• No tags were found...


FUSIONMAGAZINE OF THE FUSION ENERGY FOUNDATIONMarch-April 1979Vol. 2, No. 6ISSN 0148-0537EDITORIAL STAFFEditor-in-ChiefDr. Morris LevittAssociate EditorDr. Steven BardwellManaging EditorMarjorie Mazel HechtEditorial AssistantCatherine CaffreyEnergy NewsWilliam EngdahlMarsha FreemanArt DirectorChristopher SloanGraphic AssistantGary GenazzioBusiness ManagerKenneth MandelAdvertising andCirculation ManagerJeanne LaudonFUSION is published monthly, 10 times a yearexcept September and April, by the Fusion EnergyFoundation. 304 West 58 Street. New York. New York10019. telephone (212) 265-3749.Subscriptions by mail are $18 for 10 issues or$34 for 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 torthe benefit of decision makers and the interestedpublic The views of the FEF are stated in theeditorials. Opinions expressed in signed articlesare not necessarily those of the FEF directors or thescientific advisory board.Copyright • March 1979Fusion Energy FoundationPrinted in the USAAll Rights ReservedFeatures24 Riemann Declassified—His Method and Program for the Natural Sciencesby Uwe ParpariThe hydrodynamic methodology of Riemann's 1859 paper onshock waves, driven underground by classification policies,should be the mainstream of theoretical work in physics today.JO The Secret of Laser Fusionby the Editors of Fusion MagazineWho benefits from the myth that there are "secrets" to laserfusion? Not science, and not U.S. national security.TV The Case of the Fast Linerby Charles B. StevensHow a promising U.S. approach to fusion research was killed_ _ by a foreign power.D\J Appropriate Technology: The U.S. Goes Back to the Stone Ageby Cynthia ParsonsIf the U.S. laws promoting pick-and-shovel technology are notreversed, Arnerican industry may be something ourr - grandchildren learn about only in museums.D I Science and Spooks: The Spirit of Sir Isaac Newtonby Dr. John SchoonoverScientists leading seances? It made sense in the context of 19thcentury Britain.NewsWASHINGTON8 Administration Submits Dark Ages 1980 Budget to Congress9 Elmo Bumpy Torus Gets DOE Go-Ahead9 Congressional Group to Study Fusion's 'Compatibility'10 Dean Leaves DOE Fusion Program11 The U.S. and China: Politics Not Science11 The Antiscience Policy of the President's Science AdvisorINTERNATIONAL13 There's Plenty of Oil13 DOE Predicts 'Hellish' Crisis15 Schlesinger Uses Iran to Force Oil Emergency16 Brazil, West Germany Conclude Nuclear Deal17 Which Way for Brazil's Energy Future?:An Interview with the President of PetrobrasNATIONAL20 American Technology Goes Down the Biopot:An Interview with Dr. Ralph Smuckler of the FITC21 Knocking Out Nuclear Power: NRC Nixes Rasmussen ReportCONFERENCES22 U.S.-Soviet Symposium at Princeton: Scientists Call forFusion-Fission HybridDepartments2 EDITORIAL3 CALENDAR4 LETTERS4 THE LIGHTNING ROD6 NEWS BRIEFS66 RESEARCH69 BOOKS71 FEF NEWS

EditorialU.S. EnergyPolicy: Out ofThe Dark AgesIt's about time the United States started conducting its science and energypolicies like a sovereign nation. This means facing a basic fact. The relativelysmall number of individuals and institutions that are blocking U.S. developmentandiexport o'f nuclear power, blocking the conduct of broad-based basicscientific research, and blocking the upgrading of U.S. industrial technologyare un-American. They are Un-American on two counts. First, they don't sharethe Founding Fathers' comrriitment to the fullest possible realization of theunlimited' potentialities of the American people and the world population;and second, they place a foreign ideology above the national interest.Take the case of classification. As the feature articles in this issue demonstrate,the system of classification of basic research in inertial confinement hasnot kept £ny deep, dark secrets from the Soviets. Rather, it has served to keepmost of the U.S. scientific community in the dark about the most fruitfulmethodological approaches in nonlinear hydrodynamics. This is not just anunfortunate by-product of the security policy; it is the intended purpose ofclassification.The Known EnemyThere is iio secret, however, about the identities of the individuals andinstitutions complicit or witting in the assault against science and industry inthe United States. First, there are the so-called humanitarian environmentalists,like Amory Lovins and Ralph Nader, who have decided that the Third Worldis better bead than nuclear. Their statements on the costs, safety, and environmentalirnpact of nuclear pdwer, without exception, are lies.Then there are the environmentalists' friends in the government, like theantiproliferation kooks in the White House staff, the State Department, andFUSION

the National Security Council. Deserving of special mention in this categoryare the appropriate technology cultists in the office of President Carter'sscience advisor, the National Science Foundation, the National Academy ofSciences, and the foreign affairs sections of the Departments of State andEnergy.And lastly, there is the bipartisan lunatic fringe in the Congress, exemplifiedby Senators Percy and Kennedy, that is going gung ho to stop nuclear exportsand dismantle the energy industry.Granted, these ladies and gentlemen don't come up with their medievalphilosophy on their own. They are carefully tutored in their antiprogress litanyby a number of think-tanks and foundations: the Aspen Institute, the HudsonInstitute, the Rand Corporation, the Brookings Institution, the Institute forPolicy Studies, the Heritage Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the RockefellerFoundation, to name just a few.However, whether the slogans emanating from these outfits are environmentalprotection" and appropriate technology" on the one hand, or fiscalconservatism" and free enterprise" on the other, the prescriptions and policiesare equally disastrous for the world economy.The worst of this bunch is Energy Secretary James Schlesinger. For those ofus who try to make our contribution to human progress in the fields of scienceand energy, it is hard to imagine a more demented crew than Schlesinger andhis top lieutenants at the Department of Energy. Even those individuals in thescience community who were initially most credulous about Schlesinger's roleby now have come to see that his record is an unbroken string of acts ofsabotage against present and future energy supplies.TreasonThe time has come to stop asking why Schlesinger and the other un-Americans continually sabotage U.S. growth and development and to startasking why the nation tolerates such treason. In every case it can be shownthat underlying their patently irrational actions and policies is a deep-seatedantagonism to the American System of scientific and technological progressconceived by Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton.Schlesinger, for example, professes to be a Malthusian, a philosophyanathema to the Founding Fathers.If one surveys the attempts to destabilize the most growth-oriented nationsof the Third World as well as the industrialized sector, it becomes clear thatthe objective of these un-Americans is not merely to put the brakes on growthand development, but to reverse the global progress achieved since theAmerican Revolution. Among certain queer circles schooled at Oxford, Cambridge,or Sussex universities and their cothinkers outside Britain, this reversalof progress, code-named the new Dark Ages, is alleged to be both necessaryand inevitable.The world has every opportunity to avoid this medieval fate. We are at thethreshold of the greatest scientific and technological revolution in history withthe onset of controlled fusion. A new international monetary system, theEuropean Monetary System, promises a new era in North-South and East-Westeconomic and political collaboration in a giant process of global reconstruction.And, most important, men of vision and responsibility in all corners ofthe globe are seeking the conditions, like fusion development and the EMS,that will make it possible for the world to achieve prosperity and peace.The ChoiceIf the United States is to play the role it can—and must—of leading thesedevelopments, it must put its own house in order. It'stpast time in our nationalaffairs when any industrialist, scientist, or other citizen passively can chooseone road to national disaster over another, instead of a real solution. The issueno longer can be avoided. Either we will have science and development—which means that the United States must join the EMS and end the Britishveto power over U.S. science and technology—or we will suffer the new DarkAges.Which side are you on?CalendarMarch18-21Reactor Construction and OperationAtomic Industrial ForumDallas, Texas26-29APS General MeetingAPSChicago27-281st Annual National EnergyConferenceAmerican Society for QualityControl, Nuclear DivisionPrinceton, N.J.28-29Semiconductor Injection Lasersand Their ApplicationsInstitute of Physics, LondonCardiff, Wales28FEF Seminar: "The Problem ofElectron Transport and theAnomalies of Plasma Physics"Dr. Steven Bardwell, FEFNew York CityContinued on page 71Note to the ReaderWe fully expect that with theappearance of this issue of Fusionmagazine, Energy Secretary JamesSchlesinger and his staff will begincirculating the story—if not attemptinglegal prosecution—thatthe information in "The Secret ofLaser Fusion" is classified. Therefore,we want to make it clear thatthis article is based upon informationmade public by the SovietUnion and readily available in Sovietand other international scientificcircles, as well as upon informationcontained in a scientific paper publishedby Bernhard Riemann in 1859.As far as we know, it is only Britishgovernment policy, not U.S. policy,to attempt to classify scientificknowledge already released in thepublic domain. We hope that JamesSchlesinger does not lead the U.S.government down the same path.FUSION

LettersRIGHT-TO-DIEDEFENDEDjTo The Editor:1 must protest comments in the January1979 issue, in the national section,particularly your comments pertainingto Kubler-Ross, the "right todie" movement, and your adverse reflection,by inference, on hospices forthe dying.Have you ever watched a loved onestruggle gallantly in the throes of anincurable cancer? I watched my husbandwage such a battle and I knowthat the time comes when the sufferingone cries out, either silently orverbally, "I don't want to fight anylonger." Your statement, "Its [BromptonMix] advocates explicitly promoteit as a substitute for expensive medicaltechnology development that couldprolong life," is misleading. TheBrompton Mix is used to bring comfortand freedom from pain to theterminally ill when there is no longerhope for recovery. Prolongation oflife is not always desirable, if the lifeprolonged is full of pain and misery.You may wish to keep inflicting lifepreservingtechniques on a loved oneto gain a few more days or weeks ofdiscomfort—such a choice is yourprivilege. But such a viewpoint is notfor me. I would not have wished fora single additional hour for my husband.Had he not asked for treatmentto cease, I would have asked for thatin his behalf.Have you ever visited a hospice forthe terminally ill? There is no possiblevalid way that you can relate them toan "antitechnology depression society."They provide for the terminallyill a pain-free environment surroundedby those who are not afraidof relating to a dying person.In your comments on Kubler-Ross,you have ignored the tremendous pioneeringwork she has done. You saythat she has been "widely publicizedin a cross-country tour to promotedeath and her book, Death andDying." At no time has she promoteddeath. She is promoting understandingof death and that promotion islong overdue. I was able to gothrough the long ordeal of my husband'sillndss in ways that were helpfulto him because an inspired friendgave me Kubler-Ross's book. Yourarticle is a great disservice to Kubler-Ross's efforts and to those of us whowant to make it a little easier for ourterminally ill loved ones.Marjorie A- ReidLincoln, NebraskaThe Editor RepliesThe overriding significance of the"right to die" movement and Kubler-Ross's book is not the solace theymight provide terminally ill patientsand their families. On the Contrary,the implication of the right-to-dieoutlook is that human life is not sacred,that t might be preferable to letsomeone die rather than struggle fortheir survival, and that some medicalcare is unnecessary and cruel becauseit prolongs life.The policy implications of this wayof thinking are clearly expressed in arecent speech by Senator Kennedy:"American industrial, high-technologymod$l of health care has hurtmedical chre in the U.S. and we cannotallow it to be established elsewhere.We produce 25,000 pharmaceuticals|iere in the U.S.; We cannotand should not export these. Thesedrugs do not meet the needs of theseThird Wrjrld people any more thancostly diagnostic equipment does"[As far! as the U.S. goes] we willdo better to close down centers thatwould provide for basic needs as wellas contain costs. You don't need aphysician on duty; paraprofessionalscan tend 1 to most problems, particularlyin our poor urban centers. Theycan provide palliative care and appropriatedrugs at a reasonable cost."The ultimate of this position is theBritish health care system where kidneydialysis is denied to retired orunemployed people since they arejudged ho longer productive. Whyprolong Itheir lives, the British reason,they have a right to die. And besides,as Kubler-Ross assures us from herongoing discussions with dead people,death isn't so bad?Readers are invited to comment on issuesraised in Fusion. Send letters to Fusion, Box1943. GPO, New York City 10001.TheLightningRodMy dear friends,As some latter-day Juntos have penetratedeven the ranks of the presentU.S. government, perhaps we can expectsome progress out of Washingtoneventually. But the evidence ofone of my spies, who recently contrivedto get hold of a fiscal year 1981planning document from the EnergySecretary's office suggests, as Dr.Schlesinger might put it, "little reasonfor unbridled optimism."Herewith the document, whichmight be titled "Poor Rodney's Almanac."I remain,Yr. obt. svt.Suggestions for Project Fundingand Direct Action(1) Used Gum Wrapper RecyclingProject. The Department is presentlynegotiating with Wrigley Brothers forthe purchase of used foil chewinggum wrappers, as well as those thatdo not meet the company's qualitycontrol standards. It is thought thatsaid wrappers, when stitched togetherFUSION

"shiny side out," can be used to formgiant solar energy collectors, reducingour oil import bill and providing workfor thousands of unemployed seamstresses.(2) Snail Darter Retraining Project.Funds are needed for the purchase ofone dozen electric eels to aid (on aone-to-one basis) in the reeducationof snail darters to generate powerfrom the waters around the TellicoDam. If all the "eel-conditioned" snaildarters in the world are laid end toend in continuous current, it is anticipatedthat enough electricity can beproduced to run a moderate-sizedpenlight. While the gains may appearmarginal, the public relations value indemonstrating the usefulness of thesnail darter is hard to underestimate.(3) The K-9 Water Wheel. Of the 8million dogs in New York City, it isestimated that during any single hour,approximately 333,333 can be foundin close proximity to a fire hydrant(assuming a regular performanceschedule) uselessly expending energy.The department is presently recommendingutility firms to make substantialinvestment in the K-9 WaterWheel, a portable attachment to becarried in the purse or pocket of thefaithful pet owner, as a safe replacementfor the hazards of nuclearpower.(4) Sun-Screen Ban. The departmenthas asked the Federal Trade Commissionand the justice Department toconsider legal action banning the saleof sun-tan lotion, on the grounds thatcertain solar rays (but not others) are"screened out" from reaching the humanbody through such preparations.This obviously represents an illegal restraintof free competition amongrays. Moreover, as the sun is expectedto burn itself out sometime in theforeseeable future, no ray should bewasted.(5) The Great Wall of Fire. Upon hisreturn from Peking, the Secretary reportedhis enthusiasm over the stateof military science there. A task forcehas been assembled to study intelligenceon a particularly interestingsmall-group formation in which anodd million or so troops are assembledon the border just prior to messcall. Vigorous production of frictionbetween the soldiers' eating utensils,for a period of 45 minutes, is said byChinese military experts to produceamazing results, deemed very usefulfor scaring off the polar bear. (Thistechnique is classified "Top Secret").Of course these are only a few ofthe numerous plans and projects inthe department's "alternative energybag." In these troubled times, we areall tormented by the high cost of living,but here we are working to makehuman life cheaper every day.FUSION 5

News BriefsPumpinga crisislEA HEAD SAYS NO CAUSE FOR OIL PANIC"We do not think there is atjiy cause for panic," said Dr. Ulf Lantzke, headof the 19-nation International Energy Agency, which is charged with supervisingworld oil supplies and stockpiles. "You cannot move from a glut to a crisissituation in such a short time."In a Feb. 12 interview with the London Financial Times, Lantzke pointed outthat stocks df crude and oil products of lEA members, which now stand at 390million tons;, are marginally higher than in January 1978 when there was nosupposed oil crisis.Lantzke did, however, singly out British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shellfor criticism; accusing them of causing unjustified panic reactions about worldoil supplies. He specifically scored a report issued by Royal Dutch Shell inearly February claiming that the cut in world oil supplies as a result of the Iransituation was as bad as the impact of the 1973-1974 oil import embargo. Thetotal drop in oil supply at present is 4 percent; in 1973 it was more than 8percent, he; said.In a reference to recent statements from U.S. Energy Secretary Schlesinger,Lantzke further said that thejcurrent situation is not one that should drivegovernments into making hasty decisions without a considered analysis offacts. The lEA has virtually ruled out invoking its emergency oil sharingprocedures, Lantzke said, and the lEA would not convene any emergencymeeting prior to the scheduled March 1 meeting.BASOV PROPOSES INT'L FISSION-FUSION HYBRID PROGRAMNikolai Basov, head of the Soviet laser fusion program, called for aninternational program to develop the fission-fusion hybrid. The hybrid is anexcellent transition to a fusion economy, Basov told the official Soviet dailyPravda. "The time will come when it is a great source of energy for peacefulpurposes."Basov cited "optimistic" U.S. estimates of industrial fusion power productionby the period 1995 to 2000, and said that the development of the hybrid couldadvance that schedule. The Soviet physicist also called for studies to beundertaken to determine the impact of fusion power development on theeconomy.The hybrid uses neutrons from the fusion reaction to breed fissile fuel.Several leading U.S. scientists, including Edward Teller and Hans Bethe, havecalled for a crash program to develop the hybrid reactor both as a fission fuelsource and as a transitional step to developing pure fusion reactors.Wedgwood-Benn:'Insecurity and fear'BRITISH ENERGY MINISTER CALLS FOR LIMITS ON TECHNOLOGYSpeaking to the Science, ^Technology, and Society Federation in Britain,Secretary of State for Energy Anthony Wedgwood Benn compared today'sscientific and military elite tb the "monastic orders of the medieval church."There may have to be a "price paid for technical developments" and higherliving standards, Wedgwood Benn said—the creation of a climate of "insecurityand 1 fear.""If I am doubtful about trie fast breeder reactor, as I am, and believe thatany proposal to build one should be delayed, as I do, it is not because I doubtthe technical competence of those in the industry to construct and operateone...."Technology, Buckminster Fuller said, means that we can get 'more out ofless' and by doing so raise living standards.... A man who keeps warm byburning logs from his gardeh and then finds that the logs are not available isbetter placed than a whole community cut off by the failure of a 1,300 MWstation..."There is a simple question we have to ask ourselves. Could we back intoa police state because of hij*h technology?..."Wedgwood Benn's remarks were published in the Feb. 10 issue of theBritish daily The Guardian, jFUSION

INDIA PROTESTS U.S. 'NUCLEAR APARTHEID'The government of India delivered a stern note of official protest to theUnited States Jan. 12 charging violations of agreements to supply India withnuclear fuel for its Tarapur nuclear plant, which supplies the Bombay areawith power. A September 1978 Indian application for fuel deliveries to beginin March 1979 still has not been forwarded to the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission for routine approval, according to Indian diplomatic sources.A few days after the protest note, the Indian ambassador to the UnitedStates, N.A. Palkhivala, delivered a harsh speech to a closed-door session ofthe Asia Society in New York City. Palkhivala charged the United States withblocking India's nuclear development program and carrying out a discriminatorypolicy of "nuclear apartheid." "India cannot accept a world order inwhich such discrimination exists, especially when the arsenals of the nuclearpowers are being expanded," the ambassador said.The Carter administration has held up fuel supplies to India on the allegedgrounds of antiproliferation of nuclear weapons, although India has fullycomplied with all international regulations regarding proliferation. At thesame time, the administration has approved a French sale of nuclear reactorsof Westinghouse design to China, with none of the usual assurances ofnonproliferation.India's Tarapur nuclear plantSEN. McCLURE WARNS THAT ENVIRONMENTALISM CAN LEAD TO WARU.S. Senator James McClure of Idaho told a Washington energy conferenceFeb. 2 that "the supporters of nuclear energy must truly believe that nuclearenergy is a moral necessity for mankind and that, without it, future generationswill sink even deeper into poverty and, eventually, dictatorship.""Shortages of energy," McClure said, "will result in shortages of jobs,housing, and food ... resulting in increased government controls and increasedshortages. And the tragic culmination of such a chain of events is war, as thosewho are without seek to take from those who have."The "advocates of this 'new class' philosophy," McClure continued, "wantto limit economic growth.... It is a pastoral vision, out of late 19th centuryEngland.... Their society would be more akin to the feudal era than to the lastperiod of the industrial revolution."Ironically, McClure was addressing a conference on energy alternativessponsored by the Heritage Foundation, whose concept of "free enterprise" ala Adam Smith would have the same feudalizing effect on society as the newclass McClure describes. (For an analysis of the Heritage Foundation andnuclear power, see Books, this issue.)LOUSEWORT LAURELS TO SENATOR TED KENNEDYThe contest this month was simple. The laurels go to Massachusetts SenatorTed Kennedy for his speech Jan. 29 in Washington at the National Academyof Science conference on pharmaceuticals for the Third World. We quote theaward-winner's final solution : The "American industrial, high-technologymodel (of health care) has hurt medical care in the United States and wecannot allow it to be established elsewhere.... We need primary care facilities;facilities that will be run by local people to solve local problems. We need asimple basic system constructed from the ground up by people ... with asimple, basic drug list to meet local needs."We produce 25,000 pharmaceuticals here in the U.S.; we cannot and shouldnot export these. These drugs do not meet the needs of these people anymore than costly diagnostic equipment does. They are simple people withsimple problems...."Kennedy could not have won his prize without the able assistance of hisaudience, to whom lousewort credit is also due. Aside from the U.S. LaborParty's Debra Hanania-Freeman, the 300 health professionals in the audienceraised no objection to this simple yet final solution to Third World health care.

WashingtonUnder Schlesinger's leadership, the DOE budget ha$\ gone soft.Admin. Submits Dark Ages1980 Budget to CongressThe Carter administration has submitteda fiscal year 1980 budget forthe Department of Energy based onsolar, solar, and more solar.In his State of the Union address tothe nation in January, President Cartersaid, "The transition to widespreaduse of solar and renewable resourcescan and must begin now. Solar, windenergy, and use of biomass resourcescan contribute significantly in boththe short and long run to meeting ournation's energy needs."In what can only be described as atotaj fantasy, Carter continued,"Some of these technologies, such assolar heat and hot water, use ofbiomass for generation of electricity,and wind energy, are available nowand are competing with other conventionalenergy sources."The 1980 DOE budget proposestotal expenditures for solar energy toexceed $800 million, including taxcredits and programs by the DOE, theTennessee Valley Authority, tire U.S.Agency for International Development,the Agriculture Departmentand the Small Business Adminis-DOEtration. In addition, Carter pjlans tosend a message on solar energy to theCongress in the next few weejks.The Solar HoaxThe administration's full-scalejunking of fossil-fuel technology,nuclear development having ahythingto do with plutonium, and anaggressive program for commercialfusion development is based on advicefrom Carter's domestic policystaff, the Council on EnvironmentalQuality, and the "China l_obrj>y" factionin thelwhite House.The supposedly factual basis for thepresident's) sudden leap to solarenergy is in interagency study conductedunder the Domestic PolicyReview System. This interna) reportwas put together by three staffersfrom the environmentalist Council onEnvironmental Quality who temporarilyrrioved over to the DOEheadquarters building to do the solarreview. It. outrageous conclusionstates with absolutely no proof that bythe year 2000, 20 percent of U.S.energy supply will be from s6lar.A source of great embarrassment tothe antiscience mob in the WhiteHouse, however, is a recently completedstudy requested a year ago bythe Office of Science and TechnologyPolicy. Headed by Robert Hall ofGeneral Electric R&D, the panelreport concluded that it would be atleast 10 years before solar energywould be possible for any majorconversion and that maybe 1 percentof the nation's electric need could bemet by solar at the turn of the century.The major invariant in the administration'snuclear R&D program isthe avoidance of development ofanything to do with closing thenuclear fuel cycle and going to a"plutonium economy." The nuclearR&D budget has been cut by 14 percentin absolute dollars — almost 25percent when inflation is taken intoaccount.Although funds for converter reactorsystems have been cut by $18million, the remaining funds will befocused on improving fuel utilizationin light water reactors. This, alongwith the $84 million proposed for a"uranium resource assessment"program, is supposed to prove thatthe United States does not really needa breeder program.The 1980 budget does not includefunding for the Clinch River BreederReactor. Instead, the proposed focusfor the remaining breeder studies is"developing the technologynecessary to reduce proliferation risksin research and power reactors" and"developing proliferation-resistantfuels."The advanced fossil fueltechnologies, mainly magnetohydrodynamics,fare no better. The MHDbudget is set at a $72 millionauthorization, down from the fiscalyear 1979 budget of $80 million. Thisreduction will destroy the momentumof the program and make it difficultfor industry to continue a commitmentto the DOE program.Preliminary discussions with congressionalstaff members on CapitolHill revealed that solar-mania isspreading. Even congressmen whowere strongly pro-fusion last sessionare now swallowing the line fromDOE's John Deutch that fusion will8 FUSION

not be commercial until the middle ofthe next century, while solar hasnearer-term potential. And two weeksago, 100 congressmen signed a statementcalling for an increased effort insolar energy.Congress's task is very clear. Unlessit reformulates the 1980 DOE budget,Congress will doom U.S. energypolicy to permanent oil shortagesthrough manipulated political instabilityin the Middle East and nocost-effective, high-technology alternativeto supersede fossil fuels.Furthermore, a sagging fusionbudget and slashes in MHD will killthe fruitful and necessary science andtechnology cooperation with theSoviet Union and Japan as well as U ( S.private research. U.S. industry cannotpossibly get involved in joint governmentR&D projects when it has rionational commitment beyond onebudget-year cycle.In short, if the energy budget in itspresent form is not reversed, it willgive the nation a swift kick bacfktoward the Dark Ages.—Marsha FreemanCongress to StudyFusion's 'Compatibility'The Office of Technological Assessment, a congressional advisorygroup initiated by Senator Ted Kennedy, announced in its report onPriorities 1979 that it will do a study on controlled thermonuclear fusion.Since the United States is spending $500 million per year on fusion researchthere is a need "far a thorough assessment of just what the world isbuying by this investment in fusion R&D," the report states.OTA's previous work has been mainly involved with environmental affairsand so-called appropriate technologies.According to OTA, the "problem" with fusion is.that "formidableenvironmental and safety problems exist and will require careful, continuedreview....Successful attainment of fusion could provide the worldwith an unlimited source of energy. That achievement would be withoutprecedent and would present society with a set of benefits and possibleproblems for which we are unprepared.""Manmade fusion would be a centralized very high-technology energysource that could raise a number of problems about control of the energyeconomy and compatability with the dispersed technologies based onsolar energy, the natural fusion energy."As one Capitol Hill observer commented, "It is only natural based onthis shining example that Congress investigate the manmade idiots withinthe Office of Technology Assessment."Elmo Bumpy Torus Gets DOE Go-AheadA proof-of-principle experimentfor the Elmo Bumpy Torus magneticfusion concept, to be built at OakRidge National Laboratory, has beenapproved by the Department qfEnergy. If this experimental model,the Elmo Bumpy Torus (EBT-II),proves successful, the EBT conceptwill join the ranks of the tokamak andmirror fusion reactors to become thisthird mainline magnetic fusion conceptpursued in the United States.Since the present EBT-S experimenthas obtained stable plasmas with electrontemperatures in excess of 5million degrees at densities above 6trillion nuclei per cubic centimeterwith multimillisecond energy confinementtimes — close to theachievements of the tokamak in the1960s that showed fusion to be feasijble — it is likely that the improvedEBT-II will reach breakeven.The Elmo Bumpy Torus concept isone of the most complicated experimentalsystems ever attempted in fusionresearch. If successful, itpromises to lead to an economicaltoroidal reactor with good accessibilityfor construction andimprovements and the advantages ofmodularity, direct current "steadystate'/operation, and loweredrequirements for auxiliary heatingpower. A toroidal magnetic confinementdevice, the EBT uses a rippledmagnetic field to achieve MHDequilibrium, keeping the plasma fromdrifting into the walls of the torusthrough magnetic drift.The 'Rippled Donut'The 24 connected sections of theEBT form a torus, with externalmagnets forming a magnetic mirror ineach section. Microwave heating ateach mirror section both heats themain body of plasma and generates arelativistic plasma ring in each sectionto stabilize the overall plasmamagneticfield configuration. The"rippling" effect of the plasma ringshas given the device its name.To achieve MHD stability,relativistic electrons are trapped, onein each magnetic mirror section,creating a stable magnetic fieldthrough resonation with the appliedmicrowave heating frequencies. Theeffect of this complex system of intensemicrowaves, mirror geometries,relativistic electrons, anddynamic plasmas is to produce astable, high-beta plasma in a steadystatedevice. (Beta is a measure of theefficiency with which a magnetic fieldconfines a thermonuclear plasma. Thehigh beta of the EBT means that relativelylow magnetic fields can successfullybe used to control the fusionplasma.)EBT-IIThe EBT-II will have toroidalmagnetic fields of 30 to 60 kilogaussand microwave heating power inexcess of a million watts. This heat willbe delivered by 120-gigahertz, 200-kilowatt modules scaled up from theVarian microwave heater tubes usedFUSION

in the EBT-S. The total cost will be approximately$20 million, about twothirdsthat of the PLT tokamak at Princeton.EBT-1 and EBT-S, the first models,were developed by Ray Dandl and coworkersat the Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory beginning in 1973.Although work on the EBT had beenstarted by Gibson, Jordan, Lauer, andRoth at the NASA Lewis ResearchCenter in Cleveland, Ohio during theearly 1960s, Dandl is generallycredited with the experimentalsuccess of the bumpy torus concept todate. Using a complex magneticgeometry of several differentmagnetic fields interacting with eachother to confine the plasma requiresthe type of experimental genius attributedto Dandl by his fellow scientists.Innovative ideas like his are theprerequisites for developing fusionenergy by the 21st century.The decision to proceed with theEBT came after more than a year ofstudy of alternative magnetic fusionsystems by the DOE Fusion Office.The study also determined that theLINUS (slow liner system), the LosAlamos ZT reversed-field pinch, andthe stellarator merit further experimentalinvestigation.—Charles B. StevensThe Oak Ridge EBT-I. Inset is a schematic of the Elmo Bumpy Torus,a cross-secf/on view from the top The 24 mirror sections are representedby the region between each (our squares. The squares are the externalconductors that generate] the basic mirror magnetic field. Within eachsection, a ring of relativistic plasma is generated by intense microwavegenerators (not shown). The two ovals in each section are a cross-sectionof the plasma ring for that section, the plasma ring itself curving aboveand below the plane of the page.Dean LeavesDOE FusionProgramDr. Stephen O. Dean, director ofconfinement systems for the U.S. Departmentof Energy in the Office ofFusion will resign in mid-March toorganize a fusion program for ScientificAssociates, Inc. based in California.A 17-year veteran in governmentscience programs, Dean hasbeen in the national leadership of theU.S. fusion program in the AEC,ERDA, and the DOE.Dean feels that the initiative for anaggressive U.S. fusion effort will comefrom continued pressure from advancedfusion efforts abroad and fromU.S. industry and utilities. At ScientificAssociates, he will be Working toencouralge private sector participationin fusion research.National Fusion SpokesmanAs a national spokesman for the fusionprogram, Dean was instrumentalin making public the important breakthroughthis summer at the; PrincetonLarge Torus tokamak. He has continuedtp insist that the rate of progressin fusion research is primarily afunction of the amount of money andresources the government is willing toallocate for the program, jDean Commented in a recent interviewthat despite generous offers forinternational cooperation; in fusionover the last year, particularly fromthe Japanese, the "potential forconfusion in the bilateral sciencenegotiations between the UnitedStates and Japan is unlimited" nowthat the DOE budget for the requiredcoal project is in question. As much asthe DOE Fusion Office, and the Japanese,and the Soviets have wanted thecooperation—especially to push forwarda sagging U.S. effort—U.S.Energy Secretary Schlesinger hasstonewalled the international offers.Deari's resignation follows that ofDOE assistant secretary for energytechnology Robert Thorne last monthand will seriously weaken the governmentcoordination of the fusion program.As many Washington observershave noted, Schlesinger has succeededin convincing the DOE's mostcapable and talented scientists andadministrators that positive motionfor development of high-technologyenergy sources will take place only inthe private sector.10 FUSION

The Antiscience Policy of thePresident's Science AdvisorMy job is different from those of earlier science advisors.While science used to be associated with high technology,it now also concerns some other, more fundamental thingslike the environment, or nuclear waste management. Inearlier days, science was fancy, military, space-aged stuff.Here it's much broader than that.This is how Dr. Frank Press, thepresident's science advisor and directorof the Office of Science andTechnology Policy (OSTP), describedhis role in an interview with theNational Journal in January.Press, a geologist who has heldvarious administrative posts since theKennedy administration, was appointedby Carter in 1977. These commentsare all the more ominousbecause they were made amid greatfanfare on the part of the administrationthat OSTP, which had beenabolished by President Nixon, wasgoing to be reestablished to play animportant role in nationalpolicymaking.The "broader" view of science thatPress has pioneered is actually a newdefinition of science by Frank Press.For him, science is a battle betweenH.G. Wells-type science fiction "spaceage stuff" versus the Bertrand Russellgreenieview that "science is at bestunnecessary, and at worstdangerous." In short, Frank Press haspromoted an antiscience policy.Under Press, science also has becomea tool of international geopolitics,where the "China Card" policyof National Security Advisor ZbigniewBrzezinski and Energy SecretarySchlesinger has been given full playunder the guise of "science andtechnology" agreements that donothing but allow the Chinese to circumventU.S. trade restrictions for theimport of advanced technology. OSTPscientists have been put in the embarrassingposition of trying to convincea justifiably skeptical WhiteHouse press corps that the UnitedStates will benefit from "scientific"U.S. and China: Politics, Not ScienceUnder the space agreement section of U.S.-Chinese cooperation inscience and technology signed by President Carter and Chinese Vice-Premier Teng Hsiao-ping Jan. 31, the People's Republic of China willpurchase a U.S. Landsat communications satellite system. The UnitedStates also will provide land stations to enable China to become part ofthe international communications system.As Washington observers have nbted, the satellite technology as well asthe planned Chinese purchase of an advanced particle accelerator havedefinite military applications, and it is highly unusual that such agreementsare arranged so quickly outside of the normal channels. The conclusionis that the U.S.-China science and technology agreements havelittle to do with the topic and are just a convenient cover for the "ChinaCard" and "U.S. Card" (respectively) policies being played by each nation.exchange with the Chinese. For example,such scientists cited "advanced"methods of earthquake predictionthat consisted of sending Chinesepeasants to the countryside to puttheir ears to the ground, and "advanced"Chinese methods of manual"bug picking" that can replaceenergy-intensive pesticides.Holding Back U.S. ScienceThe president's science advisor hasrefused to allow even current U.S.scientific and technological advancesto become the "best foot forward" forthe nation in leading scientificresearch in the world.In late summer, before thebreakthrough achieved at the PrincetonLarge Torus fusion tokamak experimentwas made public, the FusionEnergy Foundation advised the WhiteHouse to make the announcement, asan expression of national pride andconfidence in U.S. science. (See "ThePrinceton Story," Fusion, Oct. 1978).With Press's compliance the WhiteHouse not only did not announce thebreakthrough but tried to squelch thenews.During the same period, a proposalfor a U.S. program for a fusion-fissionhybrid breeder was circulated amongthe White House science policy staff,submitted by an internationally respectedU.S. Nobel laureate in physics,Dr. Hans Bethe. To date the OSTP hastaken no action to begin — or evendebate — this vital program.Frank Press has made crystal clearwhy the suggestions and advancesmade in U.S. science have beenignored by the Carter administration.According to a current consultant toFUSION 11

Frank PressOSTP, quoted in the National Journalarticle, Press" is very much trying toserve as the White House science advisor...not as an advocate of science,as was the case during some previousadministrations."Press underscored this shift in therole of the science advisor himself: "Ican't become a sounding board forthe scientific community. I work forthe president. A lot of things I do onhis behalf they may like or they maynot like. You can't have among thepresident's advisors constituency representatives."Press reiterated his sabotage of theAmerican system's commitment toadvancing the frontiers of science inhis presentation at the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement ofScience Colloquium on R&D Policy inWashington, D.C. June 20,1978. "...Itmay be time to recognize that it is notpossible, or even necessary, to be firstor number one in everything as longas our overall primacy is notthreatened," Press said.In the same remarks, Press putforward what was to become the hueand cry of the department of Energy'ssecretary and assistant, John Deutch,as well as the president's domestic advisors:Government support of advancedR&D in industry where the privatesector cannot commit large sums ofcapital to a future technology is simplya boondoggle to "special interestgroups."Said Press: "Often projects orprograms tends to take on a life oftheir own. They build a constituencyand a momentum that is difficult todeal with." In the DOE budget nowbefore Congress, governmentsupportedenergy R&D has become aguessing game, as the governmentsuddenly cancels projects to which industryhad already made large financialcommitments.Going SolarOn Jan. 22, Frank Press presentedthe fiscal year 1980 budget for federalsupport for research and developmentto the press. Energy R&Dstrategy, as he laid it out;, is todeemphasize neareij-termtechnologies and focus support to"longer term R&D, where there is lessincentive for private investment." Didthis mean an upgrading of the fusionbudget? No, in keeping with thisstrategy, Press announced that theDepartment of Energy will "increasesupport for solar R&D by 24 percentand longer-term solar-relatedtechnology development and appliedresearch by 40 percent."In fact, with the administration'slate 1978 scramble for solar energy,nuclear R&D will decline in absolutedollars, while magnetic fusion R&Dwill increase by 2 percent. At the sametime, mor? than $800 million will pourinto the solar program in fiscal year1980, unless Congress alters thebudget now before it.Grounding NASAThroughout the 1960s the nation'sspace program was the leading edgeof basic scientific research and advancedtechnological innovation. TheNational Aeronautics and Space Administrationhad a budget in basicR&D funding second only to that ofthe Department of Defense. Under itsprogram for eventual deep-space explorationand near-space colonization,NASA was essential in fundingdevelopmental work ini fusion,magnetohydrodynamics, thermionics,and advanced nuclear technology.Directly through Frank Press, theCarter administration has publiclyrevised the mission of the U.S. spaceeffort. As a result, no new projectstarts will be initiated in the next twoto three years. NASA officials describethe program as in a "holding pattern,"with all attention given to the spaceshuttle and "earthly" applications ofspace technology.The principles guiding the newspace policy were stated clearly in theWhite House fact sheet on the U.S.Civil Space Policy prepared by FrankPress and released Oct. 11,1978 by thePresident. Space science and explorationwill take place in a manner that"provides short-term flexibility to imposefiscal constraints when conditionswarrant," the statement reads.Furthermore, the Press statementposes the goal of "increasing thereturn on the $100 billion investmentin space to the benefit of theAmerican people," and posits that "itis neither feasible nor necessary tocommit the United States to a highchallengespace engineering initiativecomparable to Apollo [emphasis added]."These basic changes in U.S. policyhave not slipped by unnoticed. In apresentation before the NationalSpace Club Jan. 16, Senator AdlaiStevenson voiced his concern aboutthe administration's space policy, aschairman of the Senate CommerceCommittee's Subcommittee on Science,Technology, and Space. "Wemust not restrict our vision by relyingexcessively on the grim calculus ofcost-benefit ratios and zero-basedbudgets. We need to recapture anearlier spirit — a willingness to runrisks, try new ideas, compete, test theunknown, and excel."It is clear that the goals Stevensonpresented can never be nationalpolicy in an atmosphere where scientistsare told they are a "special interestgroup" whose ideas have tocompete with those of uninformedcitizens, environmentalists, endangeredspecies, and presidentialadvisors. The first step in returning toa national commitment to answer thefundamental questions of humanknowledge and translate basic scientificbreakthroughs into technologicaladvances is to have a presidentialscience advisor who is committed toscience.12 FUSION

Talk of the new oil crisis precipitatedby the halt in oil production inIran has neglected several crucialfacts. At present consumption levels,Iran supplies 15.8 percent of crude oilimports of the advanced sector nationsthat make up the Organizationfor Economic Cooperation and Development.Overall, Iran supplies 10.8percent of these countries' oil supplies.Should Iran not resume productionin the near future, it is still highlylikely that other sources could supplypart of the needed oil on a short-termbasis. Such possible sources include:the removal of environmental restrictionsin the United States, whichwould result in an increase of 0.4million barrels per day (mbd); an increasein Alaskan production of 0.8mbd; an increase in Kuwaiti productionof 0.2 mbd; an increase in NorthSea production of 0.4 mbd; an increasein United Arab Emirates productionof 0.6 mbd; an increase inLibyan production of 0.5 mbd; and anincrease in Iraqi production of 1 mbd.Other members of the Organizationof Petroleum Exporting Countries aresaid to be able to generate a hike inproduction equal to 1.5 mbd.In other words, 7 million barrels aday of oil could be brought on line tooffset any perceived emergency.In fact, Saudi Arabian oil production,which was down in January, hasbounced back to nearly 10 millionbarrels per day after having fallen to8 mbd. Sources say that the decreasewas the result of a decision made inmid-January by the Saudi Arabian SupremeCouncil and was prompted bya proposal submitted by Saudi OilMinister Zaki Yamani to impose a productionceiling of 9.5 mbd. More recently,Yamani's proposal has beencountermanded by powerful elementsin the royal family aroundCrown Prince Fahd who favor holdingSaudi production to at least 10.5 mbdto compensate for Iran's collapsedexports.Oil Spot Markets Gone WildSince the beginning of January, thespot markets in both crude oil andpetroleum products have climbed astronomically.According to Piatt's OilgramPrice Report Feb. 12, a numberof OPEC producers were auctioningcrude at $20 a barrel. In January, PetroleumIntelligence Weekly reportedthat the producers of North Sea crudewere one of the instigators of theDOE Predicts 'Hellish' CrisisA U.S. Department of Energy spokesman gave the following descriptionFeb. 7 of the world energy crisis foreseen as a result of Iranianchaos.Question: What is the likely impact of the continuing loss of Iranian oilexports?Regardless of who heads up the Iranian government, it will bephysically impossible for them to resume full production for at leastseven to nine months because of the sloppy way the wells were shut in.Question: What will this mean for the rest of the world?With Iran out of the picture for a sustained period, life is going to beparticularly hellish for the Third World.... The dollar will be hard hit. Sowill Italy. Turkey will be in a disastrous situation to meet its IMFobligations and the loss of 1 million barrels of Saudi oil won't help....For the United States, $1 per gallon gasoline [Schlesinger's proposal] isan affordable nuisance, but for the Third World, it will bring them to thebrink of disaster....FUSION 13

speculative bubble in the spot markets.Since then numerous presssources have named both RoyalDutch Shell and British Petroleum,which jointly control half of the NorthSea crude output, as the source of thebidding-up process of prices on thespot market.According to one New York oil analyst,unlike the U.S. multinationalcompanies, neither BP nor Shell issubject to any restrictions on the useof its inventories of crude and petroleumproducts. This means that thesetwo companies can sell petroleumpurchased for inventories at any pricewhatsoever. In the current market situationlarge inventories held by thesecompanies can be dumped into thespot market at whatever price willbring in the highest profit.Since the 1973 oil crisis, legislationpassed here has restricted U.S. companiesfrom such price hedging withinventories. Moreover, according toofficial figures, U.S. company inventoriesare down significantly from ayear ago this time.According to the French daily LesEchos, spot market prices for petroleumproducts such as gasoline andheating oil have taken a massive leap.Heating oil has climbed from $120 aton on the Rotterdam spot markets to$250 a toil. In the last week alone,gasoline in European spot markets hasjumped by 50 percent from $200 to$300 a ton.Although the petroleum productsspot market represents only 2 to 3percent of the total European market,it does set trends for long-term contracts.And considering that many refineriesare producing less because ofcutbacks in crude deliveries resultingfrom the Iranian shutdown, the spotmarket becomes a last resort to hardupvendors of products.Like the spot markets in the UnitedStates, European spot markets arenearly dried up with respect to additionalmarketable crude and refinedproducts.OPEC Feeds Price HysteriaAs a result of this upward trend inprices, certain of the producing nationsof OPEC have begun to auctionoil at the spot market level. Accordingto Les Echos, there is a growing coalitionwithin the cartel calling for aspecial meeting to discuss raisingOPEC's official price. The reasoningbehind such a move is that the oilcompanies are raking off mammothprofits on oil from OPEC wellheadsand, therefore, the developing nationsproducing the crude should enjoythe revenues.Les Echos says that Kuwait, Libya,Nigeria, and Algeria are-united inpushing for higher OPEC prices. Accordingto informed sources, theUnited Arab Emirates, a traditionalally of the Saudis on pricing matters,is also joining this coalition. In thisconnection, UAE Oil Minister Oteibaattacked the multinational oil companiesfor profiteering.Sources on the inside of OPEC affairsindicate that Saudi Oil MinisterYamani is pushing the high price posturebehind the scenes. A statementby Yamani to the Jan. 29 Middle EastEconomic Survey tends to confirm Yamani'scomplicity. In the interviewYamani defended the right of OPECnations that are more hard pressed,such as Algeria, to raise the price oftheir oil to compepsate for the declineof the dollar and the inflatedcost of imports. Yamani's actions,sources say, are a product of a simmeringfactional struggle within theSaudi royal family in which Yamanihas opposed Prince Fahd and Fahd'spolicy of keeping oil prices down andSaudi production high.With Iran out of the picture as akey ally of Fahd in enforcing this strategy,Yamani has taken an aggressiveposition to see his more militant anti-U.S. policy come into being.The Outlook in IranAlthough U.S. State Departmentand oil industry sources now estimatethat the new Iranian Premier, MehdiBazargan, will make every effort tobring Iran's oil production to capacityas soon as possible, the continuedviolence makes that prediction uncertain.Conservative estimates arethat without any foreign technical assistance,the National Iranian OilCompany could increase crude oiloutput from the present 0.7 mbd toabout 3.5 mbd within a month. Departmentof Energy sources state thateven if Iran were to produce sufficientcrude to export 1 rtibd, it would havea mollifying effect on the constrictedoil markets and in turn bring downspot (open) market prices where theprice of high-demand, low-sulfurcrude has gone as high as $26 a barrel,a full $12 over the OPEC benchmarkcrude price.Continued political chaos in Iran,however, does not bode well for thisforecast. Within the camp of IranianShi'ite leader Ayatollah Khomeini,there are known divisions on futureIranian oil policy that are reflected inthe new government of PremierMehdi Bazargan. Moreover, there arestill many unknown elements to theplan worked out last month by AbdullahEntem, the head of the NationalIranian Oil Company, to fullytake over Iran's oil industry from theconsortium of multinational oil companiesled by British Petroleum.Both government and private oilindustry sources agree that the NationalIranian Oil Company alonecould market at least 2 mbd independentlyon a state-to-state basiswith Japan as a key purchaser.—Judith Wyer14 FUSION

SchlesingerPumps CrisisOver Iran"Schlesinger is a liar, and you canquote me on that," Mexican ForeignMinister Santiago Roel told a reporter,apropos of U.S. Energy SecretaryJames Schlesinger's role inMexico's thus-far futile oil and naturalgas negotiations with the UnitedStates. It appears, in the wake of thesecretary's repeated warnings of jaU.S. oil crunch as a result of the Iraniancrisis, that many Americans arecoming to share that view.Following his publicized statementto the Senate Energy Committee Feb.7 that the current Iranian situationwas "prospectively more serious"than the 1973-1974 oil embargo,Schlesinger told the House EnergyCommittee that the Iran crisis maytrigger the emergency oil-sharingagreements of the 19-nation InternationalEnergy Agency. This, despitethe fact that the lEA's director, Dr. UlfLantzke, had stated that the impact ofthe Iranian shutoff was being exaggerated,and that it was now inconceivablethat the emergency agreementswould be invoked.Said one Washington analystbluntly: "Schlesinger is exaggeratingthe Iran situation to push throughemergency legislation and price increaseshe would otherwise not beable to sell politically." In the view ofthis analyst, and many others, there islittle reason that the loss of 900,000barrels per day of Iranian crude theUnited States normally imports shouldcause a crunch. That is only 5 percentof U.S. oil imports, and the differencecould easily be made up from othersources, many within the UnitedStates — such as increased flow ofAlaskan oil and eased antipollutionrestrictions on types of oil that powercompanies and industry can burn.The danger of an oil crunch arisesnot from any present shortage, butfrom the possibility that SchlesingerClosing down America, the Schlesinger way.may take advantage of an uninformedatmosphere of crisis to push throughprice increases and mandatory conservationmeasures for both industryand consumers—measures that couldbe avoided by a stronger emphasis onnew production. Schlesinger, itshould be noted, is compulsivelycommitted to the 1977 Carter "energyprogram" which he authored andwhich was,-for the most part, rejectedby the Congress, industry, and thepublic as incompetent and unnecessary.Schlesinger's PlansSchlesinger has promised to sendCongress a set of legislative proposalsby Feb. 26 that would be a first stepin such a program of cutbacks. Theproposals are likely to include plansfor forced closing of gasoline stationsone or more days per week, forcedreduction of commercial heating levels,and cutbacks in parking spaces.The energy secretary has also publiclyraised the specter of $1 per gallongasoline prices.In addition, quiet congressional approvalwas granted last month to theStandby Allocation Authority, which,under conditions of a shortage, givesSchlesinger sweeping powers to allocateU.S. consumption of all crudeoil, both imported and domestic, toutilities, refineries, and industry. Accordingto one industry spokesman,by April the impact of the loss of oilto small refiners who normally purchasetheir oil on the now scarce andprohibitively expensive spot market,could prodirce conditions underwhich these standby rules can be invoked—placingpowers amounting torationing in the hands of Schlesingerand his Economic Regulatory Administrator,David Bardin.Predictably, other governmentagencies are not moving to mitigatethe threat of a shortage either. TheEnvironmental Protection Agency refusedto postpone rules requiring thenation's gasoline refiners to lower thelead content of gasoline to meet EPAantipollution standards. The EPA decisionportends a major shortage ofgasoline next fall (the regulations gointo effect in October), because refinersare refusing to add the new refinerycapacity required to meet theregulations, as they cannot do soprofitably.—WilliamEngdahlFUSION 15

Brazil^ West GermanyConclude Nuclear DealBrazil and West Germany concludedcontracts this month worth$6.5 billion in the nuclear energytechnology transfer deal signed bythe two countries in 1975. BernhardPlettner, president of the board of theWest German Siemens Corporation,announced Feb. 8 that the KraftwerkUnion, a Siemens subsidiary, will carryout the deal, which includes buildingeight nuclear power plants and a uraniumenrichment and reprocessingfacility by the mid-1980s.Plettner's announcement appearedas a counterweight to increasing reportsin the Brazilian press that thenew government, which takes powerMarch 15, intends to cut the multibilliondollar deal in half for "financialreasons." Incoming Mines and EnergyMinister Cesar Cals told the press thatimplementation of the deal would notbe immediate and that there wereconcrete plans made only for fourreactors.The conflicting reports on the implementationof the nuclear deal reflectBrazil's continuing energy dilemma.Unresolved Energy DilemmaBrazil is an anomaly among developingnatibns. It is simultaneously thesite of Latin America's most technologicallyadvanced and most retrogradeenergy-production programs.On the basis of the model transferof-technologyagreements with thegovernment of West Germany, Brazilis now well on its way toward theconstruction of its first nuclear fissionreactor, and this plant will be complementedshortly by the Third World'sfirst complete nuclear fuel reprocessingcenter. But the Brazilian governmenthas at the same time embarkedon a labor-destructive, economicallyinefficient project to replace oil with"gasohol," alcohol produced fromsugar cane.Although many Brazilian politicianswould vigorously deny it, these twoenergy programs are entirely contradictoryand imply two distinct, irreconcilablestrategies of economic developmentfor that nation.To give some idea of the social costsinvolved in these energy alternatives:It would take more than 400,000 peasantsfarming sugar cane on 2 millionhectares of land to provide as muchenergy as will be provided by 100skilled workers manning only two ofBrazil's eight planned nuclear plants.And the efficiency of conversion ofsolar energy into gasohol, throughthe growing and processing of sugarcane, is a pathetic 0.23 percent.Of course, the defenders of thegasohol program argue that its laborintensivenature is one of its majoradvantages, and that unlike nuclearenergy or even oil imports, it requiresno foreign exchange. This is a powerfulargument in Brazil, which has atotal foreign debt of $40 billion anda yearly debt service of $9 billion. Amore rational solution, favorably renegotiatingBrazil's debt in order toeliminate the foreign exchange obstacleto capital intensive programs, is alltoo rarely discussed in public.// would lake 400,000 peasant', farming sugar icane for this Brazilian gasohol plant to equal the energy provided In700 workers at two nuclear plants.16 FUSION

An Interview with the President of PetrobrasWhich Way for Brazil's Energy Future?The parameters of Brazil's unresolvedenergy dilemma—high technologyversus /abor-intens/ve energysystems—are discussed in this exclusiveinterview with General Arakende Oliveira (ret.), president of Petrobras,the Brazilian national oil company.Araken de Oliveira was interviewedin New York City in December1978 by reporters Dennis Small andJoao Carlos de Almeida.Petrobras, the 21st largest corporationoutside the United States, hasassets and sales of $9 billion annually.It was created in 1953 as a nationalmonopoly over domestic oil production,and its history has reflected thevicissitudes of Brazilian politics. Arakende Oliveira has taken importantinitiatives in Petrobras, including thesponsorship of two-way deals with oilsupplyingnations and the socialistcountries. Petrobras is also producingpetrochemicals and fertilizer to helpraise Brazilian agricultural productionlevels.Question: What are Brazil's presentenergy problems and which energysources is Brazil studying?After the 1973 Middle East crisis,Brazil faced a balance of paymentsproblem because oil prices increasedpractically tenfold between 1968 and1974. The last increases in late 1973and early 1974 were the biggest. Thesehad a direct effect on the country'sbalance of payments—25 percent ofour foreign exchange was spent onoil payments. As a result, within ourenergy balance, a greater national effortwas needed to liberate ourselvesas much as possible from dependencyon oil imports in particular, but moregenerally on the energy we must importto fill out our energy needs.Brazil's energy balance has someunique characteristics. Around 30percent of our energy comes fromhydroelectric power, 40 percent fromoil, and 22 percent from firewood,Capital-intensive industry ...charcoal, and sugar cane bagasse.Since the country is a major sugarproducer, the sugar mills use the canefibers for fuel. While other countriesdon't even compute wood and canein their energy balance, Brazil has to,because they are a significant portion—22percent. The remainder ofour energy comes from coal, part ofwhich is imported. Brazilian coal supplies10 to 20 percent of the cokingcoal needed by our steel industry.Decreasing DependencyThus, starting in 1973, what did weseek? To decrease this external dependencywhich, discounting the 17percent of oil needs produced in Braziland the 3 percent of coal needssupplied locally, left us in 1976 withthe need to import 40 percent of ourenergy.On the other hand, the countrydoes not want to stop its development.Since this development lies,above all, in industrialization, thecountry needs more energy. And thisdevelopment—given the needs oftransport and industry—has to havepetroleum.To reduce external dependencyand permit greater energy consumptionto sustain development, we aremaking a real oil exploration effort.We set up a program to satisfy, withinfour years, Brazil's need to know whatits petroleum potential is. This $1.2billion program will be implementedby Petrobras itself, Beyond this, thegovernment authorized Petrobras togrant risk contracts to maximize investmentin oil exploration.Petrobras itself has 32 explorationrigs operating today offshore on ourcontinental shelf. Some of these rigsare totally operated by Petrobras personnel,except for key technicianswho are contracted from the companychartering the rig.We also have 17 risk contracts withinternational oil companies. From thetime of their signing, mostly in 1976,these companies have three years forexploration; that is to reach a conclusionwhether the area they selected... versus labor-intensive gasohol.FUSION 17

does or does not have commercial oilpossibilities. Of these 17 companies,5 have already made drillings.NUCLEAR POWERQuestion: One of the most disputedand most internationally debated aspectsof Brazil's energy policy is thenuclear agreement between Braziland the German Federal Republic.Some political observers have seen anattempt by the United States andother countries to stop this agreementin an effort to keep Brazil from developingwithout increases in energyproduction. Would you comment onthe Brazilian nuclear agreement andhow it fits within your nation's overallenergy program?How do we plan to increase energyproduction? On the one hand thereis the oil exploration program, to beachieved with massive investmentsover a four-year term. On the otherhand, we are going to develop othersources of energy, one of which hasto be nuclear energy, because wehave sufficient uranium reserves andbecause energy based on our hydroelectricpotential is located very farfrom our consumption centers.We have two ways of developingelectric energy; either through coalburningthermoelectric plants, orthrough our hydroelectric potential.Our coal is found in Rio Grande doSul, Santa Catarina, and Parana, andour energy consumption is in the Riode Janeiro-Sao Paulo axis. We wouldthus have to transport inert materialfor great distances, which makes thisalternative nonviable.We now use 20 percent of our totalhydroelectric potential. But most ofour hydroelectric potential, 80 percentof it, is located in the Amazon.Transmitting electricity from the Amazonto consumption centers is uneconomicalbecause it is a distance ofalmost 3,000 kilometers, and the costof transmission lines and energy lossmakes it too expensive.The third alternative is using uranium—usinguranium for developingour energy supplies. We have noother purpose than this. Since wehave adequate quantities of uraniumand we lack technology, we searchedfor someone who wanted to give ustechnology, and we searched in severalcountries. The best offer camefrom West Germany, so we made aMost of Brazil's potential hydroelectric power is located too far from thepopulation centers to be economical. Here, a power station under constructionat Santa Cecilia.deal with them. There is only oneobjective: to develop our energysources. We do not have other objectives.Question: One of the greatest problemsfor Brazilian development is obtainingsufficient credit to be able todevelop high-technology processes inhydroelectricity, nuclear, and petroleumenergy. How do you see thebroader question of diversification ofmarkets, not only for exports and imports,but also the market of financecapital?Our country lacks capital. An enterpriselike Petrobras has had, up tonow, the capacity to raise the capitalneeded for its programs, for its ownexploration program and the explorationby the companies. And beyondthis, we have programs set up by thegovernment. We have a developmentprogram to make us self-sufficient innitrogenous fertilizers, and for thisPetrobras opened up credit lines withthe World Bank, the InteramericanDevelopment Bank, French cooperativebanks, and so on. You can seethat the government has the rightimage to obtain credit, since Petrobras—anelement of the government—hascredit-worthiness.Naturally we need such capital becausewe are interested in developingtechnology inside the country, inbeing able to create our own technology.We are interested in road,railroad, and urban mass transit plansbecause we lost a lot of time when oilwas cheap and abundant. And whenthis was the case no projects werepresented at any level that didn't usea petroleum product as their energysource. Petrochemical industries, of18 FUSION

course, had to use petroleum, butother industries, such as capitalgoods, were designed to burn fuel oiland diesel oil.Nuclear energy is not the only energysource we are developing. Weare working on using Rio Grande doSul coal at the mine head, so we don'thave to transport the 35 percent Cindercontent. We are constructing coalgasification plants on site and usingthe gas for petrochemical productslike ammonia and urea. In Santa Catalina,depending on capitalizationdecisions, we will probably have Ianiron ore reduction plant using coalgas to produce pellets or sponge ironfor us to export instead of just plainore. Further north, in Parana, we havea large shale oil belt, which runs allthe way south from Sao Paulo to RioGrande do Sul.Petrobras is developing technologyto extract oil from shale. Even thoughthe cost ($17 per barrel) is slightlyhigher than that of imported oil, itwouldn't waste foreign exchange;and I think that by the time this unitis on stream at the end of 1982 or thebeginning of 1983, oil will already beat that price.In addition, another energy sourcebeing put into production is alcohol,from sugar cane and from manioc, iAll this has one purpose—to rectifyour energy balance and decide whatwe will use of hydroelectric, coal, oil,et cetera, so that our energy balancebecomes less dependent on imports.The goal of doing all this is so thatfour years from now, we can move toa model of energy balance which ismore desirable for the economy ofour country.ON MEXICO'S OIL DISCOVERIESQuestion: I understand that youpassed through Caracas, Mexico City,and Houston on your way to NewYork, and I believe that you spokewith your colleagues, General AlfonsoRavard in Venezuela and Jorge DiazSerrano in Mexico. I would like youto comment on the Mexican discoveries,on what they imply for LatinAmerican energy policy, and if thereare plans for Brazilian purchases orcooperation with Mexico.The data shown us really give Mexicoa very great potential to developits reserves. They export about 470,000barrels per day today, and as a resultof those exports are very rapidlybuilding nitrogenous fertilizer plants;they also have a great plan to use thefertilizer to develop agriculture. Theyhave two plants going and three1,500-ton ammonia plants being builtsimultaneously. They are building ammoniapipelines to distribute this fertilizer.This is a very far-reaching programfor the development of thecountry. They are also building natural-gas-fedpetrochemical complexes,which is really the best raw material,the cheapest one for petrochemicalproduction.As far as Brazilian-Mexican commercialunity is concerned, we havebought some ammonia from them;we have a petrochemical agreementto exchange surpluses of specificchemicals, since we already have twopetrochemical plants in Brazil and arebuilding a third. And we have alreadysigned a contract to buy Mexican oilstarting in 1980.Right now, the problem is with oneof the products we could place inMexico and which would be very usefulfor us—iron ore pellets. They needit for their steel program, since theystill import iron ore. However, the[Mexican] ports are still too small.There is no way at the moment tosend ships of iron ore there and havethem return filled with oil. We canbring oil from Mexico on ships of150,000 tons since they have set upfloating oil buoys just outside the portwhere you can operate efficiently. Butwhat we / want, to minimize shippingcosts, is to fill the ships both ways,and they are constructing a new terminalwhich will make this possible,at a location called Dos Bocas.With Venezuela, we have signed acontract to buy around 30,000 barrels(of crude oil per day), which will beincreased to 50,000 barrels when theincrement becomes available inMarch 1979. All of our efforts arewithin the goal of interchange, ofhelping each other and minimizingthe effects of buying because we arealso selling.Question: And your Houston stop?During my recent stay in Houston,Texas, I had the opportunity to talkwith a number of American businessmen.All of them were very interestedin the development of Brazil, andwere willing to do whatever is necessaryfor that to happen.»*»»*»•»»»*—»»»•»»»»»»»»»»*»»*»»«TheFEFison the moveThe foundation plans to moveto spacious new quarters inmidtown Manhattan thismonth.Your contributions will aid theFEF relocation and helpensure that we make 1979the year of scientificbreakthroughs.Send checks or money orders(registered mail, please) to:Fusion Energy FoundationP.O Box 1943New York. N Y 10001Contributions are tax deductible.FUSION 19

NationalAmericanTechnologyGoes DownThe BiopotAn Interview withDr. Ralph Smucklerof the FITCThe Foundation for InternationalTechnological Cooperation, createdby President Carter's executive orderin March 1978, centers aroundappropriate technology, aeuphemism for low-energy-uselabor-intensive production. Althoughmost Americans probably don'tknow much about it, thisappropriate technology concept isnow the law of the land—both forexport and domestic use. (See"Appropriate Technology: The U.S.Goes Back to the Stone Age" in thisissue.)This interview with FITC directorDr. Ralph Smuckler, conducted byFEF director of industrial researchMarsha Freeman, shows how theUnited States is pursuing atechnology policy completely theopposite to those of japan, theSoviet Union, and the countriesallied with the European MonetarySystem.The FITC, which may changeits name to the Institute forInternational TechnologicalCooperation, comes up beforeCongress this month for approval.As long as it h based onappropriate technology, the FITCor institute should be killedas inappropriate policy (or anadvanced technology nation.Question: Dr. Smuckler, what is thegoal of the new institute?The goal is to close the gap betweenthe advanced sector and the developingcountries. This may require abalancing of the standards of livingbetween the United States and thedeveloping ! countries. The institutewill help the developing countrieschoose technology more effectivelyrather thanisimply taking it from theWest.Question: What was the motivatingforce behind the setting up of theinstitute? Was the impetus the Humphreybill?The National Academy of Sciencesdid a study in the early 1970s firstrecommending that technology fordevelopment be separated out fromAID The U.S. Agency for internationalDevelopment^ and other governmentagencies. The real impetus,though, came from a report by theBrookings Institution in the fall of1977.Question: How does Senator AdlaiStevenson's proposal for an independentscience and technologyagency fit in with the institute?Senator Stevenson's legislation hasthe same objectives but is less tied todevelopment assistance and more toscience ax d technology.Question: What kind of joint R&Dprojects will the United States formulatefor energy development in theThird World?Not enough work has been done inthe area of disaggregated energy systems.Although they have seemed lesscost-effective [than large, centralpower station technology] their economicshave not really been lookedinto. We will also be trying to encouragethe development of local resources.REVERSE FLOWQuestion: In the part of the draftreport dealing with agriculture it issuggested that low-energy farmingand agricultural methods that the institutewants to help develop for theThird World would be applicable toadvanced farming in the UnitedStates. It is certainly a novel idea totransfer "appropriate technology"back from the Third World to theadvanced sector. Could you comment?We were not the first ones to proposethis in agriculture. A few yearsago, Bill Stout from Michigan StateUniversity did a report for the UnitedNations making the same point. Morerecently, Science magazine has alsosaid that the future of agriculture is inenergy-saving activity. I think that alsoin areas of urban problems and the20 FUSION

environment, this reverse flow oftechnique and information is possible.Question: What role will the instituteplay in bilateral negotiations withother countries with which the UnitedStates is just beginning exchanges inscience and technology?The institute will play a role in theupcoming bilateral agreements thatthe president will discuss in his trip toMexico. We were not set up in timeto help get anything going with theChinese, but they have made interestingadvances in contraception.They have developed a male pill forpopulationn control, which may beuseful in the United States.Question: What about political oppositionfrom Third World countriesthat have made clear they are notinterested in appropriate technologybut want to build nuclear plants, advancedagriculture and industry?Mexico has certainly made that clearin its statements on development.Lopez Portillo's program sounds tome a lot like the Shah of Iran's.THE 'IRAN' TREATMENTQuestion: Do you agree with HenryKissinger, then, that other countriesgoing ahead with large-scale developmentplans are in for the "Irantreatment"?Yes, I think the Shah was trying tomove too fast. Our goal is that by theyear 2000, we will overcome the physicalmanifestations of poverty. We areinterested in global maintenance. Energytechnology has been driven bythe West in the last few decades.Developing countries should havenew alternatives.The biopot, an outhouse outfittedto turn human and kitchen wastesinto fertilizer, is one of the hottestitems in the appropriate technologycatalogue.Knocking Out Nuclear PowerNRC Nixes Rasmussen ReportThe Nuclear Regulatory Commissionreleased a report in January thatcalls into question some of the findingsof the 1975 Rasmussen SafetyReport, the standard U.S. study ofnuclear plant safety. The Rasmussenstudy, which is often used in supportof licensing nuclear plants, concludedthat the probability of a serious nuclearplant accident was approximatelyonce in a million years.The Risk Assessment Review Groupthat performed the review for theNRC had three major criticisms of theoriginal study: First, the summary reportwas misleading in that it impliedthat the safety of nuclear reactors wasbeyond doubt; second, the errorbounds given to the probability of acatastrophic accident were too low;and third, the report had not receiveda sufficient peer-group review priorto its release in 1975.Based on these criticisms, the NRCdecided that the Rasmussen studycould no longer be used to supportthe licensing of nuclear plants.The significance of the release ofthis review and its timing must belooked at from two levels. First, whatare the actual technical questionsraised, and second, what were thepolitical decisions motivating the report'srelease.The Technical QuestionsFrom a technical standpoint, theoriginal Rasmussen study was neveranything more than a probabilisticassessment of the risk of having a"Class 9" accident; that is, an accidentwith an extremely low probability ofoccurrence but with catastrophicconsequences such as a core meltdowncoupled with breach of containmentin the reactor. The Rasmussenconclusions, like the conclusionsof any probabilistic investigation, cannotand did not prove that such areactor accident is absolutely impossible,but only that it has some verylow probability of occurrence. By definition,a zero probability in such assessmentsis impossible.In assessing reactor safety, the basicThere is no way to see theNRC review group's conclusionsthat the Rasmussen reportsummary was misleadingand did not have properpeer-group review except aspolitical statements that representthe position of theenvironmentalists on theNRC and on the reviewgroup itself. Such statementswere meant to discredit nuclearpower and to reactivatethe waning issue of nuclearsafety.assumption that must be made is inestimating the failure rates of thethousands of different multiredundantcomponents in the safety system;that is, switches, circuits, pumps,latches, pipes, gauges, thermocouples,magnets, blowers, vessels, andso forth. Some of these failure ratesare known fairly accurately but othersare not, since much of the equipmentused in nuclear reactors has only 10to 20 years operating history at thispoint in time. (The first U.S. commercialreactor, the Shippingport Plant inPennsylvania, started up in 1957.)The probability analysis, therefore,uses these assumed or known failurerates and applies them in series andin parallel from some initiatingevent—let's say, a severe earthquake—througha very long chain ofequipment throughout the safety systems.The analysis then ends up withsome overall probability attached tothe failure of all equipment in thechain. This then becomes the probabilityof occurrence of a severe accident.The original Rasmussen report concludedthat the probability of occurrenceof a "Class 9" accident wasonce in a million years, plus or minusFUSION 21

a half-order of magnitude. This turnsout to be the same probability as thatof a large meteor hitting New YorkCity.In their only technical disagreement,the NRC review group said thatbased on their assumptions of failurerates, the error bounds should belarger; that is, plus or minus one orderof magnitude (instead of a half-order).This is the difference between oncein every million years or once in every10,000 years. However, whether onelooks at it based on the original studyor the NRC review, the probability ofsuch an accident is extremely low,and the original conclusion remainsthe same—the risks are acceptable.From a technical standpoint, thereview group agreed with and supportsthe Rasmussen study and saidthat it produced valuable methods forevaluating risks. Harold Lewis of theUniversity of California at Santa Barbara,chairman of the NRC reviewgroup said,The thing we did, which peoplehave overlooked, is to advocate amuch more widespread use ofprobabilistic methodology Ihave been asked ... 'Is this adeath blow to nuclear power?'I'm pronuclear and even thoughthe impact of this can be narrowlyconstrued as antinuclear, I thinkNRC has enhanced its credibilityin such a way that it can be goodfor nuclear power. It has taken adefensible position on this wholequestion.Antinuclear PoliticsWhat Lewis either doesn't know ordoesn't understand are the politicsbehind the review group's decisions.Congressman Morris K. Udall, chairmanof the House Interior and InsularAffairs Committee that oversees theNRC and has authority over reactorlicensing legislation, initiated the reviewgroup's activities in 1976. Althoughsome consider Udall a moderateon nuclear power, he actually isno "friend of the nuclear industry andhas spent much of his time, alongwith liberals like Ted Kennedy, supportingthe greenies in their battleagainst nuclear power."The use of the Rasmussen reportin reactor licensing can now bestopped once and for all," Udallments. Udall has proposed that nonew nuclear plants be licensed after1981 until the NRC approves a wastestoragefacility design. (See "TheFraudulent Nuclear Waste Controversy,"Fusion Jan. 1979.)There is no way to see the NRCreview group's conclusions that theRasmussen report summary was misleadingand did not have proper peergroupreview except as political statementsthat represent the position ofthe environmentalists on the NRC andon the review group itself. Such statementswere mea^nt to discredit nuclearpower and to reactivate thewaning issue of nuclear safety. As arepresentative of the environmentalistUnion of Concerned Scientists andthe National Resources DefenseCouncil stated, "The repudiation ofthe Rasmussen report returns the reactorsafety debate to those terms onwhich we will win."Professor Rasmussen of the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, thechairman of the original study, hasrebutted the major conclusions of theNRC review. The draft report was circulatedin 1974 and 800 pages of commentswere received, he said. "I can'taccept that it wasn't an adequate review."Furthermore, Rasmussen said,"\ don't believe the error bounds areas large as they suggest." Even if theerror bounds were large, he said, "Itcould be used with care in the licensingprocess."Rasmussen agreed that the summaryreport's conclusions had beenmisused by nuclear opponents andproponents alike and that this wouldhappen no matter how the report wasrewritten.Overlooked in the Rasmussen reportcontroversy is that in actual practice,several hundred nuclear powerplants throughout the world havecontinued (as expected) to far outperformany other comparable energysystem in;the area of safety aswell as in mostiother areas of operation.Since actual failure rates can begenerated only from on-line operatingexperience, and since such failuresare proving to be extremely smallin number, the actual probability ofa "Class 9" accident is likely to besmaller even ihan the lower errorbound suggested by the NRC reviewgroup—that is; less than one in 10million years!—jon Ci/bertsonConferencesU.S.-Soviet SymposiumScientists CallThe fusion-fission hybrid can havea dramatic, immediate effect on worldenergy needs. This was the conclusionof the scientists gathered at the secondU.S.-USSR Symposium on Fusion-Fission Reactors at Princeton Universityin New Jersey Jan. 22-26.The fusion-fission hybrid, whichcould be built in the immediate future,uses the high-energy neutronsgenerated by the fusion reaction tobreed nuclear fuel for an attachedfission reactor. It is seen as an intermediatestep in an all-out program todevelop pure fusion reactors.American physicists such as EdwardTeller, Hans Bethe, and Eugene Wignerhave gone on record calling fordevelopment of the hybrid becauseit can supply energy as well as fuel fornow-operating fission reactors thatdepend on a quickly diminishing supplyof natural uranium. (For a detailedaccount of the hybrid, see "The Fusion-FissionHybrid Reactor: Fuel Factoryfor Nuclear Power" in Fusion,Jan. 1979.) The scientists at the PrincetonSymposium called for the TokamakFusion Test Reactor scheduledto come on-line at Princeton PlasmaPhysics Lab in 1983 to be integratedinto an initial fusion-fission hybrid testdemonstration.As demonstrated by Dr. James A.Maniscalco of Exxon Corporation forthe case of laser-fusion-driven hybrids,one modest-sized fusion hybridcould supply the nuclear fission fuelfor up to 15 to 20 conventional nuclearfission reactors of the type nowin operation—and do it economicallydespite the initial capital cost of thelaser fusion hybrid itself.Soviets Project 'Nuplex' SocietyDr. G. Shatalov of the KurchatovInstitute in Moscow gave a presentationshowing how a fully developedworld in the year 2000 would be basedon nuclear energy and fueled by thefusion-fission hybrid. He gave a projectionshowing an energy consump-22 FUSION

at Princetonfor Fusion-Fission Hybridstion rate of about 100 trillion watts inthe year 2020, about 12 times thepresent rate. From 30 to 40 percent ofthis total energy consumption wouldbe met by a system of nuplexes—groups of conventional light waterreactors, high-temperature, gascooledreactors, and breeder reactorstogether with fusion-fission hybrids.The overall mix would be 50 percentconventional nuclear fission, 30 percentfission fast breeders, and 20 percentfusion hybrids.Dr. Igor Ganev of the Soviet EnergyTechnology Institute, the chief centerfor design of nuclear reactors in theSoviet Union, followed up this presentationwith a detailed descriptionof fission-fusion nuplexes. Ganev outlinedhow these energy centers wouldproduce much more than just electricity,high-temperature steam forindustrial processing, hydrogen fromwater for synthetic fuel production,and other forms of energy needed foradvanced industries.Dr. W. Wolkenhauer of the WashingtonPublic Power Supply Systememphasized that the utilities couldn'twait a hundred years for fusion tohave an impact. What was needed,Wolkenhauer pointed out, was a massive,international effort. In a papercoauthored with Ms. Jensen and Mr.Huse of New Jersey Public ServiceElectric and Gas Co., Wolkenhauercalled for an immediate two-prongedprogram. First, an overall developmentplan for fusion hybrids shouldbe worked out in detail. Second, experimentsshould be initiated as soonas possible. In particular, he called fora hybrid module test on the PrincetonTokamak Fusion Test Reactor.Many PossibiltiesBecause of the high quality of theenergy generated in the fusion reaction,a large number of promisinghybrid designs exist: Dr. James Maniscalcoof Exxon presented a designbased on laser fusion with liquidmetalcooling of the hybrid blanket,which emphasized the breeding offissile fuel from both thorium anduranium. His coworker Dr. Dave Berwaldshowed how the fusion-generatedneutrons could be used to burnup the radioactive wastes that are producedin fission reactors. R. Rose ofWestinghouse presented a steamcooledtokamak design for the hybrid.And Dr. C. Nedoseev, of the RudakovFusion-fission hybrid: the fuel factory of the 1990s.electron beam group in Moscow, presenteda design for electron beampellet fusion that was quite similar tothe liquid lithium waterfall design ofLivermore Lab for laser fusion.The most innovative new design,presented by Dr. Shatalov of Kurchatov,was a cold water-cooled tokamakhybrid that generated only fuel andno electricity.—Charles B. StevensFUSION 23*

RiemannDeclassifiedHisMethod iand Program forthe Natural Sciencesby Uwe Parpart[Concerning the existence and uniqueness or multiplicityof solutions of the aerodynamical equations] to thislday,the only thing of any degree of generality that we possessis the classical discussion by Riemann, and this Iverystrictly in the isentropic case. In this case at least, Riemannproved that there are no discontinuities. He also gave theexact conditions under which there can be a solution at alland he proved that in those cases there is only one. So heproved that the number of solutions is either zero or one.He also showed that it is zero in general, i.e., unless certain(infinitely many) very stringent conditions are satisfied.Thus, unless the initial state of the gas fulfills Somevery particular conditions, the (continuous) solution willcease to exist after some definite finite time. Riemann alsoinferred, essentially by physical insight, what happenswhen the continuous solution ceases to exist. He m$de itvery plausible that a discontinuity of a certain type, a"shock wave," develops (von Neumann 1963 [ip5l]).THESE REMARKS by mathematical physicist John vonNeumann introduced a far-ranging discussion of the solutionsof the aerodynamical equations during a symposium oh "Problemsof Cosmical Aerodynamics" in August 1949—thr^e yearsbefore the United States exploded its first thermonuclear fusiondevice, or hydrogen bomb. The symposium had consideredthe more large-scale explosions of stars that form sp-callednovae and supernovae, such as the explosion that occurredless than 1,000 years ago and gave rise to the Crab nebula.However, the fundamental physics problems in both casesare quite similar and are replicated in a third problem area, theproduction of controlled thermonuclear reactions in inertiallyconfined plasmas, as with laser fusion and electron beamfusion, j'lRiemann's ideas on shock waves, referred to by vonNeumann, are crucial to the understanding oi the kind of implosionprocess defining all three classes of phenomena, andwere developed in an 1859 paper "On the Propagation ofPlane Air Waves of Finite Amplitude."It is an extraordinary fact that before 1972, when EdwardTeller brought about the declassification of certain key conceptsin liser fusion, Riemann's 1859 thoughts on shock wavesand isentropic compression, if presented in conjunction withcertain problems in inertial confinement fusion, would havebeen classified as military secrets of the United States by thesecurity division of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.Nor is (there any doubt in this author's mind that the continuedmilitary classification of central theoretical aspects oflaser fusion is largely responsible for the fact that today, 30years after von Neumann's writing, his statement that "the onlything of any degree of generality that we possess [concerningsolutionsjof the aerodynamical equations] is the classical discussionby Riemann" remains as true as in 1949. Military classificationhas made it extremely difficult for any researcher tolaunch a coherent and coordinated attack on outstanding problemsin astrophysics and plasma physics, with laser fusion presentingthe ideal mode of experimental access to the extremeconditions prevailing, for example, at critical junctures in stellarevolution.Even more serious is the fact that implosion problems, problemsof highly compressed matter and so forth, do not merely24 FUSIONII

Riemann's 1859 paper on shock waveswas fundamental to the weapons researchin the 1940s and 1950s leading to thedevelopment of the atom and hydrogenbombs. The methodology of the paperplays an equally important role in attemptsat understanding the dynamics of theimplosion processes in laser fusion and inlarge-scale astrophysical phenomena, suchas the creation of a nova or supernova.NASAdefine a specialized area of physics research. They cut acrossmost principal domains of research, and the hydrodynamiccontinuum physics approach, characteristic of the treatment ofimplosion problems, has proved extremely successful in allproblem areas to which it has been applied.This "hydrodynamic" methodology was first coherently developedby Leibniz and then fully brought to bear on the entirespectrum of physics problems in the 18th century by the Bernoullis,Euler, Lagrange, and the great scientists of the EcolePolytechnique, and it remained central to the Continental sciencetradition in Europe through the 1930s. It found a final,most developed expression in the decade before and the decadeafter World War I in the collaboration between themathematicians and theoretical physicists and the researchersat the Institute for Applied Mechanics at the University of Gottingen.Under the leadership of Felix Klein, David Hilbert,Hermann Minkowski, Carl Runge, and, later on, RichardCourant in mathematics, and Ludwig Prandtl and his assistantsand students—notably Theodore von Karman and later AdolfBusemann—in hydrodynamics and aerodynamics, accomplishedan extraordinary synthesis in mathematicalphysics in the Riemannian tradition.Today only faint echos and isolated outposts of this tradition,such as the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences at NewYork University, remain.Researchers in the Leibniz-Riemann-Gottingen traditionplayed leading roles both in the United State's and in the SovietUnion in these countries' respective efforts during and afterWorld War II to develop nuclear fission and fusion weaponsand to put these energy forms to peaceful uses. The names JohnAirflow interaction: This Schlieren photograph of theNASA space shuttle and solid rocket boosters shows theinteraction between the separation motor exhaust andthe airflow around the shuttle. The test is in the AirForce Arnold Engineering Development Center at asimulated altitude of 140,000 ft and a speed of Mach 4.5(4.5 times the speed of sound).von Neumann, Edward Teller, and Hans Bethe on the U.S. sideshould suffice to make the point.However, the utteHy unjustifiable continued military classificationof the theoretical scientific results obtained by theseresearchers in the course of their weapons research and theextension of such classification to the civilian applications ofsuch theoretical results have all but succeeded in wiping outwhat should rightfully be regarded as and be functioning as themainstream of theoretical work in physics today.The "hydrodynamics" tradition in physics was driven undergroundand has not reemerged; instead Newtonian reductionismat its worst reigns supreme in the physics departmentsand laboratories in the United States and Western Europe. Inthe Soviet Union the situation is less extreme.Still, where in the second half of this century we should havegone beyond Riemann, on the basis of fully absorbing hisPlatonic method of hypothesis—the "poetry of hypothesis" ashe called it on one occasion (1876 [posthumous], p. 319)—physicists both in the United States and the Soviet Union todayhave regressed to a point where fewer and fewer are capable ofeven a purely pragmatic adaptation of Riemann's results (ratherthan his method) to their work.A dramatic turnaround in this situation is the necessary conditionfor making significant progress with the outstandingphysics problems at this juncture.Shock WavesThe Difficulties of Messrs. Challis and StokesIn 1848, the Reverend J. Challis, MA, FRS, Plumian Professorof Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy at the University ofFUSION 25

Cambridge, communicated to the Philosophical Magazine theresults of his mathematical investigation of the theory of sound.According to his second communication May 19, 1848,"Clearly the analysis [of the exact equation applicable toplane waves] rejects the supposition of plane waves, by givingan integral which admits of no physical interpretation. Planewaves are thus shown to be physically impossible."G.C. Stokes, in his 1848 reply titled "On a Difficulty in theTheory of Sound," is clearly not prepared to endorse his colleague'sradical conclusion; however, he thinks it necessary todraw attention to a more limited but "very remarkable difficultywhich Professor Challis has noticed in connexion with aknown first integral of the accurate equations of motion for thecase of plane waves."The difficulty as described by Stokes is this. Starting with thePoisson integralu = f{x - (c + u)t}(where u is the flow velocity, f an arbitrary function, increasingvalues of x indicate the direction of wave propagation, and c isthe propagation velocity of the wave moving within the mediummoving with velocity u) of the gasdynamic equations, it iseasily demonstrated that there will always exist a finite value oft for which this solution ceases to be single-valued; that is, forsufficiently large t more than one value of u will correspond toa given value of x.Figure 1 shows why. The Poisson equation asserts that whatevervalue the velocity u may have at any particular pointwhen t = 0, it will have the same value at some later time t at apoint in advance of the former by the distance (c + u)t. Thusthe crests of the velocity curve gain continually on the troughsand must finally overtake them.Stokes's calculation shows that this point—the point atwhich the velocity curve has a tangent vertical to the x axis andthe continuous Poisson solution breaks down—is reached aftera time equal to the reciprocal taken positively, of the greatestnegative value of du/dx.Simultaneously, we have reached an epistemologically criticaljuncture of the investigation. The significance and nature ofthe derived discontinuity must be determined and the subsequentprogress of the fluid motion, no longer given by theusual differential equations, must be established.Stokes writes:The Leibnizian tradition: Leibniz and the succession ofmathematical physicists who created the hydrouynamicmethodology. From top, Leibniz, Euler, J. Bernoulli, andRiemann.Most of the portraits in this article are taken from Hilbert by ConstanceReid (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1970). The photographs .of Runge andCourant are courtesy of Mrs. Richard Courant.Perhaps the most natural supposition to make for trial is,that a surface of discontinuity is formed, in passing acrosswhich there is an abrupt change of density and velocity.The existence of such a surface will presently be shown tobe possible, on the two suppositions that the pressure isequal in all directions about the same point, and that itvaries as the density. I have however convinced myself, bya train of reasoning which I do not think it worthwhile togive, inasmuch as the result is merely negative, that evenon the supposition of the existence of a surface of discontinuity,it is not possible to satisfy all the conditions of theproblem by means of a single function of the formf{x — (c + u)t}. Apparently, something like reflexion musttake place (Stokes 1848, p. 352).26 FUSION

Figure 1PROPAGATION OF A SOUNDWAVEIri 1807, Poisson showed that asound wave in a compressible mediumwould propagate in such away that the high-pressure parts ofthe wave travel (aster than the lowpressureparts. This implies that thecrest of the wave will travel fasterthan the troughs, and, as Stokespointed out in 1848, sooner or laterwill outrun the trough.In the figure, a is a simple initialwave form, with a construction(due to Sfokes) showing how (hewave changes shape as it moves;the displacement of any part of thewave is proportional to the heightof the wave at that point. This constructioncan be used to generatethe shape of the wave at subsequenttimes (see b, c, d, and e.). Att-1, the wave has become singular,having a vertical slope at x-k/2.

According to Klein, this method consists of constantly inquiringwhat are the discontinuities compatible with the differentialequations and to what extent the solutions might be determinedby the discontinuities they reveal and by certain addedboundary conditions. Klein's point, which coheres well withRiemann's more general approach of deducing the principalfeatures of functions from their behavior in the neighborhoodof (or "when encircling") singular points, provides an appropriateleadifor a competent analysis of the Riemann paper.As opposed to Challis and Stokes, Riemann proceeds decidedlynot from a given limited solution of the gasdynamicequations, which would tend to lock the analysis into the domainof continuity for that solution with the Challis-Stokesdiscontinuity an absolute boundary to the investigation.Rather, Riemann subjects the partial differential equations forcompressible fluids themselves to close scrutiny so as to identifytheir most general properties.In the Eulerian form, which describes the properties of thefluid passing by a fixed point (in contrast to the Lagrange formulation,which traces the motion of the individual particles),these partial differential equations in question are thefollowing:Richard Courant, who inherited Felix Klein's chair ofmathematics at Gottingen, realized Klein's dream of thecreation of a mathematical institute there (shown jabove).He came to the United States in 7935 and set out to recreatethe kind of center for mathematical sciences atNew York University that he was forced to leave oehindin Germany after the Nazi takeover.There follow three pages of half-hearted and confused discussionon the possibility of the existence of a surface ofdiscontinuity.The contrast with Riemann's presentation of essentially thesame subject matter in his 1859 paper could not ibe morestriking conceptually. Virtually from the outset of the Riemanndiscussion, the occurrence of discontinuity is treated not as a"remarkable difficulty" and mathematical curiosity whose actualphysical significance is doubtful at best, but as the crucialphenomenon illuminating the highly nonlinear character ofwave propagation in compressible fluids and occasioning amuch extended comprehension of the nature of such processes.That the relevant discontinuities are physically real isnever in doubt. Riemann dubs them "compression shocks"and presents a detailed analysis of their behavior, thus discoveringand describing shock waves well in advance of theirexperimental demonstration.Riemann's TheoryFelix Klein points out in his 1894 Vienna lecture on"Riemann and His Significance for the Development of ModernMathematics" that, for Riemann, his paper on the propagationof air waves played the role primarily of exemplifying themethod to be employed in an encompassing program thatamounted to "nothing less than a systematic reconstruction onnew foundations of the integration methods of mechanics andmathematical physics."The equation ofcontinuitydp/dt = -(dpu/dx), (1)where p is the density of the fluid (gas) and u its velocity atpoint x and time t. This equation expresses the condition thatthe density in a given volume element can change only as theresult of flow of the fluid into or out of this element; that is, itexpresses the conservation of fluid mass.The equation of motionIip), a function expressing thefluid pressure p in terms of the density. This is simply Newton'sequation with the mass m = pdx and the force propelling thefluid mass in the direction of the positive x axisIf = -(dp/dx) dx = -'(p) (dpldx) dx.A number of simple algebraic operations and substitutions—multiplyingthe equation of continuity by the squareroot of \'(p), adding it to the equation of motion, and introducing!the square of the speed of sound, c 2 = dp/dp =(b'{p)—transform Equations (1) and (2) intoand, by letting—- + (u ±c)— ± — Rr +(u±c)^- =0, 3)dt dx\ pc [dt dxj01=\dp = \ c dp i (4)) pc } p28 FUSION

further into{{d/dt) + (u ±c) (d/dx)} (u ± to) = 0. (5)The quantities (u ± a>) of Equation (5) are called the Riemanninvariants. The so-called characteristics of our differential equations,dx/dt = u ± c, j (6)have the significance of defining the paths in the x, t planealong which fluid disturbances are propagated.Parenthetically, I would like to point out that the Riemanninvariants defined here bear a strong resemblance to theinvariants of certain differential forms defining measure relationsin Riemannian geometry. This is certainly not an accidentalfeature of this exemplary treatment of the fluid-dynamicalequations.Riemannian space, or the Riemannian manifold as developedin the foundational treatise, "On the HypothesesUpon Which Geometry Is Based," is the relative space of themultiply connected unified physical field. The topological andmeasure relations of this manifold are imposed upon it by thesingularities and invariants of the actual physical field as exhibitedby the equations of mathematical physics. Riemann'sgraphical (that is, geometric) approach to the integration ofthese equations (to be elaborated below), therefore, is a coherentexpression of his overall method.The search for invariants of the equations rather than forspecific limited solutions demonstrates one further point.Riemann thought of differential equations principally as onecrucial of several possible relations between functions and as away of classifying these functions modulo (or, with respect to)this relation (that is, thinking of differential equations as a kindof equivalence relation between functions). Thus, what is essentialabout a function is again here determined from its behaviorin the small. Put differently, what is important aboutfunctions is revealed by the differential equations they satisfy.In turn, what is important about differential equations is revealedby the invariants that connect them with other equationsand reveal global connections and harmonies not determinablefrom particular solutions (if such could be found in thefirst place).A more fundamental point, which I owe to a discussion ofthe matter with Lyndon H. LaRouche, is this. The invariantsand characteristics of differential equations should be viewednot only as primary in their formal significance, but also asontologically primary; or, put differently, their formal preeminencereflects the fact of the ontologically prior status of the"integral" reality they reflect.In first approximation, this can be seen by looking at therelationship of points, lines, and surfaces. A point is bestthought of as the intersection of lines, a line as the intersectionof surfaces, with the higher-order object in each case theprimary datum. Or, to take a different example, a growth rateactually reflects something more basic about an organic entitythan, say, its size at a given time.Lastly, the most precise example is from economics. It is notthe total product produced, nor even the growth rate of total7/ie C6(t/ngen School: Leading members of theGottingen school at its high point before World War I.From top, Klein, Minkowski, Hilhert, Runge, and Prandtl.The first foiir were professors of mathematics atGottinger; Prandtl was the director of the Institute forApplied Mech.tFUSION 29

Figure 2FORMATION OF A RIEMANNIAN COMPRESSION SHOCKThe graph shows the velocity profile of a disturbance produced by a piston pushed into a gas in the directionof the x-axis. As discussed in the text, converging characteristics dx/dt represent shock wave formation.*Source: H.A. Bethe et al., "Shock Hydrodynamics and Blast Waves," U.S.AECD-2860, Oct. 28, 1944, p. 11.output that reveals and determines the basic health of theeconomy, but an invariant, dubbed negentropy by LaRouche,that reflects the impact of technological innovation on theevolution of the productivity of labor.This trans/nvar/ant for successive production periodb is thefundamental measure quantifying the principal ontologicaldatum of the human economy: human ingenuity.Returning to the specific equations at hand, combined utilizationof the Riemann invariants and the characteristicsdx/dt = u ± c allows us to arrive at a complete understandingof the fluid motion in any given case. Depending on the choiceof sign, Equation (5) states that if we start at any given point inthe fluid and move with the velocity (u + c) (that is, oijir frameof reference is no longer a fixed point but moves with the localspeed of sound with respect to the moving fluid) in the positivex direction (or with velocity u — c in the negative x direction),then the quantities u + o> (or u - u>, respectively) will remainconstant. For a given time t, therefore, if we know the Velocityu and the density p for every point of the fluid, then Equation(5) gives the values of u + , we know thevalues of u and w and hence (from &>), via the equation of stateof the fluid, can determine the density and the pressure.It must be emphasized, however, that in order for theRiemann invariants to have a precise physical meaning thedifferential expressions {du + dplpc) and (du - dp/pc) must betotal differentials of these invariants. In ndnisentropic flow,when density becomes a function of temperature, this is nolonger the case. (I shall return to this point below in the sectionon isentropic compression.)The way in which discontinuities in the fluid flow (that is,shock waves) arise can also be deduced readily by making useof the invariants and characteristics'. To simplify matters, supposethe fluid satisfies the ideal gas adiabatic relation betweenpressure and density such thatP = kp\where k is a constant and y is the ratio of the specific heats.Then a simple computation shows thatNow consider a piston that is set in motion, let us say to theright, at t = 0 and creates a disturbance in the gas in front of it.The position of the piston (P) at any given time isx = 0= P(t)for t < 0for t 3= 0.Initially the gas is at rest and we have u = 0, c = c 0 (that is, aconstant speed of sound).As the piston is set in motion, on the surface of the pistonu = dP/dt.To determine what happens in the gas as the result of thedisturbance caused by the piston, we investigate the behaviorof the characteristics dx/dt = u +c; that is, the path of thepropagation of the disturbance in the phase space spanned byx and t.30 FUSI6N

First, for u = 0,u + c = dx/dt = c 0 .This defines the line to the left of which the gas remains undisturbed.The general expression for u + c is derived as follows:Since the lines of constant u - w all arise in the undisturbedpart of the gas, u - to = constant throughout; that is,But alsodP 2cu — to = ~— = const.dt y - 1u - a, = u - JS^= -\JSJL) = constfor the special case of the gas at rest. Thuswhich yieldsanddP_ _ 2c _ / 2c 0 \dtIt is easy to show that the linesy-1 \y-y'^y+](dp\u+c=Co+ V^j-dx_ ,y+l(dP)dt~ Co+ r{\W)are straight lines. Therefore, for two points (x' ( t') with (dP/dt)'> 0 and (x", t") with (dP/oft)'' > 0, such that(dP/dt)'

tions showed them that if this was to be achieved using sphericalcompression effected by a one-time, simultaneous firing ofa battery of laser guns that were arranged in spherical symmetry,laser fusion probably never would be achieved undercontrolled laboratory circumstances, because the energy requirementsfor the laser were too high. Precompression of thepellet, however, could very significantly reduce these requirementsand put them within range of what was then and is nowregarded as an economically solvable engineering problem.However, a major physics difficulty stands in the way of therealization of this precompression idea. Precompression to relevantdensities of 10 3 to 10 4 times liquid density, it appears,must inevitably generate enormously high temperatures insidethe pellet and force it apart before the major laser pulse has achance to bring about fusion ignition.At first glance, the problem seems insurmountable. The fusionablematerial is a compressible substance and hence theRiemannian theory developed in the previous section demandsthat formation of shock waves must result from the action ofstrong external forces on the pellet. Further, it can be demonstratedthat, in general, in order for energy to be conservedacross the shock front, an increase in entropy (or, equivalently,temperature) is a necessary jump condition.The relevant calculations leading to this conclusion werefirst carried out by H. Hugoniot in 1895 and amount to thefollowing: To explore the behavior of energy and entropy in agas compressed by shock waves, we expand the gasdynamicequations [Equations (1) and (2)] to include an expression forthe conservation of energyFigure 3SOLUTION MANIFOLD ACCORDING TOCUDERLEYA solution manifold of a system of differentialequations describing spherical compression shocksprogressing toward the center of the sphere.Source: Luftfahrt-forschung, v. 19, Oct. 1942, p. 305.erature are all of one piece. It is interesting, in fact, thatRayleigh's argument against Riemann ultimately turns preciselyon the assertion that a certain kind of equation of state isimpossible (Rayleigh 1945 [1896], p. 41).Without further belaboring the historical point of whatexactly Riemann had in mind when he gave the ratherspecialized isentropic jump conditions in his 1859 paper, theexamination of the Riemann-Rayleigh controversy nonethelesshas brought us right up to the point where the central problemof large-scale astrophysical as well as experimentally realizablelaser fusion implosion processes can now be defined—-theproblem of isentropic compression.That isentropic or "cold" compression plays a major role inlaser fusion (as well as in efficient H-bombs and probably avariety of the most interesting astrophysical processes) until1972 was one of the deepest U.S. military secrets.At issue is this. Soon after physicists in the 1960s began toseriously consider the use of powerful lasers for the intensecompression and the ignition of nuclear fusion reactions insmall pellets of fusionable material, relatively simple calcula-where e is the internal energy of a unit mass of material andv = 1/p is the specific volume. The equation asserts the equalityof the work done on a unit mass of material in unit time tothe rate of change of kinetic plus internal energy of a unit massof material.From this enlarged set of gasdynamic equations [Equations(1), (2), (7)], expressions describing the conservation of mass,momentum, and energy through a discontinuity surface can beobtained, and these expressions in turn allow for the derivationof the so-called Hugoniot relation between the pressure andthe specific volume on each side of the discontinuity:where e„ p„ v, and e 2 , p 2 , v 2 are the internal energy, thepressure, and the specific volume before and after passagethrough the shock wave, respectively.For the special case of an ideal gas withe = pvl (y - 1) ,the Hugoniot relation yields particularly simple expressions forthe changes in the flow variables across a shock wave. Sincewe are interested in the entropy change in particular, and32 FUSION

since—up to an arbitrary constant—the entropy of an ideal gasis given byS = c„ log {pv y }(c„ equals specific heat at constant volume) we substitute theexpression for the internal energy of the ideal gas for the energyterm in the Hugoniot relation and get for the relation of thespecific volumesvi _ (-y-1)p 1 +(y+ 1)p 2v 2 {y+ Dpi + (y - Dp 2 'With this the entropy difference between the two sides of theshock front becomesThus, in the case of a weak shock wave (that is, when thepressure difference between the two sides of the wave is small),then p 2 /Pi = 1, and hence, S 2 - 5, is approximately zero. Asthe strength of the wave increases (that is, as p^p, increasesbeyond 1), the last term (expression inside the braces) in Equation(8) monotonically increases along with it, and so the entropydifference between the two sides of a shock wave increaseswith the strength of the wave.The above-mentioned jump condition of a necessary increasein entropy across the compression shock, therefore, isverified and so, unfortunately it seems, the virtual impossibilityof laser fusion—and, more generally, inertial confinement fusion—alongwith it.Somewhat closer inspection of Equation (8), however, aswell as of the assumptions on which it was derived, shows thatno such pessimistic conclusion is justified. In fact, the justobtainedresult that entropy increases across weak shockwaves are small immediately suggests a method of precompressionfirst proposed in the open literature by John Nuckollsetal. in 1972.Essentially, this method consists of trying to mimic isentropiccompression by delivering a whole series of a half-dozen to adozen relatively weak shocks of increasing strength into thefusion pellet by a carefully tailored, computer-precisionguidedsequence of laser pulses. As can be demonstrated onthe basis of known laws of shock propagation the later shocks,since they are of greater strength than the earlier shocks, eventuallywill catch up with the earlier ones, and, it is hoped, theentire sequence will converge at the center of the pellet andcause ignition.The important insight here is not only that a sequence ofweak shocks might simulate isentropic compression, but alsothat the shock sequence can be made to converge to form onestrong shock in the end. This is by no means obvious a priori,but represents the result of years of systematic inquiry into thepropagation, reflection, and focusing of shock waves called forThe World War II generation of mathematical physiciststrained in the Gottingen tradition: From top, Busemann,von Neumann, Teller, and Bethe. Riemann's work onshock waves was the basis lor their investigations inaerodynamics and the research that led to the atomicand hydrogen bomb.FUSION 33

Schriften of the German Academy of Aeronautic Research, 1937-38, p.8 and p.13.Schlieren photographs of a flying bullet and associated shock front (I.) and of the flow around a mounted foil (r.).in Riemann's 1859 paper and carried out in the main under theleadership of Riemann's immediate intellectual heirs at GottingenUniversity, Felix Klein, and, more specifically, LuawigPrandtl.From the early 1900s through the 1940s Prandtl and hiscollaborators and students carried out some of the most remarkableand ingenious experimental and theoretical investigationsof fluid flow involving shock formation and interaction;for example, Prandtl's (and Meyer's) famous supersonic flowaround a concave comer, von Karman's "vortex streets," andBusemann and Guderley's later aerodynamical researches.Significantly, Guderley's 1942 paper on "Strong Spherical andCylindrical Compression Shocks in the Vicinity of the Center ofthe Sphere or the Cylinder Axis" remains one of the mostfrequently quoted papers among workers in inertial confinementfusion today (see Figure 3).During and after World War II, the work of the GottingenSchool found its most immediate application in problems ofairplane design (wing profiles, and so forth) and rocket design(stability problems, for example). But, as hinted at by the continuinginterest of laser fusion researchers in the Guderleypaper, work on shock focusing, oblique reflection, andamplification of shock waves, and so forth, also played a crucialrole in the design of the atomic and hydrogen bombs. And,pursuing the idea of optimization of shock amplification byoblique reflection at the most favorable angles, realizing that itis not spherical, but cylindrical or conical geometries that representthe optimal configurations, one is once again lejd notonly into a once-classified but into the still-highly-classifiedarea of laser fusion target design.Epistemologically, however, it is not the weak shock simulationof isentropic compression suggested by Equation (8) that ismost interesting, but the conclusion implicit in the entropydifferenceequation and coherent with Riemann's adiabaticapproach: that there might be certain equations of state as wellas specifiable changes in the equations of state caused byshock formation that could support or might add up to isentropiccompression as a net result.This conclusion is implicit in Equation (8) in the sense that inits derivation at a certain point, we expressly introduced theequation of state for an ideal gas and thus extremely narroweddown the scope of its applicability. In general, only a decreasein entropy is not a permissible jump condition (compare thiswith von Neumann 1963, pp. 188-189). Although conservationof entropy is certainly not implied by the gasdynamic equationswhen the fluid motion becomes discontinuous, neither isnonconservation of entropy if that is taken to mean a necessaryentropy increase. It all depends on the equation of state, as Ialready pointed out in my previous critique of Rayleigh's criticismof Riemann.The equation of state of a compressible substance expressesthe properties of the substance giving its specific inner energy eas a function; of its density p (or its specific volume v = Up) andpressure p (or the specific entropy S):However, it is certainly possible that p(5, v) does not dependonS. Thene = e (S, v) = f[S) + g (v) (9)34 FUSION

andde 8 . .T = — = — f{S).as ds wWhat this means is that pressure is now simply a function ofspecific volume or density, and temperature a function of specificentropy; but there is no functional relationship betweenthe pairs (p, v) and (T, 5), and the energy is the "disjoint union"of the energy contributions of the two pairs.John von Neumann, in his discussion of this matter, makesreference to a paper by Kirkwood and Bethe where it is shownthat such a decoupling is reasonably verified under the conditionsof underwater blasts and, therefore, that the validity orinvalidity of Equation (9) corresponds to a certain extent to thedivision between liquids and gases (von Neumann 1963,p. 182),From the standpoint of the discussion here, first of all notethat Equation (9) represents a type of equation of state forwhich isentropic compression is realizable. Second, vonNeumann's remark shows that there are interesting "real life"conditions to which such equations apply. Still, the existenceof specifiable empirical conditions under which isentropiccompression is possible does not necessarily help us under theempirically different initial conditions of laser fusion, nor doesit convey the full epistemological consequences of Riemann'smethod.Riemann speaks of a new kind of lawfulness that comes intoexistence as a result of the formation of shock waves. Ratherthan applying this notion only to questions of the propagationand interaction of shock waves, it should be applied also to theinteraction of shock waves with the equation of state, the interactionof interactions of shock waves with the equation ofstate, and so forth. Regarding laser fusion, we could then ask,for example, whether isentropic compression or equivalentlyfavorable conditions for fusion ignition might not be achievedas the result of shock-caused changes in the equation of state,changes of changes in the equation of state, and so on.This would be a rather different approach from theprecision-guided weak shock sequence, which looks atchanges in the equation of state principally from the standpointof a hindrance to the efficient calculation of the path of propagationof the laser-pulse-caused compression wave. In the approachadvocated here, on the other hand, shock-inducedphase changes in the compressed substance are regarded asprimary, and the qualitatively new features of the substancehaving undergone phase change are to be investigated—mostimmediately, of course, for changed shock propagationcharacteristics.For example, as shock compression transforms the initiallyneutral fusionable material into the ionized plasma state, anequation of state resembling Equation (9) will be appropriate tothe description of the substance (which, dominated by theions, will tend to behave more like a liquid), rather than anequation involving strong coupling of density andtemperature. 2Properties of the self-organization of energy (for example,the formation of solitons discussed by Steven Bardwell in hisarticle "Elementary Plasma Physics from an AdvancedStandpoint") come into play in the plasma state, creating structuralfeatures in the substance (including topologically nontrivialfeatures) that are of primary causal significance for fusionignition, but highly localized and, therefore, not readily comprehendedby the global and necessarily "averaging" thermodynamicdescription of the compression process. In short,there is a certain sense in which, when we aim to fully understandlaser fusion—or, more generally, implosion processesinvolving shock formation—the isentropy condition, althoughan important thermodynamic net characteristic of the process,nonetheless is secondary in its causal determination.What is primary in the causal evolution is the interaction ofthe local-and global hydrodynamic structures. Specifically, thefact that accounts for the essentially nonlinear nature of theprocess is the interaction of continuously evolved, new discreteentities with the "environment" that created them, leadingto phase changes in this environment that, in turn, reflectback onto and further transform the discrete structures.I want to remark at this juncture—and the reader may havenoticed—that in the immediately preceding discussion themethodological points—and only these—were assertedcategorically rather than hypothetically. The reason for this issimple. There is scant current empirical evidence concerningthe details of the evolution of the equation of state of a givensubstance under ultrahigh compression—scant at least in thesense that there is not a good match between theory and actuallyrecorded measurements. And, not surprisingly, militaryclassification again has intervened to prevent a more broadbasedattack on the problem.Reportedly, in the 1960s, one of the U.S. nationallaboratories carried out a classified "Project Albino" to checktheoretical predictions for the behavior of the equation of stateof different substances under isentropic compression againstempirical measurements and failed to get significant agreement.If so, the results and, more important, the method thatfailed should be made public, so that progress in this area nolonger remains obstructed. For such progress must necessarilyturn on fundamental points of method and, hence, will havesignificance well beyond the special purpose for which "Albino"was set up.ConclusionsIn conclusion, I will now restate the issue of isentropic compressionin the form of a generalized experimental hypothesisand draw some consequences, as Riemann's program demands,for the theory of partial differential equations.As I pointed out above, the most interesting thing aboutisentropic compression methodologically is its dependence onthe equation of state. In the preceding section, two equationsof state were used explicitly: the equation for an ideal gas andEquation (9), characterized by decoupling of the pairs (p, v)and (T, 5). These two equations are opposite extremes; or, wecan think of them as being at opposite ends of a continuousspectrum that could be parametized, for example, by y.Another way of stratifying the continuum would be by subjectingall sorts of substances satisfying all sorts of different equa-FUSION 35

tions of state to strong shocks and recording in some fashiondegrees of approximation to isentropic compression."Project Albino" probably involved doing something likethis, complicating the issue by introducing terms for variouskinds of dissipation, and so forth. Such a procedure correspondsroughly to Linnaeus's classification of plant life or thearrangement of stars in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, 1 andone should not actually expect any great insights into! thecausal characteristics of the evolution of the individuals andspecies so classified. (If this is an unfair characterization of"Albino," the matter can be quickly rectified by publication ofthe results of the project. In any case, I am interested here onlyin a point of method, not of historical accuracy.)To understand isentropic compression, one has to identify acloser connection with the equation of state than somethingessentially of the nature of statistical correlation with respect toa given parameter or set of parameters. A good clue is providedby looking more closely than we have so far at the reason thatLord Rayleigh was scandalized by Riemann's paper. Rayileighthought he could prove that Riemann's adiabatic jump conditionwould lead to a violation of conservation of energy; and,in fact, for the "wrong" kind of equation of state, this is aprovable consequence.However, this is precisely what makes matters interesting.Let us indeed start with a specific substance whose normalequation of state makes it a noncandidate for isentropic compression.Then, treat isentropy as a constraint upon the evolutionof the equation of state during compression to identify thesequence of phase changes the substance has to undergo inorder for energy to be conserved.Qualitatively, such a sequence cannot be thought of as involvingonly the variation of one continuous parameter such asy, but must be pictured as a discontinuous succession of phasespaces, progressing continually to "higher states of internalorganization." Either such a sequence is empirically realisable,or else isentropy will break down. For the interesting case ofempirical realizability we are faced with the task of makingprecise this notion of "higher states of internal organization."Physics today does not have a quantifiable concept or collectionof concepts that can accomplish this. What is needed isa more refined concept of energy that is capable of discriminatingbetween geometrically and topologically different distributionsof energy taken in the ordinary sense and can impose anordering on such distributions. In a recent article (Fusion, Oct.1978), Lyndon H. LaRouche has used the term negentropy inapproximately this sense, as I have discussed above. Althoughthis nomenclature is clearly inspired by thermodynamic considerations,LaRouche gave the term a precise meaning in thecontext of a "thermodynamic model" for economics, wherenegentropy denotes an invariant representing the action oftechnological improvements upon the productivity oi labor.Within the framework of Riemannian geometry as elaboratedin Riemann's "The Hypotheses Upon Which Geometry IsBased," the ordered succession of phase spaces traversed by asubstance under isentropic compression would have to \pe representedon a multiply connected manifold of noncOnstantcurvature; that is, varying metrics for a chosen path. Riefnann'sgeometric inventions—both in his geometry proper and in hisrepresentation of multiply valued complex functions op. what36 FUSIONwe now call Riemann surfaces—provide us with an amplearsenal of tools for the qualitative analysis of the indicatedphase spatial relations.Not currently available is a sufficiently rich numbertheoreticalcontinuum to launch an analytical attack on themost-difficult-to-handle nonlinear partial differential equationsused in the characterization of fluid turbulence and so forth (forexample, the Navier-Stokes equation) to which the hydrodynamictreatment of shock wave interaction with equations ofstate ultimately must be subsumed.Riemann himself had begun to develop an attack on thenumber-and-function-theoretical issues involved in an articletitled "On the Representability of a Function by a TrigonometricSeries." This treatise must be read as a companion piece tothe "Hypotheses"; it was instrumental in motivating GeorgCantor to undertake his groundbreaking investigations of thelinear continuum and prompted his development of transfinitenumbers.A similarly bold step is necessary at this juncture if there is tobe significant progress with the now-unsolved equations ofmathematical physics. It would be most immediately in thespirit of Riemann's program to proceed in this not fromgeneralities but from a definitely circumscribed experimentalphysics context; and laser fusion raises all the right kind ofproblems. To quote Riemann one last time (from his announcementof the paper on air wave propagation in the GdttingerNachrichten, Nov. 19, 1859):Much as in the case of the integration of the linear partial, differential equations the most fruitful methods were notfound by means of the development of the general conceptof this task, but arose, on the contrary, from thetreatment of special physical problems; so also, the theoryof the nonlinear partial differential equations seems to bemost furthered by a detailed treatment of special physicalproblems, taking into account all relevant boundary conditions.And, indeed, the solution of this very special problem[of wave propagation], which constitutes the objectof this treatise, has required the invention of new methodsand conceptions, and led to results that probably will alsoplay a role in the solution of more general problems.jointly with Steven Bardwell—to whom I am grateful for a greatmany clarifying discussions of the specialized physics issues inthis paper—I am now undertaking a survey study of the specialrelationships that obtain between shock waves, solitons, andvortex structures for the greater than one-dimensional realm.The remarkable mathematical si/nilarity between the Burgersequation,du , du d*u .—developed for the purpose of mathematically modeling aspectsof the Navier-Stokes equations, but actually representing,weak shock waves—and the Korteweg-de Vries equation,du , du , d 3 u J,-HT + au — + —-=0at dx dx 3a = const,

which exhibits soliton solutions, confirms one's physical intuitionof close structural resemblances.The survey should do much to sort out further our ideas ofa comprehensive Riemannian attack on the recalcitrant fortressesamong the hydrodynamic equations. Along with a simultaneousattack on the problem of the enlargement of thecontinuum, this maps the necessary course of the offensive.PostscriptIn the introduction to my 1976 translation of'G^org Cantor's "Foundationsof a General Theory of Manifolds," ( in The Campaigner, Jan.-Feb. 1976) Ideveloped an argument leading to, among ojther things, the followingcomment on the notion of a "big bang" beginning (and possibly "bigcrunch" ending) of the physical universe:The notion is absurd. All that Einstein's equations imply is that the "laws ofnature" or that fraction of the laws of nature which they express, cannot be extendedbeyond a finite period of time (in either direction) There is no one setof invariants which governs the process of the evolution of universal substanceonce and for all— The structure of the physical universe e\tcnded in time isnecessarily that of a nonlinear Cantorian continuum lof a succession of transfinitecardinals), characterized by variability of invariants, discontinuity of the processof nature Irom the standpoint of any given set of laws (emphasis added'It is only the primitive epistemology underlying the assumption thatlinear continuity and fixed laws govern universal evolution that leads tothe seeming unavoidability of the "big bang" nonsense. Consideration ofthe dynamics of implosion processes as discussed above can, I think, leadto further clarification (not just theoretically, bat experimentally) of whatis invoked in the "variation of invariants" in the realm of inorganic matter.In addition to shock wave/equation of the state interactions, we may haveto take into account changes in the metric of time in this interaction.Certainly the a prioriassumption that the time: metric is independent ofthe characteristics of the evolution of the physical process (especiallyunder extreme conditions) is unjustifiable. Thej definition of a relativistictime frame beyond the limited scope of relativization with respect to afinite velocity of the propagation of electrornagrtetic effects, as in Einstein'sspecial relativity, is called for.Applied to cosmological problems, such aj radically relativistic timeconcept would yield the following. Changes inithe time metric as we aretracing the evolution of the physical universe back into the distant pastand into radically different physical conditions Will make nonsense of suchtalk as "90 seconds after the big bang," and so forth. The externallyimposed absolute time frame tells us nothing about the actual relativistictime internal to the evolution of the physical process.The most coherent picture, epistemological y, is that of a process ofcosmical evolution defined by an ordered succe'sion of types of lawfulness(Cantorian cardinalities) and associated time metrics, making the universeinfinite in time but (for separate reasons) bounded in space-time, continuallyevolving ils own metric for its progressive stages.Uwe Parpart, Fusion Energy Foundation director ofresearch, is a graduate of the West German Naval Academy.He has taught mathematics, physics, and philosophyand was on the faculty of Swarthmorl? College for severalyears.Notes1. The Tripos exam at Cambridge requires the student of mathematics tomemorize a vast number of techniques. Presumably the highest rankingstudent is called "Senior Wrangler" because he best wrestles withthe volume of material.2.• As noted above, the equation or state of a medium determines whether,how, and under what conditions isentropic compression of matter willoccur. One line of possible investigation for how new equations of state,or rather phases, arise in magnetized plasmas is presented by the Grad-Hogan theory (see Fusion. Oct. 1978, pp. 4Sj-49).Although conventional wisdom in inertia! confinement studies ofisentropic compression holds that the matter being compressed is nota magnetized plasma, multi-megagauss magnetic fields have beenobserved in laser pellet fusion experiments, in at least the crucial initialstages. Therefore, at least for these initial stages of the development ofthe shocks generating isentropic compression, magpetized plasmahas been shown to be important experimentally.Ironically, the Grad-Hogan theory, which was developed originally formagnetic confinement fusion, could have major application to inertialconfinement fusion. The Grad-Hogan theory has important implicationsfor continuum hydrodynamics regarding the demonstration that theHelmholtz Theorem for conservation of vorticity does not hold; minimally,it could manifest essential flaws in the "conventional approach"embedded in the various computer codes used for attempting todetermine the equations of state during isentropic compression.In particular, as noted above with respect to the von Neumanninvestigations of what kind of state of matter would be susceptible toisentropic.compression, the decoupling of either pressure or densityfrom temperature is necessary for isentropic compression. In magnetizedplasmas, such a decoupling is determined by the magnetic and/orelectric field structure, or rather topology. How such field topologiesare initiated and evolve, therefore, would be essential to determiningthe "phase" of "equation of state" in magnetized plasmas.ReferencesBardwell, Steven. 1978. "Elementary Plasma Physics from an AdvancedStandpoint." Fusion (Nov.).Bethe, Hans. 1942. "The Theory of Shock Waves for an Arbitrary Equationof State." National Defense Research Committee, Division B,Report No. 171.Bethe, Hans et al. 1942. "The Pressure Wave Produced by an UnderwaterExplosion. I, II." National Defense Research Committee. DivisionB. Report Nos. 252, 281.Challis. Rev. J. 1848. "On the Velocity of Sound, in Reply to the Remarks ofthe Astronomer Royal." Phil. Mag. 32: 494-499.1848. "Theoretical Determination of the Velocity of Sound." Phil.Mag. 32: 276-284.Courant, R. and Friedrichs, K. 1957. Supersonic Flow and Shock Waves.Guderley, G. 1942. "Starke Kugelige und zylindniche VerdichtaugsstOssein des Nahe der Kugelmittelpunktes bzw. der Zylinderachse."Luttlahrttorschung. 19: 302-312.Klein, Felix. 1923. "Riemann und seine Bedentung fur die Entwicklung dermodernen Mathematik." Gesammelte Mathematische Abhandlungen.eds. Fricke, Bermeil, Bessel-Hagen. Vol. 3: 482-497.Lamb. Sir Horace. 1945 (1879). Hydrodynamics.LaRouche, Lyndon H. 1978. "Poetry Must Begin to Supersede Mathematicsin Physics." Fusion (Oct.).Nuckolls, John et al. 1972. "Laser Compression of Matter to Super-HighDensities." Nature.Rayleigh, Lord J.W.S. 1945 (1894-1896). The Theory of Sound. Vols. I andII.Riemann, Bernhard. 1876 (1854). "Uber die Darstellbarkelt eimer Funktiondurch eine trigonometrische Reine." Gesammelte MathematischeAbhandlungen. (Collected Works) ed. H. Weber, pp. 213-253.1876 (1854). "Uber die Hypothesen welche der GeometrieZugrunde liegen." Gesammelte Mathematische Werke, ed. H.Weber, pp. 254-269.1876 (1859). "Selbstanzeige" (of treatise 1876 (1860)). GesammelteMathematische Werke. ed. H. Weber, pp. 165-167.1876 (1860). "Uber die Fortpflanzung ebener Luftwellen vonendlicher Schwingaungsweite." Gesammelte MathematischeWerke, ed. H. Weber, pp. 145-164.1876 (posthumous). "Mechanik des Ohres." GesammelteMathematische Werke, ed. H. Weber, p. 319.Riemann, B. and Weber, H. 1901. Die partiellen Dilferential-Gleichungender Mathematischen Physik. Vol. 2.Scott, Alwyn C. et al. 1973. "The Soliton: A New Concept in AppliedScience." Proc. IEEE 61: 1443-1483.Stokes, G.G. 1848. "On a Difficulty in the Theory of Sound." Phil. Mag. 33:349-356.von Neumann. John. 1963 (1943). "Theory of Shock Waves." CollectedWorks. Vol. 6, pp. 178-202.1963 (1951). "Discussion on the Existence and Uniqueness orMultiplicity of Solutions of the Aerodynamical Equations." CollectedWorks. Vol. 6, pp. 348-356.von Neumann, John et al. 1944. "Shock Hydrodynamics and Blast Waves."U.S. AEC, AECD-2860.FUSION 37

The Secret of Laser FusionBy the Editors of Fusion MagazineALL OF HISTORY tells us that humanity must have newknowledge or it will die. Today, precisely those areas ofnew knowledge that are most critical to the future ofmankind are what are classified in the U.S. inertial confinementfusion program.As will be made clear, this classification policy hasproved to be a strategic and political disaster. The SovietUnion, the purported enemy, already is fully aware of thescientific knowledge involved and its civilian and militaryapplications. By not cooperating in the joint developmentof inertial confinement for producing energy, the UnitedStates not only falls behind in the quest for a cheap andplentiful energy supply, but also opens itself up to bedrawn into military confrontation with a very well preparedadversary.The truth is that there really are no secrets to laserfusion. A careful reading of the available literature providesone with knowledge of all the basic issues involved.We hope here to inform a more general audience ofwhat these issues are and why they have been blackedout. Only by opening up discussion in these vital areas ofscience will we be able to rejuvenate the normal processesof scientific exchange that throughout history have led tothe advancement of humanity.Some Classification HistoryTo most scientists, the chronology of events in the lasttwo years concerning the U.S. classification of inertialconfinement fusion research has been bizarre. Three incidentsare of special note.First, L.I. Rudakov, the head of the Soviet electron beamprogram, visited the United States in July 1976 and declassifieda significant amount of Soviet research on electronbeam fusion. The energy bureaucracy in Washington respondedby classifying Rudakov's work in the UnitedStates (including—so one story goes—one of the blackboardsRudakov used to explain some of the Soviet concepts).1The following summer, E.P. Velikhov, the head of theSoviet fusion effort, proposed that the United States andthe Soviets begin a joint research project on a branch of.nertial confinement called the fast liner, an area in whichthe Soviet Union was the acknowledged leader. The responseof the Department of Energy, prompted by NationalSecurity Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, was, in effect,to classify the fast liner research the United States wasIn looking for a solution it is well toexclude one pseudosolution at the start.The crisis will not be resolved byinhibiting this or that particularlyobnoxious form of technology. For onething, the parts of technology, as well asof the underlying sciences, are sointertwined that in the long run nothingless than a total elimination of alltechnological progress would suffice forinhibition....Prohibition of technology (inventionand development, which are hardlyseparable from underlying scientificinquiry) is contrary to the whole ethos ofthe industrial age. It is irreconcilable witha major mode of intellectuality as our ageunderstands it. It is hard to imagine such arestraint successfully imposed on ourcivilization. Only if those disasters that wefear had already occurred, only ifhumanity were already completelydisillusioned about technologicalcivilization, could such a step be taken.But not even the disasters of recent warshave produced that degree ofdisillusionment, as is proved by thephenomenal resiliency with which theindustrial way of life recovered even—orparticularly—in the worst hit areas. Thetechnological system retains enormousvitality, probably more than ever before,and the counsel of restraint is unlikely tobe heeded.—John von Neumann, Fortune, 7955FUSION 39

A large laser under construction atthe Lebedev Physical Institute, theUMI, uses slab neodymium-glassamplifiers and the target chambershown here. The arrangement of theports for the laser light (the twosquare windows in the front of thecylinder) is interesting. There is nopossibility in this geometry forspherically symmetric illumination ofthe target. Design of cylindrical andconical targets for the experiment isnow underway.doing. (For details, see The Case of the Fast Liner" in thisissue.)In winter 1977, N. Basov, the Nobel laureate who headsthe Soviet laser fusion program, proposed expanded U.S.­Soviet collaboration on laser fusion. One month later, U.S.Energy Secretary James Schlesinger personally answeredBasov's proposal by stating at a press conference: "No,flatly no. We can't collaborate because it is classified."The Soviets propose collaboration; the U.S. refusesbecause U.S. research is classified. The Soviets proposeresearch in an unclassified area; the U.S. classifies its ownresearch in that area. The Soviets declassify some of theirresearch; the United States classifies this Soviet researchin the United States. Quite a record for a nation with atradition of scientific progress!Who's Classifying What from Whom?Observers who have tried to look at any particular pieceof the classification issue invariably have come away confusedby the inconsistencies between the results of theclassification and its justification. How can classification ofSoviet results in the United States be justified? How canthe outlawing of discussion of certain theoretical conceptsin physics—when they apply to laser fusion—be justified?A clue to the answer comes from a statement by ProfessorJohn Holdren at the University of California atBerkeley, one of those reputed friends of fusion whoobviates the need for enemies. In a March 1978 article onthe dangers of fusion in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists(page 4), Holdren said:Technologically, "the genie is out of the bottle [in thecase of fission], and it is widely held that greatlystrengthened political controls are not feasible....In the case of fusion, choice is still possible—andlikely to be relatively cheap. It is possible becauseresearch in inertial-confinement fusion is going on inPhotos by Bardwellonly a few places and under cover of classification; itis likely to be cheap in the sense that inertial-confinementfusion probably could be abandoned withoutsurrendering the prospective benefits of fusionpowekWithout wasting time with the usual arguments aboutnational security and nuclear proliferaton, Holdren getsright to the point: The danger of inertial confinement isproliferation of knowledge; the issue is control over thespread of knowledge.This fear of the development of scientific knowledgeand its industrial and social implications, which is the realmotivation behind U.S. classification policy, has recentlycome to the political surface. Former secretary of stateHenry Kissinger and Energy Secretary James Schlesingerhave both warned that rapid modernization and industrializationare the cause of unrest and potential civil warin Iran and Mexico. On that basis, they both have arguedfor the decrease in capital investment and developmentin these countries and a return to more traditional feudaltechnologies.This fear of progress is scared by the environmentalistmovement and its sponsors in the highest sections of theCarter administration. In fact, this feudalist faction determinespolicy in the Division of Security and Safeguards aswell as in the powerful Joint U.S. and U.K. Atomic InformationExchange Group in the Department of Defense. 2This latter office exerted the main impetus for the U.S.classification in 1976 of Rudakov's declassified material.Perhaps the most critical connection in the determinationof U.S. classification policy is the British governmentand the U.K. Atomic Energy Research Establishment andmilitary laboratory at Aldermaston. In instance after instance,input and pressure from Britain have shaped U.S.classification policy and possibilities for international collaborationon nuclear power, and more recently, laser40 FUSION

fusion. As Secretary of Defense Harold Brown told aEuropean NATO official who questioned him about whythe United States had not taken advantage of the Sovietdeclassification in the 1976 Rudakov case, "Because ourBritish allies won't let us."Apparently the British intelligence establishment stilldreams of becoming rural gentry, ruling a small, uncomplicatedworld of ignorant peasants—exactly what BenjaminFranklin accurately identified as the British problem200 years ago and over which Americans fought the Warof Independence.Demystifying Inertial Confinement ResearchFrom available U.S. documents and from what is availablein the open Soviet literature about scientific processesnow classified in the United States, we':have compiled thefollowing report on classified matter in U.S. inertial confinementresearch. Again, we emphasize that all thesources for this information are publicly available.All types of inertial confinement fuision research havesuffered from extensive classification because they all relyon the same general physical conditions for their success:the rapid (supersonic) compression and explosive heatingof a small amount of fuel. (These conditions are theopposite of the almost steady-state operation at low densityof magnetic confinement fusion.)The primary distinction among the different approachesto inertial confinement fusion is the source of the intenseenergy needed for ignition, the so-called driver. The maindrivers now under study are lasers (several types), particlebeams (both electrons and ions), and metal shells (liners).These drivers give rise to the various kinds of inertialfusion research bearing their names.Because of this overall similarity, the three steps in afusion process initiated by inertial confinement—heating,compression, and ignition—are comparable. All requireknowledge of the physics of the hot, dense matterundergoing fusion. To give you an idea of what thisinvolves: The conditions for producing inertial confinementwould be the equivalent of dealing with a teaspoonof fusion fuel at a temperature of 100 million degrees(hotter than the center of the sun), a weight of 120pounds, and an energy output of the equivalent of 250million gallons of gasoline.Energy AbsorptionThe first problem in the initiation of the inertial fusionprocess is the delivery of energy to the surface of thetarget of fusion fuel. In the case of laser fusion, forexample, an intense beam of laser light is focused on thepellet for about one-billionth of a second. During thisbillionth of a second, more energy is concentrated on thetarget than the total energy consumed by the world duringthat billionth of a second.The problem both scientifically and practically is toensure that the light energy is absorbed by the tiny pelletand not reflected or transmitted. All our intuition aboutthe behavior of light with matter is almost useless at thetremendous energy densities involved in these experiments.The transfer of energy to the fusion fuel must be donein a carefully controlled way for maximum efficiency.Since the pellet must be simultaneously compressed andheated, it is clear that it would be advantageous first tocompress it and second to heat it, because it is easier tocompress the fuel when it is cold rather than hot.This scheme of compression and heating is called isentropiccompression, compression of the pellet withoutincrease in temperature (entropy). The declassification ofthis idea in the early 1970s by Edward Teller was the firstsignificant indication that laser fusion was possible. With-77ie Delphin laboratory contains asecond, smaller target chamber,shown here, for calibration of thediagnostic equipment to be installedin the full-scale target chamber.FUSION 41

Figure 1THE POLISH EXPERIMENTAbout one-tenth of a microgram ofdeuterium gas, at 1.2 atmospherespressure with 9 percent argon added,is implanted under the foil in a smalldepression in a large anvil. Then, adouble conical shell is suspendedabove the fuel. The inside of the shellis a heavy metal tamper that carriesthe momentum of the cone of highexplosives surrounding the tamper.When the shell of high explosives isignited, a convergent shock wave,called a mach stem, is formed thatdrives vertically down on the deuteriumgas, compressing it by a factor of1,000 in volume and heating it toabout 500 electron volts, for about abillionth of a second.out isentropic compression, the energy requirements forignition are astronomical.The scientific understanding of how light is absorbedon the surface of fusion targets has been the subject of alarge amount of open research and does not in itself seemto have been significantly hindered by classification. Thedetails of the absorption of energy from an electron beam,however, are significantly different from those appropriateto a laser (although the questions of compression andignition seem nearly identical in the two cases), and resultson the interaction of the electron beam and a fuel pellethave been extensively classified.These results have important implications for pelletdesign and the feasibility of electron beam fusion. Thisinformation must be made public in the United States.From literature published in the Soviet Union by L.I.Rudakov and others, it is known that the absorption ofenergy from an electron beam by a fuel pellet proceedsin three steps: First, the electron beam is trapped at thesurface of the pellet by the conductivity of the outersurface of the pellet and by intense local, magnetic fieldsthat capture the electrons at the surface of the pellet. Theelectrons execute a violent, spiral set of orbits when theyfirst hit the surface of the pellet—as might be expected,since they are decelerated from velocities near the speedof light when they strike the pellet.This first part of the electron beam-pellet interaction iswidely studied and published. However, the second step,involving soft X rays, is heavily classified in the UnitedStates, although not in the Soviet Union.It is well known to every physics undergraduate thatwhen a charged particle, like an electron, is acceleratedor decelerated, it loses significant quantities of energy inthe form of X rays.This is how X rays are generated by a color television,for example. When the high-energy electrons used toexcite the picture tube hit the glass of the screen, theyemit some of their energy in these so-called bremsstrahlungXrays.If the energy of the electron beam and the outermaterial of the pellet are matched, it is possible to obtainmost of this energy in the form of X rays that are of highenough energy to ionize the outer layer of the pellet, butof low enough energy so that they cannot penetrate insidethe pellet and heat the interior. Such X rays are called softX rays, and this process of surface heating using soft X raysis an essential condition for isentropic compression.Soft X rays provide the ideal form of energy for the finalstep of the energy deposition in the fuel pellet. Recall thatthese soft X rays are in the energy range in which theyinteract strongly with the matter in the pellet; their energyis sufficient to ionize the fuel but cannot penetrate deeperbecause it is immediately absorbed at the surface. Thus,the heating goes on in a layer always at the surface of thepellet with negligible heating of the interior of the pellet.This ensures that the compression of the pellet by theshock waves set up with this surface heating will becompressing cold fuel.This picture of the energy deposition process on pelletdesign has two immediate implications—neither of whichcan be discussed publicly in the United States. First, thecomposition of the outer layer of the pellet must be ofsome material that combines the conductivity, density,and atomic charge that optimize the production of soft X42 FUSION

ays. Second, the geometry of the pellet must enhancethe absorption of the soft X rays by ensuring that they arepropagated in the direction of the fuel or other pelletlayers. As the Electric Power Research Institute maintains,the classification of such basic considerations not onlyimpedes scientific discussion and progress, but also preventsthe engineering and industrial development of fusion.3The Soft X-Ray CaseThe story of the study of soft X rays in inertial confinementfusion in the United States fits the illogical patterndescribed at the beginning of this article. The first publicspeculation on their crucial role in electron beam fusioncame at a series of talks by L.I. Rudakov given at U.S.scientific meetings here during late June and early July in1976. These talks totally unnerved the energy bureaucracyin the U.S. and British governments. There was a flurry oftelegrams, letters, and telex messages back and forthbetween the Energy Research and Development Administrationoffice in Washington, the national laboratorieswhere Rudakov had spoken, and the British Foreign Office.The net result of this hysteria was the classification ofRudakov's results in the United States. 4This classification has had some very interesting clinicaleffects on scientific research in the area of electron beamfusion. For example, it has created a situation in whichU.S. researchers are forbidden by statute to discuss thebasic physical phenomena involved in transfer of energybetween the electron beam and the pellet. A survey ofPhysical Review Letters, the most important Americanjournal for communication of new experimental results inphysics (including inertial confinement fusion research),for the two years after Rudakov's visit to the United Statesshows no mention by U.S. authors of the role of soft Xrays in the electron beam fusion process. The first paperin a Western journal to note the critical part played bythese X rays was authored by a group of Japanese scientists.6Why are soft X rays classified? The usual answer givento this question is that they play a similarly important rolein the compression and heating used in the ignition of ahydrogen bomb (which is a large, uncontrolled inertialconfinement fusion experiment). This might be a credibleexcuse, if not for the fact that the information is beingprovided by one's nominal enemy.It should be clear to the reader that what is classifiedhere is not a technological development, not some bettergadget of military application, nor even an immediatelydeployable source of energy. Theoretical science is beingclassified!Because it is unlawful for a scientist to talk about acentral concept in the physics of inertial fusion, thediscussion of a host of interesting and important problemsin physics is aborted. To take one example: According tosome of the best scientists in the field, the problem oftransport of energy by electrons in a plasma is the mostdifficult, most significant, unsolved problem in plasmaphysics. The question of how electrons can selectively leakoff energy from a magnetic fusion plasma seems to bevery similar to the question of how electrons transportenergy quickly into the core of a laser fusion pellet. Inboth situations there is an anomalous population of hotelectrons that behave in a very problematic way.It is known that in both the magnetic and inertial cases,the plasma motion generates intense magnetic fields thatviolently affect the electrons, but there is a gaping hole inall discussions of the situation—mention of soft X rays isforbidden. Scientific inquiry, which requires an environmentas unfettered as possible in order to flourish, is thuscrippled in inertial confinement research.CompressionIt is not enough to make fusion fuel hot. In order torelease net energy, the fuel must also be sufficiently densefor enough fusion collisions to take place. In the case ofan inertial confinement fuel pellet, this translates into thenecessity for densities up to 10,000 times normal liquiddensity. Since matter does not normally come like this,some mechanism must be found to use the energy of thedriver to compress the fuel.The guiding idea in this compression is that it must beisentropic, as mentioned above. The simple picture of thisis that the outer layer of the pellet can be heated sorapidly that as it explodes off the surface of the pellet, theback-reaction of the rest of the pellet will drive a compressionwave toward the center of the pellet, like a rocketengine pointed toward the center.This is the usual picture of so-called ablative compressionpresented to lay fusion audiences. Unfortunately, itis also the intuitive guide to a model of compressionpresented in unclassified literature in the United States.The tougher, more important question is: how does thiscompression really work? To assume that it proceedsaccording to normal experience with compressions of gasor weak explosions is naive. However, to be anything butnaive in answering the question is impossible, because, toquote the Department of Energy's felicitous wording, it"might lead uncleared workers into classified areas."The central concept necessary to unravel the problemof pellet compression is the propagation and focusing ofshock waves, a topic rarely talked about even abstractly inthe open American literature. Interestingly, the conceptssufficient for the qualitative understanding of the problemTotal Classification?The same process of classification is under discussionfor the rest of the fusion program. In December1977, the Department of Energy circulated a memorandumfor drawing up classification guidelines forthe handling of tritium fusion fuel. As noted in thememo, the new guidelines are intended to affectthe next generation of tritium-burning fusion experiments.The memo pointed out the supposedproliferation hazards of fusion resulting from theuse of tritium and said that the new guidelines willinvolve the classification of some commercially availablelaboratory equipment, since this equipment isused to handle tritium.The memorandum resulted in a two-volume studyrecommending classification, a policy which has notyet been implemented.FUSION 43

Figure 2, from the paper by Belokon', shows the conceptual design for a cylindrical, multifoil target. The illuminationscheme has cylindrical symmetry, very similar to that in the Shiva-Nova laser system (see opposite). The wavy lines in thediagram represent the laser light hitting the faces of the foils making,up the target and pushing the foils toward eachother. Belokon' designed the targets used by Rudakpv in his first series of electron beam experiments that caused a furorin the United States.of inertial confinement fusion compression were developedin a rigorous way by Bernhard Riemann in a paperin 1859. In a very real way, Riemann's 1859 paper is nowclassified in the United States.Riemann was the first to recognize that a singular wavefront of compressed matter is not merely a mathematicalresult of the equations of wave propagation in a compressiblemedium, but that it exists physically and canitself propagate. The shock wave created by the isuddendeposition of energy on the surface of a fuel pellet is justsuch a wave; its density changes from 1,000 times normalto its normal value in a distance much much smaller thanany dimension in the pellet.The shock waves generated in the highly energeticprocesses characteristic of inertial confinement fusionhave several unique properties, all of which seem to beclassified in the United States. First, classical wisdom hasit that the transition across a shock wave front involves anincrease in entropy and, of necessity, a nonistentropictransition as it propagates. 6 The conditions for the propagationof such a shock wave have been well developedby researchers over the past 50 years. However, in hisoriginal paper Riemann assumed that the transition acrossthe shock front would be adiabatic, reversible, c(nd isentropic.According to Soviet researchers, it is now known that inhighly energetic shock waves, like those in all kinds ofinertial fusion, Riemann's assumption was the correctone. 7 The properties of Riemann's adiabatic shock wavesturn out fo be ones that actually compress the fusion fuel,both in a laser fusion pellet and in a hydrogen bomb.The second important property of high-energy shockwaves has been known since the 1930s, but its implicationsfor laser fusion are still classified. Shock waves have theinteresting property of being amplified on reflection. 8When a shock wave is reflected from a boundary, thereflected shock wave is eight times as strong as the initialwave for a normal gas. In other materials, the amplificationcan be many times greater.Although it is not discussed openly, it would be obviouslyadvantageous to construct the pellet so that theseshock waves could be reflected and then focused in orderto generate a compressive wave many times stronger thanthat generated "brute force" by the driver.The Soviets have perfected two means of doing just thisusing techniques that are undoubtedly being used in theUnited States also, as we shall show, but that cannot bediscussed openly here. The first involves the use of alternatinglayers of matter and vacuum in the pellet. Thisarrangement allows for the shock wave to bounce back44 FUSION

Figure 3, the Shiva-Nova at Lawrence Livermore, is the world's largest laser. The most remarkable thing about the laseris the arrangement of the ports for illumination of the target in the target chamber; the beam ports are not sphericallysymmetrical. In spite of much public discussion on the importance of spherical illumination of the la'ier fusion targets—thought to be necessary to prevent unstable implosion—the most advan.ced laser in the world purposely avoidsspherically symmetric illumination. The classified fact that cannot be discussed openly by the Livermore scientists is thattheir pellets are asymmetrical also!and forth between the layers to self-amplify; it allows thepellet to be "tuned" to the natural amplification andfocusing of the shock wave; and it allows the pellet to bedesigned so that the acceleration of one layer can betimed to coincide with the next, inner layer. In this way,the whole energy of the shock wave is tailored to meet atthe center of the pellet simultaneously.These considerations are reviewed explicitly in a recentSoviet work and very covertly in a recent American paper. 9Nonspherical TargetsThe most striking application of these ideas, which iseven more highly classified in the United States, is the useof nonspherical targets for focusing and amplifying theshock wave.In Rudakov's 1976 work on electron beam fusion, heexperimented with conical targets (Figure 1). The advantageof conical targets was shown dramatically by thePolish inertial confinement research group under Kaliski,who described in detail the focusing effect of a conicaltarget, the formation of a Mach stem in the propagationof the shock wave in the target, and the extremely hightemperatures and pressures achieved. 10 The Kaliski groupwas able to achieve fusion driven by chemical explosives,using the amplification possible with a conical target.Another widely discussed Soviet idea, which has beenkept under wraps in the United States, is the idea ofcylindrical targets. As the above Soviet paper notes, theself-focusing of the shock wave and the ease of assemblyof multifoil pellets for the cylindrical targets make themvery attractive as the fuel geometries for laser and electronbeam fusion. Figure 2 shows another target design ofSoviet origin using these ideas.There is little doubt that the United States is developingcylindrical targets as well. Striking proof is given of this bylooking at the geometry of the illumination scheme of theShiva-Nova laser at Lawrence Livermore (Figure 3). As theschema shows, the laser beams can enter the chamberonly from the top and bottom; it is impossible even toapproximate spherical geometry in illuminating the target.A widely discussed problem in laser fusion is the occurrenceof destructive physical instabilities in the pellet thatwere thought to amplify any nonsymmetry in the heatingof the target and result in the bursting of the target beforeit could be compressed. Therefore, the sudden publicationof this odd Shiva-Nova target chamber design excitedquite a bit of interest.At an international laser fusion conference in December1978, a French scientist asked the Livermore group if ithad plans later to convert the chamber to spherical illu-FUSION 45

mination (he apparently assumed that this asymmetricaldesign was a first approximation), and he asked how hardit would be to do so. The somewhat flustered Livermorescientist replied that they had not even thought of changingthe target chamber, and that it would be almostimpossible to make such a change.Several other questions of similar nature—how is targetdesign affected by this illumination scheme, and the like—were answered with the same somewhat embarrassedevasion.The obvious point is that the targets also are asymmetrical.As Figure 2 shows, such polar illumination Wouldbe ideal for driving the two ends of a cylinder—perhapsa multifoil construction, taking advantage of the reflectedshock waves in each layer, between layers, and from thesides of the cylinder, to achieve tremendous magnificationof compression.Obvious, but classified.The Military QuestionThe overall impact of the classification of shock wavephenomena in inertial confinement fusion has been muchmore destructive than in the case of the soft X rays. As thearticle in this issue on Riemann's theory of shock wavedevelops in more detail, the methodological and epistemologicalissues brought up by a serious study of shockwaves are far-reaching. In the past, such study hasalwaysresulted in significant advances in mathematics and physics,as demonstrated by the experience of World War IIand the Manhattan Project.That these scientific studies have military implications isunavoidable. It is a not-so-surprising fact that the frontiersof science frequently coincide with the frontiers of militarytechnology, as both reach for higher and higher energydensities.To justify classification of theoretical s'cience because itis involved with new military technology is to classify,down the line, the most important scientific work nowbeing pursued. This classification poisons the atmospherefor creative scientific work, creating a situation in whichwhole areas of physics become incomprehensible to scientistswho are not among the inner circle of the nationallaboratories privy to the classified material.The only reason that fusion is at all technologicallyinteresting is that it eventually involves the ignition of afusion reaction. The payoff comes when the nuclei ofhydrogen actually fuse and release energy. Unfortunately,the most exciting and challenging stage of the process isalso the most highly classified. The appearance of qualitativelynew species of matter from a regular plasma—afusing plasma, a fireball of new particles, massive energy,a star in miniature—cannot be discussed. Much like theproverbial baby in Victorian novels, the conception of thisfireball must remain embarrassingly vague.The only time scientists have had access to a macroscopicamount of fusing matter on earth is the eixplosionof the hydrogen bomb. This immediately gives a so-calledlegitimate cover for classifying research into the actualfusion process.Yet, as the Electric Power Research Institute Reportnotes, the most critical engineering knowledge aboutfusion is the mixture of energy forms (and their interdependence)in the fireball. Without a knowledge of thetiming and shape of the blast wave, the mixture of neutron46 FUSIONenergy and electromagnetic radiation coming out of theblast, and the factors affecting this mixture, it is impossibleto create an engineering design for fusion reactors. Exactlythis information is the most highly classified part of thefusion program.It is not surprising that the most carefully classified areain fusion is the ignition problem, because ignition preciselyraises the most fundamental problems in fusion. AsHoldren said in his advocacy of more widespread classification,knowledge is dangerous. For the political factionthat believes this, the fear of scientific discovery and theproliferation of scientific ideas defines a world of technologygone wild, of man helpless before the destructivepowers of his own creativity.This view of man and his role in the universe is the realdeterminant of the present classification policy. And forthose who hold such a view, it is completely coherentsimultaneously to advocate disarmament and the initiationof nuclear war—as Bertrand Russell did in 1948.With this view, it is also coherent to sell nuclear technologyto the People's Republic of China based on aninformal note of agreement on nonmilitary use, whiledenying the sale of nuclear technology to India, a signatoryof the Nonproliferation Treaty. The biggest threat tothe feudalists in both situations is not war; it is the policyof science and development espoused by the Soviets orthe Indians.Whatever motivates the individual scientist or militaryofficer to justify classification in one instance or another,and perhaps be completely proper in doing so, the questionof classification in fusion goes much deeper. Classificationof fusion research means the destruction of progress.It must be called by its real name, and it must bestopped.Notes1. For details on these three incidents, see "Soviets Offer Joint BreakevenFusion Experiment to Los Alamos," Fusion Oct.-Nov. 1977, p. 6;"The Classification of Fusion: Two Case Studies—The RudakovCase," Fusion Dec. 1977-Jan. 1978, p. 54; and "Who's Really SabotagingFusion Development?" Fusion March 1978, p. 8.2. The British input is detailed in the March 1978 Fusion article citedabove.3. The task force commissioned by the Electric Power Research Institutein 1976 to review the status of laser fusion noted the same generalproblem with classification. "The greatest near-term impact of classification,however, probably lies in the time lag caused by the lack ofinformation on the particle and energy output of classified pellets.Reactor design studies cannot be made until at least this informationis available." (Reprinted in Intl. J. of Fusion Energy, June 1977.)4. See Laser Focus magazine, August 1976, for a similar account ofRudakov's visit.5. J. Mizui, N. Yamaguchi, T. Yamakaka, and C. Yamanaka, Phys. Rev.Lett. 39: 619 (1977). They discuss the problem in the context of asimilar quesion of electron transport and energy loss in laser-createdplasmas.6. See, for example, R. Courant and K. Friedrichs Supersonic Flow andShock Waves, New York: Interscience Publishers, 1948, p. 118.7. Private conversation with Soviet physicists.8. See, for example, Courant, Supersonic Flow and Shock Waves, p. 154.9. V.A. Belokon', "Multifoil Ultrahigh Compression," to be published inIntl. J., of Fusion Energy, 1979. For the American version, see S. E.Bodner, et al., "Inertial Confinement Fusion at NRL," paper deliveredat the IAEA International Conference on Plasma Physics and NuclearFusion, Innsbruck, Austria (IAEA-CN-37-B-3), 1978.10. "Poles Create Fusion Using Explosives," Fusion, Dec. 1977-Jan. 1978,p. 71.

Unemployed: DOE classification shut down thecapacitor bank of the Los Alamos Scyllac, rather thanpermit a joint U.S.-Soviet experiment with fast liners.The Case ofThe Fast Linerby Charles B. StevensLASLIN FALL 1978, the fast liner approach to thermonuclearfusion suddenly became classified. The mysterious decisionwas taken without consultation with any of thescientists in the research program, or with the fusion officeand the classification division at the U.S. Department ofEnergy. In effect, it has killed the fast liner work as apromising line of fusion research in the United States.Why would such an important area of fusion researchbe halted without the knowledge of any of the individualsimmediately involved? And who in the Department ofEnergy had such extraordinary decision-making power?The answers to these questions, presented below,should make those readers skeptical about the British rolein sabotaging U.S. energy development think twice.First, some facts about the fast liner.The fast liner approach to fusion is particularly importantbecause it efficiently and cheaply combines the two mostgeneral methods of obtaining fusion—magnetic confinement,which most prominently involves the tokamak, andinertial confinement, typified by laser pellet fusion.The basic idea of the fast liner system is that theelectrical conductor that generates the magnetic fieldconfining the plasma is designed to collapse under thestress of its own magnetic field and, in the process,compress and heat the plasma to fusion conditions.The electrical conductor is shaped like a hollow cylinder(Figure 1). As it collapses, or implodes, because of thepressure from the portion of the magnetic field outside,it compresses the magnetic field on the inside so that itproduces fields in excess of 1 million gauss in short bursts(a gauss is a unit of magnetic field strength).In this way, the fast liner system uses both magnetic andinertial confinement to produce a fusion plasma a milliontimes more dense than those found in tokamaks. In fact,magnetic systems like the tokamak ordinarily are limitedto magnetic fields of less than several hundred gauss,because fields that are any larger generate stresses toogreat for even the strongest steels to withstand. With afast liner power reactor, however, the liner containing theplasma would be designed to be destroyed by the burstof fusion energy, and like the pellet in laser fusion,replaced after every "shot."Another advantage of the fast liner is that it is driven byfairly cheap and low-grade energy—an intense pulse ofelectricity—and it uses this energy in an efficient mannerto ignite fusion. This means that the cost for experimentallydetermining feasibility is minimal compared to otherapproaches.Some HistoryDuring the past 20 years, fast liner imploding systemshave been investigated on a small scale by weaponslaboratories around the world as a potentially cheapmethod of simulating the burst of fusion energy generatedby a hydrogen bomb. The liner approach gained morerecognition here in the 1970s as a potential commercialpower source when it became known that a more seriouseffort was being undertaken in the Soviet Union.In a 1975 speech at New York University, Dr. RobertHirsch, then director of the U.S. fusion research effort,noted that on his last visit to the Soviet Union he wasshown a laboratory devoted solely to fast liner research.This fast liner laboratory, larger than any lab in the U.S.program, was located at the formerly secret Soviet weap-FUSION 47

InnercylinderPlasmaOutercylinderDirection of currentCOLLAPSING FAST LINER SYSTEMSThe current (lowing in the outer cylinder in one direction induces a current in the inner cylinder in theopposite direction. This produces a magnetic field that collapses the inner cylinder. The inner cylinder, called theliner, traps the magnetic field within itself as it implodes, compressing it to very high field strength*—millions ofgauss. This system provides a convenient method to trap, compress, and heat a plasma to fusion conditions.ons outside Moscow, called Red Square. (Subsequently,"Red Square" was once again closed off to visiting foreignscientists.)Two years later when the Los Alamos toroidal thetapinchfusion experiment, the Scyllac, was shut downbecause of experimental failures, Los Alamos scientistslooked for new alternative approaches to fusion. TheScyllac was one of the largest fusion experiments in theUnited States and was driven by a large, $30 millionelectrical capacitor power supply.Los Alamos was one of the U.S. weapons labs that hada small-scale liner research program, and it was quicklydetermined that the now idle Scyllac capacitor bank wouldbe perfect for driving large liner experiments.The Velikhov ProposalDuring a visit here in spring 1977, E.P. Velikhov, thendirector of the Soviet fusion effort, informally broachedthe possibility of combining the large Soviet liner effortwith the idle Los Alamos power supply in order to carryout a number of large-scale joint experiments. This uniqueproposal was formally presented to the United States thefollowing summer at the Joint Fusion Power CoordinatingCommittee. Everyone concerned—the Los Alamos scientistsas well as the U.S. defense and intelligence agencies—was excited by the proposal because such collaborationwould mean access to the personnel and possibly eventhe facilities of the Soviet Red Square Laboratory.Exchange visits between the United States and! SovietUnion on the fast liner project took place in fall 19J77, andpreliminary plans were drawn up for joint experiments.It was universally recognized within the U.S. scientificestablishment that the United States would only stand togain by such an exchange on the fast liner. The Sovietswere far ahead on the most crucial aspect of the experiments—theliner and the plasma to put in it—and theUnited States was contributing simply an idle (althoughlarge and costly) power supply for which the Sovietsalready possessed the full technological capability. In fact,this is exactly what the DOE concluded after a thoroughclassification review on the fast liner project, completedin February 1978.Despite this DOE go-ahead and the enthusiasm on allsides, the joint experimental program never took place. Itbecame an early victim of the Carter administration'shuman rights campaign, per order of Zbigniew Brzezinskiand his National Security Council. Most ironically, wheninterested congressmen inquired informally of the DOEabout the termination of the joint program, they weretold that it was canceled to "prevent the Soviets fromgetting access to U.S. capacitor bank technology." As anyinformed U.S. specialist would have assured Congress, thiswas a big lie.The'ammunition for this decision—and for other attackson international fusion programs as contributing to nuclearweapons proliferation—came from a study completedin 1978 by the antinuclear Mitre Corporation forthe DOE. The Mitre study, which remains classified,broached the subject of the need to classify the full arrayof technologies in fusion work.Who Killed the Fast Liner?Canceling a joint U.S.-Soviet research program is onething. How did the DOE move from this to total classification—essentiallycutting out the U.S. research in fastliners altogether?In fall 1978, the DOE Fusion Office held a special reviewmeeting jon alternative approaches to fusion other thanthe mainline systems. The fast liner was scheduled as oneof the approaches to'be presented, 'but it was withdrawn48 FUSION

Soviet fusion policy emphasizescollaboration, not classification.Here, Velikhov (I.) and Basov,leaders of the Sovietfusion program.Photo by Bardwellat the last minute. Rumor had it that the fast liner wasbeing classified.This author immediately called the appropriate officersin the DOE classification division to determine if, in fact,the liner had been classified. The classification officerswere amazed at this news. They said that no one hadconsulted them about the fast liner since the February1978 review. And officials at the DOE's Office of MilitaryApplications confirmed that although they had heardrumors about classification, no one had consulted withthem.Next, calls were made to the appropriate scientists in allthe major national laboratories. They reported similarlythat no one had consulted with them about classifying thefast liner. And, finally, the Department of Defense assistantsecretary for atomic energy, presumably a person in whosepurview the classified project would fall, said that no onehad consulted him about the fast liner.Assuming then that such classification by fiat had comedirectly from the office of Energy Secretary James Schlesinger,I questioned DOE Assistant Undersecretary forDefense Programs Don Kerr. Kerr statfed that Schlesinger'sSpecial Assistant Jeffrey R. Cooper had sent a memo tohim Sept. 1, 1978 that called for moving the fast linerprogram from the energy technology division of DOE todefense programs, thus classifying it. But Kerr said he hadno idea who had prompted Cooper to send the memoand why.Subsequently, the FEF confirmed that no one, includingCooper, ever consulted with any of the appropriate scientistsin DOE or the Department of Defense in theformulation of the Sept. 1 memo. In fact, the only peopleCooper is known to have consulted with are those at theBritish weapons laboratory at Aldermaston, where he wasvisiting at the time the memo was being discussed.Readers may recall that certain electron beam fusionresearch was classified in a similar manner after Sovietfusion scientist L.I. Rudakov proposed joint research workin 1976. When questioned by a NATO colleague as to whythe U.S. refused the Soviet offer and classified the researchinvolved, U.S. Defense Secretary Harold Brown statedbluntly: "Our British allies wouldn't let us."Is Cooper a scientist? No. He is an economist. His roleas Schlesinger's special assistant has been as liaison manwith U.S. security and intelligence agencies. In this capacityit is known that he was the chief DOE hatchet man inthe effort that killed the U.S. nuclear fission fast breederprogram.Cooper's memo, which DOE sources said was withdrawnafter its damage had been done, pushed the earlier obstructivemoves by Brzezinski and Schlesinger against thefast liner program to the point where the research programis effectively dead. More serious in consequence arethe facts that Cooper chose to go outside the normalchannels to effect this classification and that evidencefrom more than one reliable source places him at theAldermaston lab in Britain at the time of this decision.Both facts imply a deliberate intention to impede basicscientific research in the United States and to seal thechannels of U.S.Soviet scientific cooperation that hadbeen opened up in the Nixon administration. Both consequencesare primary goals of the Dark Ages faction.U.S. intelligence agencies and congressional oversightcommittees concerned with strategic research and developmentwould do well to study the fast liner case for leadson who indeed is thwarting the U.S. strategic capability.Charles 8. Stevens, well known as a fusion reporterinternationally, is director of fusion engineering studiesfor the Fusion Energy Foundation.FUSION 49

AppropriateTechnologyThe US. Goes BackThe environmentalists have taken thewords development and technology andtwisted them into their opposites.Nowhere in the miasma ofenvironmentalist "small is beautiful"literature can one find the concepts ofgrowth and progress or the idea that thehuman minds of each generation must benourished so that they can achieve thescientific breakthroughs necessary to takethe human race to higher material andcultural levels.THE UNITED STATES is the only advanced sector nationbesides Great Britain to adopt appropriate technology asa national policy.Appropriate technology is a modern-day version ofMalthusianism, a policy of forcing society to use onlyprimitive materials to meet so-called basic needs; it presumesausterity, zero-growth, low energy use, and manuallabor.How did the greatest industrial power in the worldadopt a policy that is the very opposite of its FoundingFathers' commitment to industrial, scientific, and technologicaldevelopment, a commitment that enabled thecountry to become great? The extent of the appropriatetechnology takeover and the individuals and groups thatfostered it must be understood, especially by U.S. industrialistsand small businessmen who have been the maintargets of the hoax in this country. And once the facts areknown, the policy must be reversed.Official U.S. PolicyThe U-S. government accepted appropriate technology.is its policy for the Third and Fourth Worlds early in 1978,with the passage of Section 507 of the Public Law. OstensiblyCongress passed the law as preparation for theUnited Nations Conference on Science and Technology

to the Stone Ageby Cynthia Parsonsfor Development to be held in Vienna next August. Theconference is planned solely to push appropriate technology,with a follow-up Conference on New and RenewableEnergy Resources—biomass, solar, and wind energyscheduledfor 1981.On the environmentalists' agenda for the August conferenceis the establishment of a "code" for technologytransfer, which translates into an attack on the multinationalsbecause "big companies push big technology."The official U.S. position toward the conference, Section507 of the U.S. Public Law, reads:The president shall take appropriate steps to ensurethat at all stages of the ... conference ... representativesof the United States place important emphasis inboth official statements and informal discussions onthe development and use of light capital technologiesin agriculture, in industry, and in the production andconservation of energy.Light capital technologies means:those means of production which economize oncapital wherever capital is scarce and expensive andlabor abundant and cheap ... to ensure that theincreasingly scarce capital in the world can bestretched to help all, rather than a small minority ofthe world's poor; that workers will not be replacedby sophisticated labor-saving devices where there isalready much unemployment; and further, that poornations can be encouraged eventually to producetheir own capital from surplus labor time, thus enhancingtheir chances of developing independentlyof outside help.The unfortunate irony in this congressional policy is, ofcourse, that unless the United States continues to havemarkets for its high-technology products—particularly nuclearpower—in the developing nations, U.S. industry willrapidly descend into bankruptcy, throwing the majority ofthis nation out of work. Furthermore, by condemningpoverty-stricken nations to "independent development"through primitive technology, the United States will ensurethat the necessary markets never develop, becausesuch "independent" cultures will die out from diseaseand starvation.The model for such idiocy is the opposite of the AmericanSystem-—British colonialism, against which ourFounding Fathers fought and won a revolution.Last March President Carter followed up the officialappropriate technology policy by announcing the formationof a Foundation for International Technological Cooperationbased on appropriate technology. Carter createdthe FITC by executive order after Congress hadrefused to sanction the proposal when it was part of theInternational Development Cooperation Act of 1978, a billproposed by Senator Hubert Humphrey. At the time,Congress had also refused to create the Humphrey bill'sproposed International Development Cooperation-Administration, an umbrella agency designed to coordinateappropriate technology activities and all sciencepolicy without being responsible to any governmentbranch. Now, the FITC will create this umbrella agency,whether or not Congress goes along.The Humphrey bill made it clear that appropriate technologywas not just for the poor in foreign countries, butfor poor U.S. communities as well. Although the ostensibleraison d'etre of the bill was the reorganization of U.S.foreign assistance programs to gear them to meeting thebasic needs of the poorest of the poor nations, the draftprogram for the FITC states that the poor of the UnitedStates are to share the benefits of this low-energy, ruralapproach. "Technologies relevant ... to American needs,"the report reasons, are similar "to those of developingcountries...."Indeed, federally funded environmentalist groups arealready at work in ghettos like the South Bronx, buildingwindmills, compost heaps, and solar reflectors for crumblingtenements.The first official U.S. recommendations for the AugustUnited Nations conference, known as the Stever report(after H. Guyford Stever of the National Research Council),is based on research by, among others, the NationalAcademy of Sciences and the National Research Council,both of which were factionally divided on the issue ofappropriate technology. The Stever report recommendeda halt in all areas of growth, a cut in energy usage, a stopin the transfer of capital-intensive technology, and theestablishment of a sophisticated monitoring and communicationsystem to be used to record the rate of degenerationand famine worldwide.Similar reports were presented by nearly all the partic-FUSION 51

ipating nations, although some of the preconference documentsare representative of their governments' growthpolicies.Leading the U.S. delegation to the conference will beJean Wilkowski, former U.S. ambassador to Zambia, whois planning the details, and Father Theodore H^sburgh,former president of the University of Notre Dame. Hesburghhas a long history of work with appropriate technologywith the Overseas Development Council, theRockefeller Foundation, and as an advisor to the U.S.foreign assistance programs in the early 1970s.Kissinger's HandiworkThe man who most contributed to the U.S. shift fromindustrialization to applied technology, however, is HenryKissinger. Kissinger has been associated closely with everyinternational plan to keep the Third World agrarian andwithout high technology. He launched the UN WorldFood Conference in 1974, which set up a program of U.S.assistance for small subsistence farming throughout theUnited States as well as the less-developed nations. Hewas similarly instrumental in getting the 1976 UN Habitatconference off the ground, which brought together en*vironmentalist groups from around the world to discusspolicies for retribalizing societies so as not to disturbnature (see box on Gaviotas).More recently, Kissinger, along with National SecurityAdvisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, was behind the scenes at theJune 1977 meeting of the Less Developed Nations strongarmingnations for acceptance of solar, biomass, andwindmills and a U.S. policy of conservation, coal, and coaltar.Kissinger is also intimately associated with thei proposalfor an International Resources Bank and a Common Fundfor commodities, both plans to mortgage the raw materialseconomies of the Third World as a way of ensuiring debtrepayment. The Group of 77, the nonaligneq nations,firmly rejected the Kissinger International Resources Bankplan at an historic 1976 meeting in Colombo, Sri Lanka.The Colombo resolution calling for debt moratoria andhigh-technology development enraged Kissinger, and hevented his displeasure by maneuvering to destabilize themost vocal Third World prodevelopment leaders, includingformer foreign minister Fred Wills of Guyana andformer prime minister Indira Gandhi of India, jJust months after the Colombo conference,; Kissingercalled a State Department meeting for 800 U.S.! businessmenand public figures. His explicit intentiojn was toprepare for the acceptance of appropriate technology notonly in the Third World but here. In particular, he wantedto create the climate to convince U.S. corporations thatappropriate technology would provide a huge ijnarket fortheir outmoded technology and machinery, much the waycolonial Britain sold broken-down machinery shippedfrom idle British factories to the Third World a|t a whoppingprofit.At the State Department meeting were a rfumber ofKissinger's most loyal cothinkers: Sterling Wortman of theRockefeller Foundation, an advocate of small-jscale subsistencefarming; Orville Freeman, president of BusinessInternational Corporation and, during his tendire as secretaryof agriculture in the Kennedy administration, re-Thjese subsistencefarmers work part or the day clearing asponsible for shutting down U.S. food exports to theunderdeveloped sector; G. William Miller, then head ofTextrojn, the corporation known for its policy of assetstrippingindustry, and now head of the Federal Reserve;James P. Grant, president of the Overseas DevelopmentCouncil, which sets development policy for the WorldBank and among business circles; and Frank Pace, Jr.,president of International Executive Service Corporation.Pace set the tone for the meeting by focusing on thesmall-scale free-enterprise aspect of appropriate technology."|lt is important to establish goals, not for the purposeof intermediate or appropriate technology in the developing!countries, nor for the purpose of developing newhigh-level technology, but to arrange for present technologyto be adapted to the needs and requirements ofthe small business and small farmer."Miller went right to the Kissinger point, stating that itwas impossible to raise the Third World tothe; same standard of living that exists in the UnitedStates.... I don't believe that we have the resources inthe! world in terms of human managerial resources or52 FUSION

were set up to plan for appropriate technology involvingnearly all the bureaus of the State Department and workingin collaboration with the U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment, AID, which is at the center of the campaignfor appropriate technology. An AID official estimated that70 to 80 percent of AID's billion-dollar budget goes forappropriate technology work.canal fay hand in an AID food-for-work project in lava.labor resources, nor do we have the material resourcesto accomplish this in a short time. Nor wouldit necessarily be desirable to establish the Americanstandard of living as it now exists, in many wayswasteful, in many ways perhaps less rewarding thanalternate cultural opportunities as the norm for tjneworld. I don't suppose that any of us would propose,in thinking of the use of technology to create developmentin the world, that we try to close that gapinstantly.Once it was established that a high standard of living bythe rest of the world was neither necessary nor desirable,H. Guyford Stever of the National Research Council toldthe business leaders that the Third World didn't want itanyway. "Technology transfer, unless.carefully grafted tolocal values and conditions, may be rejected," he said."Agricultural self-sufficiency" using appropriate technologiesis the best the Third World can hope for, Stever said,and he called on the private sector and international aidagencies to persuade the Third World to accept this.After the 1976 Kissinger meeting, various task forcesSmall Business FocusA special focus of AID's Office of Technology Assessmenthas been the small U.S. businessman and the kindof small manufacturing type schemes—cottage industries—thattypify the piecemeal, localized approach ofappropriate technology. For example, one such task forceis working on an old World Bank plan using computerizedU.S. patent data. Although it gives the appearance ofbeing a genuine streamlining of technology transfer, it ismerely a glorified cookbook geared to ensnare U.S. industriesto switch over to producing solar plates or windmillparts.It works like this: A Third Worlder who wants to opena small business applies to the U.S. liaison in his countryand provides the input for the computer—how muchmanpower is available, resources, and so on. Then thecomputer retrieval system supplies the applicant with the"appropriate needs" and the U.S. producers who can fillhis request.As one member of this task force made clear, theprogram is premised on three points that obviously determinethe reply: an energy shortage, environmentalimpact, and a world economic crisis.AID began to be remodeled for its present role duringthe Kennedy administration. Part of this reshaping involvedculling the old-time foreign service diplomats whostill felt that the United States should be responsible forsome real growth and development in the rest of theworld. To complete this culling process, the BrookingsInstitution recommended the dissolution of AID (see nextsection), but Carter has not gone quite that far.Last year the president continued this process of AIDreorganization by upgrading the position of AID headJohn Gilligan, making him chief coordinator and funddispenser for all U.S. foreign assistance programs. Gilliganrecently announced his resignation, but it is rumored thathe will head up a new U.S. coordinating agency forappropriate technology, the proposed International DevelopmentCooperation Administration.Carter also recently formed the Appropriate TechnologyInternational within the State Department, based on anAID proposal and funded largely by AID. The mandatefor this came out of the International Food and AssistanceAct of 1975, a precursor of the Humphrey bill, whichspecified a "private effort ... to promote the developmentand dissemination of technologies appropriate for developingcountries (section 107)." Now the AppropriateTechnology International claims to be "the first organizationto be conceived by a national legislature and givenbirthright by a national government."Some of the most important contributions to the drivefor deindustrjalization came from the Brookings Institution.For example, a November 1977 Brookings report,"Interim Report on U.S. Development Assistance Strate-FUSION 53

U.S. AIDOne truck would free these children (or full-time edu|cation. This rock-hauling in Haiti is part of an Alb projectto build a water pipeline.gies" by Lester Gordon of the "Harvard Institute for InternationalDevelopment, spelled out two primary goals.First, all development policy should be removed! from thehands of the State Department, Congress, and other publicentities that would fail to be tough enough on the ThirdWorld. Instead Brookings recommends the establishmentof a Development Cooperation Agency responsible onlyto the president. Cordon makes it clear that) such anagency would emphasize "quality of life" rather thaneconomic growth.Second, the Brookings report insisted that developmentaid should go only to the poorest countries—the relativelyless developed countries known as the Fourljh World,while the Third World should be the responsibility of theWorld Bank and the IMF. Such aid to the Fourth Worldshould be "rationed," because "if it becomes substantial,it is likely to discourage the kind of economic policieswhich would enable it to survive on its own."In keeping with the Kissinger view, the Brookings reportstates that even machinery and equipment castloffs fromthe United States are too technical for the Fourth World.In a labor-abundant society, the report said, the introductionof machinery will only add to the unemploymentproblems.The Brookings report had recommended that AID beincorporated into its proposed new Development CooperationAgency, a step that would require congressionalapproval. Congress refused to act on this last year, and itis possible that Carter sees AID director Gilligan comingin to head the FITC or a similar agency as a way ofimplementing the Brookings plan without congressionalapproval.GenocideDoes the Third World want appropriate technology andzero-growth? As Andrew Young, U.S. Ambassador to theUnited Nations, recently put it, appropriate technology isan "insult to the Third World's intelligence."Third World leaders like Mexican President Lopez Portillohave made it clear that they see the future of theirnation allied with advanced technology and the growthand development programs put forward by the EuropeanMonetary System, the major political opponent of theappropriate technology schemes. For Lopez Portillo, industrializationgoes hand in hand with human development,and the human mind is his nation's most preciousresource to be developed.Other Third World leaders never had the ppportunityto "choose" between feudalism and advanced technology;the World Bank and the International MonetarySystem made acceptance of feudalist aid programs a conditionfor receiving any foreign aid. For the poorest of thepoor nations, this meant choosing between short-termand long-term starvation.Zero-growth-based economies date back to the iceages. Over the centuries of recorded history, certainsocieties or cultures ceased to exist, if not because of war,then because of their inability to adapt, change, andimprove nature, developing new technologies to surmountnew problems of energy deficiencies, food production,and natural disasters. By definition, appropriatetechnologies cannot solve such problems.Worse, appropriate technology removes from a societyits ability to develop the minds that will produce the newtechnologies to solve new problems; it is a policy whoseend product is genocide.There are all sorts of environmentalist sweeteners designedto disguise this basic fact: "Technology causesunemployment"; "there is a small, finite world supply ofcapital that must be redistributed so that poor nations getan appropriate share"; "all technologies are equal"; andthe more radical version, "appropriate technology willfinally liberate the Third World from dependence onoppressive Western culture"—these are some of the environmentalistarguments. The tell-tale odor of appropriatetechnology, however, is manual labor, appropriatelypainful, as the United Nations picture on the back coverof this issue points out.Appropriate Technology's Colonial RootsTh^re has always been a feudalist, Malthusian faction inhistory, frightened by industrialization and scientific advancesand the new powers these make possible for thegeneral population. Rural, backward populations aremucrj easier to control.The modern-day appropriate technology faction surfacedafter World War II, out of the remains of the British54 FUSION

Ethiopia could become the granary of the Middle East and Africa—with some tractors and threshing equipment.colonialists. These mainly British backers of the BaruchPlan, the Morgenthau Plan, and the Marshall Plan foughtto institute a zero-growth, agrarian policy for Europe anda small-scale development and agriculture progra-m centeredaround the extraction of raw materials for the restof the world. Specifically, this faction opposed the EisenhowerAtoms for Peace idea. The European nationswouldn't buy this bucolic scheme, however; they wantedindustry.One of the major instruments to promote this feudalistapproach was the World Bank, created in 1946 under theBretton Woods agreement. For the first two decades, thebank lent money only to create the necessary infrastructurefor raw materials extraction, cash-crop agriculture,and small-scale industries. Sometimes this meant buildinglarge-scale hydroelectrical construction such as the KaribaDam, but this was only to aid in raw material extraction.Today, those World Bank recipient nations that are nolonger capable of debt repayment or raw material looting—Tanzania,Bangladesh, Southeast Asia, for example—are slated for appropriate technology; that is, slow starvationunder the name of self-reliance.The hard core of the appropriate technology pusherscame from the Fabian group in the British Labour Partyaround Sir Thomas Balogh, Paul P. Streeten, and DudleySeers. Seers designed the original "basic needs" conceptand helped form the British Overseas Development Ministryto replace the tarnished image of the British ColonialOffice.Underlying the basic policies of these social plannerswas an avid hatred of capitalism; in particular, ihey wereagainst profit and any form of society that would produceprofits that could be invested in new machinery foreconomic expansion.These Fabians, along with others—notably Swedish SocialDemocrat Gunnar Myrdal and Latin American expertPaul Prebisch, the father of UNCTAD—helped launch theUnited Nations First Development Decade in the 1960s,which trained and coordinated the international expertswho subsequently ran the UN and private institutions thatpromoted zero-growth and ruralization.In 1964, one year after the first UN Conference on theApplication of Science and Technology for the Benefit ofthe Less Developed Areas presented a deindustrializationpolicy to these nations, Balogh, Seers, and Fabian BarbaraCastle created an umbrella organization known as theInstitute of Development Studies or IDS at Sussex University.(Sussex LJniversity is a center of British IntelligenceFUSION 55

work and the psychological warfare projects of the TavistockInstitute.) The main function of the IDS was as atraining ground for overseas administrators. Using Indiaas a model for small-scale development, in 1969, the IDSproduced a work titled The Crisis in Planning, whichattempted to discredit Nehru's large-scale industrial developmentplans.Seers and Streeten were also involved in the Society forInternational Development, founded in 1957. At a 1969conference in India sponsored by the society, Seers calledfor breaking the dependence of the Third World onforeign technologies, arguing that foreign technology was"inappropriate for local problems." Seers also told conferenceattendees that the Third World must not) ignorethe priority of "halting rapid deterioration in the Environment."Of course, he blamed industry as the polluter.Under Seers's tutelage, the head of the InternationalLabour Organization, Hans Singer, reformulated the basicneeds concept for fostering labor-intensive rura'l developmentprojects in its World Environment Program.In the same year, 1969, Robert McNamara took over therunning of the World Bank and began immediate collaborationwith Seers to reevaluate bank policies. Fqur yearslater, McNamara wrote One Hundred Countries, TwoBillion People, establishing new, more rural-Orientedguidelines for the next generation. "Our five-year prospectcalls for considerable change in the allocation of ourresources, both to geographical areas and to economicsectors." The new areas (replacing South Asia) were LatinAmerica and Africa. The new economic sector: "... thesector of greatest expansion in our Five Year Program isagriculture...."From 1969 to 1973, these organizations and tJjie otherslisted below laid much of the groundwork for the currentshift into an open campaign for appropriate technology.The polemic of this period was that industrialization hadfailed to solve the problems of the poor. To remedy this,development was to focus on rural economies.During this period, the United Nations drafted'its WorldAction Plan, based on "basic needs" and appropriatetechnology, and this became the guiding principle for theSecond Development Decade. As one UN documentnoted: "Care needs to be exercised also to prevent inappropriatetechnologies from being inadvertently or otherwiseforced on developing countries...."One of the .activists in this period and later years wasJan Tinbergen, who developed the language of appropriatetechnology—the "haves" versus the "have-nots." In1976, Tinbergen was commissioned by the zero-growthClub of Rome to write their plan for reducingthe worldpopulation, "Reshaping the International Order," or RIO.To quote RIO on technology:Research should foe LIS less on the improvement andadaptation of technologies developed in the industrializedworld and more on the development ofcompletely new technologies specifically geared toIne requirements of each country.^.and, where appropriate,related to the traditional technologies usedby the lo< ,il population.Certainly the most revered name in the history ofappropriate technology is Ernst Friedrich "Fritz" Schu-56 FUSION

TheGaviotasModelThe Gaviotas project in the Amazonregion of Colombia is the model selectedby the UN Environmental Programand the World Bank of appropriatetechnology for the moreadvanced Third World nations.Gaviotas, which means seagull, isdesigned to establish work for 100,000persons without "disturbing the sensitiveecological balance of the region,"according to one of its directors.It is also serving as a trainingbase for teachers and leaders who willstart other such colonies internationally.The eight-year project has receivedextensive funding from theFord and Rockefeller Foundations,and has contracts to provide technicalassistance to Ethiopia and Ecuador.1. Submerged Turbine PumpMade out of wash buckets, spokes,and old tires, the pump has the capacityto pump 8 cubic meters ofwater a day for 40 meters. The pumpis placed in a river in front of a smallmound of reinforced dirt. The moundforces water up it and through holesmade in the wash bucket, which isthen spun by the motion of the water.2. The Bagged DamThis dam is the showpiece of Gaviotasbecause it is both durable andflexible. Polyethylene bags are filledwith a mixture of 90 percent sand ordirt and 10 percent cement. If modernimported generators are added to thedam, it could be used to supply localelectricity.3. Wooden Barrel BargeThis electricity-producing barge ismade up of 27 barrels, held togetherby steel ribs, thai have been treatedwith an antjcorrosive material andfilled with polyurethane foam to ensurebuoyancy. Four small motors arethen used under the barge, which atfheir peak could move at 300 rpm.The barge, held in place by a long(able, produces a total potential of 32kilowatts-disposable, with 5 kilowattsper day convened into electrical en-FUSION 57

macher, now deceased, whose 1973 book Small is Beautifulis the bible of the environmentalists. An economist in thetradition of John Maynard Keynes, Schumacher wasclosely connected to the British Colonial Office and servedas advisor on rural development to the Planning Commissionin Delhi from 1962. In the postwar years, as a memberof the British Control Commission in Germany and economicadvisor to the Coal Board, Schumacher had playeda significant role in shaping national and internationalpolicies, with particular emphasis on the effects of moderntechnological developments on the human condition.In 1966, he established the British Intermediate TechnologyDevelopment group to promote his ideas, and hewas personally involved with most of the groups listed inthe appendix to this article.Perhaps the best summary of Schumacher's influencehere as the ideologue of the appropriate technologyconcept can be seen from the following two condolencemessages sent to his organization after his death in August1977.The work of the International Technology Developmentgroup and Dr. Schumacher, particularly Small isBeautiful, inspired the House Committee on InternationalRelations to initiate a new U.S. AID programon appropriate technology. While we were draftingthe proposal, his presence was most helpful in alertingmembers to the issue of intermediate technology andhis commitments assisted us in structuring the program.He is remembered with great respect andTheLorenaStove:Latest U.S.Technology?In a recent interview, a staff member of the Officeof Technology Assessment, a congressional advisorygroup, was asked if his group was working with anyof the appropriate technology organizations. Hisenthusiastic reply: "I have just written a recommendationof Appropriate Technology International'sversion of the Lorena Stove. It is a wonderful invention.It is so compact and efficient and cheap. Thiswill give women much more free time for them todo other things, like homecraft, so they can increasetheir family incomes."The accompanying picture of the Lorena Stove isfrom a 1978 publication of Appropriate TechnologyInternational.fondness by members of the Committee on InternationalRelations....—Clement Zablocki, ChairmanHe was one.of the truly great thinkers of theWestern World and a man whose moral, political andeconomic ideas are an inspiration to all of us. Manyof the ideas in President Carter's National Energy Plancan be directly attributed to Schumacher's notion ofsmall technologies.... He should garner the credit forshowing us the way.—Charles H. PercyCpmmittee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate,Washington, D.C.Other leading environmentalists collaborating withSchumacher were Barbara Ward, also known as BaronessJackson, who currently heads up the Society for InternationalDevelopment, and Judith Hart, British Minister ofOverseas Development. At a talk last year to AnglicanBishops, Ward said the world was divided into pessimistsand optimists, the pessimists being for zero-growth andconservation and the optimists pushing for fusion. Sheplaced herself squarely in the zero-growth camp.Hart's notable activity this year was to commission aspecial study on windmills as part of a British governmentproject to develop small-scale alternative sources of energyfor Third World villages. "They need low-cost sourcesof energy appropriate to village economies," she said.In the United StatesThe antiindustrial movement in the United States paralleledthe British colonialists on a smaller scale, beginningwith the conservationist concerns of the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service during Rachel Carson's tenure.In the late 1950s, a group of scientists and technologistsat a General Electric plant in Schenectady, New York,formed VITA, Volunteers International Technical Association.VITA modeled itself on the Sussex University collectives,which were designed as self-contained modelvillages for poorer countries. In 1961, AID gave VITA a$10,000 grant, and they produced their version of theWhole Earth Catalogue, the V///age Technology Handbook.VITA became involved in the poverty programs of the1960s with federal funding and set up offices around thecountry. Today its annual budget tops $.5 million, with 40percent coming from AID, and the rest from the WorldBank and the Church World Service. Since VITA's antiindustrybusiness is windmills, biomass stoves, and biopotlavatories, it is interesting that large multinationals likeCargill, John Deere, Exxon, and Standard Oil are alsoamong its funders.One staunch supporter of appropriate technology is theNew York Cathedral of St. John the Divine, the leadingtemple of the American branch of the Order of theKnights of St. John. The cathedral, which has taken anactive role in preaching and supporting all kinds of "alternativelifestyles," works closely with the LindisfarneAssociation, a New York project founded by Fritz Schumacherin 1972.58 FUSION

Lindisfarne, which describes itself in cult terms, says itis .1 "contemplative community of scholars devoted to thestudy and realization of a new planetary culture ... one inwhich technological civilization becomes miniaturizedand surrounded by a consciousness....The scientist workswith a sense of the sacredness of all existence, he movesinto a higher consciousness shared with the artist and themystic."Who are some of the fellows of this new planetaryculture? Gregory Bateson, the husband of anthropologistMargaret Mead and an original member of the Britishintelligence-run 1950s program, MK-Ultra, for the massuse of LSD; Steward Brand, who along with Bateson is anadvisor to Governor Jerry Brown of Californa; RichardFalk, director of the Institute for World Order; and ZbigniewBrzezinski.PARTIAL LIST OF U.S. ORGANIZATIONSFOR APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGYAppropriate Technology InternationalFounded in 1978 by a mandate from Congress "topromote the development and dissemination of technologiesappropriate for developing countries," ATI's fundsare channeled through the U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment. It functions as the coordinating body fororganizations involved in small-scale appropriate technologies,with its basic thrust to "build on what alreadyexists." The board of trustees includes personnel fromScientific American, the Aspen Institute for HumanisticStudies, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Many corporationsand small business leaders are functioning withATI.Brookings InstitutionAlthough it does not specialize in development projectsor the Third World, Brookings prepares timely policydocuments on foreign aid that usually make their way intoU.S. government policy. In 1965, Brookings offered thefirst conceptions for the reorganization of U.S. foreignaid, a program President Nixon tried to carry out butfailed. Again in 1973 and 1977, Brookings put forwardother papers with the same theme stressing that "basicneeds" must be the main thrust of a U.S. foreign aidprogram and that a single foundation must control scienceand technology. (President Carter's 1978 executive orderestablishing the Foundation for International TechnologicalCooperation comes but of this Brookings proposal.)Brookings also was among the first to raise the issue of"new and renewable resources," a code phrase for solar,biomass and wind energy.Institute for Food Development PolicyFounded in 1975, this organization focuses on alleviatinghunger by self-help and food-for-work programs. Supposedlyschemes to encourage people to be self-sufficient,food-for-work usually means that recipients expend morecalories in manual labor than they are provided by thefood supplied. This institute works closely with AID andinterfaces with the Institute for Policy Studies. It receivescontributions from the United Presbyterian Church, theEpiscopal Church, the Jesuit Council for Theological Reflection,and the Stern Foundation, among others. Itspersonnel feature heavily in President Carter's HungerCommission.Institute for Policy StudiesA so-called radical group founded in 1963 by a staffmember of the National Security Council, this outfit isinvolved with environmentalist as well as with terroristgroups, especially those involved in the fight againstnuclear power. (Several Weatherunderground membersare fellows of the institute, for example.) Virulently antiindustrial,the IPS interfaces closely with the Overseas DevelopmentCouncil and Worldwatch (below).National Center for Appropriate TechnologyHeadquartered in Butte, Montana, the center dealsprimarily with appropriate technology for agriculture. Itencourages small farmers to build windmills, and to usecow dung and whatever other, local resources they canfind in order to become energy self-sufficient.New Alchemy InstituteThis center for "alternative technologies" is located atWoods Hole, Massachusetts and the San Francisco ZenCenter in California. The basic New Alchemy principle isto oppose energy-intensive methods in industry and agriculture.Its directors, Nancy and John Todd, who areboth Lindisfarne fellows (see text), were encouraged inthis philosophy by Margaret Mead, who told them thatthey would be successful if they could create entirevillages using feudal techniques. Their "bioshelter" and"self-enclosed ecosystem" rely on wind and solar powerand the recycling of human, kitchen, and garden wastes.To quote from John Todd in the journal of the NewAlchemy: "If people lived in smaller systems, their experiencewould be more direct and political judgment onthe part of the majority would become more sensitive."The Overseas Development CouncilFounded in 1969 as a development front group for theWorld Bank by James Grant and Lester Brown, the CDChas made itself the single most influential U.S. developmentagency outside of the World Bank. It picked up theappropriate technology line in early 1970 and has beenpushing it ever since. Rev. Theodore Hesburgh is chairmanof its board of directors. Other directors include RobertAnderson of Atlantic Richfield, Eugene Black of AmericanExpress, David Rockefeller of Chase Manhattan Bank, andCharles Thornton of Litton Industries.Worldwatch InstituteFounded by Lester Brown of the Overseas DevelopmentCouncil, Worldwatch has adopted a more radical zerogrowth,environmentalist line than the council, whichretains a more professional image. Brown is also an administratorof the International Agricultural DevelopmentService of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Along withBruce Stokes and Denis Hayes (the organizer of "SunDay" in the United States last year) Brown publishes the"Worldwatch Paper." Their basic idea is that the world isrunning out of resources and the only solution is to cutback on consumption.A specialist in Third World development, FEF staffmember Cynthia Parsons is studying the problems oftechnology transfer and education involved in bringingthe developing sector into the fusion age.FUSION 59

Science and SpooksThe Spirit of Isaac Newtonby Dr. John SchoonoverBY THE LAST QUARTER of the 19th century, mostprominent scientists in Britain were practicing spiritualists.They believed in ghosts and conducted what they calledscientific investigations of the spirit world. Sir WilliamCrookes, Lord Rayleigh, J.J. Thomson, Sir Oliver Lodge,and Alfred Russel Wallace are a few of the famous men ofscience who dabbled in sorcery and gave credence to theclaims of the worst spiritualist hoaxsters of the period.How could such spiritualism coexist with real science?The fact is that although British science produced a fewgood applied physicists, like Stokes and Maxwell, it nevercontributed any fundamental theoretical advances of thecaliber of those contributed by Kepler, Leibniz, Gauss,Riemann, Cantor, and Schrodinger.There has not been any real science in Britain since thedemise of the Cromwellian republic and Elizabethan science.From then until the present, so-called British sciencehas been a tool of British foreign policy, acting only tocontain and destroy real scientific advances. As forthcomingarticles in this series will document in detail, the aimof the British up to the present has been to bring any realscience under the control of an elite—as advocated byH.G. Wells—or to destroy it altogether, by submergingsociety in a miasma of primitive cult activity—the plan ofBertrand Russell.To understand the spiritualist side of science historypresented here, bear in mind that in the 1800s, the leadingcircles in Britain from prime ministers on down not onlybelieved in spirits but belonged to secret societies—cults—that carried out primitive, mystical rituals. At the sametime these circles were engaged in a bitter warfare toprevent an alliance for progress among the Continent,Russia, the United States, and other nations that did notshare the British medieval dream.The recruitment of scientists to spiritualism—like therecruitment of scientists to environmentalist cultism today—waspart of that philosophical and political warfare.As has been the case for millennia, these feudalists targetedscientists, because the potential for progress thatscience represented was critical for the battle waged bythe city-building factions.The Case of Sir William CrookesLet's start with the case of Sir William Crookes, aneminent Victorian scientist who invented the Crookestube, an early version of the cathode ray tube, and whodiscovered the element thalium. I quote from Crookes's1874 work on spiritualist research:After closing the curtain she conversed with me forsome time, and then walked across the room to whereMiss Cook was lying senseless on the floor. Stoopingover her, Katie touched her, and said, "Wake up,Florrie, wake up! I must leave you now." Miss Cookthen woke and tearfully entreated Katie to stay a littletime longer. "My dear, I can't; my work is done. Godbless you," Katie replied, and then continued speakingto Miss Cook. For several minutes the two wereconversing with each other, till at last Miss Cook'stears prevented her speaking. Following Katie's instructionsI came forward to support Miss Cook, whowas falling on to the floor, sobbing hysterically. Ilooked round, but the white-robed Katie had gone.This bit of melodrama is Crookes's attested report of hisfinal seance with the medium Florence Cook. He and themedium claimed that "white-robed Katie," whom themedium invoked, was the daughter of the famous pirate,Henry Owen de Morgan, and Crookes published photographsto prove it. However, as the antispiritualists werequick to point out at the time (and as the reader can seehere), "Katie" bore an uncanny resemblance to mediumFlorence Cook.Why would a notable scientist become involved in suchFUSION 61

a shoddy pursuit? The answer lies nearly two centuriesearlier in the case of Sir Isaac Newton and his battleagainst Leibniz and the Leibnizian tradition in Continentalscience.The British scientist andhis spooks. Willia\n Crookes(top); his medium FlorenceCook; and th^eir allegedspirit "Katie" (below).The Newton SpiritNewton was a fraud. In the first place, and this is atradition that Crookes and other British scientists probablycontinued, his scientific work was mainly stolen fromother scientists. (For details on Newton, see Carol White'sarticles "The Royal Society," Fusion, Jan. 1978; "ScienceIs Politics," Fusion, May 1978; and "I Don't Make Hypotheses—IManufacture Data," Fusion, Dec. 1978.)Furthermore, Newton's primary interest lay not in sciencebut in the black arts and alchemy, as John MaynardKeynes admitted in his biography of Newton, which wasbased on access to the Newton archives.Newiton's preoccupation with sorcery, like the seemingaberrations in the 19th century scientists noted above, isa lawful expression of the epistemological warfare betweenthe city-builders and the zero-growthers that hasshaped science for the last several millennia. Spiritualismis the actual worldview of the zero-growth faction, theperennial enemies of the moral and intellectual developmentof humanity. Since the feudalists deny Reason, thecreative capacity of men to devise new solutions to seeminglyinsoluable problems, the zero-growth empiriciststurn to various kinds of magical thinking in an attempt toestablish a quasi-coherent worldview.The next phase of the Newton-Leibniz epistemologicalwarfare broke out in the aftermath of the Napoleonicwars. The scientific successes of the French school, primarilygrouped around the Ecole Polytechnique, and thesomewhat later successes of the Gottingen school inGermany made it clear that British science, centeredaround the Aristotelian approach of Newton, was disastrouslybehind these European developments.It was then that the British feudalists decided that theNeoplatonic epistemology that had made these Continentalscience advances possible must be quashed; in placeof Neoplatonism, European scientists must be induced toaccept one of a variety of pseudoepistemologies thatwould be sure to prevent conceptual breakthroughs.By the first quarter of the 20th century, the British hadclearly defined suitable alternate belief structures for scientists.Most prominent and most successful among thesebelief structures were the Vienna-Copenhagen positivism,which is associated with the probabilistic interpretation ofquantum mechanics, and that school of philistinism bestsummed up by the phrase, "Don't bother me with metaphysics;I'm a scientist."Niels Bohr and Max Born, to take an example of thepositivist school, immediately combined their efforts tosubvert Erwin Schroedinger's interpretation of the electron!as a plasmalike structure subject to shaping throughthe electromagnetic interaction. In its stead they substitutedthe degenerate interpretation that the wave functiondescribing the electron is simply a probabilistic statementabout the average location of an electron-in-itself, a littleharcjl ball.Less known among scientific circles but closest to theworldview of its creators is the use of science in the62 FUSION

Science fiction in action at an 1871 spiritualist seance.service of the spirit world, or, to put it simply, science asmagic.How does science become magic? Read Sir DavidBrewster, the biographer of Newton arid a leading forcein the formation of the British Association for the Advancementof Science in 1831. In the 1820s, Brewsterprovided Sir Walter Scott with a textbdok called Letterson Natural Magic. (Journalist and intelligence agent Scott,it should be noted, was the archenemy of the AmericanSystem and of Edgar Allan Poe.) In these letters, Brewsterexplains how the Babylonians and Egyptians were able touse their secret scientific knowledge to bamboozle themasses and thus control them through what appeared tobe magic.The point should not be lost on us moderns, Brewstersaid: secret knowledge is power. "When knowledge wasthe property of only one caste, it was by no means difficultto employ it in subjugation of the greatmass of society."Brewster's work on natural magic, in fact, was the basicviewpoint of the scientific faction based at Trinity College,Radio Times Hulton Picture LibraryCambridge University, and the British Association for theAdvancement of Science—a viewpoint that culminated inH.C. Wells's vision of the scientific superelite. During thesame period, the Oxford cousins of the Cambridge donslaunched the antiscientific tractarian movement of religiouskookery with the same purpose—population control.British Scientific SpiritualismCrookes first got involved in spiritualism in the early1870s when Cromwell Varley, a prominent electrical engineerand a Fellow of the Royal Society, suggested thatCrookes contact his recently deceased brother. He thenbegan a well-publicized series of experiments and attestationsto the validity of the claims of several mediums,including Florence Cook. Crookes's verifications becameso notorious that some of his scientific colleagues with aless spiritual inclination coined the emblem Ubi Crookesibi spooks, a parody of the Crookes family motto.Despite the patent fraudulence of his spiritualist claims,Crookes was knighted in 1897 and awarded the Order ofFUSION 63

"Very psychic and impressionable" was how Nobel laureate ].\. Thomson (right) defended shy spiritualists who didnot like having their work'checked by outside observers. He himself conducted seances with some of the mostnotorious mediums of the time. At left is Henry Sidgwick, founder of the British Society for Psychical Research.Merit in 1910. And all during this period, he held responsiblepositions in the Society for Psychical Research (SPR),including its presidency from 1913 to 1915.The SPR was founded in 1882, largely at the instigationof Henry Sidgwick, who was Arthur Balfour's brother-inlaw,and Sir William Barrett, professor of physics at theRoyal College of Science in Dublin, a Fellow of the RoyalSociety, and a pioneer in what he called the scientificstudy of thought transference. Many other prominentfigures from the British scientific community were involvedin the society, including Alfred Russel Wallace,who was Darwin's collaborator, and Augustus de Morgan,the logician. Bertrand Russell's uncle, Lord Arthur Russell,Lord Lytton, the Marquis of Salisbury, and Lord ArthurBalfour, who later became prime minister, lent the approvalof the Peers of the Realm to this psychic undertak­ing-Nobel PsychicsLord Rayleigh, another brother-in-law of Arthur Balfour,served as president of the SPR in 1919. The director of theCavendish Laboratory, a Nobel laureate, and president ofthe Royal Society, Rayleigh had begun psychical researchin 1874 at the suggestion of Crookes. Here is one of themore startling remarks of this renowned scientist in hispresidential address to the SPR: "To my mirid telepathywith the dead would present comparatively little difficultywhen it is admitted as regards the living. If thje apparatusof the senses is not used in one case, why $hould it beneeded in the other?" Indeed!Concurring with this sentiments was J.J. Thomson, whosucceeded Rayleigh as director of the Cavendish Laboratoryand who won the Nobel Prize allegedly for his work(using a Crookes tube) leading to the discovery of theelectron. Thomson, who served as SPR vide president,described in detail a number of seances he conducted,including some with such notorious mediums as MadameBlavatsky and Eusapia Palladino."There is no doubt of the reality of the dowsing effect,"Thomson once stated. In his dpinion, the best way todiscover water was to follow a rural wizard carrying aforked stick until the powers of darkness mysteriously pullthe stick toward the ground against the struggle of theoverpowered medium.Foif those who could not swallow such magic whole, theBritish developed a variety of scientific theories to explainthe proliferating psychic phenomena. Two eminent physicists;P.G. Tait, who was Kelvin's lifelong collaboratorand coauthor with him of the standard physics textbookof their day, and Balfour Stewart, director of the KewObservatory, professor of natural philosophy at OwensCollege, fellow of the Royal Society, and president of theSPR, wrote The Unseen Universe in 1875. Using the latestfindings of science—the concept of energy conservation,thermodynamics, and the electromagnetic ether—Tait andStewart attempted to prove the existence of a spirit worldandjto explain the connection between the material (visible)and the spiritual (invisible) universes:May we not regard ether, or the medium, as notmerely a bridge between one portion of the visibleuniverse and another, but also as a bridge betweenope order of things and another, forming, as it were,a species of cement, in virtue of which the variousorders of the universe are welded together and madeirito one? May we not at once say that, when energyis carried from matter into ether, it is carried from thevisible into the invisible; and that, when it is carriedfrom ether to matter, it is carried from the invisibleinto the visible? Inasmuch as it [thought] affects thespbstance of the present visible universe, it producesai material organ of memory. But the motions which64 FUSION

accompany thought will also affect the invisible orderof things, and thus it follows that thought conceivedto affect the matter of another universe simultaneouslywith this may explain a future state.Psyching U.S. ScienceThe Society for Psychical Research is noteworthy notonly because it drew so many prominent British scientistsinto its leadership and ranks, but also because its membershipthoroughly overlapped with the leading epistemologicalbureaus of Britain's profeudalist faction centeredin the Metaphysical Society, its successor, theAristotle Society, and Mind magazine.These networks were quick to bring their works to theUnited States, and an American branch of the society wasin operation soon after the British group was established.In the early 1890s, the American Society for PsychicalResearch along with the SPR and William James, one ofthe foulest promoters of nominalism in the Americanacademic community, participated in the InternationalCensus of Hallucinations. This was commissioned by the1889 International Congress on Experimental Psychologyin Paris, and, among other things, recorded more than50,000 cases.The most notable event in the American psychic movement,aside from the ongoing promotion of spiritualism,occurred in 1927 when Professor William McDougall ofHarvard University moved to Duke University, an Episcopalianschool with close ties to Britain, to set up the first"parapsychology" laboratory in the United States. Mc­Dougall was succeeded by J.B. Rhine.Now, who were these birds? McDougall was a Britishborn,Cambridge-educated anthropologist and psychologistwhose speciality during the war had been running ahospital for shell-shock victims (many of whom wereprobably his guinea pigs). In 1920 and 1923, he waspresident of both the American and British SPRs and from1927 to 1938, he was also vice president of the TavistockInstitute, Britain's leading center for the theory and practiceof brainwashing. Not exactly the clean-cut sort youwould want as flag-bearer in the July 4th parade.Rhine-is the author of the article on psychical researchand parapsychology in the fncyc/opedia Americana. Afteroutrageously claiming in his article that psychic phenomenasuch as telepathy have been "experimentally verified"in his laboratory at Duke, Rhine draws the followingimplications for science and religion:One of the main features of ESP (extrasensory perception)to be demonstrated was its independence ofall the space-time "laws" which have been tried out.... ESP is nonphysical.... Parapsychology is to religion what biology is tomedicine, or physics to engineering.... Whether manhas a soul component that can exist independently ofthe living organism, has long been regarded as a greatresearch project for parapsychology.To give him his due, Rhine does contribute one scientificallycompetent and even self-reflexive observation. Iquote: "... parapsychology has cast new light into science'sdarkest corner—the nature of the scientist's own mind."In the latter part of the 19th century science had excitedthe minds of much of the world's population throughgeneralized technological progress: electromagnetic experimentationhad proved that there is no Newtonianmechanical ether to account for the propagation of electromagneticenergy; and Riemann and Cantor had providedthe conceptual basis for true relativistic physics—the universe as a self-developing manifold of higher andhigher transfinite order. Where else could the scientistwho is not committed to the principle of progress turnbut to magic and deception?Unfortunately, this tale of scientific kookery does notend with the 19th century, as the above quotes from theAmerican spiritualist-scientist show. Rayleigh's grandsoncarried the tradition proudly into the 1950s, serving as ahigh official of the SPR.And Sir Oliver Lodge, the famous electrical theorist,who was president of the British Association for theAdvancement of Science and a Fellow of the Royal Society,was a long-time active member of the SPR until his deathin 1940. Just prior to his death, Lodge published his acountof the importance of the ether in which he attacked therelativists who denied its existence and that it could bethe mode of communication with the spirit world.Earlier Lodge had published his spiritualist conversationswith his son who had been killed in World War I.There were, of course many scientists who opposed thewave of scientific sorcery. For example, the Curies werepersuaded in 1904 to sit in on a seance with EusapiaPalladino, who had been certified by Lodge and hiscolleagues as a genius purveyor of psychic phenomena.Somewhat skeptical about the proceedings, the Curiesturned on the lights while the psychic manifestations werein full swing. There was Eusapia wandering around theroom, rapping, tilting tables, and giving participants spiritkisses.Of course, J.J. Thomson had the answer to this andother exposes of the spiritualist hoaxsters:The people who produce them (psychic phenomena)are very psychic and impressionable, and it maybe asunreasonable to expect them to produce their effectswhen surrounded by men of science armed withdelicate instruments, as it would be for a poet to beexpected to produce a poem in the presence of aCommittee of the British Academy.Is there anyone who still claims not to know whoinvented the antiscience counterculture and who classifiedas secrets the most critical areas of science?John Schoonover is director of nuclear physics research(or the Fusion EnergyFoundation.ReferencesCrookes, William. 1874. Researches In The Phenomena ot Spiritualism(London).Gauld, Alan. 1968. The Founders o! Psychical Research (London: Routledge& Kegan Paul).Hall. Trevor H. 1963. The Spiritualists (New York: Garrett Publications).Thomson, J.J. 1975. Recollections and Reflections (New York: Arno Press).FUSION 65

New measurements on cosmicbackground radiation call into questionthe "Big Bang" theory of universalcreation. This theory, which hasbeen in vogue among astrophysicistsin recent years, holds that the universeoriginated in a primordial fireball.As a result of this original explosion,the theory goes, vast amounts ofelectromagnetic radiation were generatedproviding an ambient universaltemperature today of about 3 degreesKelvin.Ironically, the new data that disprovethe theory are the same type ofexperimental evidence initially usedto "prove" the simplistic Big Bang.According to D.P. Woody and P.LRichards, who presented their informationto the Ninth Texas Symposiumon Relativistic Astrophysics Dec.14—19 in Munich, West Germany, thebackground radiation distributedthroughout the universe deviates significantlyfrom the distribution of frequenciesthat would be expected ifthe unliverse were the product of aninitial tremendous explosion.Just a month before Woody andRichards announced their results, November1978, Arnold Penzias wasawarded the Nobel Prize for his workshowing that the distribution of backgroundradiation indicated that theBig Bang cosmology is correct.The measurements reported byWoodjy and Richards indicate that therange) of observed microwave frequenciesis too narrow and toosharply peaked to represent a blackbodyiradiation distribution. This deviationcannot be explained by anyprocesses expected to produce deviationsifrom the expected shape.Further data supporting this thesiswere! presented by Penzias's coworkerWilson at the January AmericanPhysical Society meeting in NewYork. Wilson noted that the radiationspectrum cohered with the predictionsof the theory, except in the longwavelength (low energy) region,where a small deviation appears.The potential importance of thesefindings should not be underestimated.It was by coming directly togrips with anomalous properties inthe classical interpretation of blackbodyradiation that Max Planck wasable to formulate the quantum hypothesis.The result was an entirelynew understanding of the fundamentalproperties of matter, whose implicationshave inspired physicsthroughout this century.Findings like these provide astrophysicistsand cosmologists with theopportunity to step back for- a momentand reconceptualize currentconcepts of how the universe wascreated. For example, does it makesense that the universe could come66 FUSION

into existence at some time in thefinite past as a result of a cataclysmicevent that set the course of evolutionfor all time?Within The last year or so, the BigBang theory has come into conflictwith even the special relativity theory.How can we then expect it to coherewith the extended Riemannian conceptionof relativity? In this latter case,the very existence of a cosmic backgroundradiation, as an artifact of theact of creation, presumably wouldprovide an absolute frame of referencefor velocity measurements—andthis is an impossibility according tothe much more firmly grounded relativitytheory.At this conjuncture, with the resultsof a crucial experiment before it, theastrophysical community should considerthe possibility that the Big Bangnever occurred, or, if something likeit actually did occur, that it was notan act of creation.In fact, the universe is not the productof a single external act of creation;it is a continuous process of self-creation.The appropriate conception isthat particular modes of interactionare not fundamental but are epiphenomenaof the fundamental law of"the self-development of the universeaccording to the principle of negentropy.—Dr. John SchoonoverNew Research BreakthroughIn Recombinant DNA WorkThe exciting and promising technologicalpromises of recombinantDNA research are realizing successesthat would have been science fictionless than 10 years ago.Two such examples have occurredrecently. First, a leading laboratory inCalifornia has succeeded in producinglarge quantities of the rabbit proteinbeta-globin in tissue culture experiments.Researchers at StanfordUniversity Medical School used monkeycells as the "factory," giving thecells genetic instructions from a speciallyengineered recombinant DNAmolecule, which in turn was carriedby a virus.Dr. Paul Berg and his coworkers atthe medical school succeeded in replacinga sequence of DNA in theSV40 virus genome that normallycodes for a protein in the viral coatwith a sequence usually found in therabbit that codes for the sequence ofmolecules making up a particularproduct, usually a protein. In thiscase, the sequence was for the proteinbeta-globin, part of the hemoglobincomplex in red blood cells.This altered DNA was then packagedin a normal viral protein coat,and the engineered virus was allowedto infect monkey kidney cells growingin tissue culture. The infected cellsresponded by following the geneticinstructions encoded for by the viralDNA. Included in the altered viralgenome was the blueprint for rabbitbeta-globin, which was produced bythe cell's metabolic machinery.Pituitary Hormone ProducedAnother California laboratory succeededin having bacteria producethe physiologically essential mammalianprotein known as pituitary growthhormone. These experiments by Dr.H. Goodman and coworkers at theUniversity of California in San Franciscoutilized the recently developedability to produce large amounts ofpure DNA sequences and hybridizethem with other genes in order toconstruct a unique sequence of geneticmaterial that would succeed in"programming" bacteria for the synthesisof a desired protein product.In this case, rat DNA that codes forpituitary growth hormone was linkedwith a bacterial plasmid that codes fora variety of substances, and this hybridizedDNA molecule was insertedinto a bacterium. During the subsequentgrowth of the bacteria, the proteinscoded for by the inserted DNAsequences, including the mammaliangrowth hormone, were produced insignificant quantity.Both experiments highlight the tremendousstrides in the field of molecularbiology over the last few yearsand hold immediately importantmedical and biological implications.For instance, growth defects from inadequatesupplies of pituitary growthEXPLORE!Every issue of the International Journalof Fusion Energy presents the latestinvestigations into this exciting .newfrontier of physics!Coming in the INTERNATIONALwinterissueof .„,JOURNAL ofFUSION ENERGY• Fully Developed MagnetohydrodynamicTurbulence: Numerical Simulation andClosure Techniques A. Pouquet• Theta-Pinch Description from ClassicalElectrodynamics E.A. WitalisSubscriptions are $35 per year ($40 outside theU.S.). Mail checks or money orders to FusionEnergy Foundation. Box 1943. GPO. NewYork. NY. 10001.Advertise inFUSIONFUSION 67

hormone should soon be treatable bythe administration of bacterially producedgrowth hormone, a medicalintervention now severely limited.This hormone also might prove valuablein animal husbandry with regardto more economical food production.Additionally, as is pointedout by P.H. Seeburg et al. in Nature(276: 795, 1978): "The capability ofexpression of genes that are designedspecifically or synthesized shouldmake possible the production of newhormones analogous for examiningthe structural requirements of agonistor antagonist activity or for therapy."The viral experiments also point tovery exciting possibilities; for example,that of "infecting" an individualwith a virus that contains genes forwhich an individual might be defectiveor deficient. Juvenile-onset diabetesis characterized by an absolutelack of insulin production, and it ispossible that this type of genetic interventionwould enable this personto enjoy freedom from his or her dailyinjection of bovine insulin.Basic Scientific QuestionsEven more, the real promise ofthese technological breakthroughslies in the opening up and reshapingof basic! biological questions. Just toreference two such issues here: In theThe root system of Zea diploperennis left and two of the plants grownin a greenhouse from wild rhizomes.Ancient Corn Strain RediscoveredDr. Hugh litis and John F. Doebley from the University of Wisconsinat Madison announced that a research team on a field trip to Mexicolast September had discovered an ancient, wild strain of Corn, zeadiploperennis, that is perennial. The discovery of the teocinte, or wildmaize, was said to have "revolutionary implications for agriculture,"because it would eliminate annual replanting, according to a front-pageNew York Times article Feb. 5.litis said that the new corn was found at altitudes of 10,000 feet,surviving occasional snow and humidity, which means that it could begrown as far north as Virginia.Despite the publicity surrounding the discovery, it is well known thatcorn is naturally perennial. When questioned about the new discovery,one official in the U.S. Department of Agriculture quipped, "so whatelse is new?"The main reason that corn is sown each year is to improve the qualityof the corn and to maintain the root system at optimal lengths forefficient nutrition. Roots that are too long and sprawling rot and extracttoo many nutrients from the soil, tending to produce foliage rather thancorn.A real revolution in agriculture would occur if the newly discoveredcorn could be bred with a shorter root system.beta-globin experiment, the insertedbeta-globin DNA consists of a nontranslatedleader sequence, the globinsequence that is translated intothe amino-acid chain to yield the desiredglobin protein, and a terminationsequence. In the usual situationin the rabbit, however, the final productis the result of a DNA stretch thathas inserted into the globin sequencetwo intervening nontranslated sequences.The immediate questions are: Whatis the nature of these apparently nonessentialintervening sequences? Whyare they there? How does the entiregenome stretch work? Can other interveningsequences be inserted intheir place, or in other spots?In other words, what is the actualgenetic nature of the DNA material,beyond the usual reductionist modelof beads-on-a-string sets of computeroff-on instructions?(A future article in Fusion will reviewthis question in depth.)The second experiment points upanother immediate area for furtherinvestigation. Although the bacteriawere engineered to manufacture thegrowth hormone, this protein remainedin the cell, where it apparentlywas digested by intracellular enzymes.The mammalian pituitarynormally packages and secretes thishormone; bacteria also secrete someproteins.The tool of recombinant DNA offersa handle to solving the problemof the controlling factors that occursubsequent to the readout and translationof a particular product of thegenetic code. Understanding the handling,packaging, secretion or retention,and so many other events withincellular physiology is vital for humanhealth and material well being.Despite the recent breakthroughs,or perhaps because of them, Health,Education and Welfare Secretary JosephCalifano and his zero-growthallies in the environmentalist movementhave stepped up their attemptsto halt further research in this field.Califano has restructured a RecombinantAdvisory Committee, placingon it known anti-recombinant-DNAenvironmentalists, lawyers, and consumerwatchdogs; and sources reportthat he intends to delay permissionfor new DNA research.—Dr. RichardPollak68 FUSION

BooksNational Review Discovers Nuclear EnergyNational Review, Special Issue on NuclearPower, Feb. 2, 1979.William Buckley's National Reviewmagazine has suddenly discoverednuclear energy. The Feb. 2 specialissue of National Review—describedby the editors as "unique in the historyof the magazine"—ostensiblyadopts a pronuclear position and attackszero-growth forces.Curiously, the National Review revelationoccurred just as the HeritageFoundation, the upholders of AdamSmith's free enterprise philosophy inthe United States, held its first nationalconference on energy advocacyFeb. 2-4, another ostensible pronuclearevent (at which the NationalRe view,issue was widely distributed).Even more curious, a week later theWall Street Journal ran a front-pagearticle describing the death pangs ofthe dying nuclear industry and notingthat the Heritage Foundation was now"working to coordinate the proenergygroups' strategy."What's going on here? Both theNational Review and the HeritageFoundation have been more thantolerant of environmentalist and antinuclearcampaigns in the past andthey along with the Wall Street: journalopenly collaborate with the DarkAges zero-growth faction in Britishpolitics, the Tory Party of MargaretThatcher and Winston-Churchill III.The clues can all be found by examiningthe political content of theNational Review's special issue andthe journal article. The National Review-Heritagecrowd acknowledgesthat it has an almost-dead body—theU.S. nuclear industry—and they havecome together to preside over thecorpse. Their only use for those lastflickers of life in the nuclear industryis to drum up support among thebroad prodevelopment layers of thepopulation for a Cold War militarybuildup.It should be stressed that most ofthe contributors to the National Review'sspecial issue did not have thisCold War intent (just as most of thepronuclear fish caught in the Heritagenet do not have this intent). But thereare key British Intelligence operativesinvolved in both events, and behindtheir pronuclear facades is not thepursuit of human development, worldpeace, the advancement of scienceor, a political program necessary toget the U.S. nuclear industry on itsfeet.British OperativesThese guys are pushing World War.They are pushing war based on astrategy that has its origins in Britishgeopolitical theorist Sir HalfordMackinder and the Nazi geopoliticianhe influenced, Karl Haushofer. Thisdemented view sees the world withGreat Britain as the center, menacedon all sides by evil communist landgrabbers.Who are some of these British operativesin the National Review specialissue (besides its Oxonian publisher,William Buckley)?Take Brian Crozier. Crozier, whowrote a piece in the "Big Lie" tradition("Power and National Sovereignty")claiming that the environmentalist-zerogrowth movement is inlarge measure a KGB plot, is affiliatedwith the notorious British psychologicalwarfare center, the Tavistock Institute,and directs the Institute forthe Study of Conflict, one of the psychologicalwarfare operations. Cro-FUSION 69

zier was directly involved in the 1968radical destabilization of Charles deGaulle in France, while acting as aprofessor at Nanterre, the base ofoperations of Danny "The Red"Cohn-Bendit and his anarchist studentgangs.Another contributor is Malachi B.Martin of the Jesuit tendency knownas the "American Heresy," who is acollaborator of antihumanist and fascistnetworks around Archbishop Lefebvre.Last year Martin led the demandfor the resignation of Pope PaulVI.Then there is George Brumlik ofthe Slaner Foundation and the NuclearClub of Wall Street. Brumlik hasbeen involved in a pseudofusibn operationagainst the Fusion EnergyFoundation and he and his associateshave been implicated in the illegaltransfer of nuclear weapons knowledgeto a foreign power.Last but not least is Milton R. Copulos,the modern-day Delphic Oraclefrom the Heritage Foundationwho has made a career of developingcrisis scenarios cum energy breakdownsof the sort that Energy SecretaryJames Schlesinger has been itchingto carry out. Last month when aFusion reporter asked Copulos if hehad "any idea which direction civilizationshould go—either into a newdark age or toward expanding development,"Copulos screamed, "I can'tcomment."GeopoliticsIncredible as it may seem to anaverage American, the National Review-Heritagecrowd still seeks theencirclement and control of the "Russianheartland." Although WorldWars I and II have come and gone,this bunch is still following in thefootsteps of Mackinder, Haushofer(who, by the way, authored the geopoliticalsections of Hitler's MeinKampf), and others of the British DarkAges faction, like British RoundtablerLord Milner.Why do they back nuclear power?Because it will help stop Soviet "expansionism,"to use the geopoliticalterm. I quote from the National Revieweditorial: "America...faces threegreat dangers, if the antinuclearmovement has its way. The first isgeopolitical.... The policy of the SovietUnion, in the Middle East, in theHorn, and in the southern tip of Af-rica, is directed to controlling the oillifeline of Western Europe. The Sovietscovet Middle Eastern oil, partly fortheir own uses...partly as a pressurepoint on their enemies. Soviets takea lively interest in the radical antinuclearcampaign in the West.... America,with considerable belt-tightening,could survive the Sovietization ofArab oil. Western Europe and Japan,if they continue to rely on it, couldnot."Now, tHe fact is that one faction inthe Soviet Union is pushing this line.But the missing, critical piece of informationfor readers is that this faction—typifiedby British agents inMoscow Kim Philby or Georgii Arbatov—isconnected directly to the NationalReview-Heritage clique viatheir common British parentage.As would be expected, the NationalReview rails against technology cooperationwith the East bloc andmakes an all-out assault on U.S.-Sovietcooperation in particular. Needless tosay, the recent Soviet proposals forinternational collaboration in laser fusionand in building a tokamak testreactor—programs in the tradition ofPresident Eisenhower's Atoms forPeace program—go ignored.Dismissing FusionIn fact, fusion is given short shrift,starting in the editorial, which intro-'duces fusion only in so far as it is theone side of a fission-fusion debate:"The proponents of the two chiefforms of nuclear power (fission andfusion) differ among themselves onquestions of cost and scheduling—adifference NR has not tried to ironout in the contributions that follow.But this debate—a debate betweenreal alternatives—should be at theheart (j)f national energ.y discussions....*'But the real fusion killer, as notedin the editorial, is the idea that freeenterprise must guide science and fusionpolicy, implying that the presentfunding could be more efficient if themagic of free enterprise were letloose: "Fusion advocates...slip into apaternalistic mode as a justificationfor theifunding of their programs. Thecontributions to this issue, however,suggest specific ways of defraying theexpense. Others might be devised, ifthis is the course we decide to take.Let the discussion begin."The point is that fusion policy mustbe set nationally; that's the only waywe are going to get fusion power bythe turn of the century. An optimumprogram would provide tax credits forinnovative ideas from industry, andlarge-scale projects at national laboratorieswould contract out work—but the overall policy would be setnationally.Free Enterprise"Free enterprise" is nothjng but linguisticmumbo jumbo that wouldmake the Founding Fathers, AbrahamLincoln, and American economistHenry Carey (who developed theterm American System versus the BritishSystem of Adam Smith) turn overin their graves, It would mean thedestruction of American industry.And as a final slap at fusion, theNational Review takes pains to denythe historic significance of the PrincetonLarge Torus breakthrough lastsummer and puts off the likely realizationof fusion to somewhere between2010 and 2025.Since they know the nuclear industryis almost dead and since they sayfusion won't be around for 35 or soyears, one wonders what we're supposedto do for energy in the meantime?Tighten our belts and hope towin World War III?Just in case National Review readershaven't gotten the message, the specialissue leads off with effusive praisefor none other than NATO head andpotential presidential candidate GeneralAlexander Haig ("... a rare blend:a military man with a very sure, intuitivetouch for the political implicationsand repercussions of what happensin his area of responsibility.Eisenhower had it, Gruenther had it.Not too many others have.") and therecently deceased and AnglophileWilliam Yandell Elliott, Henry Kissinger'smentor ("... we could have useda thousand more William Yandell Elliotts").(William Yandell Elliott, by the way,was a longtime British Intelligencestation chief in the United States.)One useful thing the National Reviewdoes is end the myth that nuclearpower is not political. Now we haveto make sure that nuclear energy isgoverned by the politics of the AmericanSystem and not World War III.— Robert Cohen70 FUSION

FEF NewsCalendarContinued from page 3BOSTICK OPENS FEF SEMINAR SERIES"If we can master inertial confinement fusion, it will probably be throughion-beams and not lasers; but the interesting thing is that the ion beam canbe generated by collective plasma processes, not particle accelerators," ProfessorWinston Bostick told the first seminar in the FEF spring seminar serieson basic processes in fusion plasma. Bostick, who is a professor of physics atStevens Institute of Technology, presented part one of a two-part lecture onthe collective acceleration of particle beams in a plasma.Bostick's lecture reviewed the currently available experimental evidence onthe mechanism responsible for the remarkable property of electron beamspropagating in a plasma, by which the beam can accelerate ions to many timesthe energy of the electron beam. Efficiencies of up to SO percent of electronbeam energy to ion beam energy have been achieved—a striking case of selforganizedplasma behavior.The second Bostick lecture, to be given Feb. 21, will develop some theoreticalinsights into this mechanism, concentrating on the role of vortex filaments inthe acceleration of the ions.As Bostick pointed out, the current inability of scientists to explain themechanism of collective acceleration is a dangerous state of affairs. Not onlydoes collective acceleration hold great promise for fusion; it also holds thekey to the perfection of a directed energy beam weapon.Other scheduled speakers in the FEF series include Bruno Coppi of theMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Harold Grad of the Courant Instituteof Mathematics at New York University, Frederick Tappert of the University ofMiami, Florida, and FEF staff members Uwe Parpart and Steven Bardwell.The proceedings of the series will be published by the International journalof Fusion Energy in the coming months. An FEF seminar series on the biologicalsciences is also planned.FUSION SUBSCRIPTIONS TOP 5,000Fusion subscriptions reached 5,400 for the February issue and will top 6,000for the March issue, announced Business Manager Kenneth Mandel. A yearago in March subscriptions totaled only 1,600. At current rates of more than200 new subscriptions per week, Mandel said, the magazine will reach a goalof 10,000 subscriptions by the end of the summer. The total circulation is40,000 copies.Fusion is applying for membership in the Audit Bureau of Circulations inorder to attract major advertisers to the unique progrowth constituency Fusionreaders represent, Mandel said. Advertising rates are available from Fusion bywriting to P.O. Box 1943, New York, N.Y. 10001.CONNECTICUT FORUM DRAWS 40 PARTICIPANTSAn FEF forum in Milford, Conn. Jan. 30 drew 40 businessmen, engineers,and scientists from this high-technology area. Dr. Morris Levitt, FEF executivedirector, briefed the group on the prospects for fusion research, on the factorsholding up nuclear power, and on FEF organizing plans.There was an extended discussion about the FEF role in making nationalpolicy for research and science programs. "Is the FEF simply going to promotethe work of the big national laboratories?," one engineer asked.Levitt outlined the requirements for a national R*D policy as follows:"Cheap, long-term credit and large tax breaks for corporate R&D activitiesand new technology development; full funding for both small-scale innovativeresearch and large-scale development in major corporate and governmentlaboratories; and increasing by tens of billions of dollars credits and insurancefor exports, especially for consortia with a city-building perspective aiming toprovide in-depth basic and specialty technologies and products as well as largenumbers of technologists for global development.','April1-6Pacific Chemical Conference 1979:38th National Meeting of ChemicalSociety of Japanand 177th National Meeting ofAmerican Chemical SocietyHonolulu, Hawaii2-6International Symposium onManpower Requirementsand Development for Nuclear PowerProgramsInternational Atomic Energy AgencySaclay, FranceEnergy Sufficiency for American ,ConferenceAm. Institute of Aeronautics andAstronautics, IEEE,New Mexico Soc. of Prof. EngineersEl Paso, Texas9-1211th National Atomic and MolecularPhysics ConferenceInstitute of Physics, LondonLiverpool10FEF Seminar: "What We HaveLearned from High-Field, High-Density Torodial Plasma"Speaker: Dr. Bruno Coppi, MITNew York City23-25American Power ConferenceIllinois Institute of TechnologyChicago23-26General MeetingAmerican Physical SocietyWashington, D.C.29-May 2Training of Nuclear FacilityOak Ridge National LabsAmerican Nuclear Society PersonnelGatlinburg, Texnn.29-May 2Light Water Reactor Fuel PerformanceAmerican Nuclear SocietyPortland, Ore.FUSION 71

'TOL/ are one of the few organized groups I know of thathas the courage to stand up and advocate high technologyas a solution for some of the problems of the world, and forthat I think we owe you a debt of gratitude/'IDr. John Clarke,Deputy Director, Office of Fusion, DOE,at the FEF annual public meeting,Sept. 23, 1978The Fusion Energy Foundation put the Princeton Large Torus results onto thefront pages of the world press.Your membership in the Fusion Energy Foundation now can ensure that thenews of progress in fusion research continues to reach the front pages of the internationalpress. And that there will be commercial fusion power plants withinthis century.Membership in the FEF will also bring you 10 issues of FUSION magazineand 4 issues of the International Journal of Fusion Energy.Contributions to the FEF are tax deductible.

1Ending the Dark Ages Threat to ScienceRiemann Declassified-Ever since Bertrand Russell and Lord Rayleigh, the significance of Riemann's workhas been either distorted or underplayed. However, today's leading scientificand military researchers in the compression of matter know the importance ofRiemann's 1859 paper on shock waves, which was driven underground byclassification policies. This article looks at Riemann's work in a fresh light,explaining its particular significance for inertial confinement and howRiemann's method and program must become the basis for today's naturalsciences.The Secret of Laser FusionThe truth is that there are no secrets to laser fusion. Opening up discussion inthis vital area of science will rejuvenate the normal processes of scientificexchange that throughout history have led to the advancement of humanity.The Case of the Fast LinerClassification has harmed U.S. national security, not helped it. Just who isclassifying U.S. fusion research? This story points to the British military researchlaboratory at Aldermaston, showing how it killed a promising approach tofusion that combines features of magnetic and inertial confinement.Appropriate Technology:The US. Goes Back to the Stone AgeThe environmentalists' concept of appropriate technology, now official U.S.policy, assumes the destruction of modern industry and offers in its place a fullrange of caveman technologies. The original caption on this picture from aUnited Nations document reads "Age-old technology—perhaps painful,certainly appropriate."Science and SpooksSpirits, mediums and scientists? This article, a preview of part of a forthcomingbook on the New Dark Ages of H.C. Wells and Bertrand Russell, describes howit was perfectly logical for most prominent 19th century British scientists to bespiritualists.Cover design by Christopher Sloan. Portrait of Riemann by Gary Genazzio.

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines