text
stringlengths 1
146k
|
|---|
Each variety is further divided into a number of dialects. The southern dialect of Wanetsi is the most distinctive Pashto dialect. 1. Southern variety Durrani dialect (or Southern dialect) Kakar dialect (or Southeastern dialect) Shirani dialect Mandokhel dialect Marwat-Bettani dialect Wanetsi dialect Southern Karlani group Khattak dialect Banuchi dialect Dawarwola dialect Masidwola dialect Wazirwola dialect 2. Northern variety Central Ghilji dialect (or Northwestern dialect) Northern dialect (or Eastern dialect) Yusufzai dialect (or Northeastern dialect) Northern Karlani group Taniwola dialect Khosti dialect Zadran dialect Bangash-Orakzai-Turi-Zazi-Mangal dialect Afridi dialect Khogyani dialect Wardak dialect Literature Pashto-speakers have long had a tradition of oral literature, including proverbs, stories, and poems. |
Written Pashto literature saw a rise in development in the 17th century mostly due to poets like Khushal Khan Khattak (1613–1689), who, along with Rahman Baba (1650–1715), is widely regarded as among the greatest Pashto poets. From the time of Ahmad Shah Durrani (1722–1772), Pashto has been the language of the court. The first Pashto teaching text was written during the period of Ahmad Shah Durrani by Pir Mohammad Kakar with the title of Maʿrifat al-Afghānī ("The Knowledge of Afghani [Pashto]"). After that, the first grammar book of Pashto verbs was written in 1805 under the title of Riyāż al-Maḥabbah ("Training in Affection") through the patronage of Nawab Mahabat Khan, son of Hafiz Rahmat Khan, chief of the Barech. |
Nawabullah Yar Khan, another son of Hafiz Rahmat Khan, in 1808 wrote a book of Pashto words entitled ʿAjāyib al-Lughāt ("Wonders of Languages"). Poetry example An excerpt from the Kalām of Rahman Baba: IPA: Zə ra.mɑn pə xpəl.a gram jəm t͡ʃe ma.jən jəm t͡ʃe d̪ɑ nor ʈo.pan me bo.li gram pə t͡sə Transliteration: Zə Rahmān pə xpəla gram yəm če mayən yəm Če dā nor ṭopan me boli gram pə tsə Translation: "I Rahman, myself am guilty that I am a lover, On what does this other universe call me guilty." Proverbs Pashto also has a rich heritage of proverbs (Pashto matalūna, sg. |
matal). An example of a proverb: Transliteration: Uba pə ḍang na beliẓ̌i Translation: "One cannot divide water by [hitting it with] a pole." See also Indo-European languages Eastern Iranian languages Pre-Islamic scripts in Afghanistan Languages of Pakistan Notes References Bibliography Georg Morgenstierne (1926) Report on a Linguistic Mission to Afghanistan. Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning, Serie C I-2. Oslo. Daniel G. Hallberg (1992) Pashto, Waneci, Ormuri (Sociolinguistic Survey of Northern Pakistan, 4). National Institute of Pakistani Studies, 176 pp. . Herbert Penzl A Grammar of Pashto: A Descriptive Study of the Dialect of Kandahar, Afghanistan, Herbert Penzl A Reader of Pashto, External links Pashto Dictionary with Phonetic Keyboard & Auto-Suggestion Pashto Phonetic Keyboard Pashto Language & Identity Formation in Pakistan Indo-Aryan identity of Pashto Henry George Raverty. |
A Dictionary of the Puk'hto, Pus'hto, or Language of the Afghans. Second edition, with considerable additions. London: Williams and Norgate, 1867. D. N. MacKenzie, "A Standard Pashto", Khyber.org Freeware Online Pashto Dictionaries A Pashto Word List Origins of Pashto Resources for the Study of the Pashto Language Category:Articles citing Nationalencyklopedin Category:Fusional languages Category:Languages of Afghanistan Category:Languages of Balochistan, Pakistan Category:Languages of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Category:Languages of Pakistan Category:Subject–object–verb languages |
Turner Ellis Tenney (born January 2, 1998), better known by his online alias Tfue, is an American streamer and esports player, best known for playing Fortnite. He is regarding as one of the best players on Fortnite as he has won many tournaments including most recently the SuperGames Charity Tournament, in which two streamers teamed up with two professional athletes to compete as a four man squad against 19 other squads. Career Tfue transitioned to Fortnite Battle Royale as it was quickly exploding in popularity. Tenney later joined FaZe Clan, a professional esports organization, on April 30, 2018. Personal life Tenney is from Indian Rocks Beach, Florida. |
Controversies In May, 2018 Tenney was banned from Twitch for 30 days after saying an alleged racial slur. Twitch reversed the ban after reviewing the word wasn't used in a racial manner. On July 2, 2018 Tenney received a permanent account ban on his Epic Games accounts because he was selling and buying Epic Games accounts, which is prohibited by Epic Games' terms and conditions. A week later, Tenney was banned from Twitch again, this time for 14 days, for unknown reasons. On May 20, 2019, Tenney filed a lawsuit against FaZe Clan, claiming they "pressured Tenney to live in one of its homes in Los Angeles, pressured him to underage drinking and illegally gambling. |
FaZe also continuously pressured and encouraged him to engage in dangerous stunts." Tenney also claimed, that "he only got 20% from any branded videos that are published on Twitch, YouTube or social media and half of his revenue from touring and appearances." FaZe Clan responded on Twitter, saying they didn't take any money from his tournament winnings, Twitch and YouTube revenue and his social media. They also said that they "took $60,000 from his branded videos" and offered Tenney "an improved contract multiple times, with 100% of the money going to Tenney, but he rejected or ignored all of them." |
On August 1, 2019, FaZe Clan filed a federal lawsuit in New York suing Tenney, claiming Tenney violated his contract by disparaging the company and trying to form a rival esports organization. The organization also claims that Tenney directly leaked confidential information about his contract to media publications, violating their terms. On September 2, 2019, Tenney again said a racial slur while streaming, but Twitch did not ban Tenney. On April 25, 2020, Tenney competed in a rock, paper, scissors charity tournament hosted by Jimmy "MrBeast" Donaldson. During Tenney's stream of the tournament, he accidentally revealed MrBeast's phone number and code for the tournament contestants. |
The stream had to be taken down momentarily before return where Tenney quickly lost. Tenney apologized but received criticism from many people including Tyler "Ninja" Blevins. Tenney responded by calling Ninja a "pussy" during a rant on stream. References Category:Living people Category:1998 births Category:American esports players Category:FaZe Clan players Category:Fortnite Category:People from Pinellas County, Florida Category:YouTube Diamond Play Button recipients Category:Twitch streamers |
The Good Delivery specification is a set of rules issued by the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) describing the physical characteristics of gold and silver bars used in settlement in the wholesale London bullion market. It also puts forth requirements for listing on the LBMA Good Delivery List of approved refineries. Good Delivery bars are notable for their large size and high purity. They are the type normally used in the major international markets (Hong Kong, London, New York, Sydney, Tokyo, and Zürich) and in the gold reserves of governments, central banks, and the IMF. The Good Delivery Rules for Gold and Silver Bars The entire Good Delivery specification is contained in the LBMA document titled The Good Delivery Rules for Gold and Silver Bars: Specifications for Good Delivery Bars and Application Procedures for Listing. |
The document includes specific requirements regarding the fineness, weight, dimensions, appearance, marks, and production of gold and silver bars. It specifies procedures for weighing, packing, and delivery. It also describes policies for ensuring refiners' compliance with the specifications. The current edition of the Good Delivery Rules was published in January 2019. |
Basic specifications Gold bars Fineness: minimum of 995.0 parts per thousand fine gold Marks: serial number, refiner's hallmark, fineness, year of manufacture Gold content: Recommended dimensions Length (top): Width (top): Height: Silver bars Fineness: minimum of 999.0 parts per thousand silver Marks: serial number, refiner's hallmark, fineness, year of manufacture Silver content: (Bars manufactured after January 1 2008); (Bars manufactured prior to January 1 2008); recommended Recommended dimensions Length (top): Width (top): Height: Weight is not recommended to be stamped on bars of either gold or silver, because bars will be officially weighed on delivery, and this weight which may be different from that originally marked will prevail. |
A bars weight may also change by handling or sampling, thus invalidating the original mark. Non–Good Delivery Bars that do not comply with Good Delivery rules are termed Non–Good Delivery. If they are similar to Good Delivery bars but do not fully meet the requirements, they must be stamped with "NGD" to distinguish them from conforming bars. LBMA Good Delivery List The LBMA maintains two Good Delivery Lists of approved refineries (one for gold and one for silver) that meet certain minimum criteria (age, net worth, and production volume) and have demonstrated their ability to produce Good Delivery bars. Listed companies agree to submit to monitoring by the LBMA. |
Those listed companies that refuse to participate in regular monitoring are removed from the Good Delivery List and added to the Former List. Good Delivery Referees Five companies are accredited by the LBMA as Good Delivery Referees in order to supervise the Good Delivery System and monitor the companies with Good Delivery certification. The referees' main functions are: Technical assessment of applicants for listing Proactive monitoring of refiners on the Good Delivery List Provision of technical advice on a range of topics The companies accredited as referees are: Argor-Heraeus SA (Switzerland) Metalor Technologies SA (Switzerland) PAMP SA (Switzerland) Rand Refinery (PTY) Ltd (South Africa) Tanaka Kikinzoku Kogyo K.K. |
(Japan) See also Gold as an investment Silver as an investment Platinum as an investment Palladium as an investment Gold reserve Gold bar Doré bar Gold standard Silver standard Refining (metallurgy) London Platinum and Palladium Market References External links The Good Delivery Rules for Gold and Silver Bars LBMA - Good Delivery Explained LBMA - Good Delivery Rules LBMA - The Good Delivery List Category:Gold Category:Silver Category:Commodity markets |
"Same Time, Same Place" is the third episode of the seventh and final season of the television show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Plot synopsis At the airport, Buffy, Dawn, and Xander wait for Willow to get off her plane and talk about how uncomfortable they feel about the situation. The plane clears, but the three don't see Willow. The scene repeats as Willow gets off the plane, but she doesn't see her friends waiting for her. A young man spray paints a wall of a construction site as a demon taunts him from the shadows and then attacks the frightened man. |
Willow lets herself into the Summers house, which appears to be vacant of her friends. Going up to what used to be her room, but now has been claimed by Buffy, Willow remembers the last time she was in the room. A door closes and Willow begins to investigate, but still her friends are nowhere to be seen. Alone, Willow curls up on the couch. Buffy, Xander, and Dawn return home and after talking about how Willow did leave England, but she had opportunities to divert to a location other than Sunnydale. They hear a noise upstairs and check it out, but find nothing. |
In the living room, the three talk about the reason for Willow's disappearance. The next morning, Willow walks over to the magic shop and finds Anya cleaning up the magic shop. Anya is very cold to her and Willow feels guilty about everything. They talk a bit and Anya fills Willow in on everyone's activities since she's been gone. Willow checks out Xander's construction site and instead of Xander, she finds a skinned body. At the same time, Xander and Buffy are looking at the body and the familiar sight makes them wonder if Willow is back after all. Unbeknownst to them, a disgusted Willow climbs a ladder to exit the site. |
