And Hypersonic Flight

wlym.com

And Hypersonic Flight

And Hypersonic Flight


Expand theworld's view!Join the FusionEnergy Foundation.Subscribe toFusion magazine.Enclosed is:• Sustaining membership $250• Individual membership $75• Corporate membership $1,000(All memberships include 6 issues of Fusion.)• 1-year subscription to Fusion $20 (6 issues)• 2-year subscription to Fusion $38 (12 issues)• 1-year subscription to Fusion (airmail foreign) $40Now you can subscribe toFusion in 5 languages• Fusion in Spanish, French, Italian, German*, or Swedishor Fusion Asia in English—$40 (4 issues)* 6 issues per year.


FUSIONSCIENCE • TECHNOLOGY • ECONOMICS • POLITICSJanuary-February 1986 Vol. 8, No. 1Featuresi14 Leonardo da Vinci and the True Method of MagnetohydrodynamicsDino de PaoliLeonardo's scientific method of thinking laid the foundation for modernscience and technology from the industrial revolution tomagnetohydrodynamics, and his research discoveries presaged thehydrodynamic work of the Gottingen School.3950The Question of Scientific Method: How the Riemannian ApproachAllowed the Development of Supersonic FlightUwe Parpart HenkeIf not for the Gottingen Tradition in science, the United States could nothave developed supersonic flight or rocket flight.Hydrodynamics and the Scientific Foundations of the Modern ItalianNationGiuseppe Filipponi"After we have made Italy, we must make the Italians." It was in thisspirit that the 19th century scientists of the Italian Riemann schoolplayed a decisive role in the formation of the Italian nation state.53 Hypersonic Planes: Ready for Development NowCharles B. StevensTransatmospheric hypersonic planes are within the grasp of presentscience and technology.News1058SPECIAL REPORTHow AIDS Spreads Like TBJohn Seale, MA, MD, MRCPThe Russian Angle to the AIDS EpidemicAIDS and the Security of the Western WorldFUSION REPORTJapan's Cannonball Laser TargetMoves to Fusion ForefrontBEAM TECHNOLOGY REPORTAn Interview with Dr. Gregory CanavanAssessing the SDI and Its CriticsTHE YOUNG SCIENTISTMaking Electricity: How to BuildAn Electrostatic Induction GeneratorEDITORIAL STAFFEditor-in-ChiefCarol WhiteManaging EditorMarjorie Mazel HechtFusion Technology EditorChart.es B. StevensWashington EditorMarsha FreemanEnergy EditorWilliam EngdFhlBooks EditorDavid CherryArt DirectorAlan YuePhoto EditorCarlos de HoyosAdvertising ManagerJoseph Cohen(703) 689-2496Circulation and Subscription ManagerDianne Oliver(703) 777-6055FUSION (ISSN 0148-0537) is published 6 limesa year, every other month, by the Fusion EnergyFoundation, P.O. Box 17149, Washington, D.C.20041-0149. Tel. (703) 689-2490. Dedicated toproviding accurate and comprehensive informationon advanced energy technologies and policies,FUSION is committed to restoring American scientificand technological leadership. FUSION coverageof the frontiers of science focuses on theself-developing qualities of the physical universein such areas as plasma physics—the basis forfusion power—as well as biology and microphysics,and includes ground-breaking studies of thehistorical development of science and technology.The views of the FEF are stated in the editorials.Opinions expressed in articles are not necessarilythose of the FEF directors or advisory board.Subscriptions by mail are $20 for 6 issues or$38 for 12 issues in the USA; $25 for 6 issues inCanada. Airmail subscriptions to other countriesare $40 for 6 issues.Address all correspondence to FUSION, P.O.Box 17149, Washington, D.C. 20041-0149.Second class postage paid at Washington, D.C.and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Sendaddress changes to FUSION, P.O. Box 17149,Washington, D.C. 20041-0149.Copyright Q 1985Fusion Energy FoundationPrinted in the USAAil Rights ReservedDepartmentsISSN 0148-0537 USPS 437-370EDITORIALLETTERSNEWS BRIEFS6 IVIEWPOINTBOOKSOn the cover: Lockheed's design for a hypersonicaircraft. Cover design by Dave Hall;photograph courtesy of Lockheed.


EditorialWhat the New Year May BringAccording to medical experts, the number of people contractingAIDS or Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndromevirus is doubling every six months. The Atlanta Center forDisease Control estimates that there are now 12,000 victimsof the disease in the United States. If the disease continuesto spread unchecked at this rate, by January 1993 the entirepopulation will have been infected. And at this point, thedisease leaves no survivors.The idea that AIDS will limit itself to certain "target"groups—drug users, homosexuals, and hemophiliacs—hasnow been exposed by leading medical specialists as a dangerousdelusion. Dr. John Seale, for example, a tropicalmedicine expert in London, has documented that the AIDSvirus is also found in respiratory secretions—like the airborneform of pneumonic plague, which is even more virulentthan bubonic plague. In the tropics, it is already beingspread by the respiratory route, Seale documents. (See thisissue's Special Report.)A Swedish team just back from Africa has reported thatthere is a direct relationship between economic collapse,squalor, and the rapid spread of AIDS. Twenty percent ofthe population of Rwanda is reported to be carrying theAIDS antibody—at minimum indicating their exposure tothe disease—and medical experts estimate that this figureis probably an underestimate by a factor of 10.The AIDS Virus Has No Civil RightsIncredibly, the liberal lobby is defending the civil libertiesof the AIDS virus, in the name of protecting the rightsof homosexuals et al. to spread the disease unchecked. Achild with head lice is sent home from school, yet the rightof children and teachers afflicted with the deadly diseaseAIDSto remain in school and endanger the life of countlesschildren is defended by organizations like the AmericanCivil Liberties Union.And let no one suppose that these liberals have the interestof the AIDS victim in mind. Indeed, what could be moredangerous for an individual whose immune system has beenseverely weakened than to be continuously subjected tothe many infectious diseases that circulate in a school environment.The SolutionAIDS is the political hot potato. The AIDS epidemic canbe reversed only by introducing massive emergency publichealth measures, and this means spending money. Not onlymust the present trend to cut back on medical services beimmediately reversed, but the level of services to which wewere accustomed must be vastly increased.At the same time the precarious situation of sanitationsystems in major U.S. cities must be remedied. The elderly,the mentally deranged, and drug users must be taken offthe streets, where they currently live, die, and spread disease,and they must be given proper treatment. Lastly, thepresent rate of deterioration of the diet of the whole of thepopulation can no longer be tolerated. There is a strongcorrelation between intake of protein and resistance to disease.To fight disease, therefore, we need to increase theprotein content of the U.S. diet, despite the wails of theantiprotein faction that preaches the virtues of a vegetableand grain diet.The bottom line of this program is that in order to dealwith the problem of the epidemic spread of AIDS, the governmentwill first have to admit that the U.S. economy is adangerous and escalating decline, not the much-vauntedrecovery.A Cultural ShiftThe year 1986 must be a turning point for our nation. Fortoo long, Americans have been bludgeoned by the massmedia into tolerating cultural relativism. None too soon,people are finally recoiling from toleration of such outrageousfrauds as gay rights, which have even included therights of avowed pederasts to teach in the schools.But gay rights and the virus of liberalism are only symptomaticof the cancer of our so-called postindustrial society.The present deepening depression has been justifiedby the Club-of-Rome Malthusians, the Venetian and SwissInternational Monetary Fund crowd, who circulate the liethat mankind cannot provide for a growing population.These genocidalists have deliberately sponsored and fundedthe environmentalist mafia in order to destroy the nuclearindustry and ensure that we will not have the wherewithalto support future generations. These oligarchs gloat as thepopulations of Africa, Ibero America, and Asia are savagelyreduced by famine and plague. And they are joined by theSoviets, who are bending the whole of their propagandamachine to convince the West that AIDS is not a seriousdisease. Clearly the Soviets will not weep if the UnitedStates goes into a self-destruct mode.We still have time, but not too much. Let us begin theNew Year with the same dedication to progress, with thesame cultural optimism, with which Leonardo da Vinci accomplisheda renaissance in his own day.Whom Do You Know WhoNeeds to Read Fusion*Fusion has something special to celebrate this year—areturn to a regular and timely publication schedule of sixissues a year. With your help, in another year, we couldreturn to a monthly schedule.Here's what you can do to ensure that our subscriptionsgrow back to the 150,000 level: Put Fusion in your communityand school libraries. Organize your friends and coworkersto subscribe. Give gift subscriptions to your local,state, and federal legislators, or to other people in decisionmakingpositions who need to know what Fusion will tellthem.2 January-February 1986 FUSION Editorial


Lighter-Than-AirVehicles for AfricaTo the Editor:I read with interest the article in theJanuary-February issue of Fusion "Howto Stop the Famine in Africa" (by J. ScottMorrison, p. 10).As an additional solution to the manyproblems that exist, I am enclosing informationon the lighter-than-air LTA20-1 airship. With a range of 800 km, afull payload of 60 tonnes, and operationalmaneuverability and handlingsimilar to a helicopter, our craft wouldbe a tremendous asset to the Africanrelief problem.At present, we are negotiating thebuilding of our first 60-tonne prototypeas well as a 55-foot two-man versionfor Expo '86. We expect deliveryof our commercial crafts to begin in1988.1 look forward to your commentson the LTA 20-1 and to discussing withyou the potential for our craft in theAfrican relief program.Ray TrudeauMagnus Aerospace CorporationOttawa, Ontario, CanadaThe Editor RepliesBoth Scott Morrison and Col. MolloyVaughn, who proposed an emergencyprogram for Africa in the July-August issue, were enthusiastic aboutthe possibilities for the LTA. We planto write about it at more length in afuture issue.On Nuclear BigotryTo the Editor:I am appalled, amazed, and angry atthe magazine you edit. It is the mostright wing, ridiculous, bigoted, onesideddescription of facts that I haveever read. As journalists, the least youcould do to help support the nuclearpower industry is represent in an unbiasedmanner industry viewpoints.Instead your viewpoints are as prejudicedas the antinukes are on the otherside.It would be most beneficial to thenuclear industry if there were a magazinethat both sides of the nuclear issuecould read and become factuallyinformed with. However, as yet, thereisn't one that treats both argumentsfairly. No matter how much Fusion believesit, one side is not always right.As a supporter of the nuclear industry,you are giving us an even worsename and image than what is alreadyperceived. Instead of condemningeveryone that has a different opinionfrom Fusion, particularly those peoplewho believe in alternatives, you shouldbe open enough to listen and work togethertoward a more peaceful,healthy, and environmentally soundworld.Although this letter will be filed inthe circular file once read by you, perhapsyou will at least for a moment reflecton you own values and the bigotryyour magazine purports.Barbara V.E. MartocciBrattleboro, Vt.The writer is an employee in the nuclearpower industry.The Editor RepliesAny other comments?Giving Credit Where DueTo the Editor:I have always enjoyed reading yourinformative fusion report. I am glad youemphasized our contribution at OakRidge National Laboratory to the NeutralBeam Heater Developing in theSeptember-October 1985 Fusion("Multi-Beam Heavy Ion AcceleratorMoves to Forefront in Fusion," p. 17).I am always proud of technologyachievements performed by my colleaguesat Oak Ridge National Laboratory.However, I am sorry that you weremisinformed and regret that you misinformedothers. In the caption forBerkeley Laboratory's neutral beamapparatus, the statement that "Berkeley'sresearch helped the Princeton PLTtokamak reach record temperatures in1977" is questionable. In fact, the neutralbeam heaters used to heat the PLTplasma were designed, developed, andqualified by my colleagues here at OakRidge.C.C. TsaiPlasma Technology SectionOak Ridge National LaboratoryThe Editor RepliesWe are sorry to have left out OakRidge's major role in designing anddeveloping the neutral beam heatersused on Princeton's PLT.Rekindling the Spirit ofThe Space ProgramTo the Editor:I have recently returned from theSpace and Rocket Center in Huntsville,and having been a participant inthe Saturn Program I was thrilled bythe fact that these programs may onceagain be rekindled—that dynamic spiritthat I felt as part of the program.My educational background is physics,and although for the past 10 yearsI have pursued an industrial manufacturingcareer in instrumentation, I missthe creative spi rit that I felt while workingas a physicist.I am currently seeking employmentin the Huntsville area in the SDI program.Before making the trip to Huntsville,I was amazed to read in PhysicsToday that over 1,000 scientists havesigned a petition against the SDI, including56 Nobel Prize winners. Justyesterday I discussed with a formerphysics professor the pros and cons ofsome of the issues that have beenraised. To sum it up—Mutually AssuredSurvival and the atmosphere thatwould usher in an "Age of Reason"holds forth much more promise thanMutually Assured Destruction.Thanks to all who have had a part inopening my mind to this subject.Wayne HallMobile, Ala.The Editor RepliesWe are sure that other Fusion readerswould also be inspired by readingthe book Colonize Space: Open theAge of Reason, the proceedings of anFEF conference commemorating spacescientist Krafft A. Ehricke. It is availablefrom the FEF at $9.95 per copy plus $1.50for postage.Letters FUSION January-February 1986 3


News BriefsINDIA'S FAST BREEDER TEST REACTOR COMES ON LINEIndia's Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) generated net energy for the first timeOct. 18. This experimental facility in Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, is the first breederreactor built by a developing nation. It uses the basic French design for a liquidsodium-cooledfast breeder, but has a unique plutonium-rich mixed carbidefuel that was developed by Indian scientists to solve the problem of India's lackof uranium reserves. The fuel is 30 percent plutonium carbide and 70 percenturanium carbide, which has a better thermal conductivity value than oxide fuel.Initially, the FBTR will run at low power for experimental use. In a year, when itis coupled with a steam generator and turbine, it will produce about 14 megawattsof electrical power.Government of IndiaIndia's Fast Breeder Test ReactorNATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REFUSES TO RENEGE ON FUSIONA National Academy of Sciences review committee refused to tone down itsinterim report on inertial confinement fusion research, which praised the nationalaccomplishements and prospects for laser fusion. The report noted thatinertial confinement was making a major contribution to the nuclear weaponsprogram and that it was being unnecessarily smothered by top security classification.Both the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and theDivision of Classification of the Department of Energy leaned on the committeeto temper its assessment. One committee member commented: "The committeehas not and will not change a word in its interim report. . . . We listened tothe Office of Classification's views for two hours and, when the session ended,we were more convinced than ever that we were right in criticizing their policies."ANTINUCLEAR PROTESTERS GET MAXIMUM SENTENCE IN RHODE ISLANDFive antinuclear protesters who damaged six Trident missile tubes in ElectricBoat's shipyard in Quonset Point, R.I., were given a maximum sentence of oneyear in prison and a $500 fine by Rhode Island Superior Court judge John P.Bourcier Oct. 18. The judge noted that he did not doubt the group's sincerity."But when one strips the noble labels from where they have been pasted, onefinds your acts are the first cousin to the bomb-throwers, grenade-throwers,and the airplane hijackers," he said. "They do this, break a law, because theywant to propagandize a view. Adolf Hitler sincerely believed in his views andbecause of him there are millions of people dead."GREEN PARTY'S PETRA KELLY DROPS LAWSUITWest German Green Party head Petra Kelly has filed papers seeking to dismissher June 1983 lawsuit against the newspaper New Solidarity alleging that it waslibelous to call her a "political whore." Kelly submitted an affidavit claiming thatshe was not continuing her lawsuit because she was "too busy." However, herlawyers last August sought to negotiate a voluntary dismissal of the action becausethey admitted they could not succeed on the merits of the case. The articledescribing Kelly's activities was reprinted in the September-October 1985 issueof Fusion.International Atomic Energy AgencyOne of the benefits of low-level irradiationis sprout inhibition in onions,garlic, and potatoes.FEF TESTIFIES AT CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ON FOOD IRRADIATIONThe Fusion Energy Foundation testified in support of the Federal Food IrradiationDevelopment and Control Act of 1985, H.R. 696, at hearings held by theHouse Agriculture Committee Nov. 18. The bill, introduced by Rep. Sid Morrison(D.-Wash.), would set up a Joint Operating Commission to coordinateresearch, encourage private investment, and educate the public. It would alsorequire national uniformity in the regulation of food irradiation. The FEF recommendedthat the bill include the rapid commercialization of electron beam4 January-February 1986 FUSION News Briefs


irradiation, specifically the spinoff of the beam defense program developed atLawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and an aggressive program to transferthe technology to the developing sector. Others who testified for the bill werescientists who pioneered the technology, food industry representatives, andthe American Medical Association. The environmentalists who opposed the billcalled it a "boondoggle of the nuclear weapons industry."EXPOSURES OF TMI-2 WORKERS KEPT LOW DURING CLEANUPCleanup workers at the Three Mile Island 2 plant in Pennsylvania have hadless collective exposure to radiation than workers at most operating nuclearplants, GPU Nuclear, the plant operator, reported this month. After six years,the risk from occupational radiation exposure has been about the same assmoking two cigarettes per year, the company said.NEW YORK JUDGE THROWS OUT ANTINUCLEAR REFERENDUMN.Y. State Supreme Court judge Charles Kuffner ruled Oct. 23 that a referendumbarring a nuclear-capable Navy base on Staten Island in New York City isunconstitutional, and he ordered it off the ballot. The referendum would haveamended the City Charter to bar New York from selling or leasing its land forstoring nuclear weapons. Kuffner's decision, upheld by the state's appellatecourts, vigorously defended the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution. "TheCity of New York may not legislate, by referendum or otherwise, in such fashionas to hinder the effectuation of national security objectives," he wrote. "We areone people. The U.S. Constitution vests in the federal government the obligationto provide defense to the entire nation and all of its people without regardto their location. A necessary correlative to the duty imposed upon the federalgovernment is the right it enjoys to make and effectuate decisions respectingthe deployment of defense systems, within the United States, unfettered bylocal regulation designed to impede its effort."Metropolitan Edison Co.Workers doing scabbling work insideTMI-2. The scabbling process removesthe first layer of concrete.FEF'S FREEMAN DISCUSSES ROLE OF GERMAN SCIENTISTSAddressing the aerospace engineers at the third annual conference of theNew Orleans American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Nov. 7-8, FusionEnergy Foundation director of industrial engineering Marsha Freeman reviewedhow the activities of the Apollo program, as well as today's space station,were planned as early as the 1920s by the German rocket scientists. Using slidesof drawings by Hermann Oberth and paintings illustrating the works of Wern hervon Braun and Krafft Ehricke, Freeman also demonstrated that the next-stepindustrial development of the Moon and the colonization of Mars had also beenplanned in broad outline over the past 50 years.TANAPURA NAMED ECONOMIC ADVISOR TO THAI TRADE UNIONSPakdee Tanapura, director of the Fusion Energy Foundation in Thailand, hasbeen named economic advisor to the Thai Trade Union Confederation, whichcommands some 200,000 workers in Bangkok alone.LOUSEWORT LAURELS TO NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER PHILIP M. BOFFEYThis month's Lousewort Laurels award goes to New York Times reporter PhilipM. Boffey for his article in the Science Times Nov. 26, 1985 calling fusion "anelusive dream." Noting that the Geneva summit brought "new life" to the fusioneffort, Boffey then quotes unnamed skeptics to proclaim that "at this point, noone is certain whether fusion energy will ever prove possible or will ever makean important contribution to the nation's power supply." Boffey omits mentionof any recent research advances.News Briefs FUSION January-February 1986


Acid rain has been a favoritecomplaint of environmentalextremists, starting with a mediaevent in 1979. More recently, it hasbeen a subject of dispute between theUnited States and Canada.What is the real story? How acid isthe rain and what is the trend over theyears? Are fish, trees, crops, soils, statuary,and human health seriouslythreatened as alleged? Should verycostly further controls be retrofited onMidwest power plants to solve theproblem?Based on the scientific evidence, 1here are some answers:First, although rain is generally acidicin the northeast United States (thepH level is 4-5 compared with S.5 fromcarbon dioxide content), 2 there hasbeen insignificant change since reliablemeasurements were started in1966. However, the acidity seems tohave increased prior to this both fromincreased SO,-NO„ J emissions andfrom increased controls on particulate.The particulate, being alkaline,serves to neutralize the acidity.Second, the effects of acid rain dependmore on its composition than itsacidity. Nitrates are rapidly and beneficiallyassimilated by vegetation. Thisproduces a hydroxide ion that neutralizesassociated acidity. Thus practicallyno soil or lake acidification iscaused by nitric acid, as shown by verylow nitrate levels in lakes. This is onlypartially true for sulfuric acid, judgingfrom lake sulfate levels.Third, only a few of the lakes in NorthAmerica are too acidic for trout (pHlevel 5). These are located in theNortheast at high elevations, primarilyin the Adirondacks. Documentedacidic lakes in Canada appear to beDr. W.B. Innes has been a consultantin the fields of catalysis and air pollutioncontrol since 1964. His work hasinvolved thermocatalytic instrumentationfor air pollutants and comprehensiveanalysis of the N0 2 issue. Prior tothat he served as group leader and researchassociate in American Cyanamid'scatalyst group.ViewpointAcid Rain:The Real StoryDr. W. B. Inneslimited to those downwind from thelargest SO, source in North America,the INCO nickel smelter in Sudbury,Ontario.Canadian concern appears to bemore related to future possible lakeacidification than to current conditions.However, there are practicallyno trend data to justify such fears, andskeptics claim that Canadian policy ismore related to the need to exportexcess hydroelectric power than toharm from acidification. NortheastU.S. nuclear power-plant policy andacid rain policy are both affected bythe availability of this low cost power.Fourth, decreased trout populationsare more the result of increasedfishing pressure, decreased stocking,and so on, than to acidity.Fifth, harm to trees from acid rainis extremely questionable. The oft-citedred spruce damage at Camel'sHump, Vt. and damage to trees in WestGermany's Black Forest now appear tohave been very exaggerated 2 and thereis no real evidence that acid rain wasimplicated. Recent work suggests thatsuch isolated situations relate more todrought, disease, and ozone than torain acidity. On the other hand, fertilizerbenefits from nitrates in acid rainare substantial.Sixth, crops and grasslands generallybenefit from acid rain because ofand sulfates. Acidity is rarely a problemand grasslands generally have alkalinesoils.Seventh, limestone buildings andstatuary apparently are affected by localS0 2 emissions that can act to convertcalcium carbonate to hydratedcalcium sulfate. Resultantdimensionaldifferences appear to effect decrepitation.However, acid rain perse tendsto clean off soot and other deposits byits leaching action. In fact, acid rainremoves about a millionth of an inchper year of the surface on the averageat current acidity levels in the NortheastUnited States.Eighth, human health effect claimsfrom acid rain have not been documentedand are based on alleged higherthan normal levels of heavy metalsin drinkingwaterfrom acid leaching ofsoils.The remedy proposed by environmentalistsis the installation of evenmore complex control equipment onpresent Midwest utility sources. Continuingcontrol measures reduced totalSO, emissions by 25 percent from1973 to 1984. Such further controlswould cost $3 to $10 billion per year,and their effect is expected to be minimalupon rain acidity or fishlife. Onthe other hand, the established remedyof simply adding limestone to acidlakes is a quick, low-cost solution. Thispromptly brings lake pH to the optimumvalue and increases levels offishlife. The costs for so treating allacidic Adirondack lakes, as estimatedby the state of New York, is $5 millionper year.In summary, solid evidence of harmfuleffects from acid rain is limited to adecrease in fishlife in a few lakesdownwind from major S0 2 emissionsources, while there are substantialacid rain benefits. Further expensivecontrols on Midwest power plants arenot needed since lake acidities can bereadily corrected by inexpensive limestoneadditions.Notes1. For example, see the author's article in Chemtech14:440-447, (1984), and P.O. Manion's articlein the Journal of the Air Pollution ControlAssociation 35:619-622 (1985).2. A pH level of 7 is neutral; more than 7 indicatesincreasing acidity, while less indicates increasingalkalinity.3. SO„ indicates variable amounts of sulfur dioxideand NO„ indicates mostly nitrous oxide.6 January-February 1986 FUSION Viewpoint


Special ReportHow AIDS Spreads Like TBby John Seale, MA, MD, MRCPEditor's NoteThis paper, dated Aug. 19, 1985, wasoriginally titled "Chronic Lymphoid InterstitialPneumonitis and ProbableTransmission of Lymphadenopathy-Associated Virus (LAVIHTLV III) by Respirator/Aerosols." Seale, an expert ontropical disease from London, has beenintensively studying the outbreak ofAIDS in tropical areas, particularly Africa.Until the late 1970s, Seale was inthe Venereal Disease Division of St.Thomas/Middlesex Hospital.We are publishing this technical paperin order to alert readers to the gravedanger of AIDS, which has been documentedby scientists worldwide yetignored and covered up by politiciansand the liberal media. The normally appropriatejournals irresponsibly rejectedthis article for publication.The essential point the article documentsis that AIDS is now found in pulmonaryfluid. This means that as lesionsdevelop in the lungs, causing theinfected person to cough, and so on,AIDS can be transmitted in the samemanner as tuberculosis. Note that LAVis the French name and HTLVthe U.S.name for the AIDS virus.Other research not referenced in thisarticle has demonstrated that up to 15percent of HTLV virus is still present indry saliva after one week.* * *Lymphadenopathy-associated virus(LAV or HTLV III) was isolated a monthago by workers at the Pasteur Instituteand at the Pitie-Salpetriere, Laennec,and Claude Bernard Hospitals in Paris,from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid of a30-year-old black Haitian woman withAIDS related complex (ARC). 1 Thisfinding may explain the observationthat acquired immune deficiency syndrome(AIDS) affects men and womenequally in Haiti and Central Africa. Italso raises the ugly possibility that LAVmay often be transmitted by respiratoryaerosols in the tropics.The woman had suffered from anorexia,weight loss, and intermittentfever for over two years, and fromdyspnea on exertion for one year. Theonly abnormality detected on physicalexamination was generalized lymphadenopathy;there were no abnormalpulmonary signs. However, chest X-ray films showed diffuse reticulonodularinfiltrates, and lung biopsy revealedlymphocytic and plasma-cell infiltrationof the alveolar septa andbronchial walls, characteristic oflymphoid interstitial pneumonitis.The bronchoalveolar lavage fluidcontained 18 million cells per milliliter(comprising macrophages and lym-The Russian Angle to the AIDS EpidemicThe 100 percent lethal disease, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome(AIDS), has hit the Western world like a bombshell. If its spread is notarrested, the experts fear, its devastation will soon be worse than that ofnuclear war. What is the Soviet angle in the spread of AIDS?The coordinator of all AIDS task force work at the Geneva-based WorldHealth Organization (WHO) is none other than a Russian named SergeiLitvinov, the assistant secretary general of WHO for Communicable Diseases.By his own admission to a European journalist, Litvinov is designatedto coordinate all AIDS work globally for WHO in Geneva.Litvinov, who was trained as an epidemiologist at the Institute of TropicalMedicine and Parasitology in Moscow, is still an official of the SovietMinistry of Health. He is not only responsible for coordinating the AIDSactivities of WHO, but also the activities of the Centers for Disease Controlin Atlanta, Ga.What is Litvinov's position on AIDS? He peddles the Soviet propagandaline. As he told a journalist, "There has been a panic and exaggerationemanating from the originating country where AIDS developed—namely,the United States of America." The Soviet Deputy Minister of Health PyotrBurgasov made this charge more explicit in the Soviet trade union newspaperTrud Oct. 6. Asserting that there were "no cases of AIDS in theU.S.S.R.," Burgasov said that the reason for the high number of cases inthe "degenerate" West was the sexual perversity and drug use.— Warren). HamermanSpecial Report FUSION January-February 1986


phocytes, of which 2 million were T4lymphocytes) without evidence ofblood contamination. LAV was isolatedfrom the lymphocytes, but appropriatestaining and culture of the lavagefluid showed no evidence of pulmonaryinfection by P carinii, fungi orany virus other than LAV.Other workers have already reportedmarkedly increased lymphocytosisin the bronchoalveolar lavage fluidfrom patients with AIDS and ARC. 2Lymphoid interstitial pneumonitis hasbeen found in infants with AIDS 3 andin adults with ARC. 4 The chest X-raysof large numbers of patients in Zairewith ARC show diffuse reticulonodularinfiltrate characteristic of lymphoidinterstitial pneumonitis.On June 28, 1985, Centers for DiseaseControl (CDC) belatedly recognizedthese observations and redefinedAIDS to include histologicallyconfirmed chronic lymphoid interstitialpneumonitis with positive serologicaltests for LAV/HTLV III. 5 However,the new CDC definition only appliesto children under 13 years of age;the 30-year-old Haitian woman above,the thousands of her adult compatriotswith the same abnormalities inHaiti, and tens of thousands of similarlyaffected Zairians, still do not haveCDC-definedAIDS.AIDS and the SecurityOf the Western WorldThe following are excerpts from an interview with John Seale by JohnGrauerholz, MD, health policy director for the Fusion Energy Foundation."If my hypothesis is correct, and we wait perhaps 20 years before wetake drastic preventive action, halt the population of the Western worldwill be wiped out. Meanwhile, the communist countries, sheltering behindtheir closed frontiers, will watch capitalism collapse in a way neverpredicted by Marx. . . ."Once the AIDS virus gets into an intravenous drug-abusing community,it spreads even faster than among homosexuals. Long before evenhalf the NATO forces and their reservists were infected with the AIDSvirus, the West would be a pushover for the Soviets. Employing the AIDSvirus is much less messy and self-destructive than using nuclear weaponsor nerve gas. Its spread is easily prevented in a totalitarian state, unlikeincoming missiles containing nuclear or chemical warheads."The Soviets did not deliberately start the AIDS epidemic =>s a form ofbiological warfare, but only a moron or an idiot in the Kremlin could failto see its potential in the East-West power struggle, now that it is here.Gorbachov could easily contain the AIDS epidemic behind the Iron Curtainusing methods far less draconian than those employed by Stalin in the'20s and '30s. And if he makes sure that heroin and cocaine keep floodinginto the West, and the porno industry keeps pumping out propagandaglorifying ever more promiscuous and bizarre effects, he could be laughingall the way to world domination by about the year 2000. . . ."If this was smallpox, it would be so obvious that people were infectious.The only reason it is not clear to people how infectious this virus is undercertain circumstances is because of the enormously long incubation period.If, as with some viruses, people died after seven days instead of afterseven years, the effect the virus was having in the intravenous drug-abusingcommunity in New York would have shown up very obviously, becausethey would have been dying like flies. Whereas in fact only about a thousandor so have died, while about a hundred thousand are infected. Butthis does not mean that in 10 years time, all hundred thousand may notwell be dead."We are dealing with a virus that certainly is as lethal as smallpox, andpossibly much more lethal. Nobody in their right mind would do anythingother than restrict the activities of a person with smallpox."Pulmonary tuberculosis is often theinitial clinical manifestation of infectionwith LAV in Haiti 6 and Central Africa.7 Indeed, it was suggested lastmonth in the Lancet that infection withM tuberculosis hominis should be includedas a manifestation of lesser AIDSor ARC. 8 CDC remains silent on thisabsolutely fundamental issue. 5 A recentstudy by the head of the U.S. taskforce against AIDS and other workersfrom CDC and National Institutes ofHealth in Bethesda, Md., of patientswith active tuberculosis in a sanitariumin Kinshasha, the capital of Zaire,showed that 48 percent were infectedwith LAV 7 compared with only 4 percentof controls.Pulmonary infection with M tuberculosishominis is characteristicallytransmitted via respiratory aerosols. Ifopen, cavitating, pulmonary tuberculosiscoexists with chronic lymphoidinterstitial pneumonitis caused by LAV,it is inevitable that large numbers ofinfectious LAV virions, as well as tuberclebacilli, will be expelled in aerosolsduring coughing. LAV spread bythe respiratory route would affect menand women equally; spouses and childrenof index cases would be particularlyat risk, as has already been observedin Africa.'It is possible that respiratory transmissionof LAV may occur even withoutthe assistance of M tuberculosishominis. It is well known that LAV/HTLVIII is a retrovirus genetically very similarto the maedi-visna virus of sheep, 10and that both viruses cause progressiveencephalopathy in man 11 andsheep" respectively. It is less wellknown that maedi-visna virus alsocauses chronic progressive pneumoniain sheep, 13 which is histologically indistinguishablefrom chronic lymphoidinterstitial pneumonitis in mancaused by LAV/HTLV III.An epidemic of maedi-visna in Iceland,spread by respiratory aerosolsamong sheep crowded into shelters toprotect them from the long Arctic winters,followed the importation of oneinfected ram from Germany in 1933.The epidemic built up slowly and unnoticedover several years (just like theAIDS epidemic has in a thousand citiesacross the globe) but by 1950, morethan 100,000 sheep had died from theContinued on page 64January-February 1986 FUSION Special Report


Fusion ReportJapan's Cannonball Laser TargetMoves to Fusion Forefront)ust when budget cuts have broughtthe U.S. carbon-dioxide laser fusionresearch program to an abrupt halt—at least in the public domain—the Japaneseare going full steam ahead withan advanced laser fusion target designthat has great promise.Many U.S. scientists have suggestedthat carbon dioxide lasers could overcomecertain disadvantages by switchingfrom direct-drive to indirect-driveconfigurations, and this is exactly theline of research being pursued at theInstitute for Laser Engineering at OsakaUniversity in Japan. Reports of the firstexperiments are encouraging.In the indirect-drive Osaka cannonballdesign, laser beams are directedthrough small openings in a hollowchamber that contains in its center thefusion target (see figure). The laser lightbecomes trapped within the chamber,imploding the target.This configuration has several generaladvantages over direct-drive ablationtargets. High absorption and highhydrodynamic efficiency can beachieved because of the confinementof the energy in the cavity. High uniformityin implosion of the fusion fuelis also attained, because the multiplereflectioneffect of the trapped laserlight between the fuel target surfaceand the inner wall of the cannonballleads to a smooth distribution of laserenergy within the cavity.The cannonball avoids the problemof preheating found with the relativelylong wavelength carbon-dioxide laserat Los Alamos National Laboratory,which used a direct-drive configuration.With direct drive, superthermal,extremely "hot" electrons are generatedthat can penetrate into the interiorof the fusion fuel. When this occurs,the target is preheated and it is impossibleto compress it isentropically tothe high densities needed to producefusion. The cannonball provides themeans of controlling the hot electronspectrum by the design of its cavitystructure.The Japanese report experiments onOsaka's Lekko II carbon dioxide laserusing planar cannonball targets. Single-sidedirradiation of the planar targetwas effected with nanosecond orless laser pulses of 30 to 100 joules. Thefocal spot size was 180 microns in diameter.The beam was directed at anangle of 27 degrees with respect to thenormal of the planar target.The Lekko II ExperimentIn this test, the planar targets consistedof three parts, a front disk to actas a tamper, a cavity wall, and a rearfoil. Fuel pellets were not used, butthefoil corresponds to the pusher on afusion fuel targetthatwould otherwisebe within the interior of the cannonball.The hole in the front disk had a diameterof 400 microns through whichthe laser light was directed. A hollowaluminum cylinder formed the cannonballcavity. Aluminum was alsoused for the rear, a 2-micron thick foil.The front disks were varied, using inone case 10-micron thick gold, in another10-micron thick gold with 2-micron thick aluminum on its innersurface and, lastly, a nickel wire net.The laser intensity was about 10 M wattsper square centimeter.A2-micron, single aluminum foil wasalso used in order to compare the cannonballwith a conventional ablativetarget. The cannonball target was foundto have good laser energy absorp-Continued on page 64SCHEMATIC OF THE OSAKA CANNONBALLTwo laser beams are shown in this cross-section view of the two-holecannonball target, irradiating its inner wall. These openings are quicklyclosed off by plasma, trapping the laser beams within the interior. At thecenter of the cannonball is a pellet of deuterium-tritium fusion fuel with aradius r p . The outer layer of the pellet, having a thickness 5r p , consists of apusher material that is ablated by the trapped laser energy and therebydrives the implosion of the fuel to high densities and temperatures neededto ignite fusion.The outer wall of the cannonball, which has a thickness 6r,, acts as atamper that contains the trapped laser energy during the implosion of theinner fuel pellet, in the same way that a cannonball in a gun barrel containsthe hot gases of an explosive charge. If the overall radius of the cannonball,r,, is much greater than that of the fuel pellet, r p , then most of the trappedlaser light will be transformed to X-rays, and these will then drive theimplosion of the fuel pellet. If r, is only slightly greater than r p , then theplasma emanating from the interior wall will drive the implosion insteadof X-rays.Fusion Report FUSION January-February 1986


Beam Technology ReportAN INTERVIEW WITH DR. GREGORY CANAVANAn Assessment of the SDI and theContradictions of Its CriticsDr. Gregory Canavan, assistant divisionleader in the Physics Division atLos Alamos National Laboratory in NewMexico, formerly headed up the inertialconfinement program of the Departmentof Energy's Office of FusionEnergy. He was interviewed Aug. 22,1985 at the fifth annual scientific conferenceon nuclear war in Erice, Sicily,by Ralf Schauerhammer of the WestGerman Fusion Energy Foundation andPaolo Raimondi of the weekly ExecutiveIntelligence Review.Question: One of the biggest opponentsof the Strategic Defense Initiative programin West Germany, Hans Peter Diirr,wrote in a recent issue of Der Spiegelmagazine that Strategic Defense Initiativesupporters are very stupid, becausethey want to move a large number ofvery heavy satellites into space wherethey will only be easily destroyed by apotential offender using simple meansthat are the technical equivalent ofthrowing rocks.You are, apparently, one of those "stupid"people who are in favor of the SDI.Why do you support the program?I don't know Mr. DOrr and I am notfamiliar with the articles that he haswritten. I am, however, familiar withthe arguments of the critics of strategicdefense in the United States and I havebeen engaged in discussions with themever since I participated in a study,called "The Defensive TechnologyStudy," commissioned after the President'sMarch 23, 1983 speech on strategicdefense.The key issues associated with strategicdefense fall into four main areas,of ascending order of difficulty both tounderstand and to quantify. The simplestlevel of discussion is the technicalissue, the second is cost, the thirdis stability, and the fourth is morality.The technical issue is the question,Los Alamos National LaboratoryDr. Gregory Canavan"Will it work?" The cost issue is, "Evenif it works, is it affordable?" The thirdissue, stability, is, "Even if it works andis affordable, what would it imply forcrisis stability, arms-race stability, ortransitional stability, trying to move intoa defensive world?" And then finallythe issue of morality: "How would itchange the morality of the strategicposture?"Most of the debate in the UnitedStates has centered on the more mechanicalissues—technical feasibilityand cost—although I believe that it isbecoming increasingly clear to thosewho discussed the issues in the UnitedStates that these questions can be satisfactorilyresolved in favor of strategicdefense.Question: Who are the main opponentsand proponents in this debate?There have been a large number ofparticipants in the debate in the UnitedStates. The only participants who carriedmuch weight on the first two issues,the technical feasibility and thecost issue, were the Union of ConcernedScientists (UCS) and the Officeof Technology Assessment (OTA).About a year and a half ago, both ofthose groups produced reports verycritical of strategic defense on a varietyof issues, primarily, however, on technicalfeasibility and cost. The technicalcriticisms had to do with such thingsas the impossibility of scaling lasers tovery high energy levels, the impossibilityof producing particle beams ofsufficiently high brightness, or the inabilityof communicating with the projectilesystems to enable them to interceptsuccessfully against fast-burnboosters.There have been a number of discussions,debates, and correspondenceback and forth, which were verylengthy and very intricate, but whichhave had the overall impact of satisfactorilyanswering the objections of theSDI opponents, to the point where theyhave shifted their arguments away fromwhether these concepts would worktechnically.If you listen to the chief spokesmanfor the Union of Concerned Scientiststoday, Dr. Hans Bethe, you will nolonger see him arguing on the basis ofsimple physical arguments—such asthe fact that the speed of light is finiteor that the Earth is curved—that youcan "prove" that strategic defensewould not work. Now, he has shiftedinstead to the notion that perhaps theconstellations of satellites would be solarge as to be unattractive or cost toomuch.Question: Even there, some changes seemto be taking place in the assessments ofthese people.There is a very interesting inconsistencywhich has developed in the discussionsof these technical issues and10 January-February 1986 FUSION Beam Technology Report


cost issues. An example is the publicationa few months ago in the Britishscience magazine Nature of an articleby Dr. Richard Carwin of IBM, who hasbeen one of the prominent U.S. criticsof strategic defense. In attempting toargue that strategic defense could betoo complicated, Dr. Carwin actuallydemonstrated a number of factorswhich do not support his case.Chief among them, I think, was thatfor the nominal conditions of performancegoals of the Strategic Defenseinitiative within the U.S. Departmentof Defense. . .the constellation of defensivesatellites required for strategicdefense against a simultaneous launchof a very hardened, very advancedforce of distributed missiles is notenormous; it is not in the hundreds ofthousands. In Dr. Carwin's own calculations,the number of satellites requiredis under 80. . . .A key issue in all of the argumentationover the last year on the extrapolationsof the performance of the SDIto very hardened threats had to do withhow the constellation of defensive satellitesscales with the number of missiles,or the way in which they burnout. The other report I mentioned, theone by the Office of Technology Assessment,asserted flatly that the constellationsize scales linearly to thethreat.It is amusing that Dr. Carwin's calculationsscale in a much more realisticway, roughly to the 0.6 power of thethreat. This is much closer to the 0.5 orsquare root scaling that Los Alamos hadproduced in its initial comments on theOTA report at the time it came out lastyear. This is one of the inconsistenciesthat I was talking about, in which thecritics of the SDI have now actuallygenerally produced a large number ofnumerical results and estimates whichsupport the favorable scaling of the SDIand contradict the statements of othercritics of the SDI.The most senior spokesman againstthe Strategic Defense Initiative in theUnited States is Dr. Hans Bethe. In reviewinga number of my reports overthe last few months, he has now gonethrough calculations which corroboratethe scaling that I had indicated asappropriate last year. Indeed, theyshow that had Dr. Bethe used a constellationaltitude appropriate to thedistributed threat of missiles, he wouldBeam Technology Reporthave gotten almost exactly the so-calledsquare-root scaling that I put forwardas appropriate for that case last year.The amusing thing is that now theprincipal spokesmen for the Union ofConcerned Scientists have producedresults which broadly contradict thoseresults which were defended by theOffice of Technology Assessment ofthe U.S. Congress. These, amusinglyenough, also contradict all the publishedreports of the Union of ConcernedScientists itself. . . .Question: Technological developmentwill probably even improve the situationfor defense. I was impressed by one ofthe presentations here in Erice, in whichDr. William Barletta from the LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory explainedhow the free electron laser veryrapidly developed from an exotic technologyto one of the main candidates forthe SDI. Is this a unique case, or can weexpect more developments of this kindin the near term?I think that people are hypnotizednow by the rapid pace of technologydevelopment. Some developmentshave caught people by surprise, eventhough they have been discussedwidely in the open literature. Therehave been some very impressive results.There is a Lord Solly Zuckerman ofBritain, who in a meeting a while backsaid to me that the thing that is wrongwith strategic defense is that there isno new technology in it. As I was writingmy letter to him after the meeting,I thought about the different technologies:lasers, particle beams, kineticenergy interceptors.I realized that all the technologiesFred Rick/Los Alamos National Laboratory"Everything that is subject to debate today has been invented in just the last 15years. "Above, the test chamberwhere intense, pencil-thin particle beam pulseswere accurately guided by a laser to a target, setting a world record of 11 feet.FUSION January-February 1986 11


that we are talking about today—spacechemical lasers, the ground-based lasers,the excimer and free electron lasers,the X-ray laser, neutral and chargedparticle beams, and all of these nonnuclear-killkinetic energy interceptorsthat are based on advanced sensorsand computers—none of themhad been really thought of at the timeof the most recent debate on strategicdefense in the United States, which wasonly 15 years ago. Everything that issubject to debate today has been inventedin just the last 15 years.The free electron laser has made ordersof magnitude of progress in justthe last one or two years. The neutralparticle beam, which is worked on atLos Alamos, has developed lately as apotential intercept platform and a discriminationplatform; that is, a way offinding out which objects are realweapons and which are just balloonsor surrogate targets, which has been aproblem of classical difficulty. The mostdifficult problem in strategic defensehas always been in eliminating nonserioustargets, so that you do not wasteyour interceptors.Tremendous strides have been madeon discrimination with particle beamsor impulse lasers. This also has happenedin just the last two years. Sincethe "Defensive Technology Study,"there are not only new technologiesbut also new insights on how to usethese new technologies to solve traditionalproblems.Question: How does this technologicalprogress reflect back to the economiceffects of an SDI program?I think you have to break the economiceffects down into two parts: thenear-term and the long-term issues.The near term has to do with research;the long term with a possible deployment,which is being discussed, but isnot now approved.The near-term discussion over theSDI budget is very intense, but theamounts involved are not significantfor a healthy economy. The budget ofa few billion dollars a year is large, butsmall compared to the defense budgetof the United States, and does not havea direct, significant impact on theAmerican economy.There is an indirect impact, and thatis probably positive. Historically, theDepartment of Defense has been a veryNisls Bohr Library/APSstuart K. LewisDr. Hans Bethe (left) no longer argues that SDI won't work, but that it might costtoo much. The research of Dr. Richard Carwin (right) demonstrates that hisarguments against the SDI are wrong.effective developer of technology, andit is to be anticipated that this wouldcontinue and that the developmentsof new types of lasers, of particle generators,and, in particular, of computers,would have an enormous positiveimpact on the commercial economy.As to the longer-term discussionabout deployment, were it positive, westill do not have a major economic impact.If you take figures of the size thatwe have been talking about, even thoseestimated by the adversaries of strategicdefense, you get numbers thatappear to be only a few tens ofhundreds of billions of dollars, whichare figures less than, or at least comparableto, what would be spent overthat period of a decade or so on alternativestrategic concepts.I don't think that the dominant issueis economic, as long as reasonable costgoals for the strategic defensive conceptsare met, as it now appears theycould be.Question: There are several argumentsbrought up against the SDI, such as thatit is immoral to build new weapons, orthat one should not invest in new weaponswhile people are starving on Earth.Do you think that some of these argumentsare valid?These are serious questions, butmost of them are not unique to theSDI. They have to do with any sort ofmilitary expenditures, and there are alwaysthose who argue that no moneyshould be spent on military technologiesas long as there is hunger in theworld. I would only point out that defenseand freedom are also importantvalues, as important in some ways asmaterial wants. And the point I stressfor Western democracies is that evenwith their expenditures for defense,they have a much smaller proportionof material wants than do the totalitarianstates from which they are attemptingto protect themselves.Sometimes these issues are amplifiedby connecting them with the issueof stability. There is a concern that thereis not just a basic investment in testingand trying to deploy strategic defense,but that there is a possibility that wewould get ourselves into an arms race,which would divert even further requirementsfrom the unfortunate ofour society. The numbers on the costestimates we went through earlier actuallyshow the contrary.It has been pretty clearly explainedby various spokesmen, perhaps mostprominently by U.S. ambassador PaulNitze, that if strategic defenses are costeffective—thatis, if it is more effectiveto develop defenses than to deployfurther offenses—then one does notget into an offensive or defensive armsrace. The net effect of the developmentand even the initial deploymentof strategic defenses will be to give apositive incentive to both sides to reducetheir offensive arms levels and,with them, their overall defense expenditures.. . .12 January-February 1986 FUSION Beam Technology Report


Question: It is often stated that theAmerican SOI program would automaticallyforce the Soviet Union into aggressiveopposition to defensive systems andforce it to build even more missiles, andthat there would be no way to go fromthe realm of Mutually Assured Destructionto that of Mutually Assured Survival.Is this true?In my experience, and I think in generalexperience, the Soviets are, despitetheir rhetoric, very logical in pursuingtheir arms programs. If defensesturn out to be more cost-effective thanoffenses, then independent of theirrhetoric I think the Soviets will be inclinedto build defenses.The only situation in which theycould be inclined to build further offensiverather than defensive systemswould be one in which defensive systemswere more expensive. ... If defensesturn out not to be cost-effective,I don't think they will ever seriouslybe proposed by the UnitedStates. Therefore the concern aboutthe Soviets having a cost-ineffectivedefense to counter it is not a valid one.Question: In the meeting today, Dr. EdwardTeller of the United States raisedthe question that the U.S. press has probablybeen more destructive to the SDIthan the KGB, because of the massivedisinformation that was tunneled throughthe Western media on the matter of theSDI. Can you comment on this?Dr. Teller is a very colorful fellow.He certainly has more experience withthe American media than I have. . . .The history of interaction has been thatthe critics of strategic defense havegotten along better with the press thanthe supporters and even neutral observersof the program. . . . Myimpression is that the critics receivedso much applause from the press becausethey very quickly organized, putout a series of reports—some by verysenior scientists with a number of verycrisp arguments, such as that strategicdefense could not work because of thefinite speed of light and because theEarth is curved. These were argumentsthat were simple, that were crisp, andthat were wrong. But at that time, theyseemed plausible and people couldmake good headlines of them.The Department of Defense, be-cause it is a big, slow-moving body,took a long, long time to put out astatement of its own. In addition, itsarguments were not terribly direct andquotable. . . .Question: What you think the SDI programmeans for Europe? There have beensuspicions that the SDI might "decouple"Europe from the United States byshielding only America and leaving Europeout.Not enough thought has been givento the impact of strategic defense onthe theater. I personally had not givenmuch thought to it, until a few monthsago, when Dr. Fred Hoffmann, whohad led the policy panel in response tothe President's speech, asked me toaddress this particular issue. . . .As I thought about it and workedthrough it and wrote on the subject, Icame to a series of conclusions, whichwere quite unconventional a fewmonths ago, but which are becomingnow much more widely accepted. . . .If one would develop a strategic defenseand also try to use some of thesesame technologies to better defend thetheater, you see that the limited threatand the selective Soviet objectives inthe theater provide an attractiveframework for the application of theconcepts. That is, there is a rationalengagement that you can understandhow to fight, which tends to make theconcepts a bit better. In addition, surprisinglyto me, almost all of the concepts—thelasers, the particle beams,the missiles—are directly applicable inthe theater generally, with significantadvantages in performance and survivability.Let me amplify this. The performancehas to do with the fact that inthe theater it is very much more difficultfor ballistic missiles to deploy effectivedecoys or surrogate targets. Inthe intercontinental engagement, theprincipal problem with the midcoursephase of the engagement is the presenceof large numbers of decoys foreach real warhead that you need to intercept.In the theater, none of the missileslike the SS-21, SS-22, or SS-23 ever getsabove the atmosphere; therefore, theycannot deploy effective decoys. Sotheir interception is a fairly straightforwardthing, with the nonnuclear con-cepts that have been developed andevaluated for strategic defense.On the survivability issue, the mainthing is that even in Europe, with nonnuclearconcepts, it is possible to dispersemany of the interceptors overwide areas; it is possible to move themat ti mes, so that the adversary does notknow where to look for them andwhere to take them out.Many of the mid-range conceptscould, moreover, be based either airborneor remotely out of the theater,in part on a submarine, if you will.Therefore, it is the survivability [of theantimissile weapons], which is thedominant issue in the strategic engagement,and which is of much lessimportance for the theater interaction.The third point that hit me is that theimpact of defensive systems for thetheater on stability is generally favorable;in particular, if they are evaluatedin concert with global defense. Thisis a point that is quite confusing for alot of people. People have a concernthat as strategic defenses are evaluated,the United States and the SovietUnion might withdraw behind theirstrategic umbrellas and leave the Europeansvery much out in the cold. Becauseof fundamental technical factors,which have to do with the performanceof the different concepts, inpoint of fact, that would not be thecase.The theater probably would tend tobe protected first, more so than eventhe U.S. homeland. The point is thatstrategic defenses, particularly spacebasedstrategic defenses, tend to bevery sensitive to the rate of attack, themissiles per unit time. Since the numberof missiles in the theater is muchsmaller, by perhaps an order of magnitudethan what is faced in an intercontinentalengagement, what thatmeans is that a concept that was justbarely sized to handle the intercontinentalengagement, would be oversizedby a factor of 10 to handle thetheater.Or, said another way, a system thatwas very marginal to handle the intercontinentalengagement would bemore than adequate to suppress ballisticmissiles in the theater. And thereforethe strategic umbrella actuallywould appear to be developed firstover the theater.Beam Technology ReportFUSIONjanry-February 1986 13


Leonardo da Vinciand theTrue Method ofMagnetohydrodynamicsLeonardo understood the unity of wave phenomena whether electromagnetic or inair or water; more important, he identified the formation of singularities, thatessence of continuing creation, which Newtonians can never fully acknowledge.by Dino de Paoli"I know that many will call this uselesswork, and they will be those whotook no more account of the wind thatcame out of their mouth in words,than of that they expelled from theirlower parts. . . . For so much moreworthy is the soul than the body. Andoften when 1 see one of these men takethis work in his hand I wonder that hedoes not put it in his nose, like amonkey, or ask me if it is somethinggood to eat!"—Leonardo da Vinci, C.A. 117bs


INTRODUCTIONThere is currently a renewed and much deserved interestin the work of Leonardo da Vinci on hydrodynamics. Someof the attempts are honest and worth following. 1 Others aremerely trying to mystify the fact that the scientific methoddid not originate with Isaac Newton and the mathematicallinearization of physical processes. On the contrary, thescientific method was first elaborated as a method by Platoand Nicholas of Cusa and later explicated and applied bythe giants of the European golden Renaissance, most especiallyLeonardo and Johannes Kepler.More recently, the work of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. hasinspired us to uncover the real history of Western scientificthought, looking directly at the primary sources in order tobypass the British monopoly on the history of science. 2 Ourdissatisfaction with the way i n which the history of scientificthinking is normally presented stems from the epistemologicalparadoxes that are created if one assumes the Newtonianmethod as the basis for mastering the laws of theuniverse (that is, the laws of the real universe and not theone logically constructed by linear equations).In the specific case of Leonardo, we discovered somethingthat lies before every eye able to read: Leonardo'smethod of thinking was scientific. Building upon the epistemologicalrevolution of Cusa, Leonardo was able to formulatethe correct questions to be asked in physics. Themethod of Leonardo is universal in the simple sense that itis a method of creative discovery and, as such, an exampleof natural law. This contrasts with the Aristotelian-Newtonianmethod, which classifies the given. One reflects theessence of human beings—creativity; the other reflects theoutlook of a landlord—conservation of given objects. Understandingthis from the standpoint that Leonardo was amaster of the method that created European civilization,we have tried to look at his scattered material in a differentway from that usually done. Typically, Leonardo is presentedeither as a mad artist who had nothing better to dothan go around with a notebook and draw whatever happenedto pass before his eyes, or he is described as a mysteriousgenius representing some mysterious symbolic tradition.(This latter description is supposed to account forhis "love of spirals.")The reason that we could be sure of our hypothesis thatLeonardo's art was based upon his mastery of scientificprinciples (principles that have been rediscovered sometimeshundreds of years later) is found in his paintingsthemselves. Leonardo's art reflects more than mere painting;it is the creative method itself that is incorporated inhis paintings. His work reflects a masterful representationof rigor and human love, and herein is the kernel of thescientific method.Still another standpoint that allowed us to understandLeonardo was the location of his role in the republicancircles of Machiavelli. This was made possible by a study ofthe economic content of his notebooks, bearing in mindthat economic development depends upon the building oflarge infrastructural projects. 3 With this perspective, suddenly,all of his work, now scattered in different books,began to take a coherent shape: his technological innovations,his irrigation project, his military concerns, his researchin the power of motors and the design of engines.Leonardo's outlook was that of all great humanists fromPlato to Leibniz to Schiller.Such a person would naturally be a cultural optimist,would naturally look for a way to bring man into space andto conquer the underwater depths. A man like that wouldnormally look for the most universal principles, principlesderived from the postulate that man exists and owes hiscontinued existence to his own power to master the lawsthat govern his physical environment.Such a person would not be satisfied with mere logic ortechnique, but would be satisfied only when he could bringreal existence and its evolution to the fore. Technical developmentwould be seen as indispensable for human existence,but such improvement could come only from theapplication of universal principles, not techniques. Themotivation for his work would not be careerist but derivedfrom Christian love, the upgrading of his fellow men by acombination of cultural and technological progress.This is the Leonardo who was working and struggling tomake new advances, to find new means of development—enjoying it all with the joy of a pure infant, making mistakes,constantly seeking new approaches, redrawing the sameplan many times until it was sufficiently rigorous to meethis own standards, so that he was satisfied with the answer.It is this human being who most contributed to our culturaladvancement into the industrial age. It is this Leonardowhom we wish to reinstall in his rightful place. Readersshould look anew at his published drawings, this time gettinginto Leonardo's mind and seeing what he was seeingand thinking, enjoying science as only the cultural optimistwho is a creative being can. The historical Leonardo hasalready been presented in other published accounts. 3 Herewe wish to focus upon how his method, applied to fluiddynamics, not only is still valid but also is the only way thatwe can understand the real fluids that make up 99.99 percentof the universe.The present debate in plasma physics, in meteorology,and in astrophysics, even if technically detailed, is preciselythe same debate that Leonardo faced. Can we accountcausally for the evolution of new singularities? Are singularitiesa physical reality? Does their existence have implicationsfor the way in which the universe as a whole isorganized?Leonardo looked at the formation of turbulence and singularitiesas essential and causal. Vortices would reflect notsimple chaotic disorder but something more complex andordered. He recognized that rotation is a general propertyof the universe. Yet today, this seemingly simple issue isholding back breakthroughs in modern physics. Why? Becausethe issue is not a simple technical question. The samekind of debate that is going on today occurred betweenPlato and Aristotle, between Leibniz and Newton, betweenthe German-Italian school of hydrodynamics linked toBernhard Riemann and Ludwig Prandtl and the Englishschool of Rayleigh-Kelvin-Lamb. In each case, the oppositiondenied the real existence of shock waves and othersingularities. 4 In fact, it is the outcome of the fight betweenthese two outlooks that has determined progress or regressionin scientific thinking.FUSION January-February 1986 15


We stand for the tradition of Leonardo and Riemann. Wewill present Leonardo's contribution to this debate in atwofold fashion, through his own material and in terms ofthe modern debate in fluid mechanics. Our conclusionsconcerning Leonardo are based strictly upon his notebooks,although we have organized and extrapolated hismaterial for the sake of the modern debate.A HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE DEBATE. . .[I]t is Euler who is justly recognized as the fatherof hydromechanics. . . . But multitudinous problemsof practice could not be answered by the Euler hydrodynamics;they could not even be discussed. This waschiefly because starting with the Euler equations ofmotion, the science had become a pure academic analysisof the hypothetical frictionless, ideal fluid. Thistheoretical development is associated with Helmholtz,Kelvin, Lamb, and Rayleigh. The analytical results obtainedby means of the so-called classical hydrodynamicsusually do not agree at all with the practical phenomena.... To such an important question as pressuredrop or resistance . . . theoretical hydrodynamicscould only answer that both pressure drop and resistanceare zero! . . . Only toward the end of the 19thcentury a new critical spirit appeared . . . among thephysicists a more realistic attitude grew up especiallyassociated with the great name of Felix Klein, havingfor its object the restoration of pure and applied science.—L. Prandtl and O.C. Tietjens, Fundamentals of HydroandAeromechanics, 1934.This quotation from Gottingen University's Ludwig Prandtlis true only in part. Elsewhere Prandtl is more explicit thathis relation to Riemann was direct, rather than through themediation of Felix Klein. To carry the development of hydrodynamicsforward, it was necessary for Prandtl to breakwith the English school and directly assimilate the methodof Riemann.The English school of hydrodynamics consciously rejectedthe Riemannian approach and thus prevented majorbreakthoughs in the theory of flight. Nevertheless, todaythis is still the school that is mainly studied. The results ofthis affect plasma physics and astrophysics as well; namely,there is still the tendency to consider turbulence as a purelychaotic phenomenon and vortices as something to avoid.Not by chance, it was a student of Prandtl, Adolf Busemann,who first had the correct idea about treating vorticesfound within the domain of plasma physics; his insightcame from his work on hydrodynamics in the tradition ofRiemann. 5 Before Riemann, potential theory as elaboratedby Laplace was nothing but the d'Alembert paradox expressedin dynamical equations. (d'Alembert more overtlyexpressed the same kind of hostility to singular phenomenathat Newton had. This explains how d'Alembert naturallyarrived at his infamous "paradox," whereby according tohis calculations, a bird should not be able to fly.)It is the d'ALembert theory that Prandtl had to reject inorder to develop a scientific theory of flight. Leonardo, asFigure 1LUDWIG PRANDTL ANDHIS RECIRCULATING CHANNELLudwig Prandtl (1875-1953), a successor to BernhardRiemann. Both men were in the line of scientists extendingfrom Nicholas ofCusa and Leonardo da Vinci,whose thinking rejected the acausal Newtonianism ofLord Kelvin, Lord Rayleigh, and Sir Horace Lamb.Prandtl is shown here near the turn of the century withhis simple laboratory device for the investigation offluid flow.Source: Hunter Rouse, Laboratory Instruction in the Mechanics of Fluids(University of Iowa, 1961), p. 4.we shall show, had precisely pointed out and partially definedthe importance of the phenomena of rotation andboundary layers, elaborated by Prandtl in modern scientificterms as the basis for the theory of lift. Prandtl also engagedin a polemic against the Kelvin-Helmholtz principle of vorticity,which is discussed below. According to this view, asdescribed by the Italian general and aerodynamicist GaetanoCrocco, "The vortex was ignored and at the same timewas given by Helmholtz a mysterious and solitary existencewithout creation or death, like a demigod." 6Without the creation of vortices by the surface of discontinuityaround a wing, there is no lift. Again this is thed'Alembert-Newtonian obsession: Birds cannot fly. Butthere is more to the concept of vortex creation, and beforeillustrating the history of Leonardo's contribution, we haveto clarify this point.16 January-February 1986 FUSION


We can look at the universe as a continuous manifoldthat creates singularities, a universe whose continuity isredefined by such singularities. We look at the universeitself as a fluid, but from the standpoint of real Riemanniangeometry; singularity formation changes the potential andthe topological characteristics of the space-time manifold.Such transformation is reflected in changes of metric and"changes of state." The Riemannian hydrodynamic approachsolves the apparent discreteness-continuity paradoxby emphasizing the primacy of self-transformation.Historically, this is the only way in which real breakthroughsin technological progress occur. This is the samemethod, although at a lower epistemological level, thatallowed Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and de Broglie to introducenew and correct concepts to fundamental physics atthe beginning of the 20th century. 7 This same approach hasbeen carried forward in the realm of economy by giving adirectionality to the creation of singularities, in order todefine a shift in potential either entropically or negentropically.8This is the only standpoint from which evolving systemscan be represented. 8 The apparently local, entropic effectof the creation of a singularity is not the primary parameter;the issue is to analyze whether that singularity accomplishesa shift in the geometry of the system as a whole, sothat an "entropic" effect on the lower manifold of an existingstage of development is lower than the negentropiceffect for the transformed system as a whole.Energy conservation, then, although an important topologicalcharacteristic, does not become the absolute fixedlimit that it is according to the Kelvin-Helmholtz approach,which would, in effect, prevent the creation of new singularities.Kelvin and Helmholtz superimposed their own ideologicalinterpretation of Leibniz's statement of the conservationof vis viva, in order to prove their mechanistic, Cartesianoutlook. Stability is not synonymous with static, oreven dynamic, equilibrium. Such a notion is an artificialideological construct.'' Energy conservation is a boundarycondition for a given manifold, but it shifts precisely withthe topological shift of the manifold, according to the directionalityimposed by the new, real singularity formed.In that sense, new singularities are not necessarily symptomaticof "more chaos," nor do they necessarily lead to astatistical approach. On the contrary, such singularities moreappropriately approximate a Riemann-Weierstrass type offunction that is everywhere dense with singularities but stillcontinuous. 10The other approach to the same problem is the fake hydrodynamicschool of Cauchy, Kelvin, and Helmholtz, todayrepresented by llya Prigogine." They present themselvesas anti-Newtonian, insofar as Newton emphasizedthe discrete manifold—the hard-ball universe of self-evidentatoms. In reality they, and Maxwell along with them,have the same approach as Newton. The do not allow forthe creation of singularities.For them, a local discontinuity must be accounted for bya rearrangement of a given state. This is the basis for thevortices of the Helmholtz-Kelvin theory, which creates vortex-atoms.For the hard-ball fixed configuration atoms ofNewton, Helmholtz and Kelvin substitute merely more flexible,but still uncreatable vortex-atoms, found in the sameCartesian space Newton envisioned.Both Kelvin and Prigogine are characterized by a strictlymaterialist-mechanist point of view, revealed by their common—andnot accidental—reference to Lucretius and theEpicurean school. This is why they cannot acknowledge theconcept of rotation. Without this concept of real rotation,each "new structure formation," according to Prigogine,has to be explained symbolically and as "local disequilibrium."The formation of these "new structures" then hasno directionality, because the structures are the result oflocal condensation of atom-vortices. Hence there is no wayto measure if and in which direction we have a shift in theoverall topological characteristic of the field. This is theepistemology of an anarchist, which Prigogine tried first toimpose on the "new physics" and now is applying to the"neweconomics," where the notion of directed technologicalprogress has disappeared.Rotation is not a fixed rearrangement of local atoms; it isa general topological property of our visible universe.Therefore, we do not seek to analyze it as "abnormal localbehavior." What is actually abnormal is the absence of rotation.Any action in the physical universe will have to beseen in terms of the "creation of local rotation," becausethat is the only way action can do work in this universe. Wewill see later how vorticity or spiral forms are neither symbolicnor abnormal, but are the normal way action is shapedin our visual manifold. From galaxies to cells, space-timetransformations take the form of spiral action, and it is—we may hypothesize—not a turbulent, chaotic state of matter,but probably the most stable local state because it is aforce-free state.The issue then is not vortices per se, just as dress is notthe essence of human beings. The issue is the creation ornoncreation of action; its effect in terms of potential shiftwill normally take spiral form when it is real action.Kelvin, Helmholtz, and later Prigogine sought to coverup the old Cartesian approach to this basic problem withsome exotic notion of "local vorticity." This is very attractivefor those trained in symbology, but it negates the lawfulcreation of rotational action because that would upset their"conservation law." So the debate between Prandtl andKelvin was not about linear motion or circular motion, butwhether we are able to create action by shifting the geometryof the field. Action will normally take the form of rotation,and there will be an "entropic" effect on the previousfield potential. The stream lines will appear turbulent.The same method of thinking applied to the evolution ofour own civilization has allowed us to rediscover a line ofcreators in science that had been ignored or obscured bythe "official" schools. We are looking for evolution in scientificthinking, but measuring it against a transinvariantprocess of the conservation and expansion of our humanspecies, which defines directionality in human creative activity.Truth is not measured logically. In the same way,evolution cannot be simply considered as "something new";it must instead be measured in terms of its effect on humanprogress, which consequently is invariant with respect touniversal natural laws. This defines the criteria for identifyinga correct method of thinking from a wrong one. 12FUSION January-February 1986 17


From Leonardo to BusemannBefore Leonardo (1452-1519), no one had really studiedfluid motion as a subject in itself and with a general methodology,for reasons indicated above. We wish again toemphasize the crucial role that Cusa directly played in shapingthe method Leonardo used, in particular the idea oflooking upon the behavior of water, air, and light as a singlephenomenon: fluid motion. This was possible only becauseCusa imposed upon the humanists the injunction toseek that which is invariant in the universe as a whole. Thisseemingly abstract idea allowed Leonardo to use water toform hypotheses concerning air and light, with obviouslyastonishing results replicated only much later by Prandtl.Newton could not grasp the same interrelation of thecommon properties of fluids. However, the same principleintroduced to Leonardo the concept of reversibility in fluidmotion: Either an object moves in water or water movesagainst the object—the effect will be the same. Again, thisis an abstract point that allowed him major experimentalopportunities. He constructed artificial birds against whichhe moved air to experiment with flow patterns.Why Leonardo took on this study is apparent from hisunderlying motivations: the combination of his concern forirrigation projects and his sense of the necessity for man toconquer space. This optimism is the driving force of hisgenius. This is visible for most people through his artisticwork. For the moment, the essential point in Leonardo'sfounding of true fluid dynamics is his unambiguous indicationof the importance of the formation of singular discontinuousphenomena. These can take the form of vortices,hydraulic jumps, breakers, vortex-filaments, and soforth, out of apparently continuous wave motions. We willemphasize this tendency, this methodological aspect, andnot the details of Leonardo's work. The relevance of theformation of discontinuity in a fluid is not purely a philosophicalissue. It implies the creation of the right or wrongtechnology.Also essential in Leonardo's method is the scarcely hiddenimplication that when a principle of formation of discontinuityis understood for one fluid, it must be true withsome modification for other fluids too. As he emphasized,with the added characteristic of compressibility, up to acertain point the experiments in water are valid for air. Inthat sense Leonardo's method is still important. What heindicated as relevant phenomena in water has been verifiedin air with the shock wave theory and now in plasma physics.He himself projected and experimented with results heobtained in water to understand the behavior of blood circulationand tree growth with obviously astonishing "anticipation"of later scientific discoveries. Any erroneous resultswere caused mostly by his lack of experimental facilitiesrather than a deficit in method."After Leonardo, this outlook in hydrodynamics and opticswas crried through, although only partially, by SimonStevin (1548-1620), Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695), andBlaise Pascal (1623-1662). Mathematically, the importanceof discontinuous processes was emphasized by GottfriedLeibniz (1646-1716) and Leonhard Euler (1707-1783). M Withthe addition of Daniel Bernoulli (1700-1782), this is the trueschool of hydrodynamics, which was opposed to Newton,d'Alembert, and Laplace. Historically, the work of Leonardois known only through the distribution of manuscriptcopies by Diirer and Desargues, which came into the handsof Pascal, Leibniz and others in their networks. Beginningin 1798, Leonardo's manuscripts were republished inFrance—at least what was left of them—by the Italian physicistGiovanniBattistaVenturi (1746-1822), under the directionof Monge and Carnot. Venturi himself is famous forhis reexamination of Leonardo's discoveries: the Venturitube, the importance of hydraulic jumps, and the velocitydistribution in vortices.After Venturi there was a renewed interest in real fluidmotion especially on the part of Ernst and Wilhelm Weber(1795-1878 and 1804-1891).' 5 The Weber brothers along withGauss opened the way for the physical-mathematical innovationof Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866) and his school,including Felix Klein, Prandtl, and Busemann in Germany;Betti, Beltrami, Crocco, and Ferri in Italy. This school hadto fight with the heirs of d'Alembert, Kelvin and friends.While the Leonardo school would emphasize the importanceof the formation of discontinuities and of rotationalmotion, the Newton-d'Alembert-Kelvin school would denythe formation of such discontinuities on the assumption ofthe conservation laws. Out of this outlook comes the attemptto look at turbulence as only a chaotic, static localphenomenon. Even if the "paradoxes" of this school haveoften been made ridiculous by the actual creation of technologiesit claims are impossible, its outlook remains dominantin the universities.Now let's get into the substance of fluid mechanics.ELEMENTARY FLUID DYNAMICS FROM THELEONARDIAN STANDPOINTThe Geometric Method: Nature Seen with the 'Artist's Eye'Natural science was born by man's trying to answer problemsposed either by the evolution of human society or byfundamental but simple and visible natural phenomena, forwhich he sought the causal relations. Progress in sciencehas occurred not by giving definite and final answers, butby achieving successively better approximations to the solutionsof the two categories of problems seen above.Therefore, it is not a banality to say that one side of scientificprogress comes by "walking with one's eyes open." In otherwords, there are still a lot of everyday natural phenomenathat have not yet received real explanations.The current trend in science tends to reduce physics topure logical-mathematical analysis. Although mathematicsis a crucial aspect of the comprehension of invisible causalityby the use of our conceptual powers, we must neverforget whence it came and what we are looking for—thatis, reality. The real world is not a simple symbol. It exists,and our own existence and evolution depend on our masteryof its laws. The point is that the objects we see are notthemselves reality, but the causal processes that createdthem. Such objects exist as singularities, but we can graspthem only as space-time transformation. That is why geometryis the way to comprehend reality. Leonardo andthen Kepler initiated what today is called topology: lookingat physics from the standpoint of characteristic singulari-18 January-February 1986 FUSION


ties, whether shapes or numbers. Such geometry does hotneed the notion of mass or force initially. We look only atwhich kind of transformations are possible and what theboundary conditions are that define the transfinite limit forthe kind of transformation we are observing.Why are there only certain specific forms that naturechooses in shaping its own transformations? Why the commonpatterns in the sky and in the water? Why the symmetryin snowflakes and crystals? Why do only certain proportionsappear when growth is the primary parameter? Theseare the kinds of questions Leonardo posed to himself, andthey are the kind of questions anyone can pose and thenpursue the answers. The answers will reflect the level ofscientific knowledge we have mastered, but the point ofdeparture is that of being interested and motivated to know,and thus to pose the right questions.There is no numerology or Masonic mystery in the formsand proportions of nature itself, or for us to employ inacting upon nature. There is no symbology in spiral formsor in the Fibonacci series. Such knowledge is not the secretof Isis or anybody else. It is only the attempt to banalize andgive quick answers to deep scientific questions that accountsfor the mystic currents of Sufists and others turningnatural forms of growth and transformation into symbolism.Even so, if we simply look around, we will not see whatLeonardo and Kepler captured in water flow, tree growth,and snowflakes, because they were looking for the causesbehind these phenomena, the manifold "invisible" to thesimple eye. That is the meaning of Leonardo's notion of the"artistic eye." A real artist—one who recognizes beauty asnatural law—knows what to look for.As Leonardo described his paintings, an artist does notpaint lines or points. If he is a humanist, he paints souls—moral beautiful souls—whatever the external form. This isthe infinite in the finite that we see in the best painting ofthe Italian Renaissance or in Rembrandt. This is the notionof aesthetic transfinite developed later by Schiller.' 6Projective geometry was invented as the only way suchinfiniteness in the finite could be visualized. Beauty, then,is not simple external proportion; that is, the normal law oftopological necessity obeyed by any natural transformation.Beauty instead is defined by the specific individuality,the moral individual character that is also synonymous withlife. This concept of individuality—singularity—withinconstant proportions sparks our interest and fascinationwith man and nature. Natural forms may look the same, butthey are never precisely the same. The stronger this individuality,the nearer we are to being real human beings. In thatsense beauty is not an arbitrary notion defined purely subjectively,but is natural law, and the real artist is he alonewho grasps beauty.The geometric, artistic eye, then, although recognizingthe self-similarity of natural forms, is not satisfied with theSufist fundamentalist notion that everything is anything innature in one big blah. The artistic eye looks for the universalprocesses that characterize individuation. We wouldlook for the soul of natural, visible forms. This method—intheological terms the recognition of the immanence of theCreator within the created—is the specific characteristic ofthe Augustinian current in Christian Western civilization.Visual manifolds. From this standpoint, Leonardo noticedand differentiated two different visual manifolds.First, by working with Luca Pacioli, he studied very closelythe topological characteristics of the Platonic solids andtheir proportions. We do not see these Platonic solids innature unless we closely study crystal forms, but they representan important geometric principle in terms of topology,limits of forms, angles, and number of existent symmetricclosed forms. Such solids, according to Leonardo'spoint of view, represent the "residuum" of fluids, that is,semistatic crystals. In other words, the type of self-similargrowth characterized by the Platonic solid is more typicalof an inorganic, static growth.Second, Leonardo saw that the rest of the universe seemedto choose overtly to limit shapes either to pure spheres orto spiral-type circular action. Leonardo did an extensivestudy of such morphological growth patterns. He studiedand measured flowers, trees, horns, and so on and clearlypointed out that the Fibonacci proportions seemed to bethe main characteristic of life as a growth process. Leonardoalso went a step further: He began to look at these patternsof transformation not only as a by-product of life, but alsoas a general law of fluid motion—in water, air, magnetismor "fire," as he would call plasma-type phenomena. Normally,if we look at water, we would not see what Leonardosaw and represented in his famous drawings (see frontispiece).The reason is that he was looking for patterns thathe knew should be there according to his hypothesis of thegeometry of transformation in the universe.As Leonardo wrote: "If you wish to see the movementthe air makes when it is penetrated by a movable thing, takean example in the water, that is, underneath its surface, forit may have mingling with it thin millet or other minute seedwhich floats at every stage of height of the water, and youwill see the revolutions of the water which ought to be in asquare glass vessel shaped like a box" (Leicester 29v).This is the first known technique of visualization of waterflow patterns, to our knowledge. The importance shouldbe obvious to anyone familiar with hydrodynamic work;only Prandtl was able again to master such an approach,which proves that this was not a simple technical issue, buta methodological issue.Leonardo did the same thing to visualize wave motion ona vibrating plate (Figure 2). He wrote: "And when the dustytable is struck on one side, notice the manner in which themotion of the dust begins toward the creation of the mentionedmountains. ... In the same way describe the flexibleridges of particles of dry matter, that is the creation ofthe waves of sand carried by the wind" (Institut de FranceMs. F61r).Here and in other locations, Leonardo is describing whatwas reproduced in the 19th century by the German physicistErnst Chladni (1756-1827): the visualization of wave frequencieson a vibrating plate by putting powder on top ofit. We will describe below the implication of this preciseexperiment, but for the moment, let us stress the importanceof the clear-cut method of visualization that Leonardoinvented. Usually, this is possible only if one has in mind ahypothesis that the causal relations that shape an action arenot immediately seen, but can be visualized. In this wayFUSION January-February 1986 19


Figure 2STANDING WAVES(a) "... and when the dusty table is struck on oneside, notice the manner in which the motion of thedust begins toward the creation of the mentionedridges." Thus does Leonardo describe his experimentson standing wave patterns.(b) The standing wave experiments were rediscoveredby the German physicist Ernst Chladni (1802) andare performed here on a drumhead.(c) The author's own results with standing waves ona vibrating plate, and a diagram of the wave behavior.(d) Waves in a cylinder of rotating fluid.Source-. Madrid Codex; H.P. Greenspan, The Theory of Rotating Fluids(Cambridge, 1968), facing p. 280.one can make visual the harmony of the universe throughart.The invisible wave motion in the plate is visualized interms of lines, singular lines, so we see singularities as theresult of action and transformation of a given space. Suchlines are force-free lines, and thus are stable. This is thebasis of the shaping of forms.Usually, we see straight lines only when we see a "dead"object; otherwise, other forms predominate in the biosphereand the sky. Leonardo realized that the pattern ofspiral action seemed to be the one preferred in our universe,both for living organisms and for what he called"fluids in motion." Let us do the following experiment:Take the previously mentioned plate [Figure 2(c)] and rotateit. The lines will transform themselves according to thedegree of velocity into different types of spiral forms [Figure2(d)]! Thus, if our universe as a whole is rotating, wouldn'tthis mean that the normal lines of least action must be ofspiral or circular forms? Is that not what happens in a livingorganism? Is that not the shape of "fluid in motion"? Whatis common to the different patterns of fluid in action, be itelectromagnetism or water or air, is not that they are thesame substance, but that action as transformation in spacetimehas the same topological characteristics (Figure 3).Transformation in space is self-similar, which allows us toproject, up to a certain point, from macrostructure to microstructure;so that the outer, visible form of the growthof a tree can be projected to the organization of its cells ingood approximation.There is no mystery, therefore, in the fact that galaxies20 January-February 1986 FUSION


Figure 3THE COMMON TOPOLOGY OF ACTIONWhat is common to the different patterns of fluids inaction—be it electromagnetism or water or air—is notthat they are of the same substance, but that action astransformation in space-time has the same topologicalcharacteristics.(a) The familiar visualization of magnetic field linesby means of iron filings on a piece of paper, underwhich a magnet is placed.(b) Streamlines in water. The water (a few millimetersdeep) flows into the pan through the left hole anddrains out through the right. Crystals of potassiumpermanganate dropped into the water make thestreamlines visible.Source: A, G A Williams, Elementary Physics, 2nd edition (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1976), p. 188. L. Prandtl, Essentials of Fluid Dynamics(New York: Hafner, 1952), p. 152.tend to shape themselves the way water does, or the waywe stir milk into coffee. This is not obvious, and, in fact, thefull Cartesian-Newtonian school rejects such a notion. ACartesian space cannot allow a real rotational action to takeplace, as was pointed out correctly by Gauss. Yet today inastronomy, there is an open and heated debate on therotational universe.' 7 The implications are also relevant foradvanced physics, especially for the theory of potentialfunctions. The topology of a space defines the gradient oftransformation; that is, a potential. Now, no singularity isproducible without a rotational action that is perpendicularto the flow, because a singularity is able to act with a higherdegree of freedom than the flow that generates it.Therefore, the study of the shift in potential by the creationof singularities out of rotational action and the relativeshift in topology is the basis of potential theory—not accordingto Laplace or Kelvin's version, but according to theRiemannian approach. The common transinvariant characteristicof the shift in topology in the physical world isthat of the constancy of the rotational action of transformation.We will come back to this at the end of the article;let us first study in more detail the properties of a fluid, nowthat we know that fluid motion seems to have the samecharacteristic patterns found in living organisms.SELF-SIMILAR PROPAGATION OFACTION IN FLUIDS:First Approximation: Sinusoidal WavesNow that we have established the importance of usingwater as an experimental field for more important and universalphenomena, let us look at the first general law of thebehavior of fluids. At first sight it would appear that wateris one "object" and that its most visible aspect, the surface,would be the most simple to analyze. However, this is notthe case as Leonardo realized immediately. Let us throw astone into Stillwater: we see ripples, waves traveling on thesurface, but not immediately inside the water [Figure 4(a)],As he wrote, the water surface has a very specific property:". . . [T]he impetus of the water is divided into twoparts. . . . The simple is entirely beneath the surface of thewater; the other is complex—that is, it is between the airand the water, as is seen with boats. . . ." Here Leonardo isdescribing a crucial phenomenon: the effect of actiontransmitted by a surface of discontinuity: water surface.This more extensive quotation from Leonardo shows howhe understood the function of a surface of discontinuity, aconcept whose physical importance was grasped only byRiemann and Prandtl:From this it follows that points imagined in continuouscontact do not constitute the line, and as a consequence,many lines in continuous contact do not makea surface, nor do many surfaces make a body. . . . Thesurface of a thing is not part of this thing. . . . It mustneeds be therefore that a mere surface is the commonboundary of two things that are in contact: Thus thesurface of water does not form part of the water, nordoes it consequently form part of the atmosphere. . . .What then divides water from air? There should be acommon boundary which is neither air nor water, butis without substance. . . . Therefore they are joinedtogether and you cannot raise up or move air withoutthe water. . . . Therefore a surface is the commonboundary of two bodies which is noncontinuous anddoes not form part of either. . . . (B.M. 159v)FUSION January-February 1986 21


Figure 4WAVES AT THE DISCONTINUITYBETWEEN WATER AND AIR(a) "... the impetus of the water is divided into twoparts. . . . The simple is entirely beneath the surfaceof the water; the other is complex, that is, it is betweenthe air and the water as is seen with boats. ..."Here, sketches by Leonardo of the surface phenomena.(b) A drop of water strikes the water's surface andrebounds. The drop that strikes is the same thatbounces back, as may be proven by using a drop ofcolored water against a surface of clear water. Inset isLeonardo's sketch. Source: fa) Codex Hammer 14v; (b) Codice Atlantico 68rb.This is not an isolated quotation from Leonardo; thereare many more in the same direction, which proves thatLeonardo had grasped a very important point clearly. Theimplications are that water surface, being a surface of discontinuity,will behave like a specific entity. It is an equipotentialsurface of discontinuity, if we consider the Earthand the atmosphere as a connected global geometrical entity.It is through such lines or surfaces that action actsaccording to the least action principles. Normally the tendencyis to brush away the specific property that the watersurface presents in terms of free energy, with the name"surface tension," which explains nothing and is simply anapproximation of reality from a Newtonian standpoint. Asone contemporary scientist, Hunter Rouse of Iowa University,put it: "For many years, the surface phenomena wereexplained in terms of apparent tension in an elastic skin. . . .As a matter of fact there are so many inconsistencies in thesurface tension concept that the continued designation ofthe quantity (d) as a coefficient of surface tension is, to saythe least, misleading. . . ."' 8Before elaborating on this in conjunction with shockwaves, let us look at some of the effects of such surfaces. Ifinstead of throwing a stone into water, we throw anotherdrop of water, what will happen? We can see in Figure 4(b)that the water drop bounces back. The photograph is madeby a very recently developed high-speed technique, butthe drawing in the figure is from Leonardo. You can see hewas studying the same phenomenon, and his descriptionis a very good approximation of the reality. Even if Leonardoobviously could not see that the same drop would reboundup to three or four times, he analyzed it in terms of theboundary conditions of the surface of discontinuity. 19Waves. What happens when we drop stones into water?We see "waves." The question Leonardo posed is, why arethese waves circular? From the drawing in Figure 5, it isclear that it is not the form of the object thrown into thewater that causes the waves to be circular. (Actually thewaves are spherical, including air and water, but we observeonly a surface.)As shown in Figure 6, Leonardo saw a specific propertyof such waves: They could interpenetrate without obstructingeach other. The reason is that this type of simple wavedoes not transport matter transversely. As Leonardo wrote:Since in all cases of motion, water has great conformitywith air. . . if you cast two little stones ... in water,you will see two separate quantities of circles . . . whichgrowing, come to encounter, one circle intersectingthe other, always maintaining for centers the placesstruck by the stones. The reason is that although thereis some evidence of movement, the water does notleave its location, because the opening made in it by22 January-February 1986 FUSION


Figure 6UNDISTURBED INTERPENETRATIONSimple waves, as Leonardo explained, do not transportmatter transversely, and hence sets of such wavescan interpenetrate undisturbed.the stones closes up again at once and this motionmade by the sudden opening and closing produces acertain shaking, which can be called trembling ratherthan motion. And to make what I say plainer, take heedof those straws which by their lightness stand on thewater; notwithstanding the wave made under them bythe coming of the circles, they do not leave their firstlocations. . . . (Institutde France Ms. A61r)Source: Institut de France Ms. A 61 r.Such waves then, according to Leonardo, are able to "actat a distance" without any work done.Leonardo indicates another experiment in the same direction:If we put a flame in front of the mouth of a singer,the flame will not move, but the same sound wave couldrelease energy on a glass and break the glass, by the effectof resonance known to Leonardo. As he wrote: "The blowgiven to the bell will cause a slight sound and movement inanother bell similar to itself; the same for a string of a lute,and you will see this by placing a straw upon the stringsimilar to that which has sounded" (Madrid 22v).Leonardo continued doing extensive studies of otherphenomena associated with this type of simple surface wave,which he naturally extended to sound and lightwaves. Hereare some of the main aspects of his work:Reflection. There are many quotes throughout his notebooksand especially in his book On Painting.Diffraction, also called the Young Principle (Figure 7).Color formation with a ray going through water.Such waves can be represented as sinusoidal waves travelingalong a cylinder even if the actual motion of the processis a transverse cylindrical action and a longitudinaldouble rotation of conical form (Figure 8).Leonardo then generalized such wave motion to all kindsof action in different media (Figure 9). Here we see hiscomparison of sound, magnetism, light, and olfactorywaves, with their properties of reflection. Leonardo askshimself the question, why do sound and smell go througha wall, while light waves do not? The answer is not given,Figure 7DIFFRACTION(a) Diffraction of a wave front passing through a slit,in a drawing by Leonardo. Here he is studying vocalsound. Because of his understanding of the commonbehavior of fluids, he used water for the experiment.(b) Photo of straight waves undergoing diffraction inpassing through an opening.Source: Leonardo, Anatomical Notebooks III: 12v. G.A. Williams, ElementaryPhysics, p. 286.but will be implicit in the kind of elaboration he makes later.We could express it in modern terms with the double aspectof particle (photon)-wave property of the light wave, or interms of the self-transparency of electromagnetic waves. Itis the "particle" aspect of the light that does not go throughthe wall.FUSION January-February 1986 23


Singularity Formations: Breakers and Hydraulic lumpsIf put in modern mathematical terms, what Leonardo isdiscussing would produce a Maxwell-type of electromagneticfield. Such an analogy was used by both Helmholtzand Beltrami in the 19th century, although for the oppositereason. But Leonardo went further, because of his methodof thinking, and began to look at the transformations fromsinusoidal waves (with no mass transport) to hyperbolictypes of waves (with mass transport); that is, hydraulic jumpsand breakers.Breakers. The reasons, in precise terms, forthe formationof such discontinuities are not given by Leonardo, to ourknowledge. But our aim here is not to present a precisehistorical picture of Leonardo and attribute to him everythingthat had to be discovered, but to emphasize the methodof thinking that leads him to give importance to thesephenomena. This method is important because the debateon the existence and formation of such physical discontinuities,as presented above, was the issue between the Riemannianand the Kelvin schools of hydrodynamics.With breakers we see a normal sinusoidal wave that doesnot transport mass and does not "do work" suddenly transversallybecome a "mass transporter," as seen from the mansurfing in Figure 10. The reason has to be looked for first inthe fact that the surface of the water is a surface of discontinuity,and this was clear to Leonardo. This is the actualprimary cause of the breaker formation, which is identical,as we will see, to the formation of internal ordered turbulencesfrom surfaces of discontinuity once they are formed"inside" a fluid. The visualization of the formation of thediscontinuity is given by the increase of the amplitude andfrequencies of the wave. To generalize this, the increase inamplitude and frequencies creates in a surface of discontinuitya new singularity, which will act more like a mass-particle than like a wave. This is precisely the phenomenonRiemann identified mathematically, predicting that anycompression wave will develop into a shock wave. 2 'The same must be true (and was studied in this sense bySchrodinger, de Broglie, and Heisenberg) for electromagneticphenomena, where starting with photons we have theformation of the first generation of singularities.Geometrically we can see the transformation to a hyperbolicgeometry from the parabolic or ellipsoid type of geometrybefore the breaker is formed, and we are more ableto analyze singularity formation. To have an immediate andsimple idea of singularity on water, we have to consider thesurface of water like a paper surface. As far as we can constructfigures and shapes without breaking the surface, noreal singularity is formed; the moment the surface is "broken,"a real singularity is established. In 1932, Riabouchinskydefined the functional condition to describe a breakerwith the same equation of the shock wave created by Riemann.22Hydraulic jumps. These are the same phenomena asbreakers, although created under different conditions (Figure11). It is important to know that in water as in air, a"rarefaction" wave will tend to be continuous, while a"compression" wave, as indicated by Riemann, eventuallymust produce a discontinuity. In water a steady lowering ofthe water level will propagate continuously in still water ofconstant height (density), while the creation of a suddenelevation, by an obstacle or velocity reduction, will alwayslead to a discontinuity of the type like the hydraulic jump.We will illustrate this more precisely when we come backto the shock wave and the theory of its characteristics.Figure 8THE SIMPLE WAVEThe simple kind of wave can be represented as a sinusoidalwave traveling along a cylinder, even thoughthe actual motion of the process is a transversal cylindricalaction and a longitudinal double rotation ofconical form.Source: J.B. Marion, Essential Physics in the World Around Us (NewYork: Wiley, 1978), p. 212.Figure 9LEONARDO COMPARES THECHARACTERISTICS OF WAVESHere Leonardo compares and contrasts the characteristicsof different kinds of waves—soundwaves, magneticwaves, light waves, and smell considered as awave phenomenon—with their properties of reflection.Why do sound and smell pass through walls, heasks, while light waves do not?Source: Codice Atlantico 347,24 January-February 1986 FUSION


FLUID IN MOTION OR MOTION IN FLUIDTheory of Flight Vortices—TurbulenceIf we shift now from simple transmission of action throughor in a fluid to self-motion of the fluid itself, we encountera new set of phenomena and singularities that Leonardostudied intensively and that today is still not clearly understood—vortices.Again, we do not claim to provide answersfrom Leonardo's work, but we wish to bring his work tobear in the debate on the importance of vortices and thenecessity to approach such studies from a deterministicstandpoint.The dominant current in physics, reflecting a Cartesianoutlook, tends to neglect the importance of the formationof vorticity because the reductionist technicians do not wantto bother with problems that are not easy. "The mere mentionof vorticity or of rotation magnetohydrodynamicmodels," writes fusion scientist Daniel Wells, "seems toevoke an almost irrational, negative response. . . ."So alsothe reaction of "experts'' on Leonardo, who in the face ofhis clearcut "obsession" with all sorts of vortices have hadnothing to say but that Leonardo was "obviously fascinatedwith the mystery of the symbology of spirals." In reality, aswe have said, Leonardo looked for the formation of vorticityin every possible place—from tornadoes to flowers, to theair, to the circulation of the blood—because he had graspedthe importance and the universal characteristics of suchphenomena. He went further than simple interest; he actuallyworked experimentally to understand theirformationand function. We will review some of the main aspects ofLeonardo's work, organizing it around his attempts to definea theory of flight. Only with Prandtl and then Busemannin the 20th century was the importance of vorticity androtational fluids for the theory of aerodynamic and hydro-Figure 10THE FORMATION OF BREAKERSA normal sinusoidal wave that doesnot transport mass—does no worksuddenlybecomes a "mass transporter," as proven by the surfer inthe photo (a). Leonardo understoodthat this transformation ispossible because the water's surfaceis a surface of discontinuity (b).The transformation to a hyperbolicgeometry from the parabolic geometrybefore the breaker is formedis shown in (c).Source: Madrid Codex II; J.B. Marion, EssentialPhysics, p. 213.(a)FUSION January-February 1986 25


dynamic motion rediscovered—the theory being the sinequa non for understanding airplane lift. In the late 1940s,Busemann applied the same principle to plasma physics, inthe context of hypersonic studies. 23Vortices. We can observe vortices daily in many places inour surrounding atmosphere; they appear without any apparentoutside impetus, created by the pure self-motion ofthe fluid. Once they are formed, they tend to operate as"individuals" with a specific identity, so much so that wegive names to hurricanes moving along or against the streamflow. One of the essential components of vorticity is temperaturegradient, which generates rotational motion, thefirst step in the formation of a vortex being the creation ofa surface of discontinuity. This motion is characterized bytriple self-reflective rotation. We will see later that the conceptof rotation is key for the structure and stability of vortexfilaments.Figure 11SURGES AND HYDRAULIC JUMPSSurges and hydraulic jumps are essentially the samephenomena as breakers, (a) Leonardo's sketch of ahydraulic jump, (b) Surges traveling upstream againstthe oncoming flow—often encountered in tidal estuaries,(c) Silhouette of a hydraulic jump.Source: A. Institut de France Ms. E81v;8,C. Hunter House, ElementaryMechanics of Fluids (New York: Dover, 1978), pp. 144,146.(b)Leonardo intuitively understood the importance of thetemperature gradient, as well as "friction" effects generatedinside the fluid itself. He wrote: "No element has initself gravity unless it moves. . . . Gravity is caused by immediatemovement. . . . Movement is created by heat andcold. . . . The heat of the universe is created by the Sun;the movement of the elements arises from the Sun" (emphasisadded, B.M. 205r).There are two main types of velocity distribution in vorticesthat were also studied by Leonardo, free vortices andforced vortices. Forced vortices rotate like solid bodies withconstant period but velocity increasing with the distancefrom the center. In free vortices, the speed decreases withthe distance from the axis. Normal vortices are a combinationof these two, with a fixed center, the "eye," containinga forced vortex and fluid further out spiraling with decreasingspeed. But as shown in Figure 12, a normal fluid motioninside a tube tends to produce the same configuration aswell as the electromagnetic motion or patterns seen in atree trunk:The spiral or rotary movement of every liquid is somuch the swifter in proportion as it is near the centerof its revolution . . . while movement in a circular wheelis so much slower as it is near to the center of therevolving object. . . . The motions of the air throughthe air are two, that is, straight in the form of a columnupwards, and with revolving movement. . . . Watermakes this movement downward in the form of a pyramid,and is so much the more swift as the pyramid ismore pointed. . . . (C.A. 296vb)With the above quotations and Figure 13, we see thatLeonardo is not only looking at, but experimenting withvortices.The Theory of FlightThe modern theory of lift, developed by Prandtl, is basedon the discovery that lift is caused by the surface of discontinuityaround the wing that creates a vortex at the wing'strailing edge, and consequently an overall rotational motionaround the wing that provokes the lift (see Figure 14).This Magnus Effect (after Heinrich Magnus, 1802-1870)was finally understood only in 1902. Experimentally it wascreated by replicating Leonardo's method of using waterflows to visualize air behavior. This had to be performedagainst the indications of the Kelvin-Helmholtz theories,which postulated the impossibility of creating rotation outof linear motion.To quote Prandtl:. . . now according to Kelvin, no circulation can arisein the case of motion starting from rest, even in a multiplyconnected space. ... In actual fact, the circulationwill result from the formation of a surface of discontinuity;an eddy is formed out of the surface ofdiscontinuity in the far edge of the airfoil, the eddiesthen move and leave the airfoil with a circulation equaland opposite to its own. . . . The actual lift is then dueto the surface of discontinuity with a transverse discon-26 January-February 1986 FUSION


Figure 12FORCED AND FREE VORTICES-A forced vortex rotates like a solid body—constant period but increasing velocity atincreasing distance from the center. In afree vortex, the speed of rotation decreaseswith distance from the center. The motionof water down a pipe, shown here ina diagram based on the work of Prandtl,combines the two kinds of rotation in helicalform: forced rotation in the "eye" andfree rotation otherwise.tinuity in the velocity. According to the normal theory[of a perfect fluid, that is, d'Alembert, Kelvin] the velocitynear the object is very high and theoreticallyreaches infinity in the case of a frictionless perfect fluid;in reality, the speed diminishes due to the formationof eddies. . . . We could explain this behavior by adducingthe special principle that the fluid seeks to avoidinfinite velocities and forms discontinuities instead. 24once wrote. He simply constructed an artificial bird, withwhich he could experiment having both visualization of airflows and the relation between air resistance and the centerof gravity. There is enough evidence to believe that Leonardoactually constructed an airplane without an engine.After having seen the specific effect vorticity has on thewing theory, let us look at more broadly the concept ofThe implications are clear, and although we cannot elaboratehere, the absurdity of Kelvin and Helmholtz is theresult of their reducing Riemann's surface theory to that ofCauchy and Victor Puiseux; that is, a Cartesian version,where artificial cuts would eliminate the real notion of formationof discontinuities. 25In his studies of the theory of flight, Leonardo was workingtoward a theory like Riemann's, although by approximation,of circulation both around awing and in the motionas a whole (see Figure 15). It is clear that Leonardo wasstudying lift as well as the relationship of density and temperatureand overall helicoidal motion for propulsion. Forexample, he wrote, "I conclude that the rising of birds withoutbeating their wings is not produced by anything otherthan their circular movement amid the movement of thewind. . . ." It is natural to hypothesize that Leonardo hadthought through the theory of helical propulsion. We mustlook at his famous "helicopter" not as an actual helicopter,but as an experimental machine for helical propulsion: "Ifthis instrument is in the form of a helix . . . such helix willbe able to bring it up in the air. . . ." Leonardo added tothis precise studies of the relation between the center ofgravity and of resistance:As regards constructing the machine in such a waythat in the descent, whatever may be the direction thatit takes, it finds the remedy prepared, this you will doby causing its center of gravity to be above that of theweight which it carries. . . . [SulVolo 13 (12)r)The secret of Leonardo's experiments on flight is apparentin Figure 16. Leonardo had no magic powers that allowedhim to "slow down the flight of birds," as someoneFigure 13LABORATORY PRODUCTION OF FREE VORTICESLeonardo's sketch, and a photo from the work of Prof.Bnzo Macagno at the Institute of Hydraulic Research,University of Iowa.FUSION January-February 1986 27


(a)Figure 14PRANDTL'S THEORY OF LIFT(a) Flow around an airfoil, with the "starting vortex"emphasized. The camera is at rest with respect to theairfoil. The surface of discontinuity around the wingcreates a vortex at the back of the wing.(b) Now the camera is at rest with respect to theundisturbed fluid, revealing circulation equal and oppositeto the "starting vortex."(c) Prandtl explains what is occurring: The flowaround an airfoil (1) may be represented by "superposing"the "ordinary irrotational flow" (2) withoutcirculation, and the circulatory flow of (3). Irrotationalflow means that the particles in any local region of thefluid do not undergo any rotation with respect to themedian line of the flow. Thus the resulting flow alsoexhibits circulation, which is very closely related tothe occurrence of a lifting force: the circulatory flowacts with the irrotational flow of (2) above the airfoiland against it below. By Bernoulli's theorem this meansthat the pressure is diminished above the airfoil andincreased below it; that is, there is a lifting force.(d) The lift phenomenon is analogous to the Magnuseffect involved in flow around a rotating cylinder.On the side where the two velocities are in the samedirection, the speed of flow is greater. On the oppositeside, where the two velocities oppose each other,it is less. A force at right angles to the flow results(upward in the diagram). This explains why a baseballto which a high spin is imparted will "pop up."Source: (a)(b)(d) L. Prandtl, Applied Hydro- and Aeromechanics (NewYork: Dover, 1957), pp. 299, 300, 83; (c) L Prandtl, Essentials of FluidDynamics, p. 70.turbulent flows and the kinds of effects around a body inair or in water.Boundary Layers, Waves, Aerodynamic ShapesFluids flow by themselves under certain conditions, orbecause a solid body is immersed in the fluid, or becausethe mixing of two liquids of different density or equal densitybut different conditions tends to create what appear atfirst as chaotic turbulences. A closer analysis shows thatthey are not necessarily so chaotic and we can analyze themas the stable formation of sets of singularities.The experimental apparatus is very simple and can besetup easily (see Figure 17). It will show the formation of aninternal line that will begin to wave around and then breaksup in apparent chaos. Figure 17 shows that at the end wehave the formation of internal breakers'. Moreover, smalleddies tend to organize themselves into stable, large vortices.Other experiments have been conducted by Hopfingerand Browand 26 [see Figure 17(b)] to show that rotationalaction tends to organize small-scale turbulences in welldefinedvisible vortices. The basis for the studies of turbulence,then, as well as for the formation of breakers in theocean, is one common matrix, the formation of a surface ofdiscontinuity. We can do the same experiment with the28 January-February 1986 FUSION


Figure 15VORTICES IN THE FLIGHT OF BIRDSLeonardo studies vortices around a bird's wing (a). Compare this to vortices around airplane wings (b).Source: Institutde France Ms. E 47v.formation of smoke-ring vortices, derived from the surfaceof discontinuity formed around the mouth of the smokeror another opening [see Figure 18(b)]. What appears at thebeginning of the photograph to be a line is most probablya small vortex filament, given that the surface of the discontinuityitself is defined by a new degree of rotational motioncompared to the fluid out of which it is produced.This theory of the formation of "turbulent" waves aroundbodies is obviously key in understanding flight, not only interms of the lift effect but also for what happens around themain body of the airplane. Again, up to a certain speed, thiscan be experimented in water. Prandtl did this specificallyfor airplanes, while Leonardo did it more generally to studymotion in fluid. Both Prandtl and Leonardo isolated the keyaspect in the formation of the surface of discontinuity: theboundary layer phenomenon; Leonardo qualitatively,Prandtl more precisely (Figure 19).It is this so-called entropic turbulence effect around bodiesthat in reality causes the formation of surfaces of discontinuityand finally, given certain geometrical shapes, allowsthe plane to fly. In the same drawing we can see that Leonardocorrectly identified aerodynamic shapes for a subsonicplane or an underwater submarine. We will see laterwhy the shape of surface boats and supersonic planes mustalso be similar. Leonardo understood precisely the pointthat for underwater motion and subsonic flight, resistanceis defined from the back of the object and not so much fromthe front (Figure 20). Leonardo wrote:. . . the impetus of the water is simple beneath thesurface of the water; it does not compress the water infront of the movement [that is, pressure waves are notformed]. . . but moves the water behind with the samespeed as the mover has . . . (C.A. 168vb).Newton completely missed this point. According to histheory, there is nothing interesting happening in the wakeof the moving object. However, as we have indicated, theboundary layer phenomenon cannot be immediately seenunless you are looking for it from scientific hypothesis.Figure 16THE SECRET OF LEONARDO'S FLIGHT STUDIESLeonardo had no magic power to slow down birds inflight, as someone once alleged. He grasped the conceptof the wind tunnel to make experiments possible.Here is the artificial bird he built to study, amongother things, the relationship between the center ofgravity and the center of air pressure.FUSION January-February 1986 29


Figure 17INTERNAL VORTICESWhat at first appear as chaotic turbulences turn out to be stableformations of sets of singularities.(a) Flow of oil behind circular cylinders at increasing flow velocities.(b) Counterstreaming jets of helium and nitrogen. In a flow almostcompletely dominated by small-scale turbulence, there is large-scalecoherent structure.(a)Source: A. Prandtl, Essentials of Fluid Dynamics, p. 187; B. Steven Bardwell, "Iof a Deterministic Theory of Turbulence," Intl. J. Fusion Energy 2 (4): 27 (1981).Leonardo extended this notion to contact between liquidsand liquids, air and liquids, earth and air, and so on, in allcases observing that there was a retarded fluid phenomenon,which then caused a reverse flow piling up to formeddies. Without extrapolating very much we can see in theboundary layer concept of retarded fluid the first approximationof the "retarded potential" concept of Riemann:... As the wave of sand moves considerably moreslowly than the wave of water that produces it, so thewave of water created by the wind moves much moreslowly than the wave of the wind that produced it, thatis, the wave of the air. The wave of the air performedthe same function within the element of fire . . . andtheir movements are in the same proportion one toanother as is that of the motive powers behind them(Leicester 23r).We conclude this section by demonstrating Leonardo'sidentification of another important phenomenon occurringin the wake of an object in fluid, the so-called vonKarman vortex street, the formation of pairs of counterrotatingvortices (Figure 21). This phenomenon is also veryimportant for the study of wind instruments, in which Leonardowas also involved.Atmospheric Three-Dimensional VorticesAir was considered by Leonardo as one aspect of fluidi(a)Figure 18ROTATIONAL ACTION ORGANIZESSMALL-SCALE TURBULENCESRotational action tends to organize small-scale turbulences in well-defined visible vortices (a). The basis for turbulence,as for the formation of breakers in the ocean, is the initial formation of a surface of discontinuity. Smoke-ringvortices, for example, derive from the surface of discontinuity formed around the mouth or other aperture (b).Source: FEF Newsletter I (6): 17.30 January-February 1986 FUSION


Figure 20UNDERWATER AND SUBSONICRESISTANCELeonardo understood that forunderwater and subsonic motion,resistance is principally definedby what happens at the rearof the moving object, and notwhat is going on in front.Source: Institut de France Ms. H 64.Figure 19THE BOUNDARY LAYERBoth Leonardo and Prandtl identified the boundarylayer phenomenon as the key aspect in the formationof the surface of discontinuity—Leonardo qualitatively,Prandtl more precisely.Source. Institut de France Ms. G 50v.motion with the specific property—in contrast to water—of being compressible. When compression results fromvariousrotary motions, vortex filaments of the tornado typeare generated in air or water spouts (Figure 22). The interestingaspect of this part of his work is that Leonardo rediscoveredsuch three-dimensional vortex filaments in water,not inside the water as we have seen before, but as a specifictransformation of the water wave at very high speed (Figure23). Leonardo called such vortices "onde colonnali," columnaror cylindrical waves; they start like small cross waveson the surface of the water (Figure 24) which, as we shallsee in the section on shock waves, are analogous to Machlines. Such Mach lines are lines of discontinuity in the fluid;they behave with small modifications like normal waves;that is, they interfere, and so forth. At higher speeds theypile up to form "strong shock waves" or small hydraulicjumps.The difference in behavior between water and air up tothis point is illustrated with incredible precision by Leonardo:Air which is moved with impetus within the other airis compressed within itself as shown by the expansionof the solar rays. . . . The water in such cases cannotbecome compressed, and having all these like movementsin its body, it is necessary for it to drive the otherwater from its place, so that they may all appear on thesurface. . . .In other words, the increased degree of freedom of thesingularity in the water will show itself by increase in heightbecause of the relative incompressibility of water; otherwise,the mechanism of the formation of water and air phenomenaare the same.Figure 21THE VON KARMAN VORTEX STREETLeonardo identified the phenomenon of counterrotatingvortices called today the von Karman vortexstreet, which is also important for the study of windinstruments.When the speed of such "shock fronts" increases evenmore, then their structuring as vortex filaments becomesvisible. Such vortices or "cylindrical waves" will now tendto act not as waves but as "particles"; they will no longerinterfere, but will bounce instead (Figure 25):When there are two unequal cylindrical waves ofwhich the larger one comes into existence before theFUSION January-February 1986 31


smaller, this smaller wave intersects the larger andpasses above it, but if the smaller starts higher in theriver than the greater, then this greater follows thenatural course and the smaller follows the course ofthe greater.When two cylindrical waves of equal size and powerclash absolutely, they each turn back completely withoutany penetration one of another (Institut de FranceMs.92r,v).This is the same as in the formation of vortex rings ofsmoke, which, if they clash in the air, will tend to bounceback and enter into a vibratory motion like particles of matter.This led Kelvin and Helmholtz to the hypothesis ofatom-vortices. The idea was wrong only in so far as they putit explicitly in a Newtonian context, thus negating the possibilityof creation or destruction of such vortex-particles.If Leonardo had studied only the formation and behaviorof such "columnar vortices," it would have been enough toput his work in the center of the scientific debate in fluiddynamics. There is not the slightest serious comprehensiontoday of the behavior of such intense vortex structures;moreover, experiments that tend to focus on this are suppressed.Intense vortices have a very specific behavior that cannotFigure 23THREE-DIMENSIONAL VORTICESON A WATER SURFACELeonardo discovered three-dimensional vortex filamentsin water, not inside the water but as a specifictransformation of water waves at very high speed.Source: Institut de France Ms. F 90-93.Figure 25HIGH-SPEED CYLINDRICAL WAVES ON WATERCylindrical waves on a water surface have many propertiesof waves in air and electromagnetic waves. Athigh enough speed, they pile up to form "strong shockwaves" or small hydraulic jumps, and will no longerexhibit interference.Source: Institut de France Ms. F 92.32 January-February 1986 FUSION


e reduced to Newtonian mechanics nor to any of its derivatives.A recent experiment on breaking up vortices showsthe incredible similarity of such processes to the recombinationof DNA (Figure 26). 2fl Look at Figure 26(b) also fromthe standpoint of what is going on in the tip of a bud (seenfrom above) during the growth of a tree.We could go on with many examples to show that thisscience is just at its very beginning. It still suffers fromcontainment from the outside as well as self-containmentbecause of the wrong methodological approach, which ispure sabotage.It is also clear that the simple use of Reynolds numbersFigure 26INTENSE VORTICESIntense vortices have specific behavior that cannot bereduced to Newtonian mechanics.(a) A recent experiment on the breaking of vorticesshows incredible similarity to the process of DNA recombination.(b,c) The self-multiplication of vortices. Look at (c)from the standpoint of what happens in the tip of abud during the growth of a tree.(d) Twin vortex filaments in a tornado.Source: (a, b, c) J. Lighthill, Intense Atmospheric Vortices (1982), p.294; (d) Ralph Hardy et al, The Weather Book (Little. Brown. 1982), p.114.FUSION January-February 1986 33


to measure the evolution of vorticity ceases to functionwhen it comes to these intense columnar vortices. For example,the stability of the Red Spot on Jupiter (Figure 27)and the corresponding phenomenon on Saturn are not explicableunless we assume that high Reynolds numbers donot indicate unstable turbulence, but correspond to welldefinedvortex structure, because of the presence of rotationor electromagnetic effects.Let us now see, from the notion of secondary flows andcross waves, the geometrical explanation of some observablephenomena, again from Leonardo's own work.Surface Theory of Waves: Cross Waves, Shock Waves,Geometrical CharacteristicsIf we limit the field of our fluid dynamic experiments tobeneath the water's surface, there is a point where theseexperiments would cease to correspond to what happensto the airplane at high speed because of the formation inair of a shock wave. Does it mean that the similarity amongfluids ceases to exist? No. We have to shift from underwaterto include the water's surface phenomena in order to visualizeit:compress water in front of the movement of the fishbut moves the water behind . . . and the wave of thewater will never be swifter than the mover. . . .But the movement of the boat, called complex becauseit shares with the water and air, is divided intothree main parts because it is carried on in three directions,namely, against the course of the river, in thedirection of its current, and crosswise, that is along thebreadth of the river (C.A. 168vb).This analysis by Leonardo would be enough to define thefull geometrical and physical analogy between air-compressedshock fronts and water-surface boat waves withtheir visible Mach lines or cross waves. But since "one canThe impetus of a movable thing within the water isdifferent from the impetus within the air because airresists the penetration by compressing to infinity whilewater does not. In water, the impetus is divided intotwo parts: the simple one beneath the surface of thewater, and the complex, between the air and water asis seen with boats.The simple impetus [under the surface] does not(b) Mach lines in supersonic gas.(c) Water experiments, the same phenomena as (b).Figure 28A VISUALIZATION OF RIEMANN'SWAVE 'CHARACTERISTICS'The three pictures here show the formation in waterand air of cross waves. These curves provide a visualizationof the theory of "characteristics" developedby Bernhard Riemann.Source: Royal Library, Windsor, 12660r; Rouse, Laboratory Instruction,p. 50; Prandtl, Essentials ol Fluid Dynamics, p. 276.34 January-February 1986 FUSION


e educated to death," as Professor Enzo Macagno says,and so lose any sense of the real world, as has happened tosome of our eminent "experts" today, we have to elaboratebriefly what Leonardo has grasped.Figure 28 shows the formation in water and air of crosswaves. These curves are the visualization of the theory of"characteristics" developed by Bernhard Riemann. How canwe generate them very simply in water? (See Figure 29.)First, let's form discontinuities that propagate as circularwaves in all directions. Second, move the objects that causethe waves, or the fluid in which the waves are propagated.Third, at a certain limiting point defined by the velocity ofpropagation of the first type of discontinuity (wave speed),we will get a new visible line: a surface of discontinuity atthe boundary where the previous waves "pile up." Fourth,let's observe only the bent discontinuity around an objectmoving through water at a speed higher than wave propagation.Fifth, observe a flow in a channel. For speeds above thewave speed, the walls create a set of discontinuities(boundary layer phenomena) that will propagate downstreamalong "lines" called Mach lines (for the air). Suchlines will still cross each other with slight modification asnormal waves. Their geometrical form will depend on thespeed. They are "cross waves" or "soft shocks." Such crosswaves can be caused only at supercritical speed (above thevelocity of propagation of a normal wave in water), eitherbecause an object moves or because the fluid itself moves.The same happens in air [Figure 28(b)], where the crosswaves span from the throat to the actual shock front; thatis, they are characteristic of a supersonic regime.The shock front is generated by the piling up of suchcross waves, which are themselves a piling up of normalwaves. Before elaborating this concept, let's stress onepoint. Everything we are looking at is essentially conceptuallylinked to the notion of formation and propagation ofdiscontinuities of different orders or the formation ofboundary-layer phenomena, which is the same thing. Suchdiscontinuities again can be generated physically in manydifferent ways, but mathematically turn out to be the same.It happens at the surface of separations: solid/fluid or fluid/fluid at different densities, or fluid/fluid at the same densitybut different composition, and so forth. Any fluid motionresponds to such visible or invisible boundary phenomenawith the formation of singularities that may or may notchange the topology, that is, the geometrical characteristic—theconnectedness—of the fluid geometry. 27 We areinterested only when such geometric changes actually occur,as we shall see.The Cartesian school, from d'Alembert through CauchyFigure 29GENERATING CROSS-WAVES IN WATERHow can we generate cross-waves in water? First, let's form discontinuitiesthat propagate as circular waves in all directions (a). Second, move theobjects that cause the waves, or the fluid in which the waves are propagated(b). Third, at a certain limiting point defined by the velocity of propagationof the first type of discontinuity (wave speed), we will get a newvisible line: a surface of discontinuity at the boundary where the previouswaves pile up (c). When the speed is increased, the vertical line becomesa cone (d) and (e). If the object or discontinuity is moved to the wall of achannel, just one side of this cone will be propagated. If there is an objectat both walls, two sets of lines will be generated that cross each other if).In the ordinary case, the boundary layer along the walls creates the lines.FUSION January-February 1986 35


to Kelvin and Horace Lamb, has categorically refused totake into consideration such types of problems. 28Let's see how this "piling up" can generate singularitiesand new metrics. This will also give us an insight into thereal notion of mathematical "limit," not in the sense of thed'Alembert-Cauchy limit theory for differentials but in theopposite sense of Cantor's transfinite."Assume that for a fluid (water) the main functional relationis the velocity potential. That is, we define the geometryaccording to the "speed of propagation" of wave discontinuitiesgenerated by a stone (see Figure 30). First, at subcriticalspeed (where velocity u of the fluid is lower thanvelocity c of the propagation of the wave), the fluid fieldwill propagate only certain types of singularities and in agiven topological shape. Second, at supercritical speed,u> c, that same stone will generate a discontinuity that willbe propagated and can be visualized at the surface as crosslines or as small hydraulic jumps.As we have seen before, the cross waves or Mach linescan be visualized as a "piling up" of normal waves or as the"limit" of normal wave speed of propagation. The limit ofone pulse of action appears to be a shift to a new kind ofgeometrical characteristic; that is, a "transfinite." The Machlines themselves can now pile up and produce strong shockdiscontinuities: aerial Shockwaves, bow waves, strong hydraulicjumps, and so forth (see Figure 31).The cross waves or Mach lines are also called geometricalFigure 30WAVE DISCONTINUITIES GENERATED BY A STONEAt subcritical speed (a), the fluid field will propagateonly certain types of singularities, which cannot beseen. At supercritical speed (b), the same stone willgenerate a discontinuity that can be propagated andcan be seen at the surface as cross lines or as smallhydraulic jumps.Figure 31MACH LINES AS GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICSCross waves or Mach lines (a) can be visualized as a"piling up" of normal waves, where the limit of onepulse of action appears to be a shift to a new geometriccharacteristic (b). The Mach lines themselves pileup and produce shock waves, like the hydraulic jumpin (c) or the bow wave in (d).36 January-February 1986 FUSION


GEOMETRICAL VARIATION IN SHOCK WAVES AT DIFFERENT SPEEDSThe term "breaking the sound barrier" is a misnomer. Actually, increases in speed produce geometrical variations inthe same type of singularity, as these photographs of an object at different speeds show. Above, sound wavesilhouettes fora9H6-inch diameter spherical projectile at 1, 2, and 4 times the speed ofsound.Source: Rouse, Elementary Mechanics of Fluids, p. 345.characteristics in Riemann's work.'" The inclination of thecharacteristic defines the velocity gradient in the fluid.We are now in a certain sense at the third type of singularitygenerated with a simple scalar increase in the velocitypotential, but in reality we have reached a shift in geometricalproperty of the fluid. The third mode is usually referredto as the "sound barrier." But there is no "going through"the barrier of sound, as we can see from Figure 32. We arein a shock-singularity-generating mode. Any action tendsto produce the same phenomena with a simple scalar variationat the beginning. We see that the increase in speeddoes not result in "going through," but only in generatinggeometrical variation of the same type of singularity.Leonardo did not stop here. He noticed that for still highervelocity a new shift would occur: The shock fronts would"pile up" in helical form to create special waves, which hecalled "columnar waves." Such waves would no longer crosseach other, but would tend to divert, nullify, or bounce offof each other as "matter particles" (Figure 25). He saw andstudied them both as actual transformations of cross wavesat higher speed or as transformations of bow waves againat high speed (Figure 33).A closer view of the high speed bow wave in Figure 33shows that the crest of the wave is not a simple turbulentphenomenon, but the beginning of a helical cylindrical waveas noticed by Leonardo.Let us ask ourselves, in conclusion, as most probablyLeonardo did or would have done: Is there any analogueto such visible water phenomena in gas flows? Once thespeed is increased beyond normal shock formation, do weenter into a plasma-type situation? Is there anything comparablein electromagnetic phenomena? What are the topologicalcharacteristics of fields that create such new modesof discontinuities? What makes them "stable" as in the caseFigure 33THE BOW WAVEA closer look at the bow wave (a) shows that its crestis not simply a turbulent phenomenon, but the beginningof a helical cylindrical wave as Leonardo noted(b).Source: Royal Library. Windsor, 12660v; Rouse, Elementary Mechanicsof Fluids, inside front cover.FUSION January-February 1986 37


of water, where stabilities linked to the shift in the velocitypotentialfunction for each mode of generation of singularities?Dino de Paoli writes and lectures frequent/yon the historyof technology and is working on a book on Leonardo.Notes—1. I have drawn especially on the current work of Prof. Enzo Macagno, who isdoing experiments based on Leonardo manuscripts, at the universities ofIowa and Karlsruhe (West Germany). Results of his work appear in his "LaMeccanica dei Fluidi nei Codici di Madrid di Leonardo da Vinci," Scientiaspecial volume (1982), p. 361.Valuable work has also been done by Ladislao Reti and Nando de Toni,as indicated in the Additional References.The work done by C. Truesdell is "delphic." That is, while using usefulfacts here and there, he mystifies Leonardo's method, because his aim isto prove that the scientific school of hydrodynamics is that of d'Alembert,Cauchy, and Kelvin.2. More generally, see Lyndon H. LaRouche's book, So You Wish to Learn Allabout Economics?—A text on elementary mathematical economics (NewYork: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1984).3. See my articles, "Leonardo da Vinci e la Scienza dello Stato," // MacchiavellicoI (1): 8-23 (Nov. 1982); "Leonardo da Vinci—Precursore della fisicamoderna," // Machiavellico II (1): 52-59 (Dec. 1983); "Leonardo und dieWissenschaft der Technologies Ibykus II (3):15-24 (Nov. 82). See also anarticle in // Macchiavellico on Leonardo by Nora Hamerman.4. For the debate between the English and Continental Schools in the 19thcentury, see Uwe Parpart Henke. "Riemann Declassified—His Method andProgram for the Natural Sciences," Fusion (March-April 1979), p. 24; JamesBurton Serrin, Mathematical Principles of Classical Fluid Mechanics (1957).5. Adolf Busemann, "Relations between Aerodynamics and Magnetohydrodynamics,"1961. Air Force Office of Scientific Research Lecture in Honorof the 80th Birthday of Theodor von Karman. NASA Langley ResearchCenter, Langley Field, Va.6. Crocco made this remark in an article in L'Aerotecnica 16 (1936) titled,"L'aerodinamica in aviazione." Gaetano Crocco was of the Italian school ofaerodynamics that resulted from the work of Riemann with his students inItaly in the 1860s: Betti, Brioschi, Casorati, then Beltrami and Levi-Civita.See the forthcoming article on the Italian Riemannian school in the Int'l. J.of Fusion Energy by Giuseppe Filipponi.7. Jonathan Tennenbaum, "Were Gauss and Riemann Right about Electrodynamics?"Int'l. J. of Fusion Energy Vol. 3, No. 2, p. 4.8. For a more comprehensive statement of the point, see Lyndon H. La-Rouche, "The Science of the Human Mind—A treatise on fundamentals,"The Campaigner. Special Supplement (February 1984).9. A more precise account of the role of Lord Kelvin is in preparation. Heshaped the generalization of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, inducingHelmholtz and Clausius to state that the universe would soon die. See CarolWhite, Energy Potential—Toward a New Electromagnetic Field Theory(Campaigner Publications, 1977) and The New Dark Ages Conspiracy(New Benjamin Franklin House, 1980).10. For a more precise definition of the Weierstrass function see Uwe Parpart(Henke), "The Concept of the Transfinite," The Campaigner (Jan.-Feb.1976), p. 6.11. To grasp the full ideological implications of llya Prigogine's work one has toconsult his masterpiece (written with I. Stengers), La Nouvelle Alliance(1979).12. For elaboration, see LaRouche, "The Science of the Human Mind" (seenote 8 above).13. For a detailed treatment of Leonardo's hydrodynamic and hydrostatic investigations,see the work of Macagno published in Scientia (note 1 above).14. When Euler first introduced the notion of discontinuous functions, he had toface the opposition of d'Alembert: .". . As a matter of fact when I gave mygeneral solution for the vibration of a string, which involved the case inwhich the string was initially given an irregular configuration. . . .My solutionwas the subject of suspicion on the part of d Alembert who maintained thatin this case it was absolutely impossible to determine the motion of thestring. . . . Discontinuities appeared to him always incompatible with thelaws of calculus. . . ." (Euler, "On the Propagation of Sound," 1766, translatedby B. Lindsay.)15. It is highly likely that especially Ernst Heinrich Weber knew the works ofLeonardo firsthand. He had been greatly influenced by the physicist andmusician Ernst Chladni, a friend of the Weber family. Chladni reproducedsome of Leonardo's experiments in the visualization of nodal lines of waves.Weber approached fluid dynamics through anatomy, at first studying thecirculation of blood as fluid in closed pipes—Leonardo had taken the sameroad. See the Appendix to Leonardo da Vinci on the Human Body, Charles38 January-February 1986 FUSIOND. O'Malley and J.B. de CM. Saunders, eds. (Greenwich House, 1982).16. See Helga Zepp-LaRouche. address to the International Caucus of LaborCommittees semiannual conference, Reston, Va., July 1985. See alsoFriedrich Schiller's "Aesthetical Considerations on Magnitude," in which heattacks the Kantian approach to static geometry, opening the way epistemologicallyfor the breakthrough of Riemann directly through Gauss andHerbart.17. Consider the possible implications, for example, of L. Carrasco and A.Serrano, "The Relation between Angular Momentum and Star Formation inSpiral Galaxies," Int'l. J. of Fusion Energy, (Jan. 1985) p. 57.18. Hunter Rouse, Elementary Mechanics of Fluids (Dover, 1978).19. Leonardo's text is in the Institut de France Ms. C 22r,v.20. For the debate between Beltrami and Helmholtz, see a forthcoming articleon the Italian Riemannian school in the International Journal of FusionEnergy by Giuseppe Filipponi. Helmholtz applied the analogy between thehydrodynamic and the electrodynamic to arrive at the Maxwellian field.Beltrami did the same—to indicate the limits of the Maxwellian approach.21. For elaboration see Uwe Parpart (Henke) (see note 4).22. D.R. Wells and P. Ziajka, "Production of Fusion Energy by Vortex StructureCompression," Int'l. J. of Fusion Energy, (Winter, 1978), p. 3.23. I refer to the Magnus Effect, which Busemann applied to plasma physics inrelation to the Lorentz Effect (see notes 5 and 22).24. L. Prandtl, Essentials of Fluid Dynamics (Hafner, 1952).25. To grasp the epistemological difference between the Riemannian approachand the Cauchy school, one has to read the works of the Italian students ofRiemann: Betti, Brioschi, and Casorati. Casorati specifically defines thegap between the two schools, identifying the "Cauchy cut" as a differentapproach from Riemann's. Helmholtz transmitted a Cartesian version ofRiemannian geometry to the next generation.26. J. Lighthill, Intense Atmospheric Vortices (1982).27. For an elaboration of the "connections" of surfaces, see Uwe Parpart (Henke),"The Concept of the Transfinite"; White, Energy Potential, and the writingsof Riemann in English translation appearing in Energy Potential (see notes9 and 10).28. Parpart (Henke), "Riemann Declassified" (see note 4).29. This is not an arbitrary connection. Cauchy transformed the Leibniziantheory of differentials into the d'Alembert theory of "limits." See Dino dePaoli, "Carnot et la conception humaniste de I'industrialisation," in La Sciencede /'Education Republicaine—le secret de Monge et Carnot (CampaignerPublications, 1980).See also Georg Cantor, "Foundations of a General Theory of Manifolds"(1883), translated in The Campaigner, (Jan.-Feb. 1976), p. 69.30. We cannot elaborate the mathematics here. See Bernhard Riemann, "Onthe Propagation of Plane Air Waves of Finite Amplitude," Int'l. J. of FusionEnergy, Vol. 2, No. 3 (1980), p. 1; R. Courantand K. Friedrichs, SupersonicFlow and Shock Waves (New York, 1948); L. Prandtl, Essentials of FluidDynamics (Hafner, 1952).A Note on the Leonardo ManuscriptsLeonardo manuscripts are designated as follows:C.A., Codice AtlanticoTr, Codice TrivulzianoA to N, manuscripts of the Institut de France; manuscript F is mainly dedicatedto the study of vorticesB.M., Arundel manuscripts in the British MuseumLeicester, now renamed the Codex Hammer, but folios are numbered differentlyin the two designationsMadrid, Codex MadridIn quoting from Leonardo's manuscripts, italics represent emphasis added.Additional ReferencesLadislao Reti. Madrid Codex commentary, Vol. 3 (McGraw-Hill)., ed. The Unknown Leonardo (McGraw-Hill, 1974).Nando de Toni. Leonardo e I suoi studi sull'acqua. Manuscript, 1983.Enzo Macagno. In honor of Nando de Toni. "Analogies in Leonardo's Studies ofFlow Phenomena.". Leonardo's Methodology in his Fluid Mechanical Investigations.Edward MacCurdy. The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci (George Braziller,1939).Jane Roberts and Carlo Pedretti. The Codex Hammer of Leonardo da Vinci(Florence: Palazzo Vecchio, 1872).Carlo Pedretti and Kenneth Clark. Leonardo da Vinci Nature Studies from theRoyal Library at Windsor Castle (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1981).C. Truesdell. "A Program Toward Rediscovering the Rational Mechanics of theAge of Reason," Archive for History of the Exact Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1(1960), p. 1.. "Vorticity and the Thermodynamic State in a Gas Flow" (Series:Memorial des Sciences Mathematiques, publie sous le Patronage de I'Academiedes Sciences de Paris), Fascicule CXIX (Paris, 1952).. "Leonardo, Myths and Reality," 1967.


If hot for the Gottingen Tradition in science, the United Statescould not have developed supersonic flight or rocket flight.The Question ofScientific MethodHow the Riemannian ApproachAllowed the Development ofSupersonic Flightby Uwe Parpart HenkeNASA Ames Research CenterThe study of vortex formation in fluid flow was pioneeredby Ludwig Prandtl, whose work influenced later advancesin aerodynamics. Above: photograph of air flow past a modelof the Space Shuttle in a wind tunnel.To make programs like the Strategic Defense Initiativesuccessful, it is absolutely critical that they have thebroad philosophical outlook that there are no limitsto growth. Any Malthusian thinking will necessarily leadus in the wrong direction. I want to contrast two types ofapproach philosphically and epistemologically to the kindof thinking that ultimately finds its way into large programslike the Manhattan Project, the Apollo Project, or the StrategicDefense Initiative program. I want to point out, inparticular, that one cannot simply see these as technicalorganizational problems or technological problems, butone has to get some understanding of what is the broadestcultural background that defines the possibility of the successfuldevelopment and execution of such large programs.Specifically, such large-scale research programs like theApollo Project or the Manhattan Project must have thephilosophical approach to fluid mechanics and fluid dynamicsexemplified by Ludwig Prandtl. Prandtl, a professorof applied mechanics at Cottingen University from 1904 to1953 and director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for FluidFlow from 1925 on, is probably the single most significantresearcher in this century in hydrodynamics and aerodynamicsresearch.Fluid dynamics research started at the University of Gottingenaround the turn of this century, initiated by Prandtlwhen he came to Cottingen in 1904. He built the firstsizable wind tunnel and similar apparatus that made progressin this area possible.FUSION January-February 1986 39


What enabled the researchers at Gottingen and at theuniversities in Berlin and Aachen to make the breakthroughsin fluid dynamics and in aerodynamics in the earlypart of this century that later made possible manned flight,ultimately supersonic flight, and then rocket flight, wastheir broad philosophical background. If a different kindof philosophical tradition had prevailed, most of the developmentsthat we have seen in this century, especiallyafter World War 11, would have been either very far delayedor might not have occurred at all. What I will discuss isthe derivation of the Cottingen Tradition with specific emphasison the geometrical type of thinking of the individualswhose earlier scientific ideas led to the Prandtl school.The Cottingen TraditionAt the beginning of this succession is Caspard Monge.Monge was one of the principal researchers at the FrenchEcole Polytechnique at the end of the 18th century, and hepioneered a method of looking at differential equations—equations that define different types of complicated physicalprocesses—essentially from a graphic or a geometricalpoint of view. These methods proved extremely successfulin the early work of the Ecole Polytechnique and then ledto a situation in which many of the students, not directly ofthe Ecole Polytechnique or Monge, but students of theseideas, perfected this and were able to make enormousprogress in a very short period of time.Perhaps the most influential and least known mind in thisline of succession is Jakob Steiner. Steiner was born in 1796and he came to the University of Berlin, which had then justbeen founded by his mentor Wilhelm von Humboldt. Hecame to Berlin without a job; he knew a great deal of geometryand was convinced of his ability to solve the mostdifficult geometrical problems, but he did not have the kindof formal education that would have allowed him to becomea professor in Berlin at that time. He could not evenbecome a teacher at the high school level: In order to dothat, he would have had to pass a so-called state examination,and he had tried that in 1822 after he had just come toBerlin.He had the bad fortune that one of his examiners in thefield of philosophy was C.W.F. Hegel. Those who haveattempted to read some of Hegel's writings will appreciatewhat Steiner did: Before he was examined in philosopy, hewrote a note protesting the idea that he should be examinedin the kind of obscurantism that Hegel's philosophyrepresented. Hegel then, as one might imagine, retaliatedin the examination itself and wrote a report. The quote wehave is that Hegel said, "Jakob Steiner concerns himselfonly with entirely trivial reflections." These "entirely trivialreflections" define the conceptual basis in almost everyrespect of the type of work that led to the fluid dynamicselaborated by Prandtl and his collaborators.Steiner's so-called triviality in the mathematical field wascharacterized by the fact that he abhorred algebra, and hewas tested in algebra as well as philosophy. Steiner flunkedboth of these tests marvelously. The person who tested himin algebra reportedly said of Steiner that his knowledge ofalgebra does not appear to go beyond the solution of equationsof the second degree and he does not even seem toWilhelm von HumboldtThe philosophical predecessors of the Cottingen schoolinclude Monge, Steiner, and von Humboldt. At the turn ofthe century, Felix Klein organized Germany's industrialmuscle to push forward the frontiers of science—a modelthe United States would do well to follow today. He is shownhere with the seal of the Gottingen Association for the Advancementof Applied Physics and Mathematics, which hefounded in 1898.40 January-February 1986 FUSION


e very familiar with that. Equations of the second degreeare something that now, perhaps unfortunately, people arebeing taught at a rather early age. In any case, Steiner'sgenius in geometry was perhaps first recognized by Wilhelmvon Humboldt, who founded the University of Berlinand was the minister of culture of Prussia for awhile.Humboldt had his youngest son educated in private bySteiner after Steiner had been denied official certificationas a teacher. The first book that Steiner wrote on geometry,which became the principal textbook in geometry at theUniversity of Berlin later on and in many of the Germanuniversities and high schools afterwards, was dedicated tovon Humboldt and his method of thinking.What Steiner always stressed in teaching his students wasthat there is a very close relationship between the kind ofcreative playfulness that we apply in geometrical constructionsand our ability to develop entirely new concepts. Algebra,on the other hand, puts the mind into the kind ofstraitjacket that does not enable the student at a later pointto apply himself creatively to new types of problems.In 1834, Steiner finally got his appointment at the Universityof Berlin because it was recognized that he was anobvious genius in his field. The opinions of Hegel and ofsome other mathematicians who initially examined him werethankfully ignored at that point and he was made a professor.His efforts to become a professor were supported byCrelle, by Bessel, by Dirichlet, and by Jacobi, who werethen the greatest mathematicians in Europe. In 1847-1848,Steiner became a principal teacher at the University of Berlinof Bernhard Riemann, and it is the work of Riemann andDirichlet in the 19th century that really laid the foundationsfor the fluid dynamics and aerodynamics that developedthe possibilities of manned flight and later rocket flight.Especially from the standpoint of the possibility of supersonicflight, a paper that Riemann wrote in 1859 on shockwaves—the kind of waves that are formed in a compressiblefluid, be it a gas or any other kind of compressible fluid—proved extremely influential. It was one of the most importantthings considered when supersonic flight was contemplatedin the period of World War II and afterwards. Contraryto many of the critics of Riemann, it was precisely thecase that he discussed so-called isentropic compressionshocks in his 1859 paper, which proved to be most importantand influential in the theory of supersonic flight.Prandtl's training in Germany was very much in the traditionof Riemann and, in fact, in some of his first papers, hequotes Riemann in detail.Prandtl had a student, whose name perhaps is not knownto many readers, Adolf Busemann, who worked in Germanyduring World War II, then came to the United Statesafter World War II. His ideas were the essential ideas thatmade supersonic flight possible by October 1947, when thefirst Bell X-1 plane crashed the so-called sound barrier. (Alot of things could be said about this notion of sound barrier;there really is no such thing, and the idea of a barrierin fact implies all the wrong things and precisely that wrongkind of thinking that we should stay away from.)The Opposing TraditionCounterposed to the geometrical tradition reaching fromMonge to Busemann is the tradition of the people, who iftheir ideas had prevailed, engineers or other inventors mighthave invented airplanes and done various kinds of thingswith them, but physicists and mathematicians would havebeen able to prove quite rigorously that manned flight orflight heavier than air was impossible.One of the people on this list is Theodore von Karman,who in his very early career, just about one year before theactual first heavier-than-air flight by the Wright brothers,proved to his own satisfaction (not to the Wright brothers'satisfaction) that flight heavier than air was impossible. Thiswas based on the theory of air resistance, of so-called drag,a resistance of any fluid against an object being movedthrough it. This is the so-called impact theory, or resistanceor drag, due to Newton and later on developed in moredetail by Lagrange. One could perhaps say, somewhat ahistoricallyand facetiously but nonetheless correctly, thatNewton was the first to prove that flight heavier than air orany kind of flight was impossible. In fact, it is not even clearhow birds could fly under Newton's theory.Prandtl makes the point in his famous textbook (this wasactually written by Tietjens on the basis of Prandtl's lectures)by saying that if it were the case that drag or resistanceincreases with the square of the velocity, then under thosecircumstances it is extremely difficult to see how flight ofany kind is conceivable. The way Newton arrived at this ison the basis of this so-called impact or collisional model;that is, thinking of an airfoil or even a plate injected into anairstream and simply computing the impact and the forcesof impact of the molecules that hit this particular airfoil orany kind of object put into the flow. This way of thinking,and von Karman's calculations that led him to believe thatflight heavier than air was impossible, were based on thatkind of impact model. Essentially, von Karman said, themolecular pressure would prevent takeoff. This kind ofFUSION January-February 1986 41


Prandtl's student Adolf Busemann developed the ideas thatmade supersonic flight possible. Here Busemann (center)receives an award from the Fusion Energy Foundation inNovember 1981.thinking was quite pervasive even at a point when von Karmanlater on became one of the celebrated people whoallegedly had a lot to do with the development of aerodynamics.I want to emphasize that this collisional and essentiallystatistical model of computing physical events on the basisof certain averages—averaged over particles and groups ofparticles and molecules statistically—is proved one of themost important barriers to a satisfactory development oftheory not only in the areas that we are discussing here,fluid dynamics and hydrodynamics, but also in the equallyimportant areas of quantum theory, plasma physics, and soon, which are essential to the possibility of thermonuclearfusion.These collisional and statistical models do not work, andit is only and precisely to the extent that they were explicitlyrejected by the Gottingen school that these areas can beregarded as possible and developable.Prandtl's MethodThe essential idea that Prandtl had in 1904 is that if onewere to try to directly describe the possibility of flight usingthe very difficult differential equations that govern the flowof so-called viscous fluids (fluids that have internal friction),the so-called Navier-Stokes equations, then one would befaced with an impossible problem. One could experimentallyperhaps define and determine the possibility of flight,but one could never quantitatively explicitly calculate theactual conditions that make flight possible. Rather thanlooking at an airfoil subjected to a stream of air as an airfoilinjected into a viscous fluid, which mathematically is impossibleto handle, Prandtl separated the problem into twoparts. He did this from the standpoint of the geometricaltype of thinking that introduces as an essential characteristicof the geometrical continuum the singularities in thiscontinuum. On the one hand, Prandtl said, we can look atthe flow far away from the airfoil, the so-called free flow,on the basis of the very simple potential equations accordingto Laplace. These are trivial and relatively easy to understanddifferential equations, which have an immediategeometrical interpretation in the context of so-called conformalmapping theory.Prandtl said the only area in which we have to considerflow that has internal friction is in the immediate vicinity ofthe airfoil itself, in the so-called boundary layer. This is thelittle white layer that can be seen in the photographs ofPrandtl's experiments (Figures 1 and 2). In this area, we canno longer ignore viscosity or the internal friction of thefluid, in particular. This is not because we know on the onehand that directly at the surface of the airfoil the flow iszero; that is, the air or the water—or whatever it is—actuallysticks at the surface. A very small distance away fromthis, it is clear that it has already attained a velocity equal tothe free flow velocity. What we must look at is this criticalboundary layer, what Prandtl called the surface of discontinuity,in which, a very, very large difference in velocity isattained over an extremely thin layer—a layer that can, infact, be thought of as arbitrarily thin. If we think of thisboundary layer as a surface of discontinuity, under thesecircumstances we can simplify the Navier-Stokes equationsquite significantly, and are therefore able to give a quantitativesolution to the problems of drag, lift, and all of theother aerodynamical problems that are critical to discussthe possibility of flight.Without the kind of work that Prandtl did—first publishedin 1904 and discussed by him prior to his coming toGottingen, when he was a teacher at the Technical HighSchool in Hannover—without these kinds of discussions ofthe boundary layer problems, it is generally acknowledgedtoday that a quantitative discussion of the possibility offlight would not have been available.One of Prandtl's most important colleagues was Runge,a mathematician who developed many of the mathematicalmethods for calculating the problems in aerodynamics thatPrandtl raised.The Role of Felix KleinFelix Klein was the teacher of many of the students in thelate 19th and early 20th century in Germany in mathematicsand in physics, and at the same time was one of the mostaccomplished organizers of the total scientific, technological,and industrial enterprise in Germany. Klein had earliermade a name for himself by developing some very interestingand significant work in elliptical function theory, and inthe 1890s he came to Gottingen as a professor and made ithis task to try to define a research program for the entiretyof the technical and scientific disciplines at the university.Particularly important, he worked in close collaborationwith Wilamowitz, the senior faculty member in the field ofAltphilologie, ancient languages with specific emphasis onGreek. Klein and Wilamowitz jointly defined an outlook onresearch and education, which I think is uniquely responsible,in terms of its philosophy, for the advances that weremade in Germany in that period. At the same time, Kleinenlisted and in a certain sense forced German industry into42 January-February 1986 FUSION


Figure 1PRANDTL'S APPROACH TO FLUID DYNAMICSAs director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for fluid flow at Cottingen, Prandtl photographed and filmed experimentson the generation of vortices in water flows to demonstrate to students the characteristic features of fluid dynamics.The illustrations here are from Prandtl's films.Photos (a)-(f) show water streaming around a cylinder. Fine aluminum particles enable the streamlines to be visibleto the camera. You can see the actual vortex formation, which becomes large-scale after a short period of time. Theboundary layer is the light, surrounding mass around the dark cylinder. This boundary layer rips off and developsthe fluid vortex.FUSION January-February 1986 43


Courtesy of California Institute of TechnologyTheodore von Karman shortly after his appointmentas director of the GuggenheimAeronautical LaboratoryBettmann ArchiveRobert Millikan posing with the 10-foot wind tunnel at Cal Tech in 1930.supporting this kind of research both by financially supportingthe research institutions that were being built at theGerman universities, and at the same time creating insidetheir own companies and allocating up to 20 percent of thetotal profits of the company for research and development.Klein founded the so-called Gottingen Association, theCottinger Vereinigung, in 1898. This was the group of professorsat Gottingen who collaborated with the principalpeople in German industry. The Gottingen Associationmandated that any industrial company that wanted to getthe top students from the disciplines of physics, mathematics,or the engineering sciences into their companies,could not get that unless they could demonstrate that morethan 20 percent of their profits had, in fact, been allocatedto research and development. They were otherwise notfound worthy of being supplied with that kind of manpower.Klein, because he had a very close working relationshipwith the Prussian minister of culture, Althoff, was able toquite rigorously control this situation, and was able to forcethose companies that did not want to comply into a situationwhere their competitiveness was, in fact, severely hampered.Now, whether or not one wants to use that kind of modelin the United States today is something that might be debated.In any case, the basic point is very clear: Industrymust make its contribution not only in the form of financialdonations, but also in terms of an actual, in-depth commitmentto research and development, in order to be able tocollaborate with the most advanced scientific institutions,so that there is not a tremendous and unnecessary gapbetween theoretical and applied research. This was Klein'sprincipal purpose.He was able to enlist the heads of all of the large companies,from Krupp, to Siemens, to MAN. Any company ofany size in Germany in the period before World War I became,at one time or another, a member of the GottingenAssociation and collaborated in this program. This is whatmade possible the developments in aerodynamics in the20th century.Von Karman As a VillainIn contrast to this tradition is another group of people,including prominently Theodore von Karman. Those of youwho have worked in the airplane industry and the spaceprogram not only may be surprised, but also perhaps offendedby the fact that I single out Theodore von Karmanas one of the villains in this story, even though he admittedlymade some significant contributions in certain areas.Von Karman, Hungarian by birth, was a student of Prandtlat Gottingen, and Prandtl was instrumental in providinghim with a professorship at the technical university in Aachen,in the westernmost part of Germany. In the initial years,still directly under the influence of Prandtl, between 1908and 1911, von Karman did quite excellent work there. Infact, much of the type of work on so-called vortex streets,vortex formations behind objects, and fluid flow, is due tothe early work of von Karman. During World War I, he wasdrafted into the Hungarian Air Force and he then returnedto Aachen in 1920 to resume his post.It is not quite clear what happens to one if one is draftedinto the Hungarian Air Force, but whatever happened tovon Karman was not very good. The actual scientific developmentsand the scientific initiatives that he took after hisreturn to Germany are, by and large, to be judged quitenegatively.In 1922, he and others organized a conference atInnsbruck, Austria, in which he was the first to propose astatistical approach to the theory of turbulence—directly inopposition to the geometrical approach of Prandtl. It was4-1 January-February 1986 FUSION


Ludwig Prandtl (above) is probably the single most significantresearcher in this century in hydrodynamics and aerodynamicsresearch. Above right: Gottingen University and(below) diagram of the first wind-tunnel laboratory at Cottingen.as a result of the disagreements that arose out of this—theydid not really come very much to the surface or very muchinto the open. At least in these kind of disputes scientistsoften tend to be polite, perhaps too polite, rather thanbringing out these differences for everyone to see. But inany case, Prandtl quite strongly disagreed with this approach.It was directly contrary to his own way of thinking,and to his own insight into what had allowed him to succeed.Prandtl blocked the appointment of von Karman to a professorshipin Gottingen in the early 1920s. At that point, adifferent development occurred in the United States.Millikan and More VillainsAfter World War I, it had become quite obvious that airplanesand similar kinds of high technology devices hadalready had a very significant influence in the war and might,in fact, become decisive if a new war were to break out inthe future. At that point, various organizations of industry,as well as military organizations in the United States, realizedthat the actual level of physical science and of engineeringscience in the United States was abysmal, and theyattempted in the relatively shortest possible period of timeto remedy that situation. One of the principal protagonists—andthere should be no question that he had theproper purpose, though, I think, badly executed—wasRobert Millikan, who in 1923 won the Nobel Prize for physicsfor his experiments with electron theory.Millikan, at that point or slightly later, became the leadingphysicist and, in fact, the leading organizer of the researchat the California Institute of Technology. He collaboratedvery closely with Daniel and Harry Guggenheim for thepurpose of making money available for the development ofresearch institutes, and also for the possibility of attractingresearchers primarily from Europe and with emphasis onGermany, in order to remedy the backwardness of theUnited States situation.In one way or another, it became known to Millikan thatvon Karman was getting disenchanted with his position inGermany, and by 1926 negotiations started between CalTech and von Karman. Initially, von Karman acted as a consultantin the construction of the wind tunnel at Cal Tech,and then later, in 1930, he actually permanently moved tothe United States.FUSION January-February 1986 45


Millikan himself did some useful experimental work, buthis philosophical outlook on scientific enterprise was essentiallydiametrically opposed to the kind of outlook thatI have ascribed to Prandtl and others. His autobiography—mind you, this is not a biography but an autobiography, soit reflects his own way of thinking—starts with recountinga little story about when he is four years old. He is playingwith his two-year-old brother under their porch in the dirt.He says, my younger brother picked up a bunch of dust andtold me, "Well, eat it. One can eat this." And Millikan says,I didn't believe that, and I told him it's not possible, but myyounger brother, at age two, did not want to believe me, soI told him, "Well, why don't you eat it yourself?" And thetwo-year-old picked up the dust and ate it, and then ran,screaming, to his mother.That, says Millikan, is how he became a physicist. That ishow he was f i rst convinced of the value of the experi mentalmethod. Well, if I wanted to slander the man, I might haveinvented this story, but in fact, it is the first paragraph in hisautobiography; so therefore, presumably, he was deeplyimpressed by this and somehow believed this kind of nonsense.This is not how you become a physicist, or anythingelse; it's how you become a fool.Later on in his autobiography, Millikan has a little list ofthose whom he regards as his scientific heroes. He regardsas the greatest genius in the history of science, Maxwell.He then lists Kelvin, Rayleigh, Helmholtz, Boltzmann, andJ.J. Thompson. Now, mind you, this is a man speaking inthe 1940s. There is not a single mention here of peoplewhom, I think, we rightfully should regard as the greatestscientific geniuses of the 19th and 20th centuries.The problem is that the scientific enterprise in the UnitedStates—even at a point when quite correctly it was realizedthat it was backward—then came under the guidance of anindividual who had done valuable experimental work, butwhose entire outlook and way of looking at the scientificenterprise was so slanted and so wrong, so badly misguided,that there is no real surprise that his programs, in fact,did not prove particularly successful.Millikan and Guggenheim decided that they needed tofind "a scientist of ability, bordering on genius. "They wantedto find such a scientist, give him some money, and lethim develop aerodynamics in the United States. And theone they found was von Karman. Why did they hit uponvon Karman, rather than Prandtl? Here's the actual quotefrom a letter: Harry Guggenheim had gone to Germany atthat time in order to look for such a genius. He had gone toGottingen and seen Prandtl's work, and for whatever reason,Guggenheim was impressed and said to Millikan, "let'sget Prandtl."Millikan responded, "Dear Mr. Guggenheim . . . withrespect to the suggestion which you made as I left yourhouse, that we try to get Prandtl over here for a short time,I have talked the matter over at length with Epstein andBateman. Both of them think that in view of Prandtl's advancedage [he was five years older than von Karman] andhis somewhat impractical personality, he would be far lessuseful to us than von Karman."And then, later on, a little footnote is added, where hemakes some remark about G.I. Taylor and Britain. In fact,they preferred G.I. Taylor as well. That may not mean muchto many readers, but to some of us who know about G.I.Taylor's work, it means something. In any case, the Millikanletter says: "The other thing that speaks for von Karman, bythe way, is that he is Hungarian in nationality. We havebetween us reached the conclusion, partially because ofvon Karman's nationality, that he would be the better personthan Prandtl."One of the most famous quotes that I have from Millikanis also in his autobiography. This was right after World WarI and perhaps is understandable in the heat of the argument.Millikan said, what we can't have in the United Statesis the "German barbarism reflected in World War I," andwe can't have people associated with scientific work in Germanyat that time—which was true for Prandtl who had agreat deal to do with the development of airplanes. Thenhe said: "We Anglo-Saxons have overcome these tendenciestoward barbarism. The British Empire, after riddingitself of some of its worst excesses, has become the veritablemodel of freedom and development in the world today."So this was the person who brought a genius to the UnitedStates.The outcome of this could be seen at the end of WorldWar II. From 1930 on, von Karman was effectively in chargeof all aerodynamic research in the United States. There wasreally nobody who could have in any way challenged orinfluenced what von Karman wanted to do.In 1935 there took place in Rome the so-called Volta Congresson aerodynamics and fluid dynamics, in which theprimary presentations were made by Adolf Busemann andGeneral Crocco, one of the principal aerodynamics researchersin Rome. Von Karman went to that congress afterhe had been in the United States for five years and hadgotten more money for developing aeronautical researchat Cal Tech than that allocated to the entirety of the Europeaninstitutes. He came back with the impression that theEuropeans were far ahead. And he made a report to thiseffect, but he couldn't figure out why the Europeans wereahead. He said, we seem to be doing what we should bedoing, but somehow we don't seem to be succeeding.In particular, von Karman was quite rightfully impressedwith the fact that after four years of trying at Cal Tech, theyhad built a wind tunnel that was operating at speeds ofseveral hundred kilometers per hour, and something like5,000 horsepower. In Rome in 1935, however, he found asupersonic wind tunnel operating at twice the speed ofsound and with 20,000 horsepower. So he came back somewhatshocked and he made the determination that all energiesmust be mustered to develop this work better in theUnited States. Nothing came of his effort.In 1938, the question of jet propulsion was first investigatedin the United States. There was some suggestion thatjet propulsion should be a good way of driving airplanes. Acommittee was called together by the National Academy ofSciences, under the leadership of von Karman and Millikan,with the able assistance of Professor Marks of Harvard University,and they delivered their report on June 10, 1940.The report said, in essence, gas turbines are no good forflight because they're too heavy. Well, several months be-46 January-February 1986 FUSION


(a)(b)Figure 2FLUID FLOW AROUND AN AIRFOILThese are photos from Prandtl's experiments of flow around an airfoil, amodel airplane wing. The streamlines have been made visible by the introductionof fine aluminum powder. Photos (a) and (b) have been taken withthe camera moving with the airfoil. Photos (c) and (d) correspond to (a) and(b) respectively, but are taken with the camera at rest. The initial moment asthe vortex is being formed at the tail end of the foil is shown in (a) and (b),while (c) and (d) show a more progressed stage after the initial vortex hasripped off the boundary layer and passed some distance downstream. Thinkof this as a depiction of what happens to the air after an airplane beginsflight. If you have ever been in an airport close to a 747 taking off, you knowthat these vortices hit you quite hard. In fact, smaller planes cannot take offin the wake of a large jet.fore that, the first model of the Messerschmitt 262, theactual German jet fighter of World War II, had already successfullyflown and gone through much of the testing routine.Von Karman delivered a report of the impossibility of jetpropulsion for aircraft at the time when such aircraft werealready flying in Germany! He later apologized and saidthat he just put his signature to this report; he didn't reallyread it. And then he said that when the report was issued in1938, he was in Japan. He in fact was in Japan in 1938;however, the report was not delivered until 1940, so thisexplanation doesn't make much sense.In 1945, the Army Air Force was quite shocked at whatthey found in Germany in the aerodynamics field. Severalpeople had been sent over to Germany to investigate whatwas going on. Von Karman was one of them. He and anotherresearcher from Cal Tech questioned Prandtl for longhours in detail about what he had been doing, and theyquestioned Adolf Busemann in detail about his ideas onsupersonic flight.After von Karman came back, he was asked by the NationalAdvisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA), as wellas by the Air Force, to deliver a report, and hewrote a reportthat said we weren't really very impressed with what we sawin Germany. In fact, in many cases, the German work wasgood, but it certainly was not spectacular. Many of thethings that have been praised, we were ourselves thinkingabout, he said.The Air Force did not issue the report. One of the toppeople in the NACA, Hunsaker, wrote a letter to von Karmansaying that this seems to be a rather self-serving andnonsensical report, and you will make yourself a laughingstockof the world if you issue it. For your reference, saidHunsaker, I will list to you precisely those areas in whichthe Germans were ahead in 1945, and in which we did virtuallynothing. Then he went through it, just listing thoseareas in the field of aerodynamics: supersonic research,missile research, rocket research, jet propulsion, sweptwingdesign, and so on.So this report was not issued, but von Karman waspromptly charged by the Air Force to write another one,outlining the next 50 years of aerodynamical research forthe United States. I don't know if that was ever written, ormaybe it's a classified document. I hope it's so deeply classifiedthat nobody will ever see it.The Question of MethodThis brings us to the fairly obvious conclusion: There'sno question that the financial and material means at thedisposal of the German effort in aerodynamics and relatedfields during and before World War II were in no way superior.What was superior and different was the type ofoutlook and the basic method that I have stressed here.Von Karman is associated with the statistical turbulencetheory and with the idea of using classical hydrodynamictheory, but making certain linear adjustments in it in orderto get away from the nasty singularities that plague this kindof research. He is associated precisely with the outlookwhich, if it is adopted in principle, will not allow any significantadvances in the physical sciences, and has never, infact, been responsible for the development of such advances.This is the very simple fact that we have to face.It has nothing to do with Germany versus the UnitedStates, or anything of that sort. It has something to do withmethod. These points of method were shared by the peopleof the Ecole Polytechnique in France, they were shared bythe group around Riemann, they were shared by the greathydrodynamicists of Italy in the tradition of Riemann, andthey were shared by all of those researchers whose namesI already mentioned, most notably, Prandtl and BusemannFUSION January-February 1986 47


in Germany at that time. It is not a point, as Millikan says,of nationality.Let's look at some of the important developments of thepostwar period. First, there is the so-called sound barrier(Figure 3). I object to the word "barrier" because it impliesprecisely a kind of collisional approach. It has nothing todo with barrier; there is no barrier, there is nothing there.There is just air, like anywhere else. The point is, that if youget near the speed of sound to about 0.7 Mach, then underthose circumstances the drag coefficient on the airfoil increasesvery steeply, exponentially, until you in fact reachthe speed of sound.The reason for this is that through the development ofshock waves, which affect the airflow over the airfoil, acertain amount of the lift energy is converted into shockformation. That energy is taken away from the lift capabilityof the plane, and under those circumstances you experiencevarious kinds of instabilities and difficulties with theplane itself, which have to be countered simply from thestandpoint of understanding the problem. You have to makethe kind of geometrical adjustments in wing design, or anythingelse, that are necessary to do that.One of the principal adjustments in wing design that canbe made was invented by Busemann, the so-called sweptwingdesign, the arrow design. You can see (Figure 4) howthe critical zone for the development of shock waves thatinfluence flight and lift negatively is at the 0° angle; that is,if the wing is at right angles with the fuselage, you get theonset of the critical area at 0.7 Mach and then the dragcoefficient declines afterwards.If you have a 60° angle of the wings, then not even halfthe drag coefficient develops and you get it also at a muchlater point; namely, beyond Mach 1. And if you have a 70°inclination with the fuselage of the wings, then you get to apoint where you get a very low, very late onset of the criticalphase. Also, the amount of reduction in lift or the amountof increase in the drag coefficient is not very substantial. Itis there, it will always be there, because Shockwaves form.Shock waves are real, as was certainly determined bythese methods of research in aerodynamics carried out inthe 1930s and 1940s in Germany primarily under Busemann'sdirection in Braunschweig. They are not what Rayleighhad said, when he criticized Riemann's 1859 paper.He said, shock waves do not exist. What exist, are singularitiesin the mathematical formulation of the wave equations,but we cannot assign any reality to such singularities.All it means, is, that we have failed to come up with a solution.As Riemann said, these things are real, and he said it 50years before Rayleigh made that idiotic criticism. It wasprecisely because of the realization that the shock wavesare real that they were taken into account when supersonicFigure 3THE SO-CALLED SOUND BARRIERThe sound barrier has nothing to dowith a barrier. When a plane gets nearthe speed of sound to about 0.7 Mach,the drag coefficient on the airfoil increasesvery steeply because shockwaves develop that affect airflow overthe airfoil.Figure 4SHOCK WAVES THAT INFLUENCEFLIGHTThe critical zone for the developmentof shock waves that negatively influenceflight and lift is at the 0° angle. Ifthe wing of the plane is at right angleswith the fuselage, you get the onset ofthe critical area at 0.7 Mach. But if thewings are at a 60° angle, then not evenhalf the drag coefficient develops. Witha 70° inclination, there is a very low,very late onset of the critical phase.Figure 5THE D-558 DESIGN BEFOREAND AFTER BUSEMANNThe Douglas D-558, which wasdeveloped simultaneously withthe Bell X-7 as a supersonic designin 1945, had a conventionalstraight wing (a). After von Karmanand others visited Germanyand interviewed Adolf Busemann,their design was modifiedto his swept-wing design (b).48 January-February 1986 FUSION


flight was studied in supersonic wind tunnels in Gottingenand Braunschweig, and later on in Munich and Lake Kochel.An interesting example is the Douglas D-558, which wasdeveloped simultaneously with the Bell X-1 as a supersonicdesign in 1945 before the von Karman mission went to Germanyand interviewed Busemann and others. Figure 5(a)shows their design before the trip to Germany: a straightwing sticking out, so you have the 0° angle situation ofbefore and a tail end that sticks up, just as in the old designsof aircraft in the subsonic range.Then von Karman and others came back to the UnitedStates in the summer of 1945, and after that the D-558 lookedlike Figure 5(b). All of a sudden it became a swept-wingmodel with a swept-tail configuration.Several years ago when I was visiting a scientific conferencein Moscow, a Russian researcher showed me a pictureof one of the models for a supersonic passenger jet typethat the Russians had acquired when they moved into theeastern part of Germany. "What do you think that is? hesaid. I said, "Everybody knows, that's the Concorde." But itwas not the Concorde, it was a model built by Busemannfor a supersonic jet—in the late 1930s—to which the Concordedesign is identical.There is no mystery of any kind involved here. It is asimple and straightforward story. It's a question of method,both scientific method and method of organization. It's aquestion of assembling the kind of scientific team that iscapable, on the basis of the right kind of methodologicalapproach, to find the mode of organization most appropiateto its goals. And these goals have to be set never withregard to so-called state-of-the-art designs, but in fact as farbeyond as you can possibly do.To the extent that you do that, you will be capable ofchanging this so-called state of the art rather than beingstuck with it. What we have to do in any program, whetherit is a crash technological development program or a basicresearch program, is to set our sight on the kind of goalsand tasks that are way beyond what we initially anticipatethe most immediate goal of the program to be. If that is notdone, then we will not confront ourselves with the type ofchallenge that is necessary in order for the scientific enterpriseto succeed.The lesson to be learned is that we do not need state-ofthe-artprograms; this is nonsense and leads to preciselythe wrong approach. The cheapest programs are not stateof-the-artassembly programs; the cheapest programs willalways prove to be those crash programs that look as farahead as possible in order to accomplish the immediatetask. This may appear to be quite expensive in the long run,bringing in basic research and technology and design togetherinto a program, rather than just doing the state ofthe art on the basis of what is on the shelf. The latter is goingto be the most expensive and the least workable approach,and I am afraid, to a significant extent, when we are talkingabout the SDI today, it is precisely that kind of approach tothe situation, that is most problematical.Von Neumann's Cost-Benefit NonsenseI have to mention one other villain who had somethingto do not so much with the scientific side of these developments,but had a tremendous influence on this organizationalside, John von Neumann. Von Neumann was anotherHungarian-born mathematician who studied at Gottingenand later came to the United States in the 1930s.In the minds of most, von Neumann is associated not somuch with his mathematics and physics, but rather with hisideas in economic theory. In particular he wrote a bookalong with Morgenstern called The Theory of Games andEconomic Behavior, viewing economic development essentiallyas a kind of competitive game between playersmuch like a poker game. In fact the first paper von Neumannwrote on so-called economics in 1928 was "The Theoryof Parlor Games."The next thing he studied in order to be able to modeleconomic development in the late 1920s was poker, and heinvented a simplified version of stud poker and abstractedfrom a simplified version of stud poker his basic ideas ofeconomic development. Don't underestimate the influenceof this nonsense. What has come out of that is theRand Corporation, the Air Force Systems Command, andevery single bit of so-called cost-benefit analysis optimizationnonsense that we are suffering from today. It is one ofthe principal problems that we have to solve in order todefine and push through the kind of crash program for theSDI that is desirable.The other thing that has come out of von Neumann'spoker theory is the famous Robert McNamara way of "winning"the Vietnam War. You remember what that was: thebody count method—cost benefit analysis applied to militarystrategy and tactics. Most of you were probably treatedto this every night on TV: You had a body count, so manyVietcongs, so many North Vietnamese killed, so manyAmericans killed; the ratio looks good.The McNamara crowd made detailed analyses of howmany people exist in each age group in Vietnam to see howmany people were being eliminated per day, and then askedthe question, how many troops do we have to put in to winon the basis of cost-benefit analysis? How much do we getout of it if we put so many soldiers, so many tanks, so manythis and the other things in. From the standpoint of linearprogramming and optimization analysis, how do we win?You can't win that way.The principal strategic problem in military terms and otherwisein politics is the principle of the flank. The principleof the flank defies by its very definition the idea of costbenefitanalysis, and this has precisely to do with the unexpected—toput a tremendous amount of cost into onearea where it is unexpected, in order to be able to thensucceed as quickly as possible. The very opposite of thekind of thinking so much associated with von Neumannand much of the Pentagon thinking today is what is calledfor under these circumstances.If we keep that in mind, and let that be reflected in ourpolitical approach to these questions, we may have a chance.Uwe Parpart Henke is the director of research for theFusion Energy Foundation. This article is adapted from hispresentation at the Krafft Ehricke Memorial Conference inJune 1985, sponsored by the FEF and the Schiller Institute.FUSION January-February 1986 49


"After we have made Italy, we must make the Italians." It was in this spirit that the19th century scientists of the Italian Riemann school played a decisive role in theformation of the Italian nation state.Hydrodynamicsand theCourtesy of Adolf BusemannScientific Foundationsof theModern Italian Nationby Giuseppe FilipponiThe role of Leonardo da Vinci as father of the ItalianRenaissance and the political activity of Leibniz duringthe late 17th century clearly demonstrate thatscientific advancements are historically born of the politicalactivity required to build republican states committed toscientific, technological, and cultural advancements.This is exactly the case of the great hydrodynamic schoolthat was developed in Italy during the mid-19th centurywith the decisive contribution of Bernhard Riemann. Riemanncame from Gottingen University to Italy to spendParticipants at the 1935 European aerodynamics conferenceat Volta, Italy, a milestone in the development of supersonicflight. Ludwig Prandtl is fifth from left, first row.his last years in Pisa and Maggiore Lake. Enrico Betti, EugenioBeltrami, Felice Groiti, Francesco Brioschi, Luigi Cremona,Masotti, and Carlo Matteucci were the principalrepresentatives of this hydrodynamic school, and they hada decisive role in the political and military struggles thatdirectly led to the formation of the modern Italian state in1860.In fact, during the period 1840-1860, as a result of thework of some of these scientists, the Annual Congress ofItalian Scientists, which brought together scientists fromthroughout the Italian peninsula, became one of the centersof the patriotic conspiracy. The Congress was consideredso dangerous that two orders were issued in 1850—one by the Austrian governor of Lombardo-Veneto andthe other by the Vatican Curia—banning the future par-50 January-February 1986 FUSION


ticipation of scientists from those regions, which were thenindependent states.This was also the period during which the Count ofCavour imposed a crash program for the industrializationof the Piedmont region, (then ruled by the King of Savoy)based on steel production and agricultural development.This crash effort provided the essential logistical meansfor sustaining the military offensives leading into the nationalunification of Italy.The Creation of the Italian NationDespite the misrepresentations found in the official historytexts to the effect that the Italian state was formed by acabal of Masonic gnostics like Giuseppe Massini and GiuseppeGaribaldi, the truth is that the Italian nation was actuallycreated by the combination of the Cavour politicalleadership, the above-mentioned network of patriotic scientists,and the music of Giuseppe Verdi.Betti, Cremona, Brioschi, Masotti, Matteucei, and FeliceCasorati, not only organized the volunteer corps from all ofItaly to support the Piedmont army, but they themselveswere military leaders, colonels, who fought in the majorbattles of the "Resurgement." Their role, however, wasmuch more important after the unification of Italy. As Cavourput it, "After we have made Italy, we must make theItalians."The Cavour project employed this network of scientiststo establish the major educational centers of the new Italiannation and to initiate an accelerated industrialization of thecountry based on the most advanced technology of thattime—electrical energy. Unfortunately, because of Cavour'sdeath in 1862, only the first of these two goals wasfully realized. The financial and economic policies of thenew Italian state fell into the hands of international bankerslike the Rothschilds, under the direction of the Anglo-Venetian oligarchy. Thus any significant attempt at industrializationwas prevented.Nevertheless, immediately after the unification, Betti becamea senator and general secretary of the Education Ministry,while Casorati, Cremona, and Brioschi became senatorsand took control of educational policy. Under theirdirection, the Napoli Polytechnique was founded and thePavia Bologna and Turino universities were greatly improved.Brioschi personally founded the Milan Polytechnique;Cremona, the Engineering School of Rome; andBetti, the Normale School of Pisa—all on the model of GottingenUniversity.The theoretical and scientific potentialities rapidly maturedand were realized in the economy after the Giolittigovernment came to power in 1880. In particular, the Milanand Turin Polytechniques became key centers for the developmentand transmission of industrial and technologicaldevelopments. An outstanding example of this was the constructionin 1883 of the first European electric power plantnear Milan, during the same period that Edison built thefirst electric power station in the United States. Later, aftera student of Betti, Galilio Ferreri, invented the electric enginebased on rotating magnetic fields, electric energy waswidely applied throughout the northern Italian economy.From Hydrodynamics to AerodynamicsIn spite of World War I, the disastrous fascist regime, andthe continual opposition of the gnostic Masons and Jesuits,the Italian hydrodynamic school was able to survive, centeredin these educational institutions, in the form of themodern aerodynamic school. The aerodynamic school in-VORTEX FORMATIONAROUND AN AIRPLANEWINGAir flow around an air foil or asingle airplane wing forms twovortices. The relatively fixedvortex around the wing can beseen in the front part of thewing. The second vortex hasjust detached from the trailingedge of the wing whereother vortices will be createdand detach. The counterpartto this vortex on the plane'sother wing is rotating in theopposite direction.Source: L. Prandtl, "The Generation of Vortices in Fluids of Small Viscosity," in Gesammelte Abhandlungen(Springer-Verlag, 1961), p.767.FUSION January-February 1986 51


eluded General Gaetano Crocco and Antonio Ferri in Rome,Carlo Ferrari in Turin, and Enrico Pistolesi in Pisa. In 1935,this school founded the Aerodynamic Research Center inGuidonia, near Rome, where Ferri built the most advancedsupersonic wind tunnel in the world. At the beginning ofWorld War II, the Guidonia Institute had five wind tunnels(four subsonic and one supersonic), a water flow facility fortesting boat configurations, and a stratospheric tunnel.It was at Guidonia that the Busemann zero drag, zero liftsupersonic biplane was first experimentally investigated.The Italian school at Guidonia was intimately connectedwith the Prandtl-Busemann School in Germany, and after1945, Antonio Ferri and Adolf Busemann worked in closecollaboration at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia.A 1936 report by Gaetano Crocco, "L'Aerodinamica inAviazione," in the journal L'Aerotecnica, recounts the intellectualhistory and roots of the modern Italian hydrodynamicschool. In particular, Crocco attacks both the Frenchschool of d'Alembertand the English school of Newton.Today, real hydrodynamics—as exemplified by the pioneeringwork of Leonardo da Vinci and in modern timesby both the Riemann-Prandtl school in Germany and theRiemann-ltalian school—is not presented in the ordinaryuniversity curriculum. Instead, today students are taughtthat fluids are of two types. There are perfect fluids, whichhave no viscosity—inviscid fluids that are therefore muchmore amenable to representation by smooth, singularityfreemathematical functions. And there are viscous fluids,like those developed by Newton, involving "real" forcessuch as molecular drag and friction (that is, viscosity) onthe microscopic level. The first type was championed byd'Alembert of France and the second by the English Newtonians.Crocco notes that the d'Alembert inviscid fluid leads immediatelyto a paradox: Any body set in motion in such aperfect fluid does not encounter any opposition and thereforecontinues on infinitely along the same line. Ironically,this would seem to fulfill Newton's most cherished propositionof the so-called law of rectilinear inertia: Once a bodyis set in motion it continues in a linear manner until disturbedby some external force.D'Alembert improves upon the primitive Newtonian casebecause it is no longer necessary to make the absurd assumptionthat space consists of a perfect vacuum. Instead,d'Alembert fills space with a perfect fluid. As with a Newtonianfluid, the paradox arises even in the case of d'Alembert'sresistance-free, perfect fluid. This was demonstratedby Lord Kelvin, and reiterated by von Karman in his earlyworks. According to them, human airflight was an impossibilty;even the flight of birds could not be explained.The reason for this in the case of d'Alembert's perfectfluid, is that no work can be done by a body in motionthrough fluid against the fluid itself, nor vice versa; the fluidcannot do work on the body in motion. This is an inherentcharacteristic of the perfect fluid. It should be noted thatthe viscous Newtonian fluid arrives at the same result—theimpossibility of flight—through the opposite door, so tospeak. In this case molecular drag makes passage throughthe fluid virtually impossible, and almost infinite amountsof energy must be expended to achieve any significant lift.Crocco's ContributionHaving rejected both the Newtonian and d'Alembertfluids, Crocco asks, how then can we begin to describe thereal situation? After all, birds have been seen to fly!First, there must indeed be viscosity in order to haveflight: The plane must do work on the air in order to passthrough it. The action of viscosity, though, cannot be reducedto simple molecular drag. Rather, its action must belocated within the overall organization of the fluids that areencountered. The question of flight can then be reformulatedin terms of asking how the wing organizes the air—allof the air—in order to create those conditions that willpermit the passage of the wing through the air with theminimal exertion.Crocco points out that a wing achieves flight—net lift—not simply based upon its interaction with the air in itsimmediate vicinity—that is, the boundary layer surroundingthe wing—but rather on the basis of the organizationof all of the flow (circulation) around the wing (see figure).As can be seen, the air is organized both in the front andthe back of the wing. There are two vortices, first, the relativelyfixed vortex of circulation around the wing, and second,a pair of counterrotating vortices produced off thetrailing edge of the wing. Although the vortex of the secondcase can apparently be fixed (or stationary) for a steadyflight speed (steady air flow), changes in the flow speed willcause the vortex to detach from the wing and form a newvortex on the trailing edge. The two vortices combine togive zero net vorticity, like the zero field situation given bytwo counterwound and concentric Beltrami solenoid coils.Crocco does not remain satisfied with the concept of asimple "stationary" global organization of the air flow aroundthe wing. In fact, he polemicizes against such a concept putforward by Hermann von Helmholtz in his 1859 paper onvortices. Crocco points out that for Helmholtz vortices are"like Olympian gods who neither are born nor die, but areeternal." Crocco then identifies that the central questionboth for the science of flight and for modern hydrodynamicsis precisely that of the birth and death of vortices.Like Prandtl and Busemann, Crocco emphasizes that thegeneration and death of vortices are crucial for understandingflight. In the case of Prandtl and Busemann it is theformation of boundary layers that constitutes the same essentialline of attack. It is not the laminar flow or rotationalflow per se, but the formation process that is key. Bothcases are similar to the shock wave that creates, through itsformation, the basis for transport beyond the sound barrier—asort of self-induced transparency.Crocco solved a mystery that is instructive along theselines. It was observed that aircraft calmly flying along wouldsuddenly lose their tails. Crocco found the explanation inthe process of vortex formation off the trailing edge of thewing. This trailing vortex would form and detach from thewing and intercept the tail of the plane like a directed electromagneticwave packet.Giuseppe Filipponi, a physicist, is the director of the FusionEnergy Foundation in Italy and the editor of the Italianlanguagemagazine Fusione.52 January-February 1986 FUSION


Hypersonic Planes:by Charles B. StevensLos Angeles to Tokyo in 2V* hours? This is not sciencefiction. Although almost a decade has passed sincethe United States abandoned the effort to developsuch supersonic transport, we have at hand the technologynecessary to perfect aircraft that fly at 12 times the speedof sound. Recently, presidential science advisor GeorgeKeyworth, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency(DARPA), and the Air Force called for development ofhypersonic aircraft with speeds capable of reaching nearearthorbit. By leap-frogging the supersonic stage, transatmospherichypersonic planes would provide essentialcontributions both to national defense and civilian airtransport.In making the case for hypersonic flight, NASA deputyadministator Hans Mark noted that hypersonic aircraft werecrucial for realizing President Reagan's Strategic DefenseInitiative to make offensive nuclear missiles obsolete. Inhis testimony to Congress, DARPA Director Charles Buffalanoreported that the technology offered both a meansof reducing the cost for delivering materials into orbit andFigure 1LOCKHEED'S HYPERSONIC SCRAMJET PASSENGER LINERThis Lockheed design for a hypersonic passenger transportwould fly at more than 100,000 feet and cruise at 4,000 milesper hour speeds. The supersonic combustion ramjet engines—knownas scramjets—are able to carry 200 and morepassengers a distance of about 5,750 statute miles. Such anairliner could fly from Los Angeles to Tokyo in 2 hours, 18minutes, which includes subsonic climb and approaches incompliance with existing airport noise and navigation regulations.for 2 to 3 hour flights to the Orient, which would give asignificant impetus to the economic development of thePacific basin—a point also emphasized by Keyworth.U.S. research on hypersonic flight was mothballed inthe late 1960s at the same time that the NASA program wascurtailed, when the Air Force cut hypersonic engine researchback from a requested $100 million to $4 million.In a message to the members of the American Institute ofAeronautics and Astronautics, the late Dr. Antonio Ferri,the Italian-American pioneer of supersonic flight, characterizedthe Air Force decision as "foolish." Ferri citedFUSION January-February 1986 53


Figure 2AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMOPERATION REGIONSShown here are operational altitudesversus aircraft velocities (interms of multiples of the speedof sound—the Mach number) forexisting and future supersonicand hypersonic craft. Note thenecessarily higher operationalaltitudes needed for maintainingsufficiently low drag at higherspeeds. Existing types of hydrocarbon-fueledramjets operate inthe region up to Mach 4. Cryogenichydrocarbon ramjetswould operate in the next regionup to Mach 8. Cryogenic hydrogen-fueledscramjet designs havebeen tested in wind tunnels andare currently projected as operatingup to Mach 12.just a few potential benefits of hypersonic flight: A mobilefleet of hypersonic aircraft, similar in strategic value andrelative invulnerability to nuclear submarines, he said, couldfly 1,000 miles at Mach-12—that is, 12 times the speed ofsound—in as little as 10 minutes. A reusable orbital transportpowered by a combined turbo-ramjet/scramjet couldattain orbit and then skip in and out of the atmosphere atMach-25 speeds. 1 And large hypersonic transports wouldbe more economical than subsonic, long-distance aircraft.Technology ReadyThe technology needed for development of hypersonicaircraft is now available at low risk, a point stressed byKeyworth and DARPA. Despite the budget cuts of the 1960s,continuing advances in jet propulsion engines, advancedaeronautics, and materials science have provided the essentialbasis for realizing transatmospheric vehicles, calledTAVs. An airturboramjet, for example, has been under developmentat Aerojet Corp. for nearly 20 years; Lockheedhas designed a TAV resembling the Space Shuttle; andRockwell has designs for a TAV that would be lifted to highaltitude by a jet-powered carrier aircraft. NASA, which hascontinued its research in hypersonic flight since the 1960sat Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, plans the constructionthere of a viable hypersonic wind tunnel along the lines ofthose first built by Antonio Ferri.In a recent report to Congress, NASA outlined a 15-year,billion-dollar program that would lead to a Mach-12 transportcapable of carrying 300 to 500 passengers. This TAVwould take off like a conventional aircraft, cruise and behighly maneuverable within the atmosphere, and enter andleave orbit on demand. For a such a vehicle, no single conventionalpropulsion system could operate efficiently fromtakeoff to hypersonic cruise. Thus hypersonic research hasconcentrated on multiple propulsion systems. The separateengines necessary would include a turbojet for speedsthrough Mach 3 and a ramjet from Mach 3 to Mach 6. NASAconsiders a hydrogen-fueled scramjet as the most appropriatepropulsion system for speeds above Mach 6. 2 A combinedsystem might include an integrated turboramjet engineand turboramjet rocket.The basic feasibility of building a TAV, according to NASA,was demonstrated by 1983, but combiningthe technologiesinvolved is a major challenge. Advanced materials must beused in the engines and structure, and advanced avionics,aerodynamics, and propulsion systems have to be developed.Propulsion EvolutionIn 1965, NASA created the Hypersonic Research EngineProject at Langley Air Force Base. Since that time, a handfulof aerospace scientists and engineers have devoted theirwork to demonstrating that an air-breathing engine canachieve 10 times the performance of simple rocket propulsion.The reason for this potential 10-fold advantage is thata rocket must carry most of the weight of its fuel supply inthe form of oxygen. In contrast, air-breathing engines simplyscoop the necessary oxygen out of the atmosphere.These air-breathing aircraft need carry only hydrogen, whichcan be in the form of jet fuel hydrocarbons or cryogenicallycooled liquid methane. Without any oxygen aboard, thereis a 10-fold savings in weight. In addition, an air-breathingengine is far more efficient and durable than a rocket forhypersonic flight within the atmosphere, up to about 200,000feet.Today the turbojet is the most widely used air-breathingaircraft engine, operating efficiently up to speeds of abouttwice the speed of sound—Mach 2. It contains a turbinethat increases the flow of air through the engine to ensurethat sufficient oxygen is present for efficiently burning thehydrocarbon fuel. Above Mach 2, the forward speed of theaircraft is high enough to "ram" air through the engine atthe required rate without need of a turbine. At the higher54 January-February 1986 FUSION


supersonic velocities, the "ramjet" makes for a lightweight,more efficient propulsion than that of the ordinary turbojet.Beyond Mach 6, aerodynamic considerations dictate thathypersonic aircraft operate at altitudes higher than 100,000feet. The specific reason for this is that aerodynamic drag isa function of the density of the air. By going to higheraltitudes at which the air density decreases exponentially,drag is decreased to a minimum while sufficient aerodynamiclift is maintained. However, the low air density leadsto a substantial reduction in the rate at which oxygen canbe rammed through the engine.The solution to this aerodynamic-propulsion dichotomyof divergent requirements was provided by Antonio Ferriand his collaborators: the scramjet (Figure 1).In the scramjet design, most of the underside of the aircraftis utilized to scoop air into the engines. Early ramjetdesign concepts sought to keep the combustion process atsubsonic speeds. By disturbing the airflow in front of theengine, the incoming oxygen could be drastically slowed.But at greater than Mach 6 hypersonic speeds it becomesextremely difficult to slow the air inflow below the speedof sound. Even if this were possible, the resultant slowingprocess heats the air to 4,000 degrees F. At these temperaturesthe air molecules dissociate, making the combustionprocess far more inefficient. Additionally, there is the problemof the turbulent shock wave created when the air passesbelow the speed of sound.The scramjet therefore is predicated on achieving combustionwith air intakes at supersonic velocities. NASALangley scientists, in fact, succeeded in developing a dualmode scramjet engine. The innards of the scramjet are honeycombedwith fuel injection outlets. Half of them facetoward the rear and the other half are at a perpendicularangle to the airflow.At low Mach numbers, most of the fuel is injected parallelto the airflow to prevent the combustion process from occurringtoo far forward. As speeds increase, more and morefuel is injected perpendicular to the airflow in order tomaintain efficient burning.The Langley dual-mode scramjet module was tested upto speeds of Mach 7. The only reason it did not achieveeven higher speeds was that Mach 7 was the limit of thewind tunnel. NASA states that its current scramjet can attainMach 12 speeds, and in its recent report to Congress NASAreported, "The upper limit of speed for useful airbreathingFigure 3MCDONNELL DOUGLAS'S MACH 5 ORIENT EXPRESSThis methane-fueled "Orient Express " is based on state-of-the-art technology. It would carry 300 or more passengersto the Far East within a few hours, operate with minimal sonic boom, and would not disturb the ozone layer.FUSION January-February 1986 55


Figure 4LOCKHEED'S NEAR-TERM TAVThis Lockheed design for a near-term transatmospheric vehicle would be capable of operating at speeds from thesubsonic to Mach 30. Powered by a combination of turbojet and rocket engines, this TAV could be a secondgenerationSpace Shuttle delivering payloads to space as well as a hypersonic air transport.propulsion has not been determined."Survey of Operating RegimesThe operating regimes for various existing and futuresupersonic and hypersonic aircraft are shown in Figure 2.Existing types of hydrocarbon-fueled ramjets operate in theregion up to Mach 4. Note the necessarily higher operationalaltitudes needed for maintaining sufficiently low drag athigher speeds. Cryogenic hydrocarbon-fueled ramjetswould operate in the region up to Mach 8. Such hypersoniccraft could function in various missions as fighter interceptors,recoverable launch space vehicles, intercontinentalpassenger transports, and strategic defense platforms. Cryogenichydrogen-fueled scramjet designs have been testedin wind tunnels and are currently projected as operating upto Mach 12.Hypersonic aircraft designs have been developed for eachof these operational regimes. A McDonnell Douglas designfor a cryogenic methane-fueled Mach 5 transport, which isbased on existing technology, is shown in Figure 3. This hasbeen dubbed the "Orient Express" and could carry morethan 300 passengers to the Far East within a few hours. Itscombined aeronautic and propulsion characteristics makethis concept the easiest to attain with existing technologyand the easiest to operate at the highest efficiencies. The80,000-foot-plus cruise altitude leads to minimal sonicbooms—less than half those produced by the existing Concorde—inaddition to the least disturbance of the Earth'sozone layer and the most efficient aerodynamics for economicfuel utilization.Lockheed has proposed another approach that combinesa turbojet engine drive with conventional rockets in a craftthat looks very similar to the existing Space Shuttle (Figure4). This transatmospheric vehicle or TAV would use ordinaryturbojets for landing and takeoff at conventional airports,and rockets would be used to lift it into near-spaceorbit. The dual-powered TAV would be a combinationspacecraft and conventional air transport, designed to op-56 January-February 1986 FUSION


erate equally well on transcontinental routes or at the fringesof space. It could achieve far more economical delivery ofpayloads to space than the existing Space Shuttle.Technology IntegrationThe TAV cannot be viewed as a simple amalgam of unrelatedcomponents. Performance requirements are so highthat every aspect of the design must be integrated withevery other. The very shape of the aircraft must meet theneeds of the propulsion system. Dr. Lee Beach, who headsup the hypersonic flight work at NASA-Langley, put it thisway: "In our terminology, the undersurface of the vehicle,all of it, is the engine. The forebody precompresses theflow coming into the propulsion system. The aft surface ofthe vehicle is the nozzle, designed to divert exhaustsmoothly. In hypersonic vehicles, an integrated airframedesign is not just a performance increment. It's absolutelyessential."The need for cryogenically cooled liquid fuels can alsobe seen from this perspective. Before being burned forpower, the liquid fuel, which has been cooled to cryogenictemperatures near absolute zero, is used as a coolant. Sustainedhypersonic flight means that the wings must operateat high temperatures. Cryogenic cooling systems will beused throughout the TAV to reduce heat at the most criticalpoints.The most important element in the integrated design ofa TAV is the science of hypersonic flow—engineering shockwaves. At high Mach numbers, the Shockwaves created bythe aircraft cannot be treated with conventional fluid mechanicalconcepts. The hypersonic shock produces plasma—ionizationof the air—and the plasma dynamics ofthese hypersonic shock waves play a crucial role in theoperating characteristics of the TAV.It is not coincidental, therefore, that hypersonic pioneerslike Adolf Busemann and Antonio Ferri initiated and pioneeredresearch in the 1950s into the hydrodynamics ofenergy-dense plasma configurations. Today this line of investigationhas led to the development of many advancednuclear fusion concepts, including the spheromak, reversedfield pinch, and compact tori. Afterthe shutdown ofmost NASA projects in the late 1960s and the almost completedisappearance of significant hypersonic aircraft development,however, this highly productive cross disciplinecollaboration between aeronautic and plasma-fusionscientists was disrupted. Hopefully, the reinitiation of seriousTAV development will lead to the rapid resurrection.The Nuclear TAVOne of the original concepts for fueling advanced TAVtransports was the use of nuclear fission reactors. Detaileddesigns were actually developed decades ago for safe, cleannuclear powered aircraft. The TAV has sufficient size toutilize nuclear power, and significant advances in nuclearreactor technology make its potential incorporation intoadvanced TAVs feasible and desirable. The introduction ofnuclear-powered TAVs would make transport into nearspaceorbit sufficiently economical to support large-scalecolonization of space, the Moon, and nearby planets.Theother area that theTAVwill revolutionize is materials.The TAV will operate in a highly stressed environment andmust be durable with a minimum of maintenance problems.The structure for the aircraft must be lightweight aswell as relatively simple to permit inspection with standardnondestructive techniques. TAV materials under considerationrange from advanced metai alloys, such as the quasicrystalmetallic glasses being researched at the NationalBureau of Standards, to advanced composites and ceramics.Two recent developments in resin matrix compositematerials include the new classes of carbon fibers capableof being used in mass production and the new toughresins like elastomer modified epoxies and polyethertherketone,a thermplastic. This particular material, called PEEK,makes a good laminating resin and when so used will givecomposite materials an interlaminar fracture toughness thatis an order of magnitude higher than that of existing epoxyresin-matrix composites.Other materials concepts are being harnessed for moreadvanced propulsion systems. For example, it has beensuggested that metastable helium can be produced in asolid-fuel form by aligning the helium atoms and bondingthem together to produce an excited but stable state. Astrong bonding of the atoms will then provide a solid witha high melting temperature and have a useful life of up toeight years. Its energy content is projected as being 100times greater than conventional chemical fuels.SDI MissionsThe TAV would make essential contributions to the SDIprogram. It could provide a cheaper means for deployingand repairing satellites in space and could provide certainrapid deployment capabilities not possible with alternativesystems. According to the Air Force, "The TAV allows us toconsider new missions for which no capability existed before,while providing an alternative way to perform existingmissions."Keyworth's Office of Science and Technology Policy haspresented a plan to implement many features of the TAVproposal prepared by NASA. The plan would combine federalR&D work on advanced aeronautics to take into accountcivilian hypersonic transport, increase basic researchat universities, increase federal support for advanced aeronauticsresearch, and begin to work out now how TAV willfunction in future air traffic control systems.It is clear that the science and engineering to perfecthypersonic aircraft are possible in the immediate future. Sowith the proper funding, we may soon be able to board thehypersonic Orient Express and in less than three hoursarrive in Tokyo.Charles B. Stevens is director of fusion engineering forthe Fusion Energy Foundation.Notes1. A ramjet has a specially shaped duct open at both ends in which the air forcombustion is compressed by the forward motion of the engine, mixes withthe fuel, and burns: the exhaust gases issue in a jef from the rear. A scramjetis a supersonic combustion ramjet.2. Ramjets utilize high flight velocities to produce the necessary air flow throughtheir engines: turbojets use turbines to generate this air flow.FUSION January-February 1986 57


Making ElectricityHOW TO BUILD AN ELECTROSTATICINDUCTION GENERATOR by Thoula FrangosThe first observation of electrostaticsprobably occurred with thecave man, who noticed that if hestroked fur it would get "charged,"and that in the dark he could observesparks on the fur. By at least the year600 BC, the Greeks of Thales observedthat rubbing amber caused itto be "charged," attracting dust andother light particles.A scientist, however, must domore than just observe; he mustmake hypotheses and experiments.William Gilbert was a scientist in thissense. While a physician to QueenElizabeth in about the year 1600, Gilbertbecame the first to do extensiveresearch in magnetism and electrostatics.He wrote the famous bookDe Magnete, but he had no machinefor collecting charge and makingelectricity.The first electrostatic generatorwas invented in 1660 by the ingeniousOtto von Guricke. It was a friction-typegenerator where the experimenterproduced charges byrubbing his hand on a smooth sulfurball mounted on a shaft. It was notuntil the next century, in 1753, however,that induction of charge wasdiscovered by the English scientistJohn Canton. His experimentsshowed that an object that collectedcharge would induce the oppositecharge in another object. Canton wasalso the first scientist in England toverify Benjamin Franklin's hypothesison the nature of electricity.In 1787, another English physicist,Abraham Bennet, invented the firstelectrostatic induction generator,called "Bennet's Doubler." Afterthat, there were continuous improvementson this device, each capableof producing greater voltage,or energy, than the previous ones.A Modern Induction GeneratorMore recently, A.D. Moore, anAmerican professor, designed a simplerdevice using Bennet's principle.He called it Dirod 2 because its basicparts were a disc and rods. Dirod 2was designed especially to teach studentsthe basics of electricity and engines.The experimenter generates electricitywhen he rotates a crank, causingeach of 12 metal rods to pick upcharges from the inductors andStuart K. LewisDirod 2 as built by Dr. Robert Moon ofthe Fusion Energy Foundation:58 January-February 1986 FUSION The Young Scientist


transmit them to collector plates viaconductive tape, called brushes. Thevoltage of charge builds up on thecollector plates.To see how this device generateselectricity look at Figure 1. The disc,D, is made of Plexiglas, a high-gradeinsulator (an insulator is a nonconductorof electricity). The rods,numbered Rl through R12, the twocollector plates, and the two attachedinductors, are made of metal.There is a neutral wire (or chain), N,that has conducting brushes on eachend, which are now touching R12 andR6.As you can see, the conductingbrush touching R12 has a positivecharge, while the conducting brushtouching R6 has a negative charge.There are also conducting brushesattached to the collector plates thatare now touching RIO and R4.Now where does the initial chargecome from to start the build-up ofvoltage? The experimenter's handlingand touching of the plexiglassby working with it will put enoughcharge on the surface to "induce"charges on the collectors.Since unlike charges attract eachother, the minus (negative) chargeson inductor 1 will attract plus (positive)charges and cause them to appearon rod R12. The opposite occursfor inductor 2 and rod R6, wherenegative charges collect. The chargeson R12 and R6 are called inducedcharges, and these rods will now becomecharge carriers. The rods rotateand touch the conductingbrushes that stick out from the collectors.In this manner they depositmost of their charge (about threefourths)onto the collector plates,which build up charge with each rotation.It might seem as though the machinecould continue to accumulatecharge up to millions or billions ofvolts. Actually, the machine willreach only 90,000 volts, because anyadditional voltage over this limit escapesthe metal collectors, forminga corona in the air around the collectors.You can see this corona—brightspots near the conducting brushes—whenyou operate your machinein the dark.What You Will NeedTo build Dirod 2, you will needequipment that is found in a schoolmachine shop or a mechanic's shop.This is a good project, in fact, for aclass that has access to a machineshop. Here is the shop equipmentyou will need:LatheReamerDrillBandsaw or jigsawBelt sanderCenter punchFileTriangles for measuringSolderHere are the materials you willneed. You may be able to find muchof this second-hand.7 pieces of Plexiglas (V4-inch or3 /s-inch thick)1 major plate, 9" x 9"1 minor plate, 9" x 7"2 corona shields, 7" x 7"2 supports for shields, V*" x 3"1 disc, 6-inch diameter12 aluminum rods ('A-inch diameter),5 inches long2 aluminum or brass plates, 3" x4" X Va"6 feet heavy copper wire, VB" rodstock1 mechanical crank1 metal shaft1 plywood (for base), about 20"x 20"24 screws, 8-32 machine screws12 Allen screwsepoxy gluekerosene (small amount)silver conducting paint (smallamount)tracing paper or vellum for drawingBuilding Dirod 2If you have never built anything asambitious as Dirod 2, this will giveyou invaluable experience with thenature of materials and how to adaptthem to your needs. You will alsolearn how to use hand methods andsimple machine processes to completeyour project.Collectorplate 1Figure 1FRONT VIEW OF DIROD 2SHOWING DISTRIBUTIONOF CHARGES^ e negative (-) and positive(+) charges on the inductorsare picked up by the rotatingmetal rods, numbered Rlthrough R12, and depositedon the collector plates.Here is how to put Dirod 2 together:First, look at the drawings to familiarizeyourself with the device.Front and side views are shown inFigures 3 and 4, while Figure2 showshow the entire apparatus comes together.Before you start building, itis a good idea to make full size drawingsof Figures 3 and 4 on heavy tracingpaper or vellum; it will help toavoid mistakes.The Main PartsA wood base supports both thegenerator and crank that operates it.The two main vertical parts attachedto the base are Plexiglas plates; theminor one supports the shaft thatconnects the disc with the crank, andthe major one supports the disc itself,corona shields, and collectorplates. The collector plates in turnThe Young Scientist FUSION January-February 1986 59


support their own inductor.The corona shields are epoxygluedto their Plexiglas supports( 3 A" x 3"), which are screwed intothe major Plexiglas plate at a 30° angle.The inductor is brass or aluminum,1 /t-inch in diameter and attachedto the collector plates byepoxy joint with silver paint. The inductorwill bend over, but not touchthe corona shield.Figure 2SCHEMATIC OF DIROD 2This scale drawing of Dirod 2shows how all the parts fit together.Inset (a) shows a frontview and inset (b) shows a sideview.Working with the Plexiglas. All thePlexiglas pieces should be 3 /s-inch or1 /4-inch stock. Another trade namefor this is lucite. Plexiglas melts whenoverheated, so drill it very slowly andcarefully. Mark outlines accuratelywith scratch lines. We found it bestto cut the Plexiglas with a jigsaw andthen file the edges, but you can alsorough-cut the piece on a bandsawand then smooth the edges on a beltsander or disc sander.Use a sharp drill, low speed, andslow feed to drill the Plexiglas. Thedanger here is overheating, resultingin scoring. I recommend drydrilling and light pressure; go in Vsinch and back out; then go farther.Remove chips from the drill as needed.In drilling for an accurate fit to ashaft or bar, drill the hole undersizeand follow with a reamer.Threading holes. To tap a hole formachine screw threads, always usekerosene.Making the disc. Drill the shaft holefirst. Use a center punch to make anindentation. Start with a small drill toenlarge the indentation; then enlargethis with a larger drill. Followwith the 3 /a-inch drill. The referenceside must be down.Marking the disc. Next scribe (thatis, scratch or mark) the disc edgewhere the 12 rods will be placed. Wetaped our full-scale drawing to thedisc and marked the disk from thedrawing. Use the center punch forrod holes after marking locations using45° and 30-60° triangles. Drill rodholes.Epoxy-glue the disc to the shaft.Rounding the rod ends. Using alathe, chuck the rod in a collet. Withhigh speed, use a file to bevel theend at about 45°. Shift file to reducethe two ridges.Mounting the rods. Here again,your drill may give anywhere from atight to a too-loose fit. If tight, usethe drill press as a press to force rodsin—but with moderate pressure. Tootight a fit may stress the Plexiglas, inwhich case you should polish downthe rods. If too loose, fix rods intoholes with epoxy.Preparing the collector plates.These 4" x 3" aluminum or brassplates of Vs-inch thickness haverounded corners with a 1-inch ra-60 January-February 1986 FUSION The Young Scientist


dius. Add corona trim to the platesusing heavy copper wire or Vis-inchrod stock. Apply it to edge and epoxyglueit to plate. We found brass easierto work with, and we solderedthe trim to the plates.Preparing the inductors. These arealuminum or brass with ends roundedand polished. (You could also usecopper tubing.) Epoxy-glue them tothe collector plate, using silver conductingpaint to bridge the epoxy.You can also solder the inductors tothe plate.Making the brushes. Use slipknotsemiconducting tape, which servesas shielding to reduce stress aroundirregular points in high-voltage powercable splices. Make the brushes Viinch wide and 1 inch long by foldingthe tape over once. You will needfour such brushes, two neutralbrushes connected to the neutralchain and two others connected tothe collector plates.A note on the screws. Except forthe wood screws, all are 8-32 machinescrews and roundheaded orAllen screws. Allen screws have noheads; they are hardened steel setscrewsfor holding parts on a shaft.The Corona TestOnce you have assembled the Dirod2, try a corona test. Take the Dirod2 into a completely dark roomand turn the crank to run it. At first,only four little discharges at thebrushes are seen. As your eyes becomeadapted to the dark, more andmore corona appears. Try everything.Draw sparks. If it is coronabalanced,you will find that the coronawill shift around in odd andspectacular ways. If good corona failsto develop, observe close by from allangles. A sharpness somewhere mayhave been overlooked. The appearanceof corona there gives it away.Cover the sharp edge with conductingtape.Here is what Professor Moorewrote about his invention: "Let mepredict. Build the Dirod 2 in youryouth. Put it away in a closet, go outin the world to make your way. Whenyou retire 50 years later, come back,take it out, and run it. It will welcomeyou with sparks. This story is wrongin one respect: You will never put itaway."BooksP.T. Barnum Was Rightby Howard HaydenNuclear Power: Both Sidesby Michio Kaku and Jennifer TrainerNew York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1982$6.95 (paperback)Physicist Michio Kaku's plan for thisbook is simple enough: Get pronuclearand antinuclear people to contributeessays on both sides of varioustopics, write brief introductions to eachtopic, and market it. The result is a bookthat is "balanced" in the same sensethat a debate between one perpetualmotion-machinenut and one physicistis balanced: both sides are presented;Amory Lovins gets equal time with nuclearscientists.Obviously wanting to present thevery best antinuclear case, he has cho*sen fellow experts like "unsafe-at-anyspeed"Ralph Nader, "soft-energypaths"Amory Lovins, and "Chicago-Seven" David Dellinger along with thenuclear disestablishment representativesJohn Gof man and KarlZ. Morgan.About these latter two hazards-of-radiationexperts, Judge Patrick F. Kellyof the U.S. District Court in Kansas recentlywrote, "The court rejects theopinion testimony of Dr. Morgan andDr. Gofman because they both evidencean intellectually dishonest inventionof arguments to protect theiropinions. . . ."The book's subtitle is "The Best ArgumentsFor and Against the MostControversial Technology," but if theseare the best antinuclear argumentsavailable (and they are the best I haveseen), there is no controversy!Recent research has shown that thescientific community is overwhelminglypronuclear, increasingly so as expertisein energy matters increases.This places the burden of proof on theshoulders of the antinukes. This review,therefore, addresses their arguments,although it should be noted thatthe pronuclear arguments are wellwritten and interesting.Health Effects of Radiation ExposureThere seems to be no quarrel withhigh-dose data on radiation exposureand cancer. If a population is exposedto 10,000 person-rems (with individu-The Young Scientist FUSION January-February 1986 61


als receiving on the order of 100 remseach) one fatal cancer will result. Thelinear hypothesis is that the same populationdose is required if all individualsreceive low doses (on the order ofrems or less). That is, the same 10,000person-rem exposure will result in asingle cancer if 10,000 people each receive1 rem. This is the view that prevailsamong health physicists, althoughit is believed to overestimatelow-dose hazards.The Mancuso study on radiation andcancer, frequently cited by the antinukes,is a farce and has been discountedby all scientific groups thathave studied it. In the book, NuclearRegulatory Commission health physicistAllen Brodsky describes his firsthandexperiences with the Mancusogroup and leaves no doubt that theirprocedures were unscientific at best.62 January-February 1986 FUSIONNevertheless, antinuke expert KarlMorgan uses the Mancuso study tobolster his own case that a cancer doseis only 120 to 140 person rems whenindividual doses are low. He defendsthis view with the following invention:Leukemia allegedly dominates overmyelomas (bone marrow tumors) whenindividual doses are high and othermedical stress is great, and the oppositeis true for low doses. Curiously,however, no medical teams have reportedthat the leading cause of deathin high radiation areas is myeloma!John Cofman has the courtesy to tellthe reader that everybody is out of stepbut John Gofman. Scientists and academia,we are told, are supposed to"provide the mantle of credibility" forthe government and utilities who"work hand in glove" to provide us withpernicious technology. He evidentlyregards himself as the Lone Ranger,singularly capable of independentthought and action. His discussion isbacked up by (you guessed it) Gofman'sown testimony in the CongressionalRecord and Gofman's own antinuclearbook.Containment of Radioactive SpeciesOn this subject, Jan Beyea, a physicistfor the Audubon Society, speaksfor the antinukes. He agrees that all iswell with nuclear power plants andwould continue to be well if the probabilitycalculations were correct—buthe distrusts them. They are not basedon experience, he says.An entire reactor was built and testedjust to see what happens when a largefailure loss-of-coolant accident occurs,but apparently Beyea doesn'tagree that some direct experience wasgained here. He is also worried abouta steam explosion, which could inprinciple breach the containmentbuilding, as though methods of handlingsteam are an unexplored, frontiertechnology. Even less credibly, heimplies that at this point in the 20thcentury, we have no experience withpipes and valves. Ever been to a nuclearpower plant?Beyea is also inclined to believe thatwe have a "flat learning curve," learningnothing from experience, contraryto all experience in all industries. Inconclusion, he says, nuclear power isjust too dangerous and we won't learnanything.Waste DisposalIntroducing the section on nuclearwaste, editor Kaku asserts that "reprocessingremoves only plutonium," thusobscuring what reprocessing is allabout—turning the vast majority of theso-called waste from nuclear plants intousable fuel.Nuclear by-products do not leave insmoke or settle out as ash, but ratherremain with the fuel and in fact onlycomprise a few percent of the volume.They are intensely radioactive. Reprocessingis a procedure for removingthis waste from the fuel (plutonium andU-235) and potential fuel (U-238). It isreasonable to use the fuel and to disposeof the small amount of waste.Another antinuclear spokesman,Robert Pohl, is very worried about radwaste.Citing a list of possible uses forsalt domes, he asserts that it is extremelylikely that some future unsuspectingculture will come upon a radwastedepository and proceed to dieby the millions. Are we to assume suchoverwhelming stupidity on the part ofour descendants?Somehow, these folks are supposedto be messing around in salt domesbut fail to notice that (1) there is funnylookingglass and stainless steelaround; (2) people who work with itget burns and get sick, sometimes fatally;(3) the most dangerous salt tastesfunny; and (4) people who eat the saltget sick.Also, civilization must have considerablydeclined because (5) there areno geiger counters, and (6) there areno tourists whose film is fogged by theradiation.Nuclear EconomicsEditor Kaku's greatest contributionmay be that of not regarding Ralph Naderas an expert on nuclear physics. Intrue institutional fashion, he has kickedNader upstairs and declared him anexpert on economics!In Nader's view, nuclear technologyis impossibly expensive, and as proofhe cites the 14 years it takes us in theUnited States to build a nuclear plant.Humbly he takes no credit for the delays,and fails to mention that in therest of the world it takes about 6 yearsfor the same American manufacturersto build an identical plant.Then there are the economics of Mr.and Mrs. Amory Lovins. The two Lov-Books


ins are offended whenever electricityis used for heat, and therein make amoral case against nuclear power. Perhapsthey haven't heard that reactorsproduce heat. Princeton law professorRichard Falk then does his best to convinceus that nuclear power and nuclearweapons are strongly linked. Hemisses the essential point: The militaryhas for decades successfully builtnuclear weapons without bothering togenerate electricity in the process.Finally, we have on the antinuclearside, David Dellinger. His essay is devoidof references, but instead tells offirsthand experience "from peopledownwind and downstream of theplants—farmers, veterinarians . . .parents of children born dead or defective.. . ."cr P.T. Barnum was right!Howard Hayden is an associate professorof physics at the University ofConnecticut at Storrs.Refuting the Second LawThe Thermodynamic Theory andEngineering Design of Super CarrotHeat Enginesby Wayne Arthur ProellLas Vegas: Cloud Hill Press, 1985439 pages, $200After reading through the author'sfulsome acknowledgements and dedications,as well as his preface—all ofwhich suggest that this book is a majorphilosophical attack upon entropytheory—the reader is left more than alittle bemused by its contents.This reader, at any rate, admits tobeing unable to read more than half ofthe book, which is tediously full ofthought experiments about impracticalengines, worked out in overbearingdetail. As far as we could see, witha peek at the ending, the author is givingus a theory of refrigerators. It escapesus how an increase in local neg-NASA's 'Spacetacular' Film"The Dream Is Alive"Produced and directedby Graeme Ferguson37 minutes, June 1985Every Fusion reader should seeNASA's new film "The Dream Is Alive."If anything, NASA's own description ofthe film is an understatement. Thepromotional reads: "Get a window seataboard the next Space Shuttle. 'TheDream is Alive' offers an insider's viewof America's space program."The film features spectacular inflightfootage shot by 14 astronauts onthree separate missions. See astronautsat work both inside and outsidethe spacecraft; the deployment of scientificand communications satellites;the dramatic capture and repair of the'Solar Max' satellite and the first spacewalk by an American woman astronaut,Kathy Sullivan."Experience a thunderous SpaceShuttle liftoff from atop the launch padtower. Sense the weightlessness of azero-gravity environment and view theEarth from more than 200 miles out inspace."BooksSmithsonian Institution/Lockheed CorporationTheater viewers watching the Space Shuttle Remote Manipulator arm in actionon a giant screen.The film was produced and directedby Graeme Ferguson of Imax SystemsCorporation for the Smithsonian's NationalAir and Space Museum, and isnarrated by Walter Cronkite. It wasfunded by Lockheed Corporation andthe museum as a public service, andwill open at more than 40 huge-screenIMAX theaters in 1985 and 1986.Would that television achieved thisquality of excitement and adventure.The film is especially a must for children.—Carol WhiteFUSION January-February 1986 63


Cannonball TargetContinued from page 9tion—above 50 percent—and a highhydrodynamic efficiency in the rangeof 16 percent. The numbers of hotelectrons emitted from the rear of thefirst type of cannonball target werefound to be less than those seen in thesingle-foil ablative target. This tendencywas even more noticeable for thesecond type.Overall, the energetic hot electronsare mainly absorbed by the cannonballSecond LawContinued from page 63lows us to measure certain global featuresof the electromagnetic action ofwhich the motion is a by-product; butall causal action must be fundamentallyhydrodynamic in character ratherthan randomly statistical.The true refutation of the SecondLaw begins with the existence of theauthor. Since life exists, and it can notexist upon the premises of entropytheory, then it is that theory—ratherthan life—that is wrong.—Carol WhiteMeasure Up toTake the guesswork out of aestheticform and function, and with precisionand ease allow the time proven goldenproportion to work for you. TheseGolden Link Calipers will enable youto proportionally measure many things,both great and small, from the ringsand moons of Saturn, to random cracksin trees, to a phylum of solitary bees.With the Golden Link Calipers, youcan see how the golden proportionpredominates in great art, in the laboratory,and in nature. Invented by adentist and engineer to aid in makingwell-proportioned prosthetics, theGolden Link Calipers have many usesfor geometers, artists, architects, designers—andcreative minds in general.To order:Send check or money order for $103.45($98.95 plus $4.50 shipping) toNestor Engineering Associates, Inc.Division of Surgical Instruments148 NE 28th Street Miami, FL 33137cavity wall. Their energy is thus convertedinto plasma generation andheating, which then effectively drivesthe implosive acceleration of the innersurface representing the fuel targetsurface in this experiment. Furthermore,low-energy hot electrons in thecavity also become useful in drivingthe implosion of the inner surface.It was found that the formation ofthe cavity structure of a plane foil canmodify the energy distribution of thehot electrons. This modification of thehot-electron spectrum appears to dependon the cavity materials and geometry.Therefore, proper design ofspherical cannonballs can suppress thehot-electron preheating of pellet fusionfuel otherwise seen in direct-drive,long-wavelength laser fusion.Osaka is also continuing work oncannonball targets with other types ofinertial confinement fusion drives suchas short wavelength lasers and particlebeams. By exploring various cannonballconfigurations with a wide rangeof different drivers, they plan to demonstratethe science needed for highgain inertial fusion energy generation.—Charles B. StevensAids Spreads Like TBContinued from page 8disease" as a direct result of the introductionof just one infected animal.It seems probable that in the prosperousWest, LAV is still only transmittedby per-cutaneous inoculation, orby anal intercourse, but that in thetropics it is already being spread alsoby the respiratory route with or withoutthe cooperation of M tuberculosishominis. The prospects for the lessprosperous inhabitants of the crowdedcities and villages of the world beyondthe next decade are bleak. 15References1. J.M. Ziza, F. Brun-Vezinet, A. Venet, et al."Lymphadenopathy-associated virus (LAV) isolatedfrom bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in AIDSrelatedcomplex with lymphoid interstitial pneumonitis."N Engl J Med 313:183 (1985).2. J.M. Wallace, R.G. Barbers, J.S. Oishi, H. Prince."Cellular and T-lymphocyte subpopulation profilesin bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from patientswith AIDS and pneumonitis." Am RevRespirDis 130:786 (1984).3. G.B. Scott, P.E. Buck, J.G. Leterman, F.LBloom, W.P. Parks. "AIDS in infants." N Engl JMed310:76(1964).4. P. Solal-Celigny, L.J. Couderc, D. Herman, etal. "Lymphoid interstitial pneumonitis in AIDSrelatedcomplex." Am Rev Respir Dis (in press).5. CDC. "Revision of case definition of AIDS fornational reporting—United States." MMWR 35:373(1985).6. A.E. Pitchenik, C. Cole, B. Russell, M.A. Fischl,T.J. Spira, D.E. Snider. 'Tuberculosis, atypicalmycobateriosis, and AIDS among Haitian andnon-Haitian patients in South Florida." Ann InternMed 101:641 (1984).7. H. Francis, J. Mann, R. Colebunders, J. Curran,P. Piot, T. Quinn. "Utility of the HTLV III ELISAassay in the diagnosis of AIDS in Central Africa."Proceedings of the 6th International Meetingof the International Society for STD Research,Brighton July 31 -Aug. 2,1985 (in press).8. J.J. Goedert, S.H. Weiss, R.J. Biggar, et al."Lesser AIDS and tuberculosis." Lancet 2: 52(1985).9. T. Jonckheer, P. Henrivaux, J. Levy, et al. "HTLVIII infection in African families." Proceedings ofthe 6th International Meeting of the InternationalSociety for STD Research, Brighton July 31-Aug. 2,1985 (inpress).10. M.A. Gonda, F. Wong-Stall, R.C. Gallo, J.E.Clements, O. Narayan, R.V. Gilden. "Sequencehomology and morphologic similarity of HTLVIII and visna virus, a pathogenic lentivirus." Science227:173(1985).11. G.M. Shaw, M.E. Harper, B.H. Hahn, etal. "HTLVIII infections in brains of children and adults withAIDS encephalopathy." Science 227: 177(1985).12. H.Thormar, P.A. Palsson. "Visnaand maedi—two slow infections of sheep and their etiologicalagents." Perspect Virol 5:291 (1967).13. G. Querat, V. Barban, N. Sauze, et al. "Highlylytic and persistent lentiviruses naturally presentin sheep with progressive pneumonia aregenetically distinct." J Virol 52:672 (1984).14. P.A. Palsson. "Maedi and visna in sheep." InR.H. Kimberlin, ed. Slow virus diseases of animalsand man. (New York: North-Holland PublishingCompany, 1976) p. 17.15. J. Seale. "AIDS virus infection: prognosis andtransmission." J Roy Soc Med 78:613 (1985).64 January-February 1986FUSION


The most cnaiienging,controversial sciencejournal now in a new,expanded formatIn the current issue:"The Lageos Satellite: A 'Laboratory' forTesting General and Special Relativity"by Benny A. Soldano, Professor of Physics,Furman University, Greenville, S.£.On the gravitational and inertial aspects of mass."Non-Dopplerian Redshift Interpretations in theElectron-Positron Lattice Model of Space"by Menachem Simhony, Racah Institute ofPhysics, The Hebrew University, JerusalemA theory that rules out high recessional velocitiesof distant galaxies, making the "Big Bang"unnecessary."Considerations on Hydrodynamics" and "Noteson the Mathematical Theory of ElectrodynamicSolenoids" by Eugenio Beltrami (1835-1900)Papers in the Riemannian hydrodynamic school byone of Riemann's successors, translated intoEnglish for the first time.The quarterly IJFE covers the latest experimental results, and thehypotheses behind coming breakthroughs in:• plasmas at high energy densities, and nuclear fusion• coherent, directed forms of electromagnetic action• physics of living processes, with applications to medicine"It is essential that articles in the journal are of such anature that they bring about the birth of new concepts. Thatwould be very unlikely to occur with the referee system ofjudging papers for acceptance that is now in use in mostscientific journals. The referees always base their reviews onwhat is known in physics, biology, or biophysics as it standstoday; but often there is a greater understanding, newinterpretations, new explanations for scientific phenomenathat should becoyne known and discussed. It is the IJFEeditorial policy to give authors with a new concept a chanceto defend their ideas and theses before acceptance forpublication."


As the feature articles in this issue demonstrate, withoutthe scientific method of Leonardo da Vinci and thelater work of the Gotlingen School in Germany, supersonicflight, rocket flight, and other achievements ofmodern science would not exist at all.Science historian Dino de Paoli makes it clear thatLeonardo's work on hydrodynamics not only is slid valid,but also is the only standpoint from which we can understandthe action of the real fluids that make up 99.99The wind tunnel facility at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, whereNASA is testing a Mach 7 Scram jet. Air is heated to 3,400" F. bythe electric arc at left. Shown in the open window is the front of thescramjet engine model. NASA has outlined a 15-year, billion-dollarprogram that would lead to a Mach-12 transport capable of carrying300 to 500 passengers.FEF research director Uwe Parpart Itenke elaborateson the Riemannian geometrical method of the GottingenSchool, highlighting the hydrodynamics work ofLudwig Prandtl and contrasting this successful approachto the dead-end outlook of the opposition, exemplifiedin this country by Theodore von Karman.Italian FEF director Giuseppe Filipponi provides acapsule history of the Riemannian tradition in Italy, demonstratinghow this led to the rapid Italian progress inaerodynamics in the 1920s and 1930s.Fusion news editor Charles B. Stevens reviews thecurrent status of hypersonic flight, describing how theUnited States could leap-frog the supersonic stage andright now develop aircraft that fly at 12 times the speedof sound.

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines