Value chain · CLM-0115
In plain terms
The Russian and American researchers were talking to each other from at least 1974, so they are not two fully independent traditions.
The claim as recorded
The Soviet and American lines on this physics were not isolated from each other, the 1975 Vas'kov and Gurevich paper citing Perkins and Valeo 1974 as a parallel derivation of self-focusing instability in the region of reflection and thanking F. Perkins by name in its acknowledgments alongside V. L. Ginzburg and L. P. Pitaevskii.
Scope and limits
Contact is not the same as dependence. The Soviet group worked the physics independently and reached formally different results, so this is a partial rather than a total loss of independence. It does establish that neither line was unaware of the other.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
reference 18 is "F. W. Perkins and E. J. Valeo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 1234 (1974)". Its acknowledgments read verbatim: "The authors thank V. L. Ginzburg, F. Perkins, and L. P. Pitaevskii for a useful discussion of the problems in question."
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-001 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0115
CLM-0115, Energy Aperture, as of 1975.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-133
- CLM-0114The Russian treatment says self-focusing is triggered by lumpiness already present in the ionosphere, not by beam power crossing a line...CLM-0116The Russian formulas are a different shape from the 0.43 relation, so they cannot be used to check it either way.CLM-0146A 1975 Soviet theory paper calculated an exact minimum radio-wave strength - about 300 millivolts per metre in daytime, ten times less at...