating the independent timeelement into a higher-order synthesis. Carnot's treatiseachieves this by developing the relationships betweenwork and two other key concepts: action, the integratedproduct of work and time (A — f W dt), and power(P— dW/dt), the rate at which work is done or energy istransformed. More importantly, Carnot's Essay onMachines provides the answer to how physical science isefficient for human control of the rate of increase ofnegentropy of the physical universeCarnot's MechanicsCarnot's contribution was to formulate the vis viva principlefor machines in a way that made clear the efficiencyconception. Before summarizing Carnot's line of approachto this problem, consider a different example: Why does aphysical system, like the solar system, do what it does frommoment to moment? (See Figure 3.) The usual explanationis that the smooth continuity and regularity in the observedpattern of motions are proof of the innate nature ofthe forces and axiomatic mathematical equations at play.Aristotle, through his godchild Newton, observes the orderof the solar system and induces laws for each part which,when combined, predict that the whole business has nopredictable order. But as Bardwell has summarized, theresearch on the problem shows that the many body problem(n> 2) is in principle indeterminate!**Once one rids one's mind of the superfluous baggage ofAristotelian logic, it becomes clear that the planets do notmove according to the linear sum of all the two-bodyforces. The energy content of the system as a whole determinesthe unique transformations of the form of energyand geometrical configuration. The Newtonian forces arefictions invented after the fact, fictions that can describeonly a very limited part of the totality of real physicalsituations.Carnot approaches the problem from the other end, theside of physical reality. "Engineer" Carnot approaches notthe specific machine, but the species machine, fromexactly the standpoint that physics must approach thephysical universe. The machine for Carnot is a device fortransmission of energy throughput. What defines a particularsubspecies of machine is the specific form of theconstraints placed on the motion of its members. In otherwords, a machine is a material mediation of energythroughput, in which the ratio of energy input and outputis determined by invariants of the machine's geometricaldynamics.To make this more specific in the form employed byCarnot, consider the following two conceptions essentialto his work:(1) All motions consistent with the geometrical constraintson the motions of a machine (produced byphysical interaction with constraining members) are calledgeometrical motions (Figure 4).• Dr. Steven Bardwell. "Solving the Three-Body Problem." Fusion,June 1978."Dr. Steven Bardwell. "Solving the Three-Body Problem."FUSION 25


Figure 3HOW DOES THE SOLAR SYSTEM WORK?Suppose the figure represents a planetary system like our own. Is it a big machine or clock that moves because ofthe two-body forces {as defined in Figure 2) indicated, or is there a principle operative for the system as a whole?Under some circumstances, the two descriptions give equivalent results when computations are performed. Butas Nobel Prize winner I. Prigogine has recently demonstrated (Celestial Mechanics, December 7977), once thereare more than two interacting bodies, the mechanical result must become statistical.Nature, however, is much better behaved. The self-interaction of the system as a whole—its total energy—determinesa continuous set of motions. Whether the system is stable or flies apart, the process is lawful, although notdeterminist.(2) There are an infinite number of possible geometricalmotions. Inother words,.from moment to moment there isa nondenumerable nested set of displacements of themasses of the system (or continuous mappings of themanifold of the system if it is thought of as a physicaltopology rather than as connected mass points) consistentwith the stable constraints on the system.What sort of principle—consistent with the physicalreality of the integrality of the system and the existence ofgeometrical constraints—can then account for thedetermination from these infinite possibilities of a uniquesolution in both theory and practice?Carnot solves the problem by showing that for eachhypothetical geometrical motion there is a specificamount of vis viva transferred from the machine toelements of its constraining members. The mathematicalexpression for the conservation of the total amount of visviva is given byf muU cos z = 0.Carnot then hypothesizes that of all these possible geometricalcases the one actually realized is the dynamicalsolution for which the transfer of vis viva to the constrainingmembers is minimized. This can be expressed in theform of the variational principle6 J mil 2 = 0.This is equivalent to minimizing the action (as definedearlier) of the system —that is, the Principle of LeastAction —and it thereby determines differential equationsof motion for the system such that vis viva is conserved forthe system as a whole.Let us now review in greater detail Carnot's derivation ofhis mechanical principles. For each geometrical motion,there is a transfer of momentum and vis viva from the masscenters of the system. Thus, the constraints determine afamily of trajectories in the phase space (the mapped relationshipbetween each position and each momentumvalue of each mass) of the system.*' For a description of simple phase spaces and how constraints andconservation principles contract the phase space appropriate to aphysical system into a specific topology, see Dr. Steven Bardwell,"Solving the Three-Body Problem," Fusion. June 1978. A briefexplanation is given in the box on page 28.26 FUSION


Figure 4GEOMETRICAL MOTIONMP is a movable pivot point.FP is a fixed pivot point (or axle).The conception of geometrical motions, nowmore commonly known as virtual displacements, isthe essential link In the generation of the integrodifferentialequations of motion for the dynamics ofany well-defined physical system.As examples, consider the two systems shown in aand b. Imagine that the diagrams represent eitherstatic positions of the systems or instantaneous picturesof the systems while they are in motion. Ineither case, a geometrical motion is any displacementof the components of the system from thepositions shown at time t, to some other configurationat some later time (t + 6t), so long as nodefining physical feature of the system is violated.Some geometrical motions are shown for b; thereader can imagine what they are like for a.Qarnot provides three other examples of geometricalmotions in his Essay, as summarized by his biographerGillespie:(7) Two globes in contact. An impulsedisplacing both in the same direction along theline of centers would produce a geometricmotion; an impulse separating them along theline of centers would not.(2) Several bodies attached by flexible butinextensible wires to a common center. Anymotion in which all remain equidistant from thecenter is geometric even if they shift amongthemselves; any motion altering the length of aradius is not.(3) A body moving on a curved surface. Amovement tangential to the surface would begeometric; any departure from the tangentwould not.At right is an illustration from Carnot's mechanicstreatise showing a machine designed to study theeffects of friction on machine performance.FUSION 27


Carnot's method is based on outflanking the unknownmicroscopic details of impact by transforming determinatemechanics, via geometrical motions, into an indeterminateform from which all the basic results can beobtained.At the heart of Carnot's mechanics is the conceptionthat whatever difficulties the mode of particle interactionpresents (for example, hard or sticky rather than elasticimpact, or discontinuity of interaction), or the physicalstate of the system (gas or liquid, rather than solid), thereare conditions under which the system can undergo reversiblemotion at the macroscopic level. Conversely, reversiblemotion implies that the quality of microscopic interactionis not altered. Therefore, geometrical motion bearsa relation to the macrodynamics similar to that betweenthe geometry of phase space and the microscopic dynamicalparameters.Carnot makes such a connection explicit in his 1803Principes:Any motion will be called geometric, if, when it isimpressed upon a system of bodies, it has no effecton the intensity of the actions that they do or canexert on each other when any other motion isimpressed upon them.The indeterminate topology of the totality of geometricalmotions (the macroscopic expression of the phasespace topology) provides the determinate principles on thebasis of which the physical dynamics of a system, whenacted on by specific external forces, can be determined.Indeterminate-Determinate DynamicsThe analytic kernel of this approach is contained in Carnot'sexpressions for determinate and indeterminatedynamics. In this work, he employed the followingquantities:mVuUzthe mass of each "corpuscle" (in the machine);the actual velocity of a mass corpuscle;the velocity of the mass corpuscle duringan infinitesimal geometrical motion;the velocity lost to the internal constraints as a resultof undergoing (real or vitual) displacement;the angle between u and (J;Z the angle between V and U.The pendulum mass m moves alongorbit ABC, changing the angle withthe vertical, Q.Each point (A, B, C) shows thedirection, speed, and position of thependulum in phase space at a certaintime.Carnot's Method:The CaseOf the PendulumCarnot's analysis can be applied tothe problem of the motion of a pendulum—acase study in simple harmonicmotion, which forms the basisof most physics. Figure (a) shows apendulum of length / and mass m. Theonly constraint on this system is thefixed length of the pendulum. Theonly necessary coordinate, therefore,is the angle 0, which measures thedisplacement of the pendulum fromthe vertical.The first step in Carnot's approachto mechanics is the identification andanalysis of the geometric motions ofthe pendulum. As Carnot defined it,the geometric motions of a system arethose motions consistent with thephysical constraints on the system. Inthe case of the pendulum, the geometricmotions are the class of orbitsof the pendulum that leave the lengthof the pendulum fixed; that is, thependulum can move only along an arcof (fixed) radius, /. Any displacementof the pendulum along this arc (shownwith a dotted line in Figure a) is apossible geometric motion.As Carnot stressed, the actualmotion of the pendulum is not determinedby the so-called engineeringconstraints on the system. In the caseof the pendulum, this indeterminacyis obvious; but compare the case of asteam engine. Is it so obvious that thesize of the piston, the radius of thewheels, and the pitch of the stroke donot suffice to determine the motion ofthe engine?Bemoulli-D'AlembertCarnot recognized the fundamentalpoint that a higher-order specificationwas required to determine which geometricmotion, out of all possiblesuch motions, would be the actualtrajectory of the pendulum. He knewthat some global principle inherentlyirreducible to a sum of the constraintson the system had to be found.For this reason, Carnot attributedsignificance to the Bernoulli-D'Alembert principle of virtual work.This principle takes a particularlysimple form in the case of the pendulum,and can be stated efficiently(following Hamilton) as, "The actual28 FUSION


The first result obtained is based on two simple axiomsconcerning the interactions between mass corpusclesduring a displacement: equal action and reaction, andzero relative motion of corpuscles after an impact event.Carnot expresses this verbally as:. . the sum of the products of the quantities ofmotion impressed on each other by the corpuscles. . . multiplied by the velocity of the corpuscle onwhich it is impressed, evaluated in the direction ofthat force, is equal to zero;and mathematically asf(mV)(L


6 J mil* = 0.Carnot then showed that if that condition was satisfied,the machine would transmit the maximum possibleamount of energy throughput. The ratio of the energyinput to the energy output in that case is unity. He summarizedthis situation of maximum mechanical efficiencyas follows:Now, in order to fulfill that condition [input equalsoutput], I say, first, that any impact or suddenchange is to be avoided, for it is easy to apply to allimaginable cases the reasoning developed in that ofweight-driven machines; whence it follows thatwhenever there is impact, there is simultaneously aloss of moment-of-activity on the part of the impellingforces, a loss so real that their effect isnecessarily diminished.... It is then with goodreason that we have proposed that in order to makemachines produce the greatest possible effect, theymust never change their [state of] motion except byinsensible degrees. We must except only those thatby their very nature are subject in their operation tovarious percussions, as are most mills. But even inthis case it is clear that all sudden changes shouldbe avoided that are not essential to the constitutionof the machine.This formulation for the first time provided a scientificcriterion for determining the range of optimal designs forarty type of machine and for evaluating its performance.As Sadi Carnot was later to remark about his comparableachievement in founding thermodynamics, the ability toreplace British-style trial-and-error tinkering with rigorousconceptions of how to optimize efficiency and power wasa more powerful force than even the British Navy.Carnot's Humanist EpistemologyThere are three important conceptual aspects of Carnot'sresults:First and most important, the Principle of Least Action isnot an inductive generalization of empirics, but ahypothesis that is creatively synthesized by preconsciousmentation and whose relative truthfulness and limits are tobe tested by unique experiment. Carnot does not add uppieces from or abstract from the existent body ofknowledge of his day. He leaps over this knowledge to ahigher conception of the ordering of the physical universe,which is articulated as the conception of geometricalmotion.The process of concept-formation stands as a higherordertransfinite with respect to the specific concepts of(indeterminate] geometrical motions and (determinate)least action, while those concepts are themselves transfinitewith respect to each other and to vector and scalarconservation laws.The concept of indeterminacy is a determined predicateof the higher-order, indeterminate process of conceptformation. Carnot's theory is not just mathematicallydescriptive—it is beautiful as well.Second, Carnot realized that the Principle of LeastAction and derived conservation laws hold if and only if asystem is constrained to undergo geometrical motion; thatis, if the dynamics are reversible. As the word implies, areversible process is one that can, in principle, proceedjust as well from state A to state B as vice versa, like apendulum. As a practical matter, that may be difficult ifone state is more "probable" (has more ways to exist) thananother. More basically, however, reversability formechanical systems implies that there is no singularity ordiscontinuity in the dynamics.Thus, the principle holds only under a restricted range ofinteractions and motions or energy inputs consistent withthat class of interactions. (This is the mechanical extensionof Euler-Bernoulli considerations of the laws of fluid flowwith respect to the limiting case of turbulence, it also illuminatesfrom another perspective the author's earlier analysisof the geometrical-dynamical relationship betweenthe First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.)* Theprinciple breaks down under other forms of motion andinteraction such as jarring or vibratory impact, or, as weshall see, through transformation of the physical manifoldto a higher-order phase space.Third, Carnot explicitly demonstrates that these investigationsof the principles of the species machine provide noabsolute rules for machine design abstracted from specificcontexts of human social reproductive practice. Here is theheart of the Leibnizian epistemology: Man, society, andthe physical universe are not, as the willfully ignorantBarry Commoner thinks, machines through which entropyspreads. Machines—even of the mechanical-thermodynamictype—are linkages between the higher-orderphysical processes that mediate the negentropy ofhumanity's expanded reproduction.We can now go beyond Carnot's results per se, toexamine the even more important connection between hisresults and the fundamental invariants of the physical universethat are necessarily present in Carnot's own preconsciousprocesses of hypothesis formation. The moststriking aspect of Carnot's applied science is the fact thatthe very content of his conceptions directly expresses therelationship between specific scientific abstractions andhigher-order physical and mental processes.The Hypothesis of IndeterminacyThe crucial conception in Carnot's work is that of indeterminacy.The most general definition of the content ofthat conception is the following: There are no axiomatic,fixed laws of nature or equations blazoned in the heavensforever. Physical configurations do not proceed logicallyone from another according to some a priori and deterministrule.The most general mathematical representation of aphysical system available to us, probably due originally toEuler, is the concept of phase space, or configurationspace (see box, page 28). Phase space is a Riemannianmanifold —that is, a multidimensional, nonlinear coordi-30 FUSION


nate system. The phase space P, for a physical system instate / may have a finite or an infinite number of dimensions.These dimensions, or phase space coordinates, arethe appropriate set of variables for defining the energy ofthe system as a scalar function (for example, the positionsand momenta of all particles).At this level of conceptualization, physical process isassumed to be reducible to the "motion" of a systemthrough a simply connected (or continuous) manifold, thephase space, which expresses the general geometricalaspects of the scalar energy. As we will see, more generalphysical processes require the more advanced conceptionof a higher-order geometry, analogous to the differencebetween a simply connected manifold and a multiplyconnected manifold.The principle of indeterminacy has two, related implications:First, the evolution from one stage (or moment) ofphysical process, designated by m, to the next, m+ 1, isnot predetermined by the configuration associated with m.The conditions at stage m indicate only that there is anoperative set of restrictive conditions on the physicalinteractions and geometrical configurations. From thestandpoint of m, therefore, there is a restricted but infiniteset of specific configurations that could be realized asm+ 1.Second, two possibilities follow. Either the self-interactionof the system passing through stage m is or is notchanged in quality. If the latter occurs, then the energycontent of the system determines a unique state for m+ 1that also satisfies the condition of conservation of energyas measured in the phase space of the system. This is thecase, for example, in the motion of a pendulum or a freelyfalling body, or the operation of a machine. The processm -* m+ 1 may be reversible or irreversible. As we willshow in a subsequent discussion of Huyghens and Planck,this is only a peculiarity of the phase space and not afundamental distinction. Carnot's principle is a limitingcase for this class of mechanical processes.If the former of the two possibilities occurs—that is,change of quality of interaction as, for example, during afusion reaction —then the passage from m to m+ 1 is aphysical singularity marked by transformation of the effectivephase space. The indeterminacy in this case is of ahigher order—that of the phase space of m+ 1 relative tom. There is now a range of phase spaces, P, m + u ,consistent with the initial condition that stage m is characterizedby phase space P m . In this case, a higher-ordertransition must be made— in the "phase space of the phasespaces" —even less determinist, but nonetheless still lawfullyunique. Only the worst epistemology could label thissituation as obeying an "uncertainty" principle.So-called conservation of energy here is nothing but aconvention in which so many units of "energy" withrespect to F, are set equivalent to so many units of"energy" with respect to P } bince they can be convertedback and forth into each other (as, for example, whenfusion releases kinetic energy that can be converted intoheat, and so forth). This interpretation is as misleading,however, as the Newtonian assumption that particlesinteract through so-called innate forces just because sucha mathematical representation sometimes gives accuratecomputational results.The most general principle of indeterminacy, therefore,can be stated as follows: There is no axiomatic connectionbetween the successive phase spaces, P m and P (m + ucharacterizing the stages of the physical universe or itssubsumed physical systems. Nor is the physical universeadequately represented at any moment by any singlesimply connected manifold, no matter how general. P mmust itself be a multiply connected manifold, in somesense the union (U) of simpler manifolds, P| (m) ,P m = UP,-