Willow walks the halls of Sunnydale High and proceeds down to the basement where she finds Spike acting insanely. He talks to Willow about the dead body, but also carries on a conversation with something else in the room Willow can't see. Buffy and Xander maneuver through the basement and find Spike seemingly talking to himself. Buffy and Xander try to get information from him, but Spike is simultaneously conversing with Willow, so his words make little sense. Spike suspects they can't see each other and that Willow's responsible for it. Buffy and Xander interpret some of Spike's comments to mean that he knows about Willow and they suspect she might have something to do with Spike's unstable condition. |
Willow goes to Anya at her apartment for help in finding the demon that skinned the man at the construction site. Anya helps Willow cast a spell to locate demons all over Sunnydale. After the spell is complete, Willow asks Anya to teleport to one particular location to a cave just outside the town. But Anya reveals that she can't for non-vengeance business as a result of her recently undoing a spell. Instead, Willow takes the long way and walks there herself. At the Summers house, Dawn immediately begins searching on the computer for demons that skin people. Although Buffy thinks it's a waste of time, Dawn soon finds a demon that meets their specifications named Gnarl. |
The demon paralyzes its victims with its nails, and then eats strips of skin from the body and drinks the blood. Realizing they need to search for a trail of blood, Buffy decides to recruit Spike to smell the way. He leads them to a cave where the demon can be found. Willow is already there investigating the cave and Gnarl spots her. The rest of the gang enters the cave as well, but they don't see Willow. The demon scratches Dawn's stomach and paralyzes her. Buffy and Xander take Dawn out of the cave and cover up the entrance, unintentionally trapping Willow with Gnarl. |
Stuck in the cave, Willow listens to the demon taunt her from the shadows. He slices her abdomen with a nail and, thus paralyzed, Willow is helpless against him as he sucks at the wound and starts to slice away slivers of her skin to eat. Buffy and Xander carry a completely paralyzed Dawn into the living room while Buffy researches Gnarl and the way to save Dawn. Anya is called to stay with Dawn while they prepare to return to the cave to kill the demon and save Dawn. Anya talks about seeing Willow and reveals that Willow may be at the cave, whilst she moves a paralysed Dawn into funny poses. |
Panicked that Willow is trapped in the cave, Buffy grabs Anya to join them at the cave. Once Anya reveals that she knows about Gnarl, Buffy insists she come along. Gnarl continues to eat Willow's skin as he tells her that her friends have abandoned her and she's all alone for him to eat. Buffy arrives and attacks Gnarl while Anya tends to a badly injured Willow who still can't see her friends. While Buffy fights Gnarl, Anya informs Willow that her friends didn't leave her alone. Buffy pokes the demon in the eyes with her thumbs, successfully killing it and ending the paralysis of both Willow and Dawn. |
Buffy and Xander look where they think Willow is while Anya runs for help, and slowly the spell making them invisible to each other wears off. Willow is relieved to see her friends and glad that they didn't abandon her. In the morning, Willow meditates and uses magic from the earth to re-grow the skin she lost. Buffy stops by and talks with Willow. Willow reveals that her fear of seeing her friends and their judgment of her led to the invisibility problem from which they all were suffering. Buffy confesses that she briefly suspected Willow of the grotesque killing, but Willow doesn't blame her for that. |
Willow struggles to start meditating again, but she's still weak. Buffy offers her Slayer strength to her friend and joins in the meditation. Production details Casting Camden Toy, the actor who portrayed the flesh-eating demon Gnarl, had previously portrayed one of the 'Gentlemen' in the season four episode, "Hush". He would also have a recurring role of the "Ubervamp" Turok-Han later in the season, as well as playing the Nosferatu-like character "The Prince of Lies" in the Angel episode "Why We Fight". Trivia The demon "Gnarl" is said, by Dawn, to be a parasite because he eats the flesh of his victims until they die. |
This is actually incorrect; parasites do not kill their victims. Gnarl is a parasitoid. He eventually kills his "host" or victim. Dawn mentions to Buffy, "and I can wear heels more often." The comment could be a reference to Michelle Trachtenberg's desire to wear heels instead of sneakers in season seven, which she mentioned to Joss Whedon during an Academy of Television Arts & Sciences panel discussion with cast and crew. When Spike is talking to the separated Scoobies in the basement, he says "Button, button, who's got the button? ", a phrase used in a game of the same name. |
This was also quoted by Willy Wonka in Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory. Continuity Xander waits for Willow at the airport with a welcome back sign written in yellow crayon. This is a reference to "Grave" when Xander mentioned to Dark Willow that she cried in kindergarten after breaking a yellow crayon. Anya is seen cleaning up the debris from the Magic Box following the events of "Grave". When she meets Willow, she's obviously very angry with her. Willow and Anya are seen performing another spell together like they did in the season three episode "Doppelgangland". This time, Willow is much more powerful than Anya, and drives the stick. |
During the spell the area that represents the Highschool, on the map, starts to burn up due to the vast number of dots. This is an early indication of The First's army of Turok-Hans within the Hellmouth. On the map of Sunnydale, the location of the Demon is labeled Wilkins Grove, after Mayor Richard Wilkins, or more likely "Richard Wilkins I" or "Richard Wilkins II," pseudonyms that Wilkins used during his incredibly long tenure as mayor. When Willow asks Anya to help her do a demon locator spell, Anya asks her, "This isn't gonna get all sexy, is it?" The question alludes to the use of magic in seasons four to six (in scenes involving Willow and her now-deceased girlfriend, Tara Maclay) to represent lesbian sex. |
One of the candles used carries the Chinese character for love. When Spike says, "What's a word that means 'glowing'...gotta rhyme," it is a reference to the episode "Fool for Love" in which Spike, in a flashback as a human, was trying to think of a word that rhymes with "gleaming" for a poem he was writing on the night he was turned into a vampire. Spike recites this poem at a dive bar in the final episode of Angel, "Not Fade Away." This is the only episode of the series not to feature any guest stars billed at the start of the episode. |
Arc significance Willow returns to Sunnydale. Anya's falling out with the demon community continues; she can no longer idly teleport. This is the first instance of Dawn fully participating in a "Scooby-hunt", taking the role of a backup/replacement for Giles in researching. External links Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer (season 7) episodes Category:2002 American television episodes Category:Films with screenplays by Jane Espenson Category:Fiction about invisibility |
Prenoxdiazine (marketed as Libexin) is a cough suppressant. It acts peripherally by desensitizing the pulmonary stretch receptors. Therefore, there's a reduction of cough impulses originating in the lungs. Prenoxdiazine is indicated in cough of bronchial origin. References Category:Antitussives Category:Piperidines Category:Oxadiazoles |
Understanding the structure of the atomic nucleus is one of the central challenges in nuclear physics. Models The liquid drop model The liquid drop model is one of the first models of nuclear structure, proposed by Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker in 1935. It describes the nucleus as a semiclassical fluid made up of neutrons and protons, with an internal repulsive electrostatic force proportional to the number of protons. The quantum mechanical nature of these particles appears via the Pauli exclusion principle, which states that no two nucleons of the same kind can be at the same state. Thus the fluid is actually what is known as a Fermi liquid. |
In this model, the binding energy of a nucleus with protons and neutrons is given by where is the total number of nucleons (Mass Number). The terms proportional to and represent the volume and surface energy of the liquid drop, the term proportional to represents the electrostatic energy, the term proportional to represents the Pauli exclusion principle and the last term is the pairing term, which lowers the energy for even numbers of protons or neutrons. The coefficients and the strength of the pairing term may be estimated theoretically, or fit to data. This simple model reproduces the main features of the binding energy of nuclei. |
The assumption of nucleus as a drop of Fermi liquid is still widely used in the form of Finite Range Droplet Model (FRDM), due to the possible good reproduction of nuclear binding energy on the whole chart, with the necessary accuracy for predictions of unknown nuclei. The shell model The expression "shell model" is ambiguous in that it refers to two different eras in the state of the art. It was previously used to describe the existence of nucleon shells in the nucleus according to an approach closer to what is now called mean field theory. Nowadays, it refers to a formalism analogous to the configuration interaction formalism used in quantum chemistry. |
We shall introduce the latter here. Introduction to the shell concept Systematic measurements of the binding energy of atomic nuclei show systematic deviations with respect to those estimated from the liquid drop model. In particular, some nuclei having certain values for the number of protons and/or neutrons are bound more tightly together than predicted by the liquid drop model. These nuclei are called singly/doubly magic. This observation led scientists to assume the existence of a shell structure of nucleons (protons and neutrons) within the nucleus, like that of electrons within atoms. Indeed, nucleons are quantum objects. Strictly speaking, one should not speak of energies of individual nucleons, because they are all correlated with each other. |
However, as an approximation one may envision an average nucleus, within which nucleons propagate individually. Owing to their quantum character, they may only occupy discrete energy levels. These levels are by no means uniformly distributed; some intervals of energy are crowded, and some are empty, generating a gap in possible energies. A shell is such a set of levels separated from the other ones by a wide empty gap. The energy levels are found by solving the Schrödinger equation for a single nucleon moving in the average potential generated by all other nucleons. Each level may be occupied by a nucleon, or empty. |
Some levels accommodate several different quantum states with the same energy; they are said to be degenerate. This occurs in particular if the average nucleus has some symmetry. The concept of shells allows one to understand why some nuclei are bound more tightly than others. This is because two nucleons of the same kind cannot be in the same state (Pauli exclusion principle). So the lowest-energy state of the nucleus is one where nucleons fill all energy levels from the bottom up to some level. A nucleus with full shells is exceptionally stable, as will be explained. As with electrons in the electron shell model, protons in the outermost shell are relatively loosely bound to the nucleus if there are only few protons in that shell, because they are farthest from the center of the nucleus. |
Therefore, nuclei which have a full outer proton shell will be more tightly bound and have a higher binding energy than other nuclei with a similar total number of protons. All this is also true for neutrons. Furthermore, the energy needed to excite the nucleus (i.e. moving a nucleon to a higher, previously unoccupied level) is exceptionally high in such nuclei. Whenever this unoccupied level is the next after a full shell, the only way to excite the nucleus is to raise one nucleon across the gap, thus spending a large amount of energy. Otherwise, if the highest occupied energy level lies in a partly filled shell, much less energy is required to raise a nucleon to a higher state in the same shell. |
Some evolution of the shell structure observed in stable nuclei is expected away from the valley of stability. For example, observations of unstable isotopes have shown shifting and even a reordering of the single particle levels of which the shell structure is composed. This is sometimes observed as the creation of an island of inversion or in the reduction of excitation energy gaps above the traditional magic numbers. Basic hypotheses Some basic hypotheses are made in order to give a precise conceptual framework to the shell model: The atomic nucleus is a quantum n-body system. The internal motion of nucleons within the nucleus is non-relativistic, and their behavior is governed by the Schrödinger equation. |
Nucleons are considered to be pointlike, without any internal structure. Brief description of the formalism The general process used in the shell model calculations is the following. First a Hamiltonian for the nucleus is defined. Usually, for computational practicality, only one- and two-body terms are taken into account in this definition. The interaction is an effective theory: it contains free parameters which have to be fitted with experimental data. The next step consists in defining a basis of single-particle states, i.e. a set of wavefunctions describing all possible nucleon states. Most of the time, this basis is obtained via a Hartree–Fock computation. |
With this set of one-particle states, Slater determinants are built, that is, wavefunctions for Z proton variables or N neutron variables, which are antisymmetrized products of single-particle wavefunctions (antisymmetrized meaning that under exchange of variables for any pair of nucleons, the wavefunction only changes sign). In principle, the number of quantum states available for a single nucleon at a finite energy is finite, say n. The number of nucleons in the nucleus must be smaller than the number of available states, otherwise the nucleus cannot hold all of its nucleons. There are thus several ways to choose Z (or N) states among the n possible. |
In combinatorial mathematics, the number of choices of Z objects among n is the binomial coefficient C. If n is much larger than Z (or N), this increases roughly like nZ. Practically, this number becomes so large that every computation is impossible for A=N+Z larger than 8. To obviate this difficulty, the space of possible single-particle states is divided into a core and a valence shell, by analogy with chemistry. The core is a set of single-particles which are assumed to be inactive, in the sense that they are the well bound lowest-energy states, and that there is no need to reexamine their situation. |
They do not appear in the Slater determinants, contrary to the states in the valence space, which is the space of all single-particle states not in the core, but possibly to be considered in the choice of the build of the (Z-) N-body wavefunction. The set of all possible Slater determinants in the valence space defines a basis for (Z-) N-body states. The last step consists in computing the matrix of the Hamiltonian within this basis, and to diagonalize it. In spite of the reduction of the dimension of the basis owing to the fixation of the core, the matrices to be diagonalized reach easily dimensions of the order of 109, and demand specific diagonalization techniques. |
The shell model calculations give in general an excellent fit with experimental data. They depend however strongly on two main factors: The way to divide the single-particle space into core and valence. The effective nucleon–nucleon interaction. Mean field theories The independent-particle model (IPM) The interaction between nucleons, which is a consequence of strong interactions and binds the nucleons within the nucleus, exhibits the peculiar behaviour of having a finite range: it vanishes when the distance between two nucleons becomes too large; it is attractive at medium range, and repulsive at very small range. This last property correlates with the Pauli exclusion principle according to which two fermions (nucleons are fermions) cannot be in the same quantum state. |
This results in a very large mean free path predicted for a nucleon within the nucleus. The main idea of the Independent Particle approach is that a nucleon moves inside a certain potential well (which keeps it bound to the nucleus) independently from the other nucleons. This amounts to replacing an N-body problem (N particles interacting) by N single-body problems. This essential simplification of the problem is the cornerstone of mean field theories. These are also widely used in atomic physics, where electrons move in a mean field due to the central nucleus and the electron cloud itself. The independent particle model and mean field theories (we shall see that there exist several variants) have a great success in describing the properties of the nucleus starting from an effective interaction or an effective potential, thus are a basic part of atomic nucleus theory. |
One should also notice that they are modular enough, in that it is quite easy to extend the model to introduce effects such as nuclear pairing, or collective motions of the nucleon like rotation, or vibration, adding the corresponding energy terms in the formalism. This implies that in many representations, the mean field is only a starting point for a more complete description which introduces correlations reproducing properties like collective excitations and nucleon transfer. Nuclear potential and effective interaction A large part of the practical difficulties met in mean field theories is the definition (or calculation) of the potential of the mean field itself. |
One can very roughly distinguish between two approaches: The phenomenological approach is a parameterization of the nuclear potential by an appropriate mathematical function. Historically, this procedure was applied with the greatest success by Sven Gösta Nilsson, who used as a potential a (deformed) harmonic oscillator potential. The most recent parameterizations are based on more realistic functions, which account more accurately for scattering experiments, for example. In particular the form known as the Woods–Saxon potential can be mentioned. The self-consistent or Hartree–Fock approach aims to deduce mathematically the nuclear potential from an effective nucleon–nucleon interaction. This technique implies a resolution of the Schrödinger equation in an iterative fashion, starting from an ansatz wavefunction and improving it variationally, since the potential depends there upon the wavefunctions to be determined. |
The latter are written as Slater determinants. In the case of the Hartree–Fock approaches, the trouble is not to find the mathematical function which describes best the nuclear potential, but that which describes best the nucleon–nucleon interaction. Indeed, in contrast with atomic physics where the interaction is known (it is the Coulomb interaction), the nucleon–nucleon interaction within the nucleus is not known analytically. There are two main reasons for this fact. First, the strong interaction acts essentially among the quarks forming the nucleons. The nucleon–nucleon interaction in vacuum is a mere consequence of the quark–quark interaction. While the latter is well understood in the framework of the Standard Model at high energies, it is much more complicated in low energies due to color confinement and asymptotic freedom. |
Thus there is yet no fundamental theory allowing one to deduce the nucleon–nucleon interaction from the quark–quark interaction. Furthermore, even if this problem were solved, there would remain a large difference between the ideal (and conceptually simpler) case of two nucleons interacting in vacuum, and that of these nucleons interacting in the nuclear matter. To go further, it was necessary to invent the concept of effective interaction. The latter is basically a mathematical function with several arbitrary parameters, which are adjusted to agree with experimental data. Most modern interaction are zero-range so they act only when the two nucleons are in contact, as introduced by Tony Skyrme. |
The self-consistent approaches of the Hartree–Fock type In the Hartree–Fock approach of the n-body problem, the starting point is a Hamiltonian containing n kinetic energy terms, and potential terms. As mentioned before, one of the mean field theory hypotheses is that only the two-body interaction is to be taken into account. The potential term of the Hamiltonian represents all possible two-body interactions in the set of n fermions. It is the first hypothesis. The second step consists in assuming that the wavefunction of the system can be written as a Slater determinant of one-particle spin-orbitals. This statement is the mathematical translation of the independent-particle model. |
This is the second hypothesis. There remains now to determine the components of this Slater determinant, that is, the individual wavefunctions of the nucleons. To this end, it is assumed that the total wavefunction (the Slater determinant) is such that the energy is minimum. This is the third hypothesis. Technically, it means that one must compute the mean value of the (known) two-body Hamiltonian on the (unknown) Slater determinant, and impose that its mathematical variation vanishes. This leads to a set of equations where the unknowns are the individual wavefunctions: the Hartree–Fock equations. Solving these equations gives the wavefunctions and individual energy levels of nucleons, and so the total energy of the nucleus and its wavefunction. |
This short account of the Hartree–Fock method explains why it is called also the variational approach. At the beginning of the calculation, the total energy is a "function of the individual wavefunctions" (a so-called functional), and everything is then made in order to optimize the choice of these wavefunctions so that the functional has a minimum – hopefully absolute, and not only local. To be more precise, there should be mentioned that the energy is a functional of the density, defined as the sum of the individual squared wavefunctions. The Hartree–Fock method is also used in atomic physics and condensed matter physics as Density Functional Theory, DFT. |
The process of solving the Hartree–Fock equations can only be iterative, since these are in fact a Schrödinger equation in which the potential depends on the density, that is, precisely on the wavefunctions to be determined. Practically, the algorithm is started with a set of individual grossly reasonable wavefunctions (in general the eigenfunctions of a harmonic oscillator). These allow to compute the density, and therefrom the Hartree–Fock potential. Once this done, the Schrödinger equation is solved anew, and so on. The calculation stops – convergence is reached – when the difference among wavefunctions, or energy levels, for two successive iterations is less than a fixed value. |
Then the mean field potential is completely determined, and the Hartree–Fock equations become standard Schrödinger equations. The corresponding Hamiltonian is then called the Hartree–Fock Hamiltonian. The relativistic mean field approaches Born first in the 1970s with the works of John Dirk Walecka on quantum hadrodynamics, the relativistic models of the nucleus were sharpened up towards the end of the 1980s by P. Ring and coworkers. The starting point of these approaches is the relativistic quantum field theory. In this context, the nucleon interactions occur via the exchange of virtual particles called mesons. The idea is, in a first step, to build a Lagrangian containing these interaction terms. |
Second, by an application of the least action principle, one gets a set of equations of motion. The real particles (here the nucleons) obey the Dirac equation, whilst the virtual ones (here the mesons) obey the Klein–Gordon equations. In view of the non-perturbative nature of strong interaction, and also in view of the fact that the exact potential form of this interaction between groups of nucleons is relatively badly known, the use of such an approach in the case of atomic nuclei requires drastic approximations. The main simplification consists in replacing in the equations all field terms (which are operators in the mathematical sense) by their mean value (which are functions). |
In this way, one gets a system of coupled integro-differential equations, which can be solved numerically, if not analytically. The interacting boson model The interacting boson model (IBM) is a model in nuclear physics in which nucleons are represented as pairs, each of them acting as a boson particle, with integral spin of 0, 2 or 4. This makes calculations feasible for larger nuclei. There are several branches of this model - in one of them (IBM-1) one can group all types of nucleons in pairs, in others (for instance - IBM-2) one considers protons and neutrons in pairs separately. |
Spontaneous breaking of symmetry in nuclear physics One of the focal points of all physics is symmetry. The nucleon–nucleon interaction and all effective interactions used in practice have certain symmetries. They are invariant by translation (changing the frame of reference so that directions are not altered), by rotation (turning the frame of reference around some axis), or parity (changing the sense of axes) in the sense that the interaction does not change under any of these operations. Nevertheless, in the Hartree–Fock approach, solutions which are not invariant under such a symmetry can appear. One speaks then of spontaneous symmetry breaking. |
Qualitatively, these spontaneous symmetry breakings can be explained in the following way: in the mean field theory, the nucleus is described as a set of independent particles. Most additional correlations among nucleons which do not enter the mean field are neglected. They can appear however by a breaking of the symmetry of the mean field Hamiltonian, which is only approximate. If the density used to start the iterations of the Hartree–Fock process breaks certain symmetries, the final Hartree–Fock Hamiltonian may break these symmetries, if it is advantageous to keep these broken from the point of view of the total energy. |
It may also converge towards a symmetric solution. In any case, if the final solution breaks the symmetry, for example, the rotational symmetry, so that the nucleus appears not to be spherical, but elliptic, all configurations deduced from this deformed nucleus by a rotation are just as good solutions for the Hartree–Fock problem. The ground state of the nucleus is then degenerate. A similar phenomenon happens with the nuclear pairing, which violates the conservation of the number of baryons (see below). Extensions of the mean field theories Nuclear pairing phenomenon The most common extension to mean field theory is the nuclear pairing. |
Nuclei with an even number of nucleons are systematically more bound than those with an odd one. This implies that each nucleon binds with another one to form a pair, consequently the system cannot be described as independent particles subjected to a common mean field. When the nucleus has an even number of protons and neutrons, each one of them finds a partner. To excite such a system, one must at least use such an energy as to break a pair. Conversely, in the case of odd number of protons or neutrons, there exists an unpaired nucleon, which needs less energy to be excited. |
This phenomenon is closely analogous to that of Type 1 superconductivity in solid state physics. The first theoretical description of nuclear pairing was proposed at the end of the 1950s by Aage Bohr, Ben Mottelson, and David Pines (which contributed to the reception of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1975 by Bohr and Mottelson). It was close to the BCS theory of Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer, which accounts for metal superconductivity. Theoretically, the pairing phenomenon as described by the BCS theory combines with the mean field theory: nucleons are both subject to the mean field potential and to the pairing interaction. |
The Hartree–Fock–Bogolyubov (HFB) method is a more sophisticated approach, enabling one to consider the pairing and mean field interactions consistently on equal footing. HFB is now the de facto standard in the mean field treatment of nuclear systems. Symmetry restoration Peculiarity of mean field methods is the calculation of nuclear property by explicit symmetry breaking. The calculation of the mean field with self-consistent methods (e.g. Hartree-Fock), breaks rotational symmetry, and the calculation of pairing property breaks particle-number. Several techniques for symmetry restoration by projecting on good quantum numbers have been developed. Particle vibration coupling Mean field methods (eventually considering symmetry restoration) are a good approximation for the ground state of the system, even postulating a system of independent particles. |
Higher-order corrections consider the fact that the particles interact together by the means of correlation. These correlations can be introduced taking into account the coupling of independent particle degrees of freedom, low-energy collective excitation of systems with even number of protons and neutrons. In this way, excited states can be reproduced by the means of random phase approximation (RPA), also eventually consistently calculating corrections to the ground state (e.g. by the means of nuclear field theory). See also Nuclear magnetic moment CHARISSA, a nuclear structure research collaboration Further reading General audience James M. Cork ; Radioactivité & physique nucléaire, Dunod (1949). |
Introductory texts Luc Valentin ; Le monde subatomique - Des quarks aux centrales nucléaires, Hermann (1986). Luc Valentin ; Noyaux et particules - Modèles et symétries, Hermann (1997). David Halliday ; Introductory Nuclear Physics, Wiley & Sons (1957). Kenneth Krane ; Introductory Nuclear Physics, Wiley & Sons (1987). Carlos Bertulani ; Nuclear Physics in a Nutshell, Princeton University Press (2007). Fundamental texts Peter E. Hodgson; Nuclear Reactions and Nuclear Structure. Oxford University Press (1971).Irving Kaplan; Nuclear physics, the Addison-Wesley Series in Nuclear Science & Engineering, Addison-Wesley (1956). 2nd edition (1962). A. Bohr & B. Mottelson ; Nuclear Structure, 2 vol., Benjamin (1969–1975). |
Volume 1 : Single Particle Motion ; Volume 2 : Nuclear Deformations. Réédité par World Scientific Publishing Company (1998), . P. Ring & P. Schuck; The nuclear many-body problem, Springer Verlag (1980), A. de Shalit & H. Feshbach; Theoretical Nuclear Physics, 2 vol., John Wiley & Sons (1974). |
Volume 1: Nuclear Structure; Volume 2: Nuclear Reactions'', References External links English Institut de Physique Nucléaire (IPN), France Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research (FAIR), Germany Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung (GSI), Germany Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Russia Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), USA Riken, Japan National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory, Michigan State University, USA Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, Michigan State University, USA French Institut de Physique Nucléaire (IPN), France Centre de Spectrométrie Nucléaire et de Spectrométrie de Masse (CSNSM), France Service de Physique Nucléaire CEA/DAM, France Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (In2p3), France Grand Accélérateur National d'Ions Lourds (GANIL), France Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique (CEA), France Centre Européen de Recherches Nucléaires, Suisse The LIVEChart of Nuclides - IAEA Category:Nuclear physics Category:Particle physics Category:Quantum mechanics |
The 1966 24 Hours of Le Mans was the 34th Grand Prix of Endurance, and took place on 18 and 19 June 1966. It was also the seventh round of the 1966 World Sportscar Championship season. This was the first overall win at Le Mans for the Ford GT40 as well as the first overall win for an American constructor. It was also the debut Le Mans start for two significant drivers: Henri Pescarolo, who went on to set the record for the most starts at Le Mans; and Jacky Ickx, whose record of six Le Mans victories stood until beaten by Tom Kristensen in 2005. |
Regulations 1966 saw the advent of a completely new set of regulations from the CSI (Commission Sportive Internationale – the FIA’s regulations body) – the FIA Appendix J, redefining the categories of motorsport in a numerical list. GT cars were now Group 3 and Prototypes were now Group 6. Two new classes for Sports Cars were Group 4 and Group 5 for ‘Special Sports Cars’ (Group 1 and 2 covered Touring Cars, Group 7 led to the Can-Am series, with Group 8 and 9 for single-seaters). As Group 7 were ineligible for FIA events, the Automobile Club de l'Ouest (ACO) opened its entry list to Group 3, 4 and 6. |
The FIA mandated minimum annual production runs of 500 cars for Group 3 (up from 100 previously) and 50 for Group 4, which also had a maximum engine capacity of 5000cc. There were no engine limits on the GTs or Prototypes. As before, the Groups were split up in classes based on engine size, there was a sliding scale of a minimum weight based on the increasing engine size (from 450 to 1000 kg for 500 to 7000cc) as was fuel-tank capacity (60 to 160 litres). Along with the new Appendix J, after four years of focus on GT racing the FIA announced the International Manufacturer's Championship, for Group 6 Prototypes (2L / >2L), and the International Sports Car Championship for Group 4 (1.3L / 2L / 5L). |
Entries With the new regulations this year the ACO received a huge 103 entry requests. Such was the interest in Group 6 there were 43 prototypes on the starting grid and only 3 GT cars: After 2 years of its 3-year program, Ford had very little to show for its immense investment. Extensive work was done in the wind tunnel, and improving the brakes, handling and engine – not least improving the fuel economy. The big 7-litre engine now put out 475 bhp. But the new year started with promise with Ken Miles and Lloyd Ruby winning both the inaugural 24 Hours of Daytona and then 12 Hours of Sebring. |
Copying Ferrari's tactic of overwhelming numbers, they put in fifteen Mark II entrants; eight were accepted by the ACO. This time six were built and prepared by Shelby American. Shelby ran three cars himself for Americans Dan Gurney and Jerry Grant, Miles was now paired with New Zealander Denny Hulme after Ruby had been injured in a plane crash a month earlier. The third car was the all-Kiwi pairing of Bruce McLaren and Chris Amon. Holman & Moody, the successful Ford NASCAR race team was brought on board to race another trio – for Mark Donohue/Paul Hawkins, Ronnie Bucknum/Dick Hutcherson, and Lucien Bianchi/Mario Andretti. |
One of the big improvements Holman & Moody brought with them was a quick-change brakepad system to save time in the pits. The British team Alan Mann Racing had two cars prepared by Ford Advanced Vehicles, for Graham Hill/Dick Thompson and John Whitmore/Frank Gardner. Each of the eight cars was painted in a colour from the Mustang road-car range. Ferrari's response to the Mk II was the new Ferrari 330 P3. Shorter and wider than the P2, it kept the same 4-litre engine but with fuel-injection now put out 420 bhp. The works team had a pair of closed-cockpit versions for John Surtees/Ludovico Scarfiotti and former winners Lorenzo Bandini/Jean Guichet. |
An open-cockpit variant was given to the North American Racing Team (NART) for Pedro Rodriguez/Richie Ginther. But their race preparation had been limited by strike action in Italy. NART also entered a long-tailed P2, rebodied by Piero Drogo and driven by last year's winner Masten Gregory with Bob Bondurant. There were also P2/P3 hybrids for the Ecurie Francorchamps (Dumay/"Beurlys") and Scuderia Filipinetti (Mairesse/Müller. Finally there was a P2 Spyder for Maranello Concessionaires (Attwood/Piper). Fighting on two fronts, the company also took on Porsche in the 2-litre class with its Dino 206 S with a pair from NART and another for Maranello. |
Nino Vaccarella, race winner in 1964, was furious when he found out he was ‘demoted’ to drive the Dino rather than the P3 and threatened to walk out, but did, in the end run the car. Chevrolet was the other player in the over 2-litre class. Ex-Ferrari engineer Giotto Bizzarrini had fallen out with Renzo Rivolta and with his own company brought his new design, the P538, but still using the 5.3L Chevrolet engine. The other Chevