Ill sx GALAXIES AND EDDIES 9 » Fractal View of Galaxy Clusters In Chapters 6 and 7, the Kock and Peano fractals ae Inrodued via-geomorpholoey, but the mou sigaican tes of fal ae rooted elsewhere, Inching toward the tal Stream af tiene, tht chapter and the nxt two tackle two ise exceplonal antiguy, Importance and ificaliy "he disbuon afte tar, the gli the chister e ealanics, and o on fasinates the amateur ab wel the speci, otc asuophgic "a whol. The base reason Is {hat no one has yt expsined why the dt arety at Tessin certain range af Seues While thre ae allusions to scing Gal development hasten to sweep tuner the rag iming that on sel beyond tome tnformly dsibued, nt Lest fundamentally, the Bsitation in eal ing with the irregular arises from the absence of tools to describe it mathematically. State shed 10 decide between two assump tions, only one of which is thoroughly ex plored (asymptotic uniformity). Is it surpie {ng thatthe results are inconclusive? The questions, however, refuse to be set ie. In parallel with efforts to explain, | think it indispensable to describe clustering, and to mimic reality by purely geometric means. The fractal treatment of this subject, Scattered over several chapters of this Esay proposes to show by explicitly constructed model thatthe evidence is compatible with 3 degree of clustering that extends far beyond the limits suggested by existing models ‘The present introductory chapter describes an influemial theory of the formation of stars and galaxies, due to Hoyle, the principal de scriptive model of their distribution, due te Fournier d'Albe (also known a8 the Charlier model), and, most important, sketches some{9 5m FRACTAL VIEW OF GALAXY CLUSTERS. empirical data. It is shown that both theories fand data can be interpreted in terms of a sca: ing fractal dust. T argue that the distribution Of galaxies and of stars includes zone of self-similarity in which the fractal dimension Satisfies O€D<3, Theoretieal reasons for ex posting D=1 are sketched, raising the ques tion of why the observed D is “1.23. Preview. Chapter 22 uses fractal tools to improve our understanding of what the cosmo logical principle means, how itean and should ‘be modified, and why the modification de ‘mands randomness. A’ discussion of improved ‘odel clusters is withheld until Chapters 22, 23, and 32 0 3. Is THERE A GLOBAL DENSITY OF MATTER? Let us begin with a clase examination of the concept of global density of matte As with the concept of the length ofa coastline, things scom simple, but in fact go awry very quickly And most interestingly. To define and measure ensity, one starts with the mass M(R) in a sphere of radius R centered on Earth, The approximate density, defined as M(R)/((4/3)2R), is evaluated. After thai, the value of R is made to tend toward infinity, and the global ensity js defined a6 the limit toward which the approximate density converges But need the global density converge to a ws positive and finite limit? If 50, the speed of ‘comergence leaves a great deal to be desired, Furthermore, the estimates of the limit dens: ty had behaved very oddly in the past. As the depth of the world perceived by telescopes Increased, the approximate density diminished ina surprisingly systematic manner, Accord= ing to de Vaucoulevrs 1970, it has remained RO? The observed exponent D is much Salle than 3, the best estimate, on the basis of indirect evidence, being D= 123, ‘The thesis of de Vaucouleurs is that the behavior of the approximate density reflects reality, meaning that M(R)=R®. This Formula ‘recalls the classical result that a ball of radius R ina Euclidean space of dimension E has a volume RE. In Chapter 6 we encounter the same formula for the Koch curve, with the major difference that the exponent is ot the Euclidean dimension E=2 but a fraction- valued fractal dimension D. And Chapter erives M(R)=RP for the Cantor dust on the time axis (For which Em) ‘Al these provedents suggest very strongly that the de Vaueouleurs exponent D isa feac- tal dimension ARE STARS IN THE SCALING RANGE? ‘Obviously, the sealing range in which D satis: fies O And the smallest ball including the basic 7 balls is to be called a “stellar aggre- gate of order 1.” An aggregate of order 2 is achioved by enlarging an aggregate of order 1 Jn the ratio 1/rm7 and by replacing each of the resulting Balls of radius 7 by a replica of the aggregate of order 1. In the same way, an aggregate of order 3 is achieved by enlarging an aggregate of order 2 in the ratio 1/ and by replacing each ball by a replica of the agerepate of order 2. And so on, Ta sum, Between two succesive orders of Aggregation, the number of points and the radius are enlarged in the ratio 1/r=7. Con sequently, whenever R is the radius of some aggregate, the function Mo(R) expressing the number of points contained in a ball of radius Riis Mo(R)=R, For intermediate values of Ry a7 M(R) is smaller (reaching down to R/7), but the overall tend is Mo(RJER, Starting trom aggregates of order 0, itis also possible to interpolate by successive stages to aggregates of orders ~1, 2, and so on, The fist stage replaces each aggregate of order O with an image of the aggregate of order 1, reduced in the ratio 1/7, and so forth. If one does so, the validity of the rela- tionship Mo(R)eR is extended to ever smaller values of R. After infinite extra- and interpo Tation, we have a self-similar set with Dalog 7 /log 7=1 We may also note that an object in espace for which D=1 need not be a straight Tine nor any other rectfiable curve. Tt need rot even be connected. Each D is compatible with any lesser oF equal value of the topologi- cal dimension. In particular, since the doubly infinite Fournier universe is a totally discon nected “dus,” its topological dimension is 0 DISTRIBUTION OF MASS: FRACTAL HOMOGENEITY The step from geometry tothe distribution of mass is obvious. If each stellar aggregate of order O is Toaded with a unit mass the mass MGR) within 4 ball of radive R> is identical to Mo(R), hence «R. Furthermore, o generate aggregates of order —1 from agerepates of frder 0 amounts to breaking up a fall that had been viewed as unifora, and finding it to ‘be made of seven smaller ones, The stage ex: tends the rule M(R)=R below R=. ‘When viewed over the whole 3:space, the resulting mass distribution is grossly inom geneous, but over the Fournier fractal itis as homogeneous a= can be, (Recall Plate 80.) In particular, any two geometrically identical portions of the Fournier universe eaery ident fal masses I propose that such a distribution fof mass be called fractally homogeneous “= The preceding definition is phrased in terms of sealing fractals, but the concept of Fractal homogeneity is more general. It ap- plies to any fractal for which the Hausdorft measure for the dimension D is positive and Finite, Fractal homogeneity requires the mass carted by a set to be proportional tothe ses Hiausdorif measure. = FOURNIER UNIVERSE VIEWED AS CANTOR DUST. EXTENSION TO Dyt 1 wust the reader was not distracted by the sasual use of fractal terminology in the open ing seotions ofthis chapter. ti abvious that, without being aware of the Tact, Fournier was traveling. along a track paraliel to that of Cantor, his contemporary. The main differ nce is that the Fournier construction is im- bedded in space instead of the line. To further improve the resemblance, it suffices to change Fournier's aggregates from being balls to be- ing bricks (filled-in cubes). Now, each aggre tate of order O isa brick of side 1, and it i sludes 7 aggregates of side 1/7; one of them has the same center as the inital eube, and the other six touch the central subscuares of the faces of the original cube Later we will examine how Fournier ob tains the value DI from basic physical phe nomena, and how Hoyle obtains this same value. Geometrically, however, = is a spe cial case, even if one preserves the overall oc tahedron and the value N=7. Since the balls do not overlap, 1/r ean take any value be- tween 3 and infinity, yielding M(R)=RP, with iog 7/log (1/r) anywhere betwosn O and Jog 7 /log 3=1.7712. Purther, given any D satisfying D3, it is easy fy changing N to construct variants of Fournier's model having this dimension ‘THE CHARLIER MODEL AND OTHER FRACTAL UNIVERSES ‘The above constructs share every one of the characteristic defects of first fractal models ‘Most conspicuously, just like the Koch cusve ‘model in Chapter 6 and the Cantor dust mod fl in Chapter 8, the Fournier model isso ree- ular as to be grotesque. AS corcectve, Char lier 1908, 1922 suggests that one allow N and + to vary Feom one hierarchical level 1 anoth- ‘er, taking On the values Nip and Fry ‘The scientific eminence of Charlier was such that, despite the praise he lavished on Fournier, writing inthe leading scientific lan ‘guages of the day, even the simple model soon became credited to its mous expositor in stead ofits unknown author. It vas much die ‘cussed in its time, in particular in Selety 1922, 1923a, 19238, 1924, Furthermore, themodel attracted the attention of the very in Ayential Emile Borel, whose comments in Bo rel 1922, while dry, were perceptive. But from then on, aside from fitfl revival, the model Tall into neglect (for not very convincing rea sons noted in North 1965, pp. 20-22 and 4408-409), Nevertheless, it refuses to die. The basi idea was independently reinvented many times to this day, notably in Lévy 1930. (See the LEvY entry in Chapter 40.) Most impor- tant, the Fractal core notion of the Fournier universe is implicit in the considerations about turbulence and galaxies in von Weizsicker 1950 (see Chapter 10), and jn the model of the genesis of the galaxies due to Hoyle 1953, which will be disused momentarily ‘The basic fractal ingredient is also present in my models, Chapters 32 10 35. Th this light, the question arises of whether 8 model of galaxy distribution ean fail to be a Fractal with one or two cutoffs I think aot. IP tone agrees that the distribution must be scal- ing (for reasoas to be elaborated in Chapter 11) and that the set on which matter concen- trates isnot a standaed sealing st, it must Be a fractal set Granted the importance of sealing, Charlier nonsealing. generalization of the Fournier mode! is ill-inspired. <2 Incidentally, i allows 10g Nm /log (L/t) to vary with m between two bounds; Dipin?O and Omox <3. We have here yet another theme; effective dimension need not Have a single value, and may drift betwoen an upper and a lower limit This theme ie picked up senin in Chapter FOURNIER'S REASON TO EXPECT D=1 We now describe the impressive argument that leads Fournier 1907, 103, to conclude that O must be eausl wo 1. This argument is 3 strong reason for nat forgeting its author. Consider a galactic aggrezate of arbitrary ‘order with mast Mand radius R. Using with: fut misgivings « formula applicable to objects with spherical symmetry, assume that the gra Vitational potential on the surface is GM/R G being the gravitational constant). A star falling on this universe impacts with the ve locity V equal to (2G8/R)" ‘To paraphrase Fournier, an important con- clusion may be drawn from the abservation that no stellar velocity exceeds 1/300 of the velocity of light. tis thatthe mass comprised Within a world Ball increases as its radius, and not as its volume, or in other words, that the Abensity within » world ball varies inversely as the surface ofthe ball. To make this clearer, the potentil at the surface would be always the same, being proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the distance. And as 2 eonsequence, stellar velocities approaching the veloity of light would not prevail in any part of the universe, HOYLE CURDLING: THE JEANS CRITERION ALSO YIELDS D=1 A hierarchical disteibution also arises in a theory advanced in Hoyle 1983, according 0 Which galaxies and stars form by a cascade process starting witha uniform gas. ‘Consider a gas cloud of temperature T and mass Mo, distributed with a uniform deasity Throughout a bal of radius R. As shown by Jeans. a “critical” situation prevails when Mo/RoJKRT/G. (Here, k isthe Boltzmann constant ané J a numerical coefficient.) Ta this critical case, the primordial gaseous cloud ic unstable and must inevitably eontzact. Hoyle postulates (2) that Mo/Ro takes on iis critical value at some initial stage, (8) that the resulting contraction stops when the volume of the gas cloud drops to 1/25:th, tnd (@) that each cloud then splits into five louds of equal size, mass Mj-=-Mo/S, and qual radius Ry=Ro/5. Thus the process ends a it started: in an unstable situation followed by a sevond stage of contraction and subd sion, then a thied, and so on. But cusdling Stops as clouds become so opaque that the heat due to gas collapse ean no longer escape ‘As in the diverse other fields where the same cascade process is encountered, 1 pro pose thatthe five clouds be called curds, and that the cascade process be ealled carding |AS said when T introduced this last term, 1 sould not resist its juxtaposition with palacte Fournier injects N=? to facilitate the fsraphical illustration, but Hoyle claims that Ne has & physical basis. In another otrast with Fournier, whose geometrical illustretion is detailed beyond wha is reasonable oF need fd, Hoyle i vague about the curds" spatial scatter. An explicit implementation as 10 wait until we describe random curdling in Chapter 23. But these discrepancies do. not matter; the main fact is that r=1/N, 30 that Dal must be part of the design if curdling is tw end as it begen in Jeans instability Further, ifthe duration of the frst stage is taken 10 be 1, gas dynamics shows that the mth stage’ duration is 5°". I follows that the same process could continue to infinity ‘within # total ime of 1.2500. EQUIVALENCE OF THE FOURNIER AND HOYLE DERIVATIONS OF D=1 AA the edge of an unstable gas cloud satisfy ing the Jeans eriterion, the velocity and the temperaiuze are linked by VE/2aJT, be ‘case GM/R is equal to V2/2 (Fournier) and to JKT (Jeans), Now recall that in statistical thermodynamics the temperature of & gus is proportional tothe mean square velocity ofits Molecules. Hence the combination of the Fournier and Jeans ctiteria suggests that at the edge of a cloud the velocity ofthe fall of a macroscopic object s proportional to the aver age velocity ofits molecules. A careful analy Sis of the role of temperature in the Jeans cri- terion is Bound to show the two criteria to be ‘equivalent. <2 Most likely, the analogy ex tends to the M(R)=R relationship izhin gal- nies, reported in Wallenguist 987. = WHY D=1.23 AND NOT D=1? The’ disagreement between the empirical 1.23 and the Fournier and Hovle theret90 FRACTAL VIEW OF GALAXY CLUSTERS cal Del raises on important issue, P. J. E Peebles tacked it in 1974 by relativity theory. See Peebles 1980, a full treatment of the physict and of the statistics (Out not of the foometty af this topic, ‘THE SKY'S FRACTAL DIMENSION The sky is projection ofa universe, in which every point is first described by ite spherical svordinates p, 8, and @ and then replaced by the point of spherical coordinates 1, , and g ‘When the universe is a fractal of dimension D, and the origin of the frame of references be Tongs to the universe (see Chapter 22), the structure of this projection is “typically” ruled by the following alternative: O>2 im- plies that the projection covers a nonzero pro Portion of the sky, while D<2 implies tht the Projection is self of dimension D. =a As ex femplified in Plates 95 and 96, txpcal allows for exceptions, due to the structure of the fractal and/or the choice of origin. Tt often means “true with probability 1." = ASIDE ON THE BLAZING SKY EFFECT (WRONGLY CALLED OLBERS PARADOX) ‘The rule in the preceding section bears dre Ty upon the motivation that led diverse writers (including Fournier) to variants of @ fractal Universe. They recognized that such vniverses “exorcise” geometrically the ‘Blazing. Sky Epfect, often (but ¥ronsly) called Olbers 1 paradox. Under the assumption that the dis tribution of eslestial Boties is uniform, mean ing that D=3 for all sale, the sky i lit near uniformly, during the night and during the day, to the brighness of the solar dive ‘This paradox is no longer of interest to physicists, having been eliminated by telat ty theory and the theory of the expansion of the Universe, and other arguments, But its demise left a peculiar by-product: numerous commentators invoke thei preferred explana tion of the Blazing Sky Effect as an excuse for neglecting clustering, and even an argu ment for denying its reality. This is truly ‘odd viewpoint: even if galaxies meed not be clustered to avoid the Blaring Sky Effect, they are clustered, and this characteristic de- ‘mands careful study. Furthermore, as seen in Chapter 32, the expaasion of the Universe is compatible not only with standard homogenei= ty but also with fractal homogeneity ‘The Blazing Sky argument is simplicity itself. When the light emitted by a star is pro- portional to its surface area, the amount of Tight reaching an observer at a distance of ReL/R2, but the stars apparent surface is itsel’ <1/R?. Thus, the apparent ratio of Tight to spherical angle is independent of R. ‘Also, when the distribution of stars in the Universe is uniform, almost any direction in the sky sooner or later intersects some stat ‘Therefore, the sky is uniformly bright, and seems ablaze. (The Moon's dis would form fn exceptional dark domain, at least, in the Absence of atmospheric diffsion.) ‘On the other hand, the assumption thatthe cy ives is eactal with D<2 resolves the paras doe In tha case, the aniverses projection on the sky ba fava withthe same D, ence a {ref Yro aren. Even i the sar a6 given & nonzero radius, «large proportion of direc Tom go to infty without encountering any Star, Ang these tirestion, the might sky Black. When the range in which D3 i fl lowed by 2 range in which D=3, the aks backround isnot stristiyBlack ut lumina ed entremel funy. “he Blaving Sky Bifect was noted by Kepler shorty ater Galles Sideral Message bas fommented favorably on the notion thatthe Universe unbounded. In his T6l0" Comverseton with the. Sidereal Mestenger Kleene "You do nat hs tate so. declare that there ace vibe over 10,00 sas. IF this tee ad theses, tavel the sume nature as out son, hy donot these sins eollcctvelyouidinance our sum in brilliance? But maybe the intervening ether dbscirs then? Not inthe feast. Its gute dlear the. hs world of our doc nt long toan uniferentited swarm of countless oe sin" (Rosen 1968, pp. 38-35) This conchsion remained sontovesal, but the argument was not forgotten, witness the comment by Eamind Halley. in 1720, that “Another Argument | have heard urged that if the number of Fint Stare mere more than finite, the whole seers of thir ap patent Sphere woul be lino" Late ts Zonclsin wap discussed by De Chsetey and 1H. Lambert, ut came to be sree fo Gauss reat fond, Obes. Tae term “Olbers paradox” that became attached toi! fs scandalous but symptomatic. Observations that had been rejected into the “unclassified residuum" (page 28) become all 100 ofter Credited to the first Establishment figure whe decorates them by 2 classifiable wrapping however transient. Historical discussions are found in Gamow 1934, Munitz 1957, North 1965, Dickson 1968, Wilson 1963, Jaki 1969, Clayton 1975, and Harrison 1981 ASIDE ON NEWTONIAN GRAVITATION ‘The Rev. Bentley kept pestering Newton with an observation closely related to the Blazing Sky Effect if the star” distribution is homo geneous, the force they exert on one Among thom is infinite. One may add that their gra ‘tational potential is infiaite, And that aay Aistribution wherein M(R)=R® for large R Yields an infinite potential unless D1. The Imodesn theory of potentials (Frostman ‘theo: £5) confirms that thers is a privileged link between Newton's gravitation and the value 1. The Fourier and Hoyle derivations of Del cannot fail to be seated to ths link “Fournier's theme of “the gravitational po- Cental at the surface being always the same” is contal to modern potential theory. = ASIDE ON RELATIVITY THEORY Fo paraphrase de Vaucouleurs 1970: Relativity theory led us co believe that to bein! FRACTAL VIEW OF GALAXY CLUSTERS optically observable, no stationary. material ball can have a radius R less than the Schwarzchild limit Ry=2GM/c2, where ¢ is the velocity of light. Tn a plot of the mean density p and the characteristic radius of ‘various Cosmical systems, pyy = 3¢*/BeGRy? {efines an upper limit. The ratio o/ong may be called the Sebwarzehild filing Tactor. For Inost common astronomical bodies (stars) or systems (galaxies), the Filling factor is very sinall, on the ofder of 10-* to 10°®." The Square of the velocity ratio postulated by Fournice is (800)"*~10", precisely in the range middle of the above. = AN AGGLUTINATED FRACTAL UNIVERSE? Many authors think one may explain the gen cis of stars and other celestial abjects by an ascending cascade (i.e, the agglutination of areatly dispersed dust particles into inereas- ingly bigger pieces) rather’ than by descending cascade & Ta Hoyle (ie, the feng mentation of very large and diffuse masses ‘nto smaller and smaller piece). ‘An analogous alternative arses in connec: ion with the cascades postulated in the study of turbulence, Chapter 10. Richardson's cas- ‘ade descends toward ever smaller ees, but ascending cascades may also be present; soe Chapter 40, under RICHARDSON, Thus it may be hoped that the interrelations between de sconding and ascending cascades will be eari- Fied soon, FRACTAL TELESCOPE ARRAYS To wind up this discussion, nothing can be ‘more appropriate than a comment about the tools used to observe the galaxies. Dyson 1977 suggests that it may be advantageous to re- place one piece telescopes by arzays of small telescopes. The diameter of each would be bout 0.1m, equal to the patch size of the smallest optically significane atmospheric dis- turbance, thei centers would form a fractally Iierarchical pattern, and they would be linked by Currie interferometers. A rough analysis leads to the conclusion that a suitable value for the dimension would be 25. Dyson's con- clusion: “A Skilometer array of 1024 ten- centimeter telescopes connected by 1023 interferometers is not a practical proposition today. [Ie is offered} as a theoretical ideal, show what can be done in principle.” ‘SURVEY OF RANDOM FRACTAL MODELS OF GALAXY CLUSTERS ‘one grants the claim thatthe distribution of eslanies is described usefully by unknowingly fractal models of limited subtlety and versatl ity, one should not be surprised that knowing |y fractal random models provide even more tveful desriptions. To begin with, ovr under Sanding of Hoyle curdling improves when it is-set in its proper context: random fractals (Chapter 23), OF greater significance, I think, are the random models T developed and dis fuss in Chapters 32 to 38. One reason for 8 Aielling on several models is hat improve trent in the gualty of description i “paid for" by inereased complication A second ea fon i that cach model valves a fractal dust that deserves attention, Let me survey these inode het, out of logical order. ‘Around 1965, my ambition wes to imple ment the relationship M(R}«R° with O<3 with a model in which thee is no esntr of the universe” irs achieved this goal by the fandom walk model described in Chaplet 32 Then, aan alternative, { developed a tema Imodsh, which consist in cating out from Space a collection of mutually independent randomly placed tremas of random rad, aning up to an upper cutoff L that may be ier finite or infin. Since both models had been selected solely on the basis of formal simpli, it was der Tightftty surprising to diveover they hve pre dBctve valu My theorsticaleorciatonfne- tions (Mandelbrot 19754) agree withthe urvestited nes reporid in Peebles 1980 {Gee pp. 243-249). More precisely my two Approaches agree on the 2pointeorelation, ty random walk yields good 3-poim corre= lation and a bad 4-pintcorslaton, and my spherical temas model is very good for all known correlations, m= ve Unfortunately, the appearance of samples generated by ether mole sue unveaistic. Using « notion tht developed for thi very purpose and describe in Caper 35, they have unaceepiable lacunaity properties. For the trema mode! this tet is coreted By into dling more elaborate ema shapes For the random walk model, T use a less lacunae lbordinator.” Thus, the study of galaxy clusters hat greatly stimulated the development of Fractal seometry. And today the uses of fractal geom elty in the study of galaxy’ clusters go well beyond the tasks of streamlining and house: leaning accomplished in the present chapter CUT DIAMONDS LOOK LIKE STARS ‘And the distribution of raw diamonds in the Earth's crust resembles the distribution of Sars and galaxies in the sky. Consider a large ‘world map on whieh each diamond mine or diamond rich site—past or present-is repre sented by pin. Where examined from fat away, these pins" density i extraordinarily lancuen. A feo are lated here and there, but most concentrate in a few Blessed (or ac cursed) areas, However, the Earth surface in there areas is not uniformly paved with dae rmonds. When examined more closely, any of these areas turns out itself to be mostly blank, With scattered subreas of much greater di: ‘mond concentration, The process continues ter several orders of magnitude, Is it not irsesistible to inject curdling in this context? Indeed, an unknowingly Trectal model has been advanced by de Wij, as seen Under NONLACUMAR FRACTALS in Chapter 39,Plate 95 « PROJECTION OF FOURNIER'S MULTIUNIVERSE (DIMENSION D~0.8270) This plate represents to seale both the projec- tion and the “equatorial” section of & Uni- verse of dimension DI described in the tex. Sce alo Plate 96, ‘To paraphrase the caption in Fournier 1907: “A. multiuniverse constructed upon a cruciform or octahedral principle is not the plan of the world but is useful in showing that {an infinite series of similar successive univer 5 may exist without producing’ “blazing Sky." The matter ih each world sphere is pro portional to its radius. Ths is the condition Fequired for fulfiling the laws of gravitation 4nd radiation, In some dizections the sky would appear quite black, although there is an Infinite succession of universes. The “world ratio’ inthis ease is Ne? instead of 1022 a¢ in reality.” Tn the seme described in Chapter 34, a universe with Dal and Na1022 is of very Tow lacunarity, but extraordinarily stratified - Plate 96 « A FLAT FOURNIER UNIVERSE WITH D=1 Plate 95, being drawn to exact sale, is not dnly har 10 print and to ses bet potenti tiseading. Indeed, ite no universe Of ee inenson D1 but js plana projeton, whose dimension Delog'5/iag 7=0.8570<1 Therefore, inorder to avoid fesvng he wrong Impression, we hasten to exhibit a regular Fournierlike planar pattern of dimensior Del. The construction, which involves 1/r25 instead of 1/e=7, is carted one step further than is possibie in Plate 95. ma