Of all the possibletrajectories in phase space,only one satisfies thePrinciple of Least Action.Figure 5ENERGY AND GEOMETRYCarlJacobiImagine a multidimensional {finite or infinite) phase space, heuristically depicted here through the simple,three-dimensional Euclidean space.lacobi's geometric formulation of the Principle of Least Action means that in a given phase space, the path that asystem takes between any two endpoints is the unique path that satisfies the Principle of Least Action—that is, theunique path associated with energy conservation. Energy is concentrated on a characteristic curve in the space thatenergy itself defines. For the mathematically more complex case of a nonlinear plasma, another relationshipbetween a characteristic geometrical coordinate system and the flow of energy has been derived. Here one dealswith concentrations of energy in physical space.In the publications referenced in the text Dr. Steven Bardwell has reviewed the research that showed that thenatural coordinate system for soliton (particlelike) states in plasma is the vortex filament. Other high-densityplasma states include a sheath of vortex filaments or the formation of vortex rings in various types of plasma foci.Physics has yet to solve the problem of going beyond these geometrical conceptions of phase space or physicalsingularities [exemplified by the formulations of Jacobi, Lamb, Wells, and Bostick) to an adequate comprehensionof high-energy plasma or particle processes.ferent versions were put forward by D'Alembert andMaupertuis. D'Alembert's principle relies on defining aninertia! force, the product of mass times acceleration, inaddition to the forces of interaction. In any virtualdisplacement, 61, of this generalized force, F D , the workdone, F D • 61, is zero.Maupertuis's principle is more directly based on theconcept that there is a universal law of action, but it lacksthe crucial virtual displacement notion. In these respects,both principles are blatantly tainted with Newtonianism.Furthermore, there is evidence that Euler had, in fact,earlier formulated the full variational principle in theappropriate form later modified by Carnot.The basic conception underlying Carnot's formulation ofthe principle is the Leibnizian hypothesis that "the changeof the kinetic energy is equal to the work done by theforce." Carnot's principle thus follows the line of 18thcentury versions of the principle in which the integral ofthe kinetic energy T with respect to time is minimized:2 JT dT = 0.Since work and (kinetic) energy are interchangeable,this also can be thought of physically as minimizing theintegrated work done by the conservative forces in a giventime interval in bringing about a reversible transformation.In the 19th century, Jacobi and Hamilton generalizedthis result in forms that, like Carnot's interpretation, lendthemselves more readily to connection with the mostgeneral physical processes. Jacobi showed that the timeintegral in the "action" could be transformed into a pathintegral in configuration (phase) space such that thefollowing integral is minimized:| V 2(f — V)' ds,where ds is a "distance" in phase space, E is total energy,and V is potential energy (the interaction energyassociated with the geometrical configuration).Jacobi's version of the least action principle is the directanalogue in phase space of Fermat's principle for lighttraveling in media with various indices of refraction, n[rather than V 2(£ — V) 1 ] and physical displacement, ds. Inboth cases, the path followed is the shortest distance; thatis, the path that takes the least time to traverse betweentwo definite end points. Jacobi's formulation, however,reveals the actual geometrical basis for this concept in therelationship between energy and the dynamics in phasespace.Hamilton completes this phase of the development ofmechanics by showing that the Leibniz-Euler-Carnot timevariational principle, which holds most generally (both for32 FUSION


variations with respect to real and virtual displacements,and for nonconservative systems), is the resulttj6 J L dt = 0,tiwhere L = 7—V is the Lagrangian function.Hilbert later pointed out, however, that the Hamiltonianformulation obscures the critical geometrical correlates ofthe energy principle so beautifully demonstrated byJacobi.As this brief review shows, Carnot's principle of leastaction is at the center of the geometrical dynamical viewpointof classical mechanics: Every form of energy andinteraction is associated with an appropriate Riemanniangeometry (phase space) within which the energy is concentratedalong characteristic minimal paths. (For illustrationof this point and the immediately following ideas seeFigure 5.)As the more recent theoretical work of Wells and Lamb,and the experiments of Bostick, Wells, and others haveshown,* this variational-geometrical result can be generalizedto higher-energy-density plasma regimes wherevortical geometries provide the force-free framework forplasmoid or soliton solutions. This raises two basicquestions: First, at what point in plasma processes doesnonlinear interaction supersede these analyticalgeometricalprinciples; and, second, what principle ofmovement from one phase space topology to another isthen operative? Is this the same order of problem as theexistence and transformation of so-called elementaryparticles?Put another way, these Riemannian geometricalmechanicalconsiderations are all contained within thedomain of inorganic physics, of transfinite order "n." Whatare the transfinite orders, m < n, contained within n, andwhat principles govern the transformations between each?We have explored here the conceptual generation ofCarnot's level, /T)L_C . the Leibniz-Carnot level of workand w's viva, to illuminate the more general features ofphysical systems of order m and n, which must now becomprehended.Carnot, Humanist EngineerCarnot understood, as few after him have, the physicsand economics of the machine. He extended his investigationof geometrical motions to show that althoughconditions of reversibility represent the maximization ofefficiency of energy throughput, in the more general casethere is another characteristic invariant, the moment ofthe quantity of motion. This means that the machineobeys conservation of angular momentum. In this moregeneral case, the transmitted quantity of relevance ispower.The physics of machines does not determine, however,how to actually design a specific machine. Its most importantgeneral function is to totally discredit Utopianfantasies about turning the world into one big perpetualmotion machine.In Carnot's time the republican humanists seeking toimplement a Europe-wide Grand Design to hook up withIthe American Republic had to contend with twb Britishinspiredideologies, the Enlightenment's fetishism aboutmechanical contrivances on one hand, and antiscience"naturalism" on the other These flip sides of the antihumanistcoin present themselves in the contemporaryperiod as, respectively, the Utopian, fixed-technologyworld of a Buckminster Fuller or the zero-growth antitechnologyravings of the environmentalists. For Carnot, theultimate function of machines was to eliminate physicalmisery and toil, not science and thought.As Carnot emphasized, strictly continuous motion is anideal limit for maximizing efficiency of energy throughputin a particular device. But that is not where productivity islocated; productivity involves the relationship of the localproductive process to the output of the economy as awhole. Thus, Carnot argued, the general principles of themachine tell you exactly how optimizing one aspect ofmachine function will compromise another, but you mustthen evaluate that information for a series of hypotheticalmachine designs with respect to the fundamental unit, theeconomy as a whole.For example, running a machine at lower efficiency buthigher torque to produce a part may augment socialproductivity more than by maximizing local thermodynamicefficiency. Or achieving greater power transmissionmay shorten machine life intolerably. In the wellknowncase of the water wheel, drawing off the mostpower from the moving water also introduces the mostpercussion into the blades of the wheel. It's no good tohave maximum efficiency for one second and a bunch ofsplinters the next.Carnot was no reductionist efficiency expert. His workreminds us that the ultimate measure of science and technologyis their ability to enhance the productive powers ofhumanity. The increased negentropy of the human economy,in turn, reveals that the real content of scientificconceptions like those of Carnot, is the common creativeprinciple governing the development of the physical universeand human reason.Morris Levitt is the executive director of the FusionEnergy Foundation.ReferencesGillispie. Charles Coulston. 1971. Lazare Carnot Savant. Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press.. 1976. Sadi Carnot et I'Essor de la Thermodynamique. Paris:Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.For a review of these results see Dr. Steven Bardwell. FusionPlasma: An Overview of the Research," FEF Newsletter. Vol. II. No. 1,July-August 1976; "The History of the Theory and Observation ofOrdered Phenomena in Magnetized Plasmas." FEF Newsletter, Vol.II. No. 2. September 1976; "The Implications of Nonlinearity," FEFNewsletter. Vol. II. No. 3, March 1977.The original sources include Winston H. Bostick, "The Pinch EffectRevisited," International Journal of Fusion Energy. Vol. I. No. 1.March 1977: D.R. Wells and P. Ziajka. "Production of Fusion Energy byVortex Structure Compression." International Journal of FusionEnergy. Vol. I. Nos. 3-4. Winter 1978; and G.L. Lamb, Physical ReviewLetters. Vol.37, p. 235,1976.FUSION 33


TheTechnologyFor Fusion:by Marsha FreemanTHE COMMERCIAL APPLICATION of fusion energyfor advanced industrial processing and electricity by the21st century will require the creative collaborative work ofscientists, skilled technicians, and high-technology industrywithin the next few years. The scope of the industrialand engineering effort required is enormous—fromthe precision technology required for the reactor componentsto their mass production, fabrication, and transportationto sites here and around the world.The model for this necessary scientific renaissance cancome right out of the recent history of the PrincetonPlasma Physics Laboratory. There the collaborationbetween scientists, technicians, and industry developedthe technology first to build the Princeton Large Torus,which reached record tokamak temperatures last summer,then the more complex Poloidal Divertor Experiment, justcoming on line, and, finally, the Tokamak Fusion TestReactor, which is now under construction.The greatest technological challenge of fusion is thecontrol, understanding, and most efficient use of anionized state of matter that has never before been harnessedfor power production —a multimillion-degreeplasma. Fusion plants will not present any significant engineeringchallenge simple resulting from size—a conventionalsteel plant has dozens of pieces of machinerymany times the size of a fusion vacuum vessel. Nor willthere be a problem with the utility systems design aspect ofenergy conversion and use.The major scientific challenge for fusion is twofold.First, continuing research into materials that can withstandfusion temperatures and neutron bombardment isrequired, as long as fusion reactors are designed to rely ondeuterium-tritium fuels. Second, the most importantFusion machines require a complex,delicate balance of magnetic and electricalfields. Here a technician works on a section of the PL T.PPPL


From PLT to TFTRscientific, engineering, and design consideration, whichdefines the work for the physicist, the engineer, and theindustrial technician, is how to produce fusion within anincredibly precise and delicate balance of magnetic andelectrical fields.The Princeton Large TorusUp through the building and testing of the PrincetonLarge Torus (PLT) now in operation, the scientists were the"design engineers" for building the magnetic systems, thediagnostic apparatuses, and the configuration considerationsfor the machine. Only they could define theoreticallyhow to measure temperatures in the millions ofdegrees, how to construct magnetic systems that couldconfine such a plasma, precisely what the physical relationshipof the magnetic systems had to be for themagnetic and electrical fields to produce no energy-lossinstabilities, and how the neutral beam injectors wouldaffect the machine's operation.For this reason, every part of the PLT, the magneticsystems, the vacuum vessel, the structural support, andmost of the diagnostics were designed and built at thePrinceton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL). Of the approximately970 people at PPPL, almost 500 are lab andshop technicians, who work intimately with the 270 scientistsand engineers.Three Magnetic SystemsThe PLT controls and heats the plasma with threemagnetic coil systems. The 18 toroidal field coils, responsiblefor the strongest component of the magnetic confiningfield, were insulated and wound into 450-foot continuouscoils at Princeton from 20-foot copper bars providedby Phelps Dodge Copper Products. The copper bars werebrazed or soldered with a high-temperature alloying metal,insulated with epoxy in 250-degree ovens specially built forthat purpose, and wound on a vertical rotating boring mill.The ohmic heating coils, which induce a current in theplasma and add confinement parallel to the plasma flow,were also fabricated at the PPPL coil shop. To induce acurrent in the plasma, these ohmic heating (OH) coilsrapidly change their current from +20,000 amperes to— 20,000 amperes, which presented a unique switchingproblem to the experimenters. The speed with which thecurrent had to be switched surpassed the limits of currentmechanical switching technology. Put to work on theproblem. General Electric developed a solid-state switchinggear. This was combined with the OH rectifiers used tochange alternating current to direct current, leading to aless costly system with greater reliability.The third magnetic system on the PLT is the equilibriumfield (EF) system. These magnets, which are adjacent tothe ohmic heating coils, generate a uniform vertical field,providing vertical stability and preventing an outward pullon the plasma ring that could otherwise expand to thewalls of the vacuum vessel. This coil system was also fabricatedat PPPL. Since both the OH and EF coils are arrangedwithin the toroidal field (TF) coils, their installation was amore time-consuming and complex task than originallyanticipated, requiring precision placement and relationshipbetween the three magnet systems.The 12-foot diameter vacuum vessel was fabricated atPPPL from welded stainless steel sections with two ceramicrings as part of the wall to keep the electrical resistancehigh compared to the plasma. The external structuralsupport system is designed to withstand over 3 millionpounds of centering force from each toroidal field coil andmillions of pounds of magnetic force from the threemagnetsystem.PDX —Adding a Fourth Magnetic SystemThe $26 million Poloidal Divertor Experiment (PDX),which will begin operation as soon as the assembled partsare tested, presented a new problem in fusion technology.Designed to test various magnetic geometries for plasmapurity experiments by diverting the plasma and impuritiesout of the magnetic trap, the PDX has a fourth magneticsystem, which involves actually placing poloidal field coilsinside the vacuum vessel. This required new designs for theother coil systems and the development of new technologyFUSION 35


PPPLPPPL's special shop for the fabrication of insulated coils and power bus bars uses a variety of special tools—winders,epoxy impregnation equipment, and drying ovens. Inset: A schematic of the three-story PDX tokamak showing thepoloidal coils made in the shop.for magnets that must operate in a very hot, corrosiveenvironment.In addition, the PDX represents the transition step fromthe PLT, which was an in-house fabrication, to the TokamakFusion Test Reactor, which is being built wholly byoutside industrial subcontractors. The outer poloidal field(PF) coils were fabricated at the PPPL coil shop, by thesame methods described for the PLT coils. The toroidalfield (TF) coils, however, had to be built in segments sothat the PF divertor coils could be placed inside them.Built by Phelps Dodge Copper Products, the toroidalfield coils were fabricated in C-shaped sections, whichwere joined together on-site. The extrusion and drawing ofthe copper sections of the coils are standard precisiontechnology. The TF-coil extrusion, which forms a grooveinside the copper for the cooling tube, was a particularlycomplex operation because of the elliptical shape of thesecoils. Since this was the largest tokamak fusion devicefabricated so far, considerations of economy were important,and magnet designs were affected by the need tooperate within defined electrical supply parameters. Maximizingthe amount of copper used for the TF coils allowedthe PDX engineers to stay within the limited power supplyavailable for the experiment.Though the poloidal field coils for the PDX are standardfusion coils and were built at Princeton, the internaldivertor PF coils required special stainless steel jackets,manufactured by Custom Manufacturing, to protect them.These 10 internal coils, of five different sizes, are approximately114 inches in toroidal diameter with a diametertolerance of ± 1/16 inch.High-precision technology for positioning and aligningthe divertor PF coils was essential for two reasons. First,the outer stainless steel jacket makes it impossible toascertain precisely where the magnetic field center is afterthe jacket is on. Second, because of the proximity of thedivertor coils to the plasma inside the vacuum vessel, theslightest distortion in placement could disrupt the entirefusion experiment. To be able to place the divertor coilswithin a tolerance of 1 mm tilt in any direction, precise36 FUSION


PPPLPPPL technicians working on the dome to the PDX vacuum vessel, one of the most complex pieces of spin-formed steelin existence. The vacuum vessel is 7 feet in diameter, 10 teet /)igh, and weighs 22 tons. It was fabricated by Princeton andprivate industry.measuring techniques had to be employedThe first technique was using an eddy-current probe tolocate the exact position of the copper of the magnetbeneath the lumpy and uneven epoxy insulation. By layinga high-frequency coil on the magnet and measuring theresonance of the eddy current as the coil was lifted awayfrom the insulated magnet, the exact position of thecopper underneath the surface was located.Once the divertor coil is placed inside its stainless steeljacket, ultrasonic waves are used for position mapping.The ultrasonic waves are bounced off the steel jacket andthen off the coil's insulation. After the precise location ofthe copper within the insulation has been mapped, themeasurement of variations in the returned echo from thestainless steel locates the magnetic center when themagnet is "canned" in the vacuum vessel.Using a very sophisticated and precise optical measuringdevice, called the K&E optical bar system (similar to asurveyor's instrument), each array of poloidal magnets isoptically aligned in precise geometric configuration.The PDX vacuum vessel is one of the transitionalcomponents fabricated by Princeton and private industry.The walls of the vessel were made at the lab in much thesame way as the PLT vessel walls. But the size of the upperand lower domes of the vessel, one of the largest and mostcomplex pieces of spin-formed steel in existence, requiredthe work of Torngren Spincraft in Massachusetts.The vacuum vessel domes had to be spin-formedbecause they have surfaces that curve in more than onedimension. This technology has been in use on a smaller,less complex scale for the manufacture of radar reflectordishes and microwave transmitters. The process involvesplacing the metal on a form that rotates. The metal is thenstretched into the form's shape by the application of eithermanual or hydraulic force, and the dome is completed asone component.The completed PDX vacuum vessel is 7 feet in diameterand about 10 feet high. The total weight is 22 tons, with astandard design. The PDX will have both neutral beamheating (an upgraded version of the PLT neutral beams)FUSION 37


PPPLThe TFTR will be the first tokamak to have a remote-control system to aid in repair and maintenance of the machine.Above: An artist's cutaway drawing of the remote-control device and its circular track.and radiofrequency heating. The PDX is the last tokamakthat will have a major part of its fabrication work done atthe PPPL.TFTR—Toward a Commercial ReactorThe Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR), to be completedat Princeton in 1981, will be built almost entirely byprivate industry, with a total budget of $230 million. The$100 million device, twice the size of the PLT, is beingcontracted to Ebasco, Inc., with Crumman AerospaceCompany having a major, $20 million subcontract fordesign and fabrication of some of the unique technologythat the TFTR will require.Remote-Control Maintenance SystemAs the first tokamak to burn a plasma of deuterium andradioactive tritium, the TFTR will require the applicationof the radioactive-material handling technology nowemployed in the conventional fission industry. It is also thenext step toward a utility-system commercial fusion powerplant, with the ease of maintenance that a commercialplant requires.Therefore, one of the most important innovations thatwill be incorporated in the design and construction of theTFTR is an entirely remote system to remove parts of thevacuum vessel for repair and maintenance. The vacuumvessel, which will be built by Chicago Bridge and Iron, willbe built in 10 segments, each with two of the toroidal fieldcoils around it. The vessel will contain 240 separate anddifferent-sized penetration points for the insertion of theneutral beams, various diagnostic instruments, and thezirconium-aluminum getters (absorbers) that collect thetritium gas after it passes through the vacuum system.All of the coils for the TFTR will be built by industryexcept the four largest poloidal field coils. These 32-foot,8-ton coils, which are too large to transport by conventionalmeans, will be fabricated at the PPPL coil shop. Itwill take more than a year to build them.Removable PartsThe most challenging technology for the TFTR is allowingthe actual removal of any one of the 10 vacuum vesselsegments to examine neutron damage and repair any leaksor pitting that might occur if the plasma strikes the vesselwalls. In a conventional commercial reactor the difficultand time-consuming task of removing and repairing avessel segment, which could take a couple of months,would only be necessary in extraordinary circumstances.In order to avoid the need to disassemble vesselsegments, Crumman and Ebasco are developing the tech-38 FUSION


nology for remote maintenance. With this facility, repairwork in the vessel's radioactive environment can be doneentirely by remote-controlled manipulators. The remotecontrolledsystem will involve an overhead bridge cranewith a capacity to lift 400 pounds. A smaller "brute forceand ignorance" manipulator with a capacity of 150 poundswill be used with the overhead crane to pass machineryand materials into the vessel from outside.Inside the vessel will be a set of dextrous manipulators,with a lift capacity of 20 pounds each, able to performcutting, welding, and other repair functions, as well asseparating a segment if it has to be removed. Grummanhas developed a unique "force feedback" mechanism inthe dextrous manipulators, which allows the operator todetermine the amount of pressure that the manipulator isapplying to its work. This forced feedback system, whichhas been developed for commercial nuclear plants, will beuniquely developed for highly precise in-vessel remotecontrolledwork.The Manpower for Fusion TechnologyThe evolution of the role of industry in the developingPrinceton tokamak devices has been dependent upon anactive collaboration with high-technology companies. In1954, when the Princeton C Stellerator was under development,Dr. Lyman Spitzer, at the time head of the Princetonlab, asked CE and Westinghouse each to send two scientistswho would begin design studies for future commercialreactors. Don Grove, one of the two Westinghouse scientistswho then worked on the six-month design study, isstill at PPPL and is now overseeing the building of theTFTR, after performing similar work on the PLT.Princeton has brought industry scientists and engineersinto the daily operation of the laboratory to train them inpreparation for what will be a mass-production technologyat the end of the century. Industry has provided the personnelat its own expense to be trained for this challenge inthe power supply field and to contribute industry's scientificand technical knowledge and experience to the fusioneffort.The next step is to bring the very small number ofcompanies—including Westinghouse, General Electric,and United Technologies—that have entire power systemsdesign and engineering experience into the full-scalepower plant design work. The scientists and engineers atPPPL see this as the major task of the TFTR years at Princetonand as one of the major commitments that both industryand the government must now make to ensure thatthe technology for commercial fusion is ready when thescientific experiments have made fusion a reality.Marsha Freeman is the director of industrial research forthe Fusion Energy Foundation.I•An aerial view of the TFTRconstruction site (top). Will theUnited States meet the challenge ofdeveloping the technology for commercial fusion?PPPL


NuclearSteelmakingThe Building BlockFor Nuplex Citiesby Jon GilbertsonNUPLEXES, agroindustrial urban complexes centeredaround one or more nuclear power plants, will be the newcities that bring the majority of the world's population —the Third World —up to and beyond the standard of livingin the United States. At the same time, the task of nuplexcity building in the next few years will provide the basis forreviving and expanding U.S. production and getting theeconomy permanently out of its depression.As discussed in the first article in this series (Fusion,November 1978), the concept of nuplex city building is notnew; in fact, it has been around almost since the initialdevelopment of nuclear power in the mid-1950s. The basicidea, as developed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory,is to integrate several industrial and agricultural manufacturingplants and processes around the highly concentratedand inexpensive source of thermal'and electricalenergy of a nuclear power reactor. Each nuplex wouldinclude a large city to house the manpower to build andrun ^ the nuplex, as well as all the educational, cultural,antijf recreational institutions needed to create and continuallyupgrade the skill levels of the immediateand regional population.


If human society is to have a real future, we mustdevelop and use the increasingly energy-dense sources oftechnology that can efficiently provide for man's continuinggrowth. In past periods of human development thesteam engine and electricity have provided the necessarytechnological innovations. Today, fission reactors are theonly energy source dense enough to meet the criterion offeeding and providing for a growing world population; andby the end of the 20th century, fusion energy, an evenmore dense energy source, will replace fission.The world economic collapse cut off the construction ofthe nuplex designs created in the early 1960s for the UnitedStates, Puerto Rico, and India. Today for the first timesince then, the political leadership exists worldwide to puttogether the capital and the technology to reactivate theseshelved nuplex projects and to plan for building at least 20nuplex cities a year. Under the direction of West Germanyand France, the European Monetary Fund is scheduled foroperation January 1, 1979, and its explicit purpose is topromote the flow of advanced sector technology into theThird World around such development projects. Furthermore,the intention and specifics of the EMS have thebacking of the Soviet Union, Japan, and developingnations like Mexico.In this country, the Fusion Energy Foundation has beguna campaign to push the United States—the nationuniquely capable industrially, scientifically, and technologicallyto mass produce nuplexes— into this plan forworld development. The publication of this series of articlesand the assembling of a nuplex design team are partof the foundation's effort to finish the process begun in the1960s by Oak Ridge.The Role of SteelThe growth of nuplexes worldwide will be directlylimited by the rate of increase of steel productioncapacity. Although nuclear steelmaking is only one part ofan industrial nuplex, vast amounts of steel and otherconstruction materials are necessary to construct the newcities and to provide for the transportation systems, agriculturalequipment, and heavy industry. To meet thisgrowth requirement, the new and advanced methods ofsteel production, discussed below, are essential.The only way to look at steel production in the nuplex


WORLD STEEL PRODUCTION AND DEMANDFOR NUPLEX CITY-BUILDING(or for that matter the production of any basic capitalgoods) is first to determine where we have to be 25 to 50years from now. Given that our task in the next two generationsis to build at least 1,000 new nuplex cities aroundthe world, the obvious question is: "How?" A lot ofthought internationally has gone into defining future steelmakingprocesses —surprising as that might be consideringthe sorry state of the industry today, especially in theUnited States.As the trade and development policies put forward bythe European Monetary Fund become a reality, steelproduction in the next 50 years should be guaranteed. Thiswill require the development of nuclear fusion energybefore the end of this century, and the production of steeland other basic metals by direct application of fusionplasma energy (that is, the fusion torch) within the earlydecades of the 21st century. This is the future for steel production,and the target of today's international fusionenergy development effort.In the interim, and well beyond the transition to nuclearfusion-based industrial processing, we must continue toproduce steel by more conventional methods, while greatlyexpanding total world steel production capacity. Thismeans that for at least the next 25 to 50 years, we must beable to increase steel production by already proven or yetto-be-provenchemical processes. Of course, the majorfactor is energy and where it will come from.By far the largest portion of worldwide steel outputtoday is produced by the blast furnace-basic oxygen processcombination, whose energy comes in the form ofheat, primarily from the combustion of high-grade cokingcoal in the blast furnace. A considerably smaller, but evergrowing, quantity of steel is produced by the directreduction-electric arc furnace combination. Its energyinput is a combination of heat and electricity. The heat isusually produced by burning natural gas, while the electricitycomes from the public utilities.Both processes are large users of fossil fuels, energy resourcesthat are becoming limited in supply and, therefore,more expensive compared to nuclear energy. Forexample, the U.S. steel industry uses more than 5 percentof the total energy consumed in the United States andmore than 75 percent of that is from coal. In Japan, 20 percentof the total energy is used in the steel industry.The Demand for SteelThe time has come to start using current state-of-the-artnuclear fission energy as the primary energy source forsteelmaking. Steel plants that will be constructed towardthe end of the next decade should be designed to use nuclearenergy both in the form of heat and electricity toachieve maximum economic and product efficiency benefit,while conserving the important fossil energy base formore productive uses. The steelmaking technologies discussedin detail below are now state-of-the-art processes orwill be by the late 1980s. These new nuclear fission-basedsteelmaking processes will be the key to the transitional 25to 50 year period immediately ahead of us. After that, nuclearfusion plasma-based processing will take up the bulkof the steel production.Lloyd McBride, president of the United Steel Workersunion, underscored this concept most clearly in a recentinterview with the industry daily, American Metal Market.McBridge stressed: "The American steel industry needsnew technology and profitability...The steelworkers'leadership believes that whatever dislocation arises will betemporary inconveniences auguring well for long-term jobsecurity and solid wage benefits for the membership..."The launching of a world city-building program willplace heavy demands on global steel production, with onlymoderate annual increases in the beginning, but approachingannual rates of increase of 15 to 20 percent bythe end of this century. Overall world crude steel productionrequirements through 1995 are given in the graph.A total world requirement of 1,035 million tons (MT) peryear by 1985 is based on the current demand of 675 MT peryear plus another 360 MT per year to supply steel for theconstruction of 50 nuplex cities annually by 1985, as wellas steel for the expansion of industrial and agricultural productionin the advanced sector, and Comecon nations. Thebulk of this increased production by 1985, 225 MT peryear, will be used for machinery and equipment in thefollowing six categories: steelmaking, machine tools,energy production, heavy industry, construction, andagriculture.Of the 360 MT per year increase in production, approximately130 MT per year will come simply from increasingthe production of the Western industrial nations (includingJapan) to full capacity over a one to two-year period. Currentproduction in these nations is conservatively assumedto be at only 75 percent capacity;' the Comecon and ThirdWorld nations are assumed to have no idle capacity.The remaining 230 MT per year will be achieved by amoderate rate of expansion (4 to 5 percent annually) ofplant capacity of existing plants and an upgrading of oldplants (particularly in the United States) to more advancedand efficient technologies. This expansion will consist pri-42 FUSION


marily of what is called brown field development; that is,the addition of blast furnace and hydrogen reduction furnacesto existing steel plants; the conversion of some blastfurnaces to the more productive Jordan concept; and thechange from batch processing to more productive and efficientcontinuous-processing techniques. After 1985, mostof the increased production will come from constructionand start-up of new advanced steel plants in the Westernindustrial and Comecon nations —many based on nuclearenergy—plus the output of the nuplexes that will thenexist, particularly in the Third World.Most of the current crude steel output is used in the productionof regular carbon steels. Less than 5 to 10 percentis turned into special steel alloys such as stainless steel,high-nickel steels, etc. Most of this specialty steel is producedin the Western industrial nations, with the UnitedStates producing about 15 MT per year (1976) or about 12percent of its total steel production.Specialty steel production rates will continue to increasemoderately over the next six to seven years and after that,much faster as more advanced technologies will take over.For example, current water-cooled reactors primarily useregular carbon steels in most of their components andequipment. However, the next generation fission reactor,the liquid metal fast breeder reactor, almost exclusivelywill be made out of a special stainless steel alloy. Futurefusion reactors will use even larger quantities of specialtysteels.Steel Technology in the NuplexTo construct the nuclear-based cities to last for centuries,the transitions and advances in industrial and agriculturalproduction technologies must be considered nowso that they can be integrated readily as they becomenecessary and available. A nuplex designed today for constructionwithin the next five to ten years must take intoconsideration at least three transitions in its steelmakingtechnology.It would first start out as a fossil-fuel-based industry,using either or both the blast furnace and direct reductionprocesses. The blast furnaces should use the very latest indesign development, which means incorporating the moreefficient oxygen-based Jordan blast furnace concept.Metallurgical grade coal is the primary energy source forthe blast furnaces, while natural gas will provide the heatas well as the hydrogen gas for the direct reduction furnaces.The electrical and steam requirements of the steel plantswill be supplied by nuclear energy from one or two currentlyavailable light water or heavy water cooled reactors.These reactors will be the central energy source of the nuplexand will provide steam, electricity, and low temperatureprocess heat to the city as well as to other integratedindustrial and agricultural processes, such as chemicalproduction, fuel production, fertilizer production,desalination, and so forth.However, the steel industry and the synthetic fuel andchemical industries should be designed with the idea inmind that a new, more versatile and efficient fissionreactor will soon be available; the high-temperature gascooledreactor. Because this reactor can produce hightemperatureprocess heat, 1,400 to 2,000 degrees F. in theprimary helium coolant system, it can be used economicallyto re-form natural gas and other fossil-based fuelsto hydrogen (H 2 ) gas and other by-product gases.Hydrogen gas is the basic ingredient to many products inthe chemical industry as well as in the direct reduction ofiron ore in the steel industry. The HTCR, therefore, will laythe basis for new, more economical nuclear steelmakingprocesses, and the steel plant must be prepared for thisconversion Future nuplexes may be designed entirelyaround the HTCR without the water-cooled reactors oftoday.The next major technological transition in the steel industrywill occur at the end of this century or the beginningof the next, when fusion energy becomes available in largeeconomic quantities. Because the fuel source, deuteriumfrom seawater, is readily available and cheap, fusion energywill be extremely cheap. Electricity from.fusion, first viathe thermal cycle, will be more economical than fissionbasedelectricity. Later, using direct conversion, costs willdecrease an additional 60 to 80 percent. This cheap electricitywill fuel the mass production of steel by heatingwith high-temperature nonfusion plasmas —a technologythat now is possible for specialty steels, but very expensivebecause of the high electricity costs.The final and the greatest, technological transition inthe foreseeable future will be the direct use of nuclear fusionplasmas from the reactor in producing steel. This willbe far more efficient than using electricity to produce plasmas;furthermore, these plasmas will be at far highertemperatures and energy content, thus reducing steel productioncosts even further.The Fusion TorchThe fusion torch technique will extract iron directly fromiron ore in ionized elemental form, rather than simply actingas a heat source for chemical reduction with carbonmonoxide and hydrogen, or for melting of iron as withelectric arc plasmas. Fusion plasma processing representsan entirely new concept in steel production, completelyeliminating the blast furnace or direct reduction shaft furnaceand their chemical processes. Iron produced by thefusion torch can be introduced directly into the steelmakingpart of the plant, the electric or plasma arc furnace,for conversion into various steel alloys, as describedbelow.These evolving technologies should be considered in designsfor the nuplex steel plant and other industrial processes.In addition, there must be space for adding morefission reactors to the complex as well as fusion reactorswhen they become available. Space and flexibility mustalso be provided to pipe the process heat or steam and toconduct the electricity and transport fusion plasmas to theindustrial plants that will need them. The decommissioningand removal of an old nuclear power plant and industrialplant, of course, will provide space for a future generationfacility.Nuclear steelmaking with fission-based energy does notFUSION 43


depend on the development of any "far-out" technologiesrequiring years to perfect. Instead it will employ a combinationof current and just-around-the-corner technologiesthat should be commercially viable by the mid-1980s.Three regions currently have major research efforts underway,a European consortium, Japan, and the United States.The first two are the most serious and advanced programs,both having plans to finish pilot plant operations by 1983-84. These will be followed closely by large commercialdemonstration plants, to be operational by the late 1980s.The United States has no such firm research and developmentprogram, although planning and design work hasbeen carried out.The primary goal of these countries is to replace as muchas possible of fossil fuel energy input in the steel productionprocess with nuclear energy. The European NuclearSteelmaking Club (consortium) has identified which of thepotential processes are most appropriate* Of those six,only three stand out as obtaining more than 50 percent oftheir total energy from nuclear sources.The most viable of these are the two direct reductionprocesses, which get all of their energy from the nuclearplant. This energy is first in the form of high-temperatureprocess heat and steam for re-forming naturalgas, coal, or oil residuals into hydrogen, carbon monoxide,and other by-product gases. The remaining nuclearenergy in the form of electricity goes to the electricarc furnace, which is used to refine the sponge ironproduced in the direct hydrogen-reduction shaftfurnace into steel.The other process that uses up to 57 percent of its energyas nuclear energy is a blast furnace modified for hydrogeninjection into the reducing region of the furnace.The hydrogen would be produced by steam re-forming. Althoughthis type of blast furnace has not yet been developedfor standard commercial practice, there appear to beno technical limitations or barriers to bringing these furnaceson line in a few years. A large savings in high-gradecoking coal, over 45 percent, will be realized with this system.It is clear that nuclear energy is practical and advantageousin several of these modified standard steelmakingprocesses, particularly the direct reduction-electric arcfurnace method.The absence of coal in Japan and the relatively high costof coal in West Germany have spurred the high level ofsteel-related development there. The Japanese program isconcentrated on the direct reduction steelmaking processin which reducing gas (hydrogen plus carbon monoxide) isproduced by steam methane re-forming.** The methanecomes from the steam cracking of oil residual. The Germanwork concentrates on synthesizing high-energy intense gasfrom both brown (lignite) and bituminous coal, also for thedirect reduction process.The steelmaking processes described so far rely on hydrogen(and some carbon monoxide) produced from steamre-forming of fossil-based hydrocarbons. This will be themost economic source of hydrogen for the immediatefuture, but will eventually become quite costly as fossilfuel supplies shrink. Future supplies of hydrogen, therefore,will be produced from the direct dissociation of waterby electrolysis. This method uses electricity as the energysource; it will become cheaper as more nuclear reactorsare brought on line, bringing overall electricity costsdown. Of course, fusion-produced electricity will be evencheaper, bringing electrolysis costs down proportionately.The HTGR WorkhorseThe workhorse of the nuclear steel plant will be its >HTGR, a versatile high-temperature gas (helium) cooledreactor, which will provide most or all of the requiredenergy to the steel plant. The versatility of this reactorstems from its ability to provide a high-temperature processheat, high-temperature steam, electricity, or a combinationof all three to any appropriate industrial process inthe nuplex (Figure 1).tSince the nuclear steelmaking processes will require theinput of large quantities of hydrogen, the majority of thenuclear energy will be used to re-form hydrocarbons byproducing process heat and steam. Some of the steam canalso be used to produce electricity, using a turbine generatorfor energizing the electric arc furnaces and supplyingthe other electrical needs of the steel plant and nuplex.The temperature of the primary coolant helium is muchhigher than the water in water-cooled reactors, and,therefore, the thermal conversion efficiency for producingelectricity is also much higher, about 40 percent comparedto 30 percent for light water reactors—a significant economicadvantage to the nuplex as a whole. It also has anadditional future economic advantage in that it can incorporatea direct cycle gas turbine, thus eliminating thesteam turbine-generator system and reducing power costseven further.Development of HTGRs is already in an advanced stagein the United States and West Germany. In the UnitedStates, General Atomic Company has an operating 300-megawatt demonstration plant in Fort Saint Vrain,Colorado, which is producing electricity from hightemperaturesteam-driven turbines. At least eight commercial-sizeHTGRs were sold to utilities in the UnitedStates prior to 1975-76, when the market collapsed. Allorders have since been canceled, but design and developmenthave continued on higher temperature process heatversions as well as on the gas-cooled fast breeder reactor.West Germany is almost as far along with a 300-megawatt-electric temperature steam-electricity plantslated for start-up in 1980. A smaller 15-megawatt-thermal(MWt) version, the AVR, has been operating for severalyears. The AVR has reached its goal to produce hightemperatureprocess heat having attained temperatures of950 degrees C. (1,710 degrees F.), well over the 1,600degrees F. needed to re-form fossil-based hydrocarbons. Alarger commercial size plant is planned for the mid to late1980s.Japan is also moving rapidly ahead with a 50-MWtprocess-heat HTGR, planned for operation in 1983, as theenergy source for a direct reduction, nuclear steelmakingpilot plant (see box).44 FUSION


Steelmaking Economics— Nuclear Versus ConventionalEconomic comparisons of the various steelmakingsystems based on fossil and nuclear energy, which wereconducted by several participants in these developmentprograms, all come to the same conclusion. Nuclearbasedsteelmaking will be more economical than fossilbasedprocesses as soon as the HTCRs can deliver commercialprocess heat at 1,600 degrees F. or higher. A 1974comparison done in the United States by the AmericanIron and Steel Institute, shown in Figure 2, best illustratesthis point. The results even surprised old-timers in the steelindustry, who were quite sure prior to the study that nuclearenergy couldn't compete with conventionalmethods, t-The results indicate that the direct reduction processbased on nuclear energy would be more than competitiveright now with the standard blast furnace production technique,using metallurgical-grade coal at $20 per ton, theapproximate price in 1973-74. However the study was donepurposefully on a relative basis so that the results wouldremain valid in later years as prices rose. Therefore, withcurrent coking coal prices more than double what theywere in 1973-74 we see an even bigger advantage for nuclearenergy. Even more surprising was the indication thatproducing hydrogen by electrolysis of water would be economicaleven at the current price of coking coal; that is, atcosts greater than $38 per ton. |The costs are plotted as a function of the cost of deliveredhydrocarbons. Re-formed fossil fuel for the HTCRbaseddirect reduction process was assumed to be naturalgas, while the conventional process is the standard cokefueledblast furnace. For reference purposes, current costsof delivered natural gas on an overall average basis areabout $1.50 per MBtu. Nuclear-produced electricity wastaken as the basis for the electrolysis cost calculations.A more recent cost analysis, using an HTGR for the reformingof gasified low-grade coal in the United States.also indicates a cost advantage over other conventionalsteelmaking processes.tt These results show that nuclearsteelmaking costs are lower in capital and operating costcategories—this difference \vould increase as coking coalcosts continue to rise. It should be remembered, however,that at some point in the near future, approximately 10 to15 years, production of hydrogen by electrolysis will becheaper than any fossil-based process and, at that time,the major source of industrial process hydrogen.Future Technologies and ProcessesBesides upgrading the energy source to nuclear powerand conserving fossil fuels for other more productive uses,an additional important innovation in future steel plants iscontinuous processing. That is, wherever possible, all newlydesigned steelmaking plants, especially those associatedwith nuplexes, should incorporate the latest technologiesso as to eliminate inefficient batch processing.For example, the typical blast furnace today is a batchoperation, which has input and output materials chargedand discharged at regular intervals. Batch processing isused throughout the plant.* Dr. Robert Barnes Nuclear Steelmaking in Europe," Iron and steelEngineer. May 1976."Takes! Sugeno. Nuclear Steelmaking in Japan." Iron and Steel Engineer.November 1976.t Oonald J. Blickwede. 'The Use of Nuclear Energy in Steelmaking—Prospects and Problems." Report by the Task Force on NuclearEnergy in Steelmaking. American Iron and Steel Institute, 1974.t-R. N. Quade. The Multipurpose HTGR—An Integrated Nuclear Systemfor Power Generation and Direct High Temperature Process HeatApplications." paper presented at American Power Conference. GeneralAtomic Co., Chicago, Illinois. April 1976.t tor. Donald J. Blickwede. "Nuclear Steelmaking in the U.S.—Prospectsand Plans." Iron and Steel Engineer. April 1976.FUSION 45


Two methods of hydrogen production with theHTGR, re-forming of natural gas and electrolysis, areboth far cheaper than the conventional method ofblast furnace steelmaking when coal costs are morethan $38 per ton. The base case, shown by the star,represents conventional blast furnace casts at metallurgical-gradecoal costs of $20 per ton.Continuous processing, on the other hand, if establishedthroughout the steel plant, will result in a continuous inputstream at one end, consisting of iron ore, reducing agentand energy. At the other end, a continuous output of finishedsteel product will be produced. In between, therewill be continuous flows of liquid iron, liquid steel, andvarious by-products. This very efficient and economic systemis almost completely automated—the direction inwhich all advanced industrial processes must move.One example of a fully continuous, potentially nearterm,steelmaking process (Figure 3) has been proposed byEketorp.* It is not yet an industrial process, but a hightemperaturesmelting-reduction method that replaces theblast furnace. This type of furnace proposes the injectionof a mixture of coal powder (that is, it eliminates coke),iron oxide, and oxygen directly into a molten iron bath.This carbon-based reduction to iron takes place at a hightemperature (2,600 degrees F.) in the molten bath. Theburning of carbon monoxide by oxygen above the bathprovides part of the heat, while electric induction heaterssupply the remainder. Plasma arc heaters may replace theinduction heaters at a later date, while nuclear power willsupply most of the electrical energy for induction, plasmaheaters, and electromagnetic (MHD) pumps.The molten iron is continuously transferred by MHDpumps from the smelting-reduction furnace to the electricarc or plasma arc furnace for additions of scrap metal andother refinements. Further continuous processing andrefinement of the liquid-iron stream is accomplished untilit is finally transferred to the casting operation. Continuouscasting is already, of course, a developed technique.Another of the new upcoming technologies that willgreatly advance steelmaking is the advent of the plasmaarc heater. This device, already in use in Eastern EuropeJapan'sSteelmakingGoes NuclearA new method for reducing iron oreto extract pig iron that uses the heatfrom a nuclear reactor's heliumcoolant was recently announced bythe Japanese, who are world leaders inthe development of nuclear steelmaking.In a Sept. 28 article in theMainichi News, the Japanese Agencyof Industrial Science and Technologyreported that an experimental heatexchanger, developed for the Ministryof International Trade and Industry byIshikawajima-Harima Heavy IndustriesCompany of Tokyo, has beencompleted and put on trial run inYokohama.The heat exchanger removes theheat from the helium coolant used ina High Temperature Gas CooledReactor (HTGR) and transfers it to areducing gas of hydrogen and carbonmonoxide, which chemically reducesthe iron ore to extract pig iron. Thisnot only eliminates the need forcostly, messy, and polluting cokingcoal and blast furnaces, but alsocould be integrated directly into anelectric steelmaking facility.This technological breakthrough,whose development has mainlywaited for new materials that couldwithstand the 1,000°C temperaturesin the helium heat exchanger, is partof a long-term Japanese nationalproject for nuclear steelmaking thatbegan in 1973.First Commercial HTGRLast May the agency announced thecompletion of a plant to generate thenecessary reducing gas reagent forthis direct reduction process, and thefirst trial runs. The heat exchanger willrequire the commercial application ofHTGRs specially designed for thesteelmaking process. A test model ofsuch a proposed nuclear reactor isnow being developed by the JapanAtomic Energy Research Institute atits Tokaimura experimental station,northeast of Tokyo. The Japanese 10-year energy plan has budgeted moneyfor HTGR development to make itcommercial by the mid-1980s.According to a U.S. representativeof Nippon Steel, USA, the entirenuclear steelmaking system will bedeveloped and designed by 1985, witha working steel mill by 1995. Thecarbon monoxide for the reduction ofthe iron ore need not come fromimported coal, but may be producedfrom residual by-products of Japan'sexisting oil refineries. These tar andother residuals have very little use incurrent chemical processing.—Marsha Freeman46 FUSION


Figure 3CONTINUOUS PROCESS LINE USING SMELTING-REDUCTIONCoal powder,ferrous oxideoxygenREDUCTIONInjection of / SlabInduction Oxygen and lime deoxidation agents. Inductionheating concentrate alloys, slag, gas stirringSCRAP MELTING AND STORAGE OXIDATION CASTINGSTEEL REFININGREFINING.ALLOYING, DEOXIDATIONand the Soviet Union, has the capability of achievingmuch higher temperatures than electric arc furnace heaters(15,000 degrees C. or higher, compared to 3,600degrees C). In addition, the plasma arc operates at only 40decibels compared to the incredibly intense 140 decibelsof the conventional electric arc furnace, and thus does notrequire expensive noise-control equipment. The plasmaarc is now only economical for use in producing very highqualityspecialty steels from scrap iron.The eventual application of this heating system to thebasic steelmaking process has been proposed for a futurehigh-temperature hydrogen-reduction furnace. In thisprocess, hot hydrogen and iron ore concentrate are injectedinto a molten iron bath in the furnace, which is at atemperature of over 2,900 degrees F. The hydrogenis heated to these high temperatures by plasmaarc heating betore entering the reduction furnace. The hydrogenno doubt will be produced by electrolysis of water,since cheap nuclear-produced electricity will be the energyinput to the entire steelmaking processReduction of iron ore at such high hydrogen temperatureshas never been done before, but development of theplasma arc will make this possible. Since no carbon will bepresent in this process, all the steps up to the molten steelstage in modern plants will become a one-step function inthis high-temperature furnace. Capital costs for such highenergyintensity equipment are expected to be much lowerthan the costs for what is in use today. Combined with thelower operating costs and energy costs, this process willvery likely be the ultimate in steel produced by means ofchemical reactions.A revolutionary change in steelmaking, as well as inother metal production, will occur with the advent of thedirect applications of fusion reactor plasmas. Fusion reactorswill make cheap plasma energy available in very largequantities and at temperatures in the tens of millions ofdegrees centigrade range—far beyond the temperature andenergies possible from electrically produced plasmas. Suchplasma conditions will permit the direct production of ironrather than by the chemical processes now used.Using the fusion torch, a pulverized raw material such asiron ore can be injected into and mixed with a jet of plasmadischarged from a fusion reactor.** The kinetic energyof the particles in the very hot (50 to 100 million degreesC.) plasma is exchanged with the iron ore, causing immediateshock vaporization to occur. The iron ore is ionizedand reduced to its basic elemental ingredients within thetorch. The final task is to separate out the desiredelement—in this case iron —and transfer it on for furtherprocessing into steel.As the plasma mixes with the iron ore, and the velocityof the plasma reduces through volume expansions withinthe torch, the average temperatures are decreased to the2,000 to 6,000 degrees C. range. During the element separationprocess, which could be done electromagnetically,or by plasma centrifuge, temperatures will be reducedfurther.jon Gilbertson, a nuclear engineer with the FusionEnergy Foundation, is a frequent contributor to Fusion.Dr. S. Eketorp. "Steel Plant of the Future." Iron and Sleel Internationa/.October 1976.'B. J. Eastlund and W. C. Gough, The Fusion Torch: Closing the Lyclefrom Use to Re-Use. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Report, WASH-1132. May 1969.FUSION 47


I Don't Make HypothesesI Manufacture DataThe Royal Society Revisitedby Carol WhiteTWO ASTOUNDING FRAUDS have come to light inthe past year. In 1977 Robert Newton published his findingsthat the Ptolemaic system was based largely uponfraudulent sightings. And last month in Science magazine,psychologist D. D. Dorfman documented that the wholeenvironment versus heredity debate in the field of psychologylikewise was based upon fraud.Although some may consider the case of Ptolemy a historicalcuriosity today, the facts are that Ptolemy's manufactureddata were just one of the practices he employedin his conscious effort to stamp out the Platonic traditionof reason and replace it with the Aristotelian method ofempiricism. The motivation behind Ptolemy's falsifications,as I shall show, is essentially the same as that whichprompted leading British eugenicist Cyril Burt, years later,to falsify data in order to beef up his racist side of thenature versus nurture debate.First, the Burt case. Cyril Burt's work on the importanceof heredity, which Dorfman exposes as a hoax, formed thebasis of a school of psychology known in this country primarilythrough the works of his students, A.R. Jensen andR.J. Herrnstein, both formerly of the Harvard Universityfaculty. Herrnstein and Jensen have been the center ofheated controversy since they alleged in the 1960s thatNegroes were probably intellectually inferior to whites, onaverage, because of heredity. Since Herrnstein and Jensenfound the theoretical basis for their work in Burt's 20-yearstudy of the correlation between social class, intelligence,and heredity, it is reasonable to suppose that their datanow will be subject to the same scrutiny as Burt's.Dorfman's FindingsDorfman summarized his findings as follows:Cyril Burt presented data in his classic paper "Intelligenceand Social Mobility" that were in perfectagreement with a genetic theory of IQ and social class.A detailed analysis of these data reveals, beyondreasonable doubt, that they were fabricated from atheoretical normal curve, from a genetic regressionequation, and from figures published more than 30years before Burt completed his surveys.Dorfman's article in Science seethes with his justifiedindignation. A professor of psychology at the University ofIowa, Dorfman attempted for years to controvert the racistfindings of Burt, only to be lectured to by Burt and his epigoneson the quality of Burt's data.Dorfman's suspicions were aroused because Burt's datawere too perfect. When he subjected the agreement betweenBurt's findings and theoretically predicted results tostatistical test, Dorfman found the agreement beyond therange of expectation. In one case, by no means atypical,Dorfman found that the probability was 1 in 100,000 thatsuch agreement could have taken place without sometampering of the data. Further checking revealed, in fact,that one of the assistants who purportedly collected andtabulated these data, Jane Conway, was not even a realperson.Burt's LegacyCyril Burt, who has been called the father of Britishpsychology, was a leader of the British eugenicist schoolconnected with the Tavistock Institute in London, an institutionotherwise famous for its studies of brainwashing.He was the first British psychologist to be knighted. Incredibly,Burt received his knighthood in 1967 for hiscontribution to education —a contribution essentiallydirected to justifying the existence of unequal educationalopportunity. He claimed that the attempt to educate thelower classes beyond their station would necessarily be oflittle value because of the inherent genetic limitations ofthese classes.The effect of Burt's contribution to education can beseen in this country in the debate provoked by Jensen andFUSION 49


Herrnstein's work around the question of who is to blamefor the failure of black children to learn in the schools.Although the Jensen-Herrnstein side of the debate isclearly fascist in implication (blacks, they say, on averageare genetically prevented from academic success), theother side of the debate in academic circles also has had anegative effect on the problem. Typically, the anti-Jensen-Herrnstein faction has targeted teachers as being theresponsible agents for the fact that black students, onaverage, have a poorer performance record than whites.Unfortunately for American education, both sides in thedebate ignore the basic underlying issues such as the highjobless rate, poor living conditions, the spread of drugs,and the crowded classrooms and general underfunding ofschools.*After he died in 1972, Burt was eulogized by his studentJensen in a passage so ridiculous—in view of Dorfman'sfindings—as to be worth quoting:The overall picture that Sir Cyril leaves in one'smemory, after corresponding with him, seeing him,and conversing with him, is very clear indeed. Everythingabout the man —his fine, sturdy appearance; hisaura of vitality; his urbane manner; his unflaggingenthusiasm for research, analysis, and criticism; evensuch a small detail as his firm, meticulous handwriting;and, of course, especially his notably sharpintellect and vast erudition—all together leave a totalimpression of immense quality, of a born nobleman.Similar praise of this natural nobleman by his Britishcollaborator, H.J. Eysenck, only makes the case moreabsurd. In the same year Eysenck wrote that Burt "was adeadly serious critic of other people's work when this departedin any way from the highest standards of accuracyand logical consistency."Inevitably, one is reminded of descriptions of Sir IsaacNewton, whose seamier side included concocting documentsthat purported to show that he, not Leibniz, hadestablished the calculus as a mathematical discipline. Ofcourse, Newton was unsparing in his attacks on Leibniz,whom he charged with plagiarizing his work. (In fact, notonly did Newton take the idea of the calculus from Leibniz,but this was only one in a long line of suchborrowings.**)The case of Ptolemy is another example of manufactureddata.t In summary, as astronomer Robert Newtonhas demonstrated in The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy,Ptolemy manufactured astronomical sightings to supportManufactured data:Surf's fraudulent data on the role of heredityand intelligence promoted the myth that blackchildren like these could not learn because of geneticlimitations; Ptolemy's geocentric map of the planets,which dominated astronomy for more than a millenium;the Piltdown zoo of artificially aged bones, whichincluded hippo and rhino teeth and a deer antler.50 FUSION


his and Aristotle's geocentric cosmology against competingheliocentric theories. In Newton's words: "Theanswer is simple and tragic ... The measurementsPtolemy claims to have made were not made."The impetus for Robert Newton's discovery was his concernfor the validity of ancient observations important forhis own work. Newton is a practicing astronomer at theJohns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, and he is engagedin research supported by the Department of theNavy into the secular acceleration of the earth and moonand the precise measurement of time.A third famous scientific fraud, which was a product ofIsaac Newton's Royal Society, is the so-called Piltdownhoax in which dog and ape bones were mixed and artificiallyaged to create the apparent remains of a bestializedbaboonlike ancestor to man (see box). The purpose of thisfraud was to reinforce the erroneous impression that manis a close relative of existing ape species, with obviousphilosophic implications about man's inherent bestiality.The Royal Society ConnectionAlthough the Ptolemy fraud long preceded the similarpractices of the British Royal Society, Burt's work and thePiltdown hoax are directly attributable to members of thatinstitution. The Royal Society connection to Ptolemy existsthrough the work of Sir Francis Bacon, spiritual father ofthe society and avowed founder of the so-called school ofBritish empiricism. Bacon, in turn, indirectly acknowledgedhis debt to the Ptolemaic tradition in his unfinishedessay, New Atlantis, as I shall demonstrate.This Ptolemaic tradition is not simply one of falsifyingdata to prove an incorrect theory. Ptolemy, part of anintelligence operation run out of the Aristotelian-BabylonianMuseum in Alexandria, was also well known in hisday as an astrologer. He belonged to the post-Peripateticschool that adopted Babylonian astrological practices*and carried them a step further to construct personal horo-* Typical of the anti-Jensen-Herrnstein side of the argument is sociologistKenneth Clark, whose Ford Foundation-funded research organization,the Metropolitan Applied Research Center, organizedcommunity groups against teachers during the 1968 teachers strike inNew York City. As an antidote to the problem. Clark proposed thatschool systems rate and pay teachers according to the readingscores achieved by the classes they taught.'"The case against Isaac Newton was developed by the author in twoprevious Fusion articles. "The Royal Society" (Dec-Jan. 1977-1978)and "Science Is Politics" (May 1978).t The material in this section is based on a to-be-published paper byMolly Kronberg on Ptolemy and on the Robert Newton book, TheCrime of Claudius Ptolemy.% Astrology in its modern form—the fantasy that the stars bind an individual'sfate beyond any hope of his control—was launched in approximately300 BC in Greece and Graeco-Egypt by the post-Aristotle Peripateticsand their allies, the Stoics, Drawing on the "ancientChaldean (Babylonian) star lore"—with which the Lyceum at Athensand the Aristotelian Museum and Library at Alexandria had strongaffinities—they evolved a new pseudoscientific cult for Greece,Rome, and the rest of the West.The new ingredient introduced by Theophrastus (Aristotle'ssuccessor at the Lyceum) and the Stoics was the notion of a personalhoroscope. The Chaldeans had read the skies merely for portents ofnational significance, but effective social control of the HellenizedWest required a nod to Hellenic notions of individuation. It is generallysuggested in the classical sources (for example, Proclus) thatTheophrastus's in-the-public-record propaganda for horoscopicastrology is the first known endorsement of the cult in the Hellenicworld.ThePiltdown HoaxThe British weekly sciencemagazine, Nature, will report the fullstory of the participants in the PiltdownMan hoax in November, accordingto an Oct. 30 wire releasefrom Associated Press and the Britishnews agency, Press Association. Thestory will include a 20-minute taperecording made earlier this year byProfessor James Douglas, professor ofgeology at Oxford University, thatidentifies William Sollas (former professorof geology at Oxford) as theperpetrator of the hoax. Douglas, whosucceeded Sollas, was for many yearshis aide at Oxford. He made the taperecording shortly before his death thisyear at age 93.The Piltdown hoax involved thediscovery in 1912 of a faked prehistorichuman skull in Piltdown,England that was fabricated to provethe Darwinian so-called missing linkbetween man and the apes. It wasdiscovered by Britain's famousamateur paleontologist, CharlesDawson (implicated in ProfessorDouglas's tape recording as part of theconspiracy with Sollas), and wasimmediately proclaimed genuine byscores of British scientists.However, there were persistentsuspicions about the discoverybecause the skull consisted of thecranium of a homo sapiens sapiensindividual and an entirely apelike jaw— indicating an impossible"evolution by degrees" from ape toman.In 1953, modern dating methodsconfirmed the jaw was that of a youngorangutan attached to a modernhuman cranium. Then it becamenecessary for British empiricism toabandon, reluctantly, Eoanthropusdawsoni, who had so well confirmedDarwin's Malthusian misrepresentationof evolution.Eoanthropus dawsonicreator, Charles Dawson.anditsFUSIONr VI


Worship of the Egyptian mothergoddess Isis was perpetuated bya Royal Society elite through thepractice of alchemy and mysticism.Note the similarity of headdress onIsis (left) and the high priestess ona 19th century British Tarot card.scopes. Just this type of astrology was part of the fabric ofthe Royal Society. For example, Isaac Newton, a lover ofthe occult, prophesied that the coming of the final day ofjudgment and the end of the world would coincide withthe appearance of Halley's comet.In fact, these astrological practices are carried on by theRoyal Society up to the present day. Cyril Burt's so-calledgenetic map of intelligence is, after all, merely a moresophisticated form of a horoscope, meant to condemn achild to a fixed fate preordained for him by his betters.And as British intelligence services have long recognized,the use of astrology is a favored device to controlthe credulous through suitable predictions. For example,Hitler was known to consult astrologers, most of whomwere well connected to British intelligence agents.*To anyone familiar with the Royal Society's history, therecurrence of magic (Newton was also notorious as analchemist), mysticism, and fraud in British Royal Societycircles should come as no surprise. Francis Bacon was anintelligence agent through all of his adult life. In the payof his relatives in the Cecil family and their associates inGenoese banking circles such as the Palavicino family,Bacon directed himself to destroying Neoplatonic currentsin Tudor England, which at that time were centered aroundthe Dudley family.Furthermore, the Royal Society and its predecessor institutions,such as Ptolemy's Alexandrian Museum andLibrary, were deliberately created as a cover for sophisticatedintelligence operations. As such, they conductedpsychological warfare, including the manufacture of syntheticreligious sects, as well as industrial espionage. Andthe Royal Society is famous for appropriating the discoveriesof other nations, as Joseph Henry, first director ofthe Smithsonian Institute, complained.**With this in mind, let us turn to Bacon's New Atlantisand substantiate the historical link between Cyril Burt andPtolemy.The New AtlantisPrematurely retired from public life after being convictedof swindling the public treasury, Bacon wrote a number ofproposals all leading to the formation of the Royal Society.The New Atlantis is a mythical treatment of the same subject.In the fable, Bacon describes the society as Salomon'shouse. The hero of the tale is introduced to the house'sprecincts by a follower of the Gnostic religion, a syntheticcult of the early Christian period that included Christ asone of a number in a pantheon of lesser gods. Themembers of Salomon's house also practiced a cult of thefamily, which Bacon details.As Bacon describes it, one of the main purposes of thesociety is to conduct industrial espionage. In his words inThe New Atlantis:Every 12 years there should be set forth out of thiskingdom two ships, appointed to several voyages; thatin either of these ships there should be a mission ofthree of the Fellows or Brethren of Salomon's House,whose errand was only to give us knowledge of the affairsand state of those countries to which they weredesigned, and especially of the sciences, arts, manufactures,and inventions of all the world.. . .Now forme to tell you how the vulgar sort of mariners are containedfrom being discovered at land; and how theythat must be put on shore for any time colour themselvesunder the name of other nations.. . .r »2FUSION


The New Atlantis is no mere fable. Not only the RoyalSociety, but the Scottish Rite branch of the Free Masons,which was organized by Elias Ashmole, a secretary of theRoyal Society and protege of Isaac Newton, acknowledgedBacon as their inspiration. This branch of Free Masonrybased its rituals on the cult of Isis, the Egyptian mothergoddess, which is also the basis for the Gnostic religionmentioned in New Atlantis. (Not coincidentally, a branchinto the Thames River at Oxford University is named theIsis.)Throughout history, practitioners of the cult of Isis, likeBacon, have denied the primacy and even the existence ofreason. Instead, empiricism is the doctrinal belief the initiateimpose on cult followers. This false belief holds thatthe world is knowable simply by gathering and correlatingsufficient facts.As Burt's practice shows, the elite of the empiricists donot, of course, subscribe to such a ludicrous view themselves.Since the theories they promote are not in accordwith natural law and, therefore, cannot be demonstratedfactually, Burt and others like him are quite prepared totake the necessary steps to manufacture the data theyneed.The explanation for the black magic practices of supposedscientists like Newton? Since reason is denied them,the followers of such cults are immediately vulnerable tomagical thinking—like astrology—in an attempt to establishsome sort of quasi-coherent worldview.The Open Attack on ScienceModern scientific history is deliberately distorted tooverlook the work of a core group of Neoplatonic scientists,broadly contemporary to Bacon, who were bothindependent of Bacon and in opposition to the Aristoteliantendency. This group, which includes Bruno, Kepler, Descartes,and Leibniz, broke decisively with medievalpractice and instituted experimental-theoretical modernphysics, laying the basis for the study of mechanics andastronomy.In turn, these scientists trace back to the 15th centuryCardinal Nicholas of Cusa, who rightly can be called thefounder of modern science because of his fight to reestablishthe Platonic tradition over the Aristotelian tendency ofhis time.Although the group around Cusa is better known for its' Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.. "The Truth About German CollectiveGuilt," New Solidarity, Part I, Oct. 10.1978; Part II, Oct. 13.1978.** Scientific American. July 1954.the Cult of the BullAs Bacon (and Plato) were aware, Poseidon was connected in Creek mythology with Apollo, the god of thePersian and Babylonian-run oracle of Delphi, which was the main support for the oligarchy in classical Greece.Among other things, Poseidon was supposed to have helped Apollo in the construction of Troy—whose destructionby the Greeks is celebrated in the Greek national epic, the Iliad. And Poseidon had contested unsuccessfully withAthena, the goddess of wisdom, for the position of patron god of Athens, Plato's home city.In Plato's time, the bull was sacred to Dionysus, whose degenerate cult was invented by the cult of Apollo.Dionysus's maenad worshippers—believing the bull to be the god incarnate—are said to have performed sodomywith the beasts. The bull was also sacred to the Egyptian death-cult of Osiris, the consort of Isis. In Roman timesdoubtlessknown to Bacon —the bull was propagated throughout the Greek and Roman world together with the cultof Isis as the sacred animal of Serapis, a god invented by the Aristotelians in Alexandria. In Bacon's own time, ofcourse, the cult of Isis was continued at Oxford, and the head of the bull adorns the emblem of "Ox-ford," with aninscription reading in Latin: "the lord is my light."FUSION 53


evival of Plato, it also retranslated Archimedes from theGreek; and through this work on Archimedes, the foundationswere laid for the modern treatment of integrationupon which Leibniz based his discovery of differentialcalculus.Up until the time of Bacon, Plato's dialogue Timaeuswas considered one of the important scientific dialogues ofits day. In the Timaeus, Plato gives the first systematictreatment of scientific method, based on a concept ofrelativistic space-time. Although the predicates of Plato'streatment have been superseded with the growth of scientificknowledge, it is a sad fact that under the hegemony ofthe Royal Society the understanding of scientific methodhas deteriorated—aside from a core group of Neoplatonicscientists.This is the real crime of Bacon and the Royal Society—the replacement of the Platonic tradition by the school ofBritish empiricism, also known as modern scientific tradition—thatis, the Newtonian prescription "I don't makehypotheses." In truth, British empiricism is a continuationof the Aristotelian tradition that has been attackingPlatonism — reason — since Aristotle was sent into Plato'sacademy to subvert it in the year 367 BC *Bacon's New Atlantis makes explicit, ironical referenceto Plato's description of the lost city of Atlantis in theTimaeus and in another dialogue, Critias. The naive readeris led to assume that Bacon means his title to suggest thereplacement of Plato's Atlantis (that is, classicism) by theschool of British empiricism.The initiate (like Ashmole and the Scottish Rite FreeMasons) knows better. Plato describes Atlantis as adegenerate culture founded by the god Poseidon and dedicatedto a cult of the bull (see box). Atlantis seeks to enslaveGreece, but is foiled by a higher culture modeled inaccordance with the precepts of Plato's Republic. Bacon'sNew Atlantis is modeled after the cult practices of Atlantis,the enemy of Platonism.I will simply assert here that only the Platonic traditionprovides a basis for scientific theory, a thesis discussedthoroughly elsewhere.** The real swinishness of Aristotle,Ptolemy, Bacon, Newton, and Burt is not in their patheticfrauds, nor in their appropriation of other people's work.Their bestiality lies in their frontal attack on science andon their deliberate propagation of a cult of irrationality.The practical effects of this philosophy can be seen bylooking at those places where British empiricism reignssupreme—for example, the rotting industrial base ofEngland, which is on its way to Third World economicstatus.The method of Baconian inductive generalization, theschool of British empiricism, can never produce more thanthe ludicrious series of lists like those Bacon presents in theNew Atlantis and the Novum Organum. And the mentalitythat underlies Burt's work—and the analogous dedicationby Bacon and Ptolemy to destroying the humanist currentsof their own times—can never receive factual substantiationexcept through fraud.It is fitting to give Edgar Allan Poe, a humanist whofought to establish reason and the American System oftechnology and growth, the last word on the subject. Thefollowing is his description of British empiricism in theessay "Eureka":Well, Aries Tottle flourished supreme, until theadvent of one Hog. . who preached an entirely differentsystem, which he called the a posteriori orinductive. He proceeded by observing, analyzing, andclassifying facts—instantiae naturae as they weresomewhat affectedly called —and arranging them intogeneral laws.. . Baconian, you must know. . was anadjective invented as equivalent to Hog-ian, and at thesame time more dignified and euphonious... Theerror of our progenitors was quite analagous with thatof the wiseacre who fancies he must necessarily see anobject the more distinctly, the more closely he holds itto his eyes. They blinded themselves, too, with the impalpable,titillating Scotch snuff of detail; and thus theboasted facts of the Hog-ites were by no means alwaysfacts—a point of little importance but for the assumptionthat they always were. The vital taint, however, inBaconianism —its most lamentable fount of error—layin its tendency to throw power and consideration intothe hands of merely perceptive men—of those inter-Tritonic minnows, the microscopical savans—thediggers and peddlers of minute facts, for the most partin physical science—facts all of which they retailed atthe same price upon the highway; their value depending,it was supposed, simply upon the fact of theirfact, without reference to their applicability or inapplicabilityin the development of those ultimate andonly legitimate facts, called Law. Than the personsthus suddenly elevated by the Hoggian philosophyinto a state for which they were unfitted—thus transferredfrom the sculleries into the parlors of Science—from its pantries into its pulpits—than these individualsa more intolerant—a more intolerable set ofbigots and tyrants never existed on the face of theearth.Carol White, a former teacher of mathematics and philosophy,is a national executive committee member of theU.S. Labor Party.ReferencesDortman, D.D. 1978. "The Cyril Burt Question: New Findings," Science201:1177-1186 (Sept.).Eysenck, H.J. 1971. The 10 Argument—Race, Intelligence, and Education.(New York: The Library Press).Herrnstein. R.J. 1973.10and the Meritocracy. (Boston: Atlantic MonthlyPress).Jensen, A.R. 1969. "How Much Can We Boost IQ and ScholasticAchievement?" Harvard Education Review 3§; 2.Newton, R. 1977. The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy. (Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press).Criton Zoakas, "Aristotle, Political Warfare, and Classical Studies,"The Campaigner. Sept.-Oct. 1978.Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "Poetry Must Begin to Supersede Mathematicsin Physics," Fusion, Oct. 1978.54 FUSION


ResearchSoviet SpaceMission StudiesWeightlessnessThe effect of prolonged weightlessnesson humans and other organismswas a major topic of study in therecord Soviet space mission thatreturned to earth Nov. 2. The 140-daymission, during which Soviet CosmonautsVladimir Kovalenok and AleksandrIvanchenkov lived and workedin the orbital complex Salyut-6-Soyuz,established that man can adjust to theenvironment of weightlessness.The cosmonauts are now at aspecial readaptation center wherethey will live with their families whileextensive medical tests are carriedout. Their 14 weeks of living beyondearth's gravity began June 15, 1978and broke the limit for manned flight.According to Soviet press reports,the studies show that when the forceof gravity is removed, the humanbody gradually begins to adapt. Thegravity sensors cease to function anda redistribution of blood begins, withsurplus blood reaching the brain andthe heart. The heart responds bydecreasing the amount of blood and aweight loss is experienced. Themuscles and bones become weaker,and less oxygen is required.In time, the human starts to feelfine, operating at a new level —just aspeople take time to adjust to living inmountainous areas.According to the Soviet doctorscaring for Kovalenok and Ivanchenkov,their adjustment was asgood as that of cosmonauts spendingmuch shorter times in space. Thecrucial challenge was preparing themfor reentry to earth's gravity field.High-technology equipment has madethis possible, with the two cosmo-Tass from SovfotoThe crew of the Soviet space mission, Colonel Vladimir Kovalenok (/.) andflight engineer Alexander Ivan Chenkov, shown here at a preflight trainingsession at the Gagarin Cosmonauts Training Center.nauts carrying out exercises on specialmachines and wearing "penguin" and"lapwing" suits that place a load onthe muscular-skeletal framework andreduce pressure to draw blood downinto the legs.By the time the Soviet space colonizationprogram takes off, theyexpect this technology to be advancedto the point where earthlikeconditions can be re-created whereverman goes.In addition to the breakthrough invacuum living, the cosmonautscarried out numerous scientific experimentsand observations. They discoveredthe regular movement ofglaciers in Latin American mountains,hitherto unknown; observed forestfires all over the world, which werereported to the appropriate authorities;studied chemical and technologicalprocesses in a weightlessvacuum; and created new semiconductorand optical materials,metallic alloys, and compounds thatcannot be produced in earthlikeconditions.Their successful production of thesemiconductor lead telluride, forexample, breaks ground for futurespace factories in which machinerycan operate free from the friction andgravity-load conditions of earth.Biological experiments were alsocarried out, and extensive photographsmade of the earth's surface tostudy the dynamics of changing vegetationcover, water balance, and otherseasonal natural phenomena.FUSION 55


EXPLORE!Every issue of the International Journalof Fusion Energy presents the latestinvestigations into this exciting newfrontier of physics 1Cominginthe INTERNATIONALwinter issue ol ..»».,—»,«,JOURNAL ofFUSION ENERGY• Fully Developed MagnetohydrodynamicTurbulence Numerical Simulation andClosure Techniques A Pouquet• Theta-Pinch Description Irom ClassicalElectrodynamics E A WilalisSubscriptions are X35 per year ($40 outside theU S.) Mail checks or money orders to FusionEnergy Foundation Box 1943. GPO. NewYork N Y 10O0IResearchersProduceHuman InsulinUsing recombinant DNA techagroup of Californianiques,researchers centered around Dr.Herbert Boyer of Genentech and theUniversity of San Francisco haveinduced bacteria to produce humaninsulin.The project included the laboratorysynthesis of the entire human insulingene from small molecular buildingblocks, the insertion of the gene into aplasmid (a strand of bacterial DNA),and the transfer of the plasmid intothe bacterial cell as an active functioninggene. Human insulin was thenextracted from the bacterial culture.Their achievement makes itpossible to provide large amounts ofhuman insulin, which can immediatelybenefit the thousands of diabeticswho are allergic to the currentlyused beef and pork insulin.Of more far-reaching significance isthe implication that scientists may beable to produce other human proteinscheaply and in large quantity. High onthe list would be substances like interferon,a chemical that humans producein small quantities for immunologicaldefense.Interferon, which is being tried as apossible cancer drug in researchcenters in Texas, is now extremelyexpensive and available only in smallquantities. The recombinant techniquewould reduce the price andincrease availability by a factor ofthousands.Other possibilities include anumber of human hormones, such asgrowth hormone. The cheapness andavailability would make possiblestudies on the action of hormones, aswell as their increased use in therapy.


BooksKnowingLeonardo da Vinciby Nora HamermanCarlo Pedretti, The Literary Works ofLeonardo Da Vinci, A commentary onJean Paul Richter's edition. Universityof California Press, 1977, Two Volumes,$59.50.When Leonardo da Vinci died inFrance in 1519, he left behind fewerthan two-dozen easel paintings. Hisgreat commissions in mural paintingand sculpture already either had beenprevented from completion or hadundergone partial destruction, andonly fragments of the canals, fortresses,cities, and architectural projectsof his design had come to fruition.However, he bequeathed to his heir,the Milanese nobleman FrancescoMelzi, a vast collection of writingsand drawings that he intended to betransformed into treatises on painting,botany, anatomy, geography, mechanics,hydraulics, and other topics.He had even invented a new system ofreproduction for his delicate scientificillustrations to facilitate production ofthe books, as the recently discovered"Madrid codices" reveal.It is upon these notebooks, chieflyavailable through the transcripts andEnglish translations first published in atwo-volume topical arrangement byJean Paul Richter nearly a centuryago, that Leonardo's reputation as thegreatest modern scientist-artist rests.Carlo Pedretti, the noted Vincianexpert, has now prepared a Commentaryto the Richter books, describedby the publishers as a "SummaVinciana," or what amounts to extensivefootnotes incorporating most ofwhat has been unearthed during theipast 90 years on Leonardo's manuscriptsand their history.Pedretti acknowledges that hedeliberately chose this Aristotelianfootnoting approach, instead of goingwith a completely revised new editionof Leonardo's writings. The choiceresults in a devastating flaw.The central problem with mostdiscussions of Leonardo's celebratedmerging of art and science is that theyproceed from reductionist conceptionsof both. What is left out is thatLeonardo expresses a very clear ideaof the universal law that subsumed hisentire creative process. However, thisuniversal law cannot be understoodoutside of his relationship tothe political Grand Design of the Renaissancewhich nearly succeeded inbringing off the industrial revolutioncenturies in advance of the late 1700s,and which transmitted the Neoplatonictradition that made the laterrevolutions possible. Leonardo wasboth the product, and then a leadingprotagonist, of the 15th centuryGrand Design, along with Nicholas ofCusa, Ficino, Cosimo and Lorenzo de'Medici, Gemisthos Plethon, Erasmus,Machiavelli, and Rabelais.To know this is to be able, at last, toknow Leonardo da Vinci, rather thansimply to know about that genius inthe form of the ultimate collection offootnotes. To know Leonardo hasbeen a key to political potency forboth artists and scientists ever sincethe 16th century. And to keep us fromknowing Leonardo, a host of so-calledscholars and restorers have guttedthe Vincian heritage of its politicalphilosophicalcore, including the outrageof chopping apart Leonardo'snotebooks into segregated scraps representing"art," "science," "polemics,"and "humor." Behind this butcheryhave been the political enemies ofthe Grand Design.Leonardo's Thinking ProcessThe very ordering of the Treatise onPainting, the central document ofLeonardo's notebooks and the treatisethat is most complete in its extantform, is like a map of the thinkingprocess that governed Leonardo'sdiverse activities and made his "artistic"side so integral to the successof his "scientific" conceptions.The core problem for realizingLeonardo's famous inventions andcity-building projects—which involvedhis detailed planning down tomanhours of labor, development ofspecial machines to carry out difficulttasks, and even the mechanisms offinancing—was the question of laborpower. The chief obstacle was tomobilize, raise the cultural andmaterial standard of living of, anddeploy as an effective skilled laborforce a population of which morethan one-third of active age werewasted in monasteries and mercenaryarmies. The great art of the Renaissance,including the Colloquies ofErasmus and Leonardo's paintings(political cartoons), was intended tointersect the subjective, institutionalproblem and make a higher process ofReason —Platonic Reason —accessibleto a wider population otherwiseoppressed by ignorance.Thus, the matchless marshalingof the technical means of the painterthat Leonardo lays out in his treatise(Richter's volume I, much elaboratedby Pedretti), is never very distant fromhis city-building projects per se,particularly the waterworks, whichwere the primary program of theGrand Designers of his age. All hislife, Leonardo was working in theorbit of a political alliance set upbetween, principally, the FlorentineMedici and Louis XI of France. TheirGrand Design was intended to ruthlesslysuppress the feudal, localist,landholding interests and theirbanking (and church) backers in orderto build (colonize) new cities aroundcanal networks.FUSION 57


The canals had a threefold purpose:One, to harness water power to arange of new, high-technology, laborsavingmanufactures; two, to providecheap transport of the finishedcommodities for commerce; andthree, either to bypass strongholds ofthe feudal oligarchies or to coopt suchareas into the Grand Design on thebasis of their self-interest in the newprosperity.It is most significant, therefore, thatLeonardo's Treatise on Painting openswith seemingly unrelated observationson "the science of the motionsof water," and includes asidesreminding the author to put hismaterial "on digging a canal" in hisplanned "Book of Useful Inventions."Next, when he poses an overview ofthe problem of painting, he definesperspective—the painter's equivalentof counterpoint—as "physics"!Among all the studies of naturalcauses and reasons, Light chieflydelights the beholder; and amongthe great features of Mathematicsthe certainty of its demonstrationsis what preeminently(tends to) elevate the mind of theinvestigator. Perspective, therefore,must be preferred to all thediscourses and systems of humanlearning. In this branch the beamof light is explained on thosemethods of demonstrations whichform the glory not so much ofmathematics as of Physics and aregraced with the flowers of both.Despite his apparent awe for"mathematical certainty," Leonardo'sreal claim to scientific genius is hisability to make visible (and audible, inmany of his written fragments) thevery process of hypothesis formationthat is the essence of scientificthought. It is not accidental that thetwo areas of his most profound study,aside from hydraulics and mechanics,were optics and anatomy. Painting isposed as the meeting-point betweenthe operation of light in the physicaluniverse and the physiology of seeing,which makes perceived physicalphenomena accessible as abstractideas.Figure 1NOTEBOOK PAGE RECONSTRUCTED BY PEDRETTICarlo Pedretti's 7957 photomontage reconstruction of a page from Leonardoda Vinci's notebook showing two drawings of heads that were detached byHapsburg agent Pompeo Leon/ and are now in Windsor Castle. The notebookpage is currently in the Codex Atlanticus of the Ambrosian Library of Milan.The original page combined drawings of a military invention (a catapult) withthe distinctly recognizable portrait of Lorenzo de' Medici {top right), Leonardo'sFlorentine patron.Leonardo, an alleged autodidact,voraciously read the writings of earlierNeoplatonists like Avicenna, Nicholasof Cusa, and Roger Bacon. The factthat many of his insights, previouslybelieved original to him, actuallycame from these sources, does notdiminish his own contribution, butmerely defines it more precisely. Hetook up the Neoplatonists' vision ofmind reproducing mind, and throughhis practice and theory of painting(including drawing) he made the lawof universal self-development visible.It was because Leonardo continuallyposed the problem of how the uniqueindividual, or singularity, intervenesto order the process of growth innature that he was able to makesignificant contributions to the studyof anatomy—he was the real founderof modern anatomical science—and58 FUSION


fluid dynamics, to name but twofields.Leonardo was fully self-aware of theimplications of this hubristic intervention."I wish to work miracles," hebluntly begins his notes on anatomy.If you think you would be better offsimply watching a dissection thanreading my book, you're wrong, hecontinues. My work is the synthesis ofyears of braving the loathesomecircumstances of the dissecting-room,and an understanding of the principlesof physics. Furthermore, mymethod is uniquely correct: I approachthe human body from thestandpoint of how it is reproduced,grows, develops and eventuallyperishes. The process is central.Thus Leonardo proceeds, beginningwith the fetus and extending into thepsychological life of the adult—culminatingin music!The emphasis throughout the manuscriptson developing concentrationspan belies the petty but persistentlie that Leonardo was somehowpsychologically incapable ofcompleting his great works. The twocamps of Leonardo's critics on thisscore, critics who became particularlyvociferous in the Hapsburg degenerationof southern Europe in the late16th century, totally ignore thecentral trend of Leonardo's work: toreproduce geniuses like himself whowould complete and go beyond thetasks he had mapped out. One campof critics bemoaned his preoccupationwith "mechanics," a word thathad acquired pejorative connotationsin the rapidly refeudalizing Italy ofthe late 16th century, and his consequentfailure to complete morepaintings. A slightly more subtle formof this prejudice, which underlies thePedretti book, is to subsume all ofLeonardo's theoretical and technologicalwork under the phrase, "Hesaw the world as a painter."The other camp, apparently representedtoday by the IBM Corporation,wondered why Leonardo had everbothered with such frivolities aspainting and did not stick to his engineeringprojects. Both groupsviciously and willfully ignore theenemies of Leonardo—the politicalenemies of the Grand Design, who inthe five centuries since his birth haveconspired to suppress, dismember,and destroy his work. And by lyingabout Leonardo's aims, his criticshave failed to recognize his success.Leonardo's SuccessLeonardo, the most talented youthof Florence, was sent to Milan in1482, by his patron Lorenzo de'Medici. Milan was the resource-rich,strategically vital, and politicallyvolatile heartland of historical GrandDesigns going back at least to theHohenstaufen emperors, to unifyItaly, Germany, and France throughgreat canal arteries. Both the Mediciand their ally, Louis XI, consideredthis area the most dangerous source ofpotential destabilization and thebridge-land for their mutual GrandDesign.In Milan for roughly the first half ofhis creative life, Leonardo wasengaged on that combination of artand science paradigmatic of his entirecareer. For example, his two keyprojects of the early 1490s have neverbeen considered together—and thereforehave never been understood.One was his plan for expanding thecity of Milan by a series of concentriccirclemodules that would be financedthrough the most advanced industrialareas of the already existing city.Under the French rule of the early16th century, much of this expansionplan actually was carried out. Inaddition, as Pedretti notes in hiscommentary to the "Plans for Towns"section of the Richter edition,Leonardo worked out fairly completespecifications for new towns for hisSforza patrons in Milan. According toPedretti, the new town was to havebeen built along the Ticino river,which flows into Milan. Leonardodesigned an unprecedented system ofhigh-level and low-level double roadwaysas well as canals to accommodatethe distinct functions of theurban fabric including previouslyneglected sanitation measures.The second project of this periodwas the Last Supper, painted for therefectory of the Dominican monasteryof St. Maria delle Grazie in Milan.This mural, still powerful today byreason of Leonardo's grasp ofrelationships despite being seveneighthsdestroyed, cannot be understoodexcept as a call to a mission tospread Platonic Reason throughoutthe world in emulation of Christ'satonement. Goethe observed howLeonardo deliberately imitated theparaphernalia of the monkish meal inthe hall below, to make the LastSupper drama immediate to theviewers. But, because of his own lackof political morality, Goethe failed tounderstand that the betrayal of Judasis a mere subsumed theme—a sin ofomission, as it were—in Leonardo'srevolutionary treatment. It is theapostles' mission, in an architecturaluniverse that is recognizably similarto, but discontinuous with therefectory, that sweeps across the walland confronts the monks with theintolerable banality of their silentexistence.Leonardo's manuscripts, or copiesof key portions of them, came to theattention of Kepler, Cardanus, andGalileo; formed the basis of the reputationof the University of Padua inanatomical science in the 16th century;were available to such humanistartists as Brueghel, Velasquez, andprobably Rembrandt; and became (atleast the treatise on painting) a factionaldocument during subsequenthumanist resurgences. Nonetheless,by and large they have fallen victim tothe enemies of the Grand Design.This continues to be true down tothe present day, and ProfessorPedretti is the best living example ofthe kind of stoical, grundlich scholarshipthat gives us more and more ofthe pieces of evidence aboutLeonardo while withholding the realLeonardo, ultimately presenting thegreat Florentine as an impotent stoiclike his compilers and editors.As Pedretti admits, the Richtercompilation takes no account of theorder of development of Leonardo'sthoughts, nor of their arrangement inthe original notebooks. One of themain things that is lost is the way inwhich Leonardo used a Rabelaisianwit to comment on his projects, interjectingcaricatures, visual puns, andjokes on the pages with more"serious" studies. These Richter dutifullycompiled under the rubric of"humorous writings."FUSION 59


Figure 2LEONARDO DA VINCI AND THE GRAND DESIGNLeonardo's canal projects began after he went to Milan in 1482, a city that had long been a center of advancedirrigation and canalization technology. There he devised a new system of locks for the Ticino river's flow intoMilan. Subsequently, during his brief {1502-1503} employment as a military engineer by Cesare Borgia, Leonardodeveloped plans for the dredging machinery, pile drivers, and other equipment necessary for draining the swampsand reclaiming agricultural land in the Romagna territory under Borgia's control, and he drew the first knownmodern aerial-view perspective map of a city, Imola.These earlier ventures reached fruition around 1504 in projects for rectifying the Arno river, which flowedthrough Florence. In these plans, which would have required a Europeanwide political and financial mobilizationto implement, Leonardo's documented collaborator was Machiavelli, then Florentine secretary of state.Sir Kenneth Clark and other British slanderers of Leonardo have often used the Arno plan as their proof that thegreat Florentine was dreamily oblivious to the practical problems of implementing his projects, since the oneaspect of the plan which the Florentines tried to carry out—the diversion of the Arno at its mouth from Pisa, formilitary reasons—had failed. However, the project as a totality was not military in nature. It involved a massivesystem of reservoirs, locks, and even the rerouting of the Arno {to be financed by taxing the Wool Guild of Florence)to guarantee year-round navigability, and the upgrading of property values along its banks as manufacturebecame powered by the steady flow of waterpower. In a note in the Codex Atlanticus, Leonardo listed some 14industries that would be run by the energy of the rerouted Arno, including a reference to textile machinery {an areaof many Vincian inventions) that would do the work of 100 workers.Most fascinating for readers of Fusion—and worthy of future elaboration—is the way in which Leonardo wantedto use the self-ordering process of water flow in rivers and oceans to man's benefit in these projects. This figure,Leonardo's drawing of currents in the river Loire, is remarkably evocative of plasma behavior. The drawing waspreparatory to designing a system of dams to power m/7/s, one of his last projects while in the entourage of KingFrancis I of France {1515-1519).60 FUSION


Ironically Pedretti himself in 1957published the most stunning evidenceof deliberate tampering withLeonardo's manuscripts by enemies ofthe Grand Design. The culprit wasPompeo Leoni, a sculptor in theemploy of the Hapsburgs, who cameinto possession of most of theLeonardo papers around 1600 andcompiled two large books. In dozensof cases Leoni scissored out heads andfigures from pages containing mathematicaland technical material andpasted them down in a second book.The heads and figures are now in thecollection at Windsor Castle, whilethe pages from which they were cutare in the Codex Atlanticus in Milan(Figure 1).ConspiracyIt cannot be accidental that at thetime Hapsburg agent Leoni was separatinga Leonardo "wizard" from aLeonardo "artist," France had onceagain become the center for a CrandDesign conspiracy, this time determinedto militarily destroy the Hapsburgpower and set into motion aEuropeanwide economic developmentprogram. The conspiratorsspanned France, England, parts ofItaly, parts of Central Europe, and theLow Countries. One of them, theFrench King Henry IV's minister Sully,was studying the implementation ofLeonardo da Vinci's plan for a canalcutting across southern France fromthe Atlantic to the Mediterranean —anengineering feat eventually carriedout under Colbert. For these individuals,the whole Leonardo—citybuilder,speculative thinker, politicalcartoonist—was a vital ally.This was especially the casebecause, at that very time, the Fuggerand Genoese backers of the Hapsburgatrocity were busily deploying thepoisonous ideology of RomanStoicism, the doctrine that man cannotintervene in the inexorable unfoldingof destiny, into what had beenthe centers of Neoplatonic humanismall over Europe. The spread of the cultof Stoicism in Platonic guise abortedsuch great talents as the musicianMonteverdi, the artist Rubens—and,to an important extent, the physicistGalileo.Pedretti recounts that the firstserious project to publish the Vinciannotebooks came in 1640, in theRoman circle of Cardinal Barberiniand the antiquarian Cassiano dalPozzo, with whom Galileo was associated.This project came to naught inthat closing decade of the Thirty YearsWar, however; and one wonderswhether that Stoicism-infectedRoman circle would have publishedLeonardo's works as he intended, or inthe politically expurgated manner of aLeoni or a Richter.Leonardo's IndictmentLeonardo da Vinci's remarks on thesubject sufficiently indict the fraud ofthe tamperers, provided his words areremoved from Richter and Pedretti'sfalse category of polemics andrestored to their original context inone of Leonardo's anatomical notebooks.Abbreviators do harm toknowledge and to love, seeingthat the love of any thing is theoffspring of this knowledge, thelove being the more fervent inpreparation as the knowledge ismore certain. And this certainty isborn of a complete knowledge ofall the parts, which, when combined,compose the totality of thething which ought to be loved. Ofwhat use then is he who abridgesthe details of those matters ofwhich he professes to giventhorough information, while heleaves behind the chief part of thethings of which the whole is composed?It is true that impatience,the mother of stupidity, praisesbrevity, as if such persons had notlife long enough to serve them toacquire a complete knowledge ofone single subject, such as thehuman body; and then they wantto comprehend the mind of Godin which the universe is included,weighing it minutely and mincingit into infinite parts, as if they hadto dissect it!Oh! human stupidity, do younot perceive that, though youhave been with yourself all yourlife, you are not aware of thething you possess most of, that isof your folly? And then, with thecrowd of sophists, you deceivedyourselves and others, despisingthe mathematical sciences, inwhich truth dwells and theknowledge of the things includedin them. And then you occupyyourselves with miracles, andwrite that you possess informationof those things of which thehuman mind is incapable andwhich cannot be proved by anyinstance from nature. And youfancy you have wrought miracleswhen you spoil a work of somespeculative mind, and do notperceive that you are falling intothe sarhe error ai that of a manwho strips a tree of the ornamentof its branches covered withleaves mingled with the scentedblossoms or fruit. . . .This famous passage by Leonardowas directed against an antisciencecabal operating inside the RomanCuria—the same faction that assuredthe election of the Hapsburg CharlesV as Holy Roman Emperor in 1519, theyear of Leonardo's death, and thatemployed papal "abbreviators" tosieve out of the great writings of theNeoplatonic past all implications thatthe laws of the universe are not fixedbut may develop through humanintervention.It is here that Pedretti's effort to bea serious Vincian scholar is clinicallyflawed by his determination to be astoic. He cannot help but acknowledgethe connection betweenthis impassioned statement and thecelebrated Vincian anatomicalstudies, and even provides new corroborativeevidence of that. But heinterprets Leonardo as an "environmentalist"by a literal reading of thefinal words quoted above (and a'highly dubious rendering of the semilegibleones that follow in the original)to mean that Leonardo opposedhuman intervention into nature. Werewe to believe Pedretti, Leonardo daVinci would thus have repudiated notonly his documented life's work inengineering, but the specific activityof anatomical dissection which thatpassage was penned to defend.Nora Hamerman is the associateeditor of New Solidarity andfrequently writes on the Renaissance.FUSION 61


home-office-school -park -club-churches-laboratoryUnique instructional games designed by universityprofessors to make learning tun through brain-tobrainaction Beginning games can be mastered byyoung children —final games will challenge intelligentadults These are the lamous GAMES FORTHINKERS from WFF N PROOF Publishers.WFF'N PROOF (logic) 13.00*QUERIES NTHEORIES(sci. & lang.) 13.00*EQUATIONS (mathematics)10.00'ON-SETS(set theory) 10.00"PROPAGANDA (social studies) 11.00"ON-WORDS (word structures) ' 10.00"CONFIGURATIONS (geometry) 6.75*TRI-NIM (problem solving) 5.75*REALNUMBERS(arithmetic)2.25'WFF (beginner's logic)2.25'QWIK-SANE (topology puzzle)2.25'TAC-TICKLE (pure strategy) 1.75*TEACHERS MANUAL1.25'MEDITATION GAME(pure strategy) 2.25'THINKERS BOOKENDS16.00'Complete13-KitTHINKTANK& Teachers ManualwithBookends 96.50*without Bookends 86.50"'includes postageand handling chargesOrder from: WFF 'N PROOF1490-MX South Blvd..Ann Arbor. Ml 48104Fully guaranteed. Dealer inquiries invitedLightning Rod Continuedadmit, a good deal of unproductivecomplaining to myself about the sadstate of my postal service, I decidedthat to get to the bottom of this theft Ihad better consult with an expert atpurloined letters, my dear friendEdgar Allan Poe. As usual, Edgar gotright to the heart of the matter. "It'sno use dallying about the decay of thepostal service," he said rather impatiently."Cui buono? Who wouldbenefit from such theft? Let's look atthe enemies of Fusion. That's wherethe case must rest."Back in my library, we then pulledoff the shelf the last several issues ofFusion. It didn't take long to markSchlesinger as the ranking enemy offusion. He stood out in the cartoonslike a sore thumb. But as Edgarquickly noticed from scanning severalarticles, Schlesinger was involved in itbut obviously not the brains of thecrime. We had to go higher."Holy Buzzard," I said. "This is areal conspiracy."To make a long story short, wepinned the blame on that old snakeZbigniew Brzezinski, because hisNational Security Council (and IAPS Plasma MeetingContinued from page 17an unusual appearance to give aninvited talk on the fusion-fissionhybrid reactor. Bethe was awardedthe Nobel Prize in the late 1930s fordiscovering the fusion reactions thatdrive the sun, and he headed uptheoretical work on the U.S. hydrogenbomb program. In the last decade,Bethe has rarely attended majormeetings of U.S. fusion scientists.Bethe's chief goal in his presentationwas to galvanize the fusioncommunity behind the perspectivedeveloped by Foster on the "nationalneed" for the fusion-fission hybridreactor, reiterating that it is essentialto the future of the world. Bethecogently detailed the scientific, economic,political and environmentalreasons that the hybrid must bedeveloped. Most emphatically, Bethenoted that the Soviet Union is alreadycommitted to such a hybrid policy.from page 5cringe every time I reflect on the factthat our Nation's security is in suchreptilean hands) would have exactlythe authority necessary to purloinletters. And, as Edgar pointed out,there is a certain treasonous traditionat the very top of our governmentthat, when not curbed, has alwaysdevoted itself to filling the coffers ofthe very British royalty we both foughtto overthrow.At this point, and I must pat myselfon the back for this, I suddenly sawthe whole thing clearly. I was thinkingof that lovely British nest egg of stolenFusion letters, when my mind jumpedto my old friend Poor Richard and thetwo fat hens he was taking down toWashington as consultants to theDepartment of Energy last month. (AsI recall, I wrote about it here.)Of course! The theft operation hadto meet the standards of the Brzezinski,Schlesinger, Gloomenthalcrowd. It had to be no more than 14thcentury technology, cheap, andsatisfying to the countercultureenvironmentalist types like our poorPoor Richard. Those were no hens Isaw Poor Richard with; they werecarrier pigeons. He was supplyingcarrier pigeons for the mail fraudagainst Fusion's publishers.Edgar and I chortled with glee atpinning down the nasty feathersinvolved in this flap and seal crime soquickly. Now the real work begins. Nodoubt when the Fusion group getsmoving those environmentalists willput up quite a fuss about their endangeredcarrier pigeons.Yr. Obt. Svt.Editor's NoteWe thank our columnist Ben Franklinfor his help in tracking down thevillains in the theft of FEF mail.Readers who have sent in contributionsand subscriptions that have notbeen acknowledged should contactthe FEF.62 FUSION


FEF NewsiPITTSBURGH CONFERENCE REVIEWS HIGH-TECHNOLOGY POLICYThe FEF Pittsburgh conference on "A High-Technology Energy Policy for theUnited States" Nov. 9 was highlighted by announcements from participatingscientists of advances in their field of research. James Blink, a laser fusionspecialist from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, announced that the recentlaser fusion Shiva experiments have just achieved record neutron countlevels with a yield of 2.7 x 10 10 neutrons, nearly two times better than previousresults. And in the magnetic confinement area, Dr. John Schmidt, who headsthe theoretical physics work on the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor project at thePrinceton Plasma Physics Laboratory, said that further results with the PLTtokamak reached temperatures of 70 million degrees.Responding to both announcement, FEF executive director Morris Levitt saidthat, "Here we have in this room representatives of the two most advancedfusion concepts in the world, presenting results that put us in the lead in bothareas. Consider the irony of this; for at the same time, funding for this vitalresearch has been stagnating and decreasing. . Both of these men will agreethat their projects could absorb twice the present allocation." Levitt then comparedthese advances with costly, inefficient solar energy pushed by the environmentalists.The day-long conference included presentations on magnetic and laserfusion, the fast breeder reactor, the accelerator breeder, the fusion-fissionhybrid breeder, and the nuplex complex. The morning session on "fusion —thescientific frontier," featured Schmidt and Blink from Princeton and LawrenceLivermore, respectively, and the afternoon panel on "advanced energy technologies:closing the nuclear fuel cycle," included Dr. Richard Noyes, managerof breeder engineering development at the Combustion Engineering Corp , Dr.Ronald Kostoff, senior scientist at the Department of Energy's Office of EnergyResearch, and Jon Cilbertson and Marsha Freeman from the FEF staff.In the concluding presentation, FEF director of research Uwe Parpart told theaudience that the "war" on U.S. scientific and technological capacity spearheadedby Energy Secretary James Schlesinger "must be turned around quicklyto meet the energy needs of 8 billion people in the year 2000." Parpart thenreviewed the international development deals underway that the United Statesmust become part of.A Quantum JumpThe conference drew 60 participants, including representatives fromWestinghouse, Pittsburgh Des Moines Steel, Babcock and Wilcox, PennsylvaniaPower and Light, and several Pittsburgh industries, six engineering firmsand the operating engineers union among them.FEF director Levitt noted that the conference marked a quantum jump inFEF's stature as the political leadership of the scientific and engineeringcommunities. The FEF's first annual conference in Pittsburgh in April 1977,Levitt said, required a temporary federal court injunction to stop the threatsand harassment against conference participants from Energy Secretary JamesSchlesinger and his antiscience crew. At the time, Schlesinger forced 12 out of14 speakers to cancel during the five days preceding the event. Conferenceattendees this year included representatives from corporations and institutionswho were last year told in no uncertain terms to stay away, and did.LEVITT, PARPART TOUR WEST COAST FACILITIESExecutive director Dr. Morris Levitt and research director Uwe Parpart touredmajor research facilities in New Mexico, California, and the Pacific Northwestin late October, as part of an ongoing foundation review of U.S. research anddevelopment programs.Levitt, whose written remarks will appear in a future issue of Fusion, reportedIon Cilbertson addressingthe Pittsburgh conference.Dr. Morris LevittFUSION 63


that tremendous potentiality remains in the major research laboratories, giventhe proper program and resources. Levitt said the tour convinced him that U.S.science desperately needs a sound scientific methodology, a nation-buildingperspective, and the type of leadership that FEF provides.FUSION ON THE RISE; NORTHWEST LEADSSales trends of Fusion magazine are rising around the country, the businessdepartment reports. Newsstand sales have doubled over a three-month period,with an expansion drive underway to add new cities here and in Canada. Fusionnow distributes 40,000 copies per issue, with newsstand distribution in 26 majorcities. Subscriptions are at 4,200 and a recent direct mail subscription drive isjust beginning to bring in new subscribers. The goals for the next year of publicationinclude a drive to raise circulation to 100,000 copies of Fusion permonth.The biggest boom in Fusion sales is in the Northwest. In the Tri-Cities area ofeastern Washington, Fusion sales on the newsstands run four to one aboveScientific American, selling about 1,000. The Tri-City Herald, an easternWashington daily newspaper, featured Fusion in an Oct. 24 article interviewingDr. Morris Levitt. "The magazine Morris Levitt edits is sold on Tri-Cities newsstandsnext to publications like True Confessions and Hot Rodder," the Heraldwrote about Fusion's high visibility.Fusion on thenewsstand.SCHOONOVER BRIEFS ST. LOUIS ON NUCLEAR FUSIONIn a forum sponsored by the Washington University chapter of the AmericanSociety of Mechanical Engineers in St. Louis Oct. 19, Dr. John Schoonoverbriefed an audience of scientists and engineers on the importance of thissummer's Princeton PLT breakthrough in nuclear fusion research and the implicationsfor future fusion development. Schoonover is the FEF campuscoordinator.In other talks to campus groups and businessmen in the area, Schoonoverstressed the role that fusion energy will play in our continuous redefinition ofthe resource base for human society: "The differentia specifica of humanity. . isour ability to deliberately transform the basis for human existence throughcreative technological innovations." The response to the FEF presentations wasexcellent, with most scientists and students expressing a "let's get the job done"attitude.POWER EXEC ADDRESSES GEORGIA TECH FUSION CLUB"Until 1973, being in the energy business was fun, but now it's become verytough," Grady Baker told the Georgia Tech Fusion club members at an Atlantameeting Nov. 2. Baker, the senior vice president for corporate planning of theGeorgia Power Company, underlined the vital need for nuclear power growth,but noted that no new nuclear plants were now planned in the state of Georgiaand that the capital markets have been hard to approach for funds. The utilityhas invested heavily in solar power, he said, even though it knows that theenergy output of such systems will be marginal at best. Grady commented thatthe progrowth attitude of the fusion club students in the audience was encouraging.The FFF Chicagobooth.SUPPORTERS AID FEF DISPLAYS AT TRADE SHOWSThanks to generous contributions from supporters, the FEF has been able toset up displays at major trade shows. At the International Machine Tool show inChicago in September, a successful FEF booth sold memberships, subscriptions,and literature to high-technology companies around the world. And at theOctober Triple Engineering show in Philadelphia, the FEF booth attractedcrowds with its model of the Princeton Large Torus tokamak, on loan from thePrinceton laboratories.64 FUSION


Energy,Machines,And ProgressMan's progress on earth is measured most concisely bylooking at the rate of the rate of increased consumption ofenergy and the advances in technology and machines thatmade this increase possible. In fact, the criterion by whichto judge any energy-producing technology is whether itwill provide an increased throughput, or flux, of energydensity at least sufficient to power a mode of productionmore productive than the present system.This concept was fully developed in a 1975 speech to theSoviet Academy of Sciences by Academician P.L. Kapitsa,whose award of the 1978 Nobel Prize in physics is reviewedin this issue. And as this issue discusses, the great humanistthinkers of previous generations, including Lazare Carnotand Leonardo da Vinci, contributed to the development ofthis idea, linking energy throughput io the necessity forscientific and technological progress. In its most scientificallyenriched form, this outlook supersedes theconcept of conservation of energy and exposes the lethalincompetence of policies based on zero growth and socalledappropriate technology.Today, the only technology that meets the criterion laidout by Kapitsa —and that satisfies the conditions of acceleratingthe rate of total energy use and of the ratio offree energy to the total energy —is fusion. The special formof electromagnetic energy in the fusion plasma (the fusiontorch) and the wide variety of the fusion reactor's energyforms make obvious what past energy sources andmachines have demonstrated only implicitly: The fundamentalfeature of science and technology, like theuniverse, is its process of self-development.The front cover shows technicians working inside thenow-completed PDX tokamak at the Princeton PlasmaPhysics Laboratory. On the back cover are (from the top) adrawing from Leonardo da Vinci's Codex Madrid, whichanalyzes machine elements and traces the transmission ofpower and motion through screws and wheels; an illustrationof the 1876 centennial exhibition in Philadelphiafeaturing the Corliss steam engine (a technologyfor which Carnot's work paved the way); and a view fromthe top story of the PDX tokamak.Cover design by Christopher Sloan. The PDX photographs are courtesyof Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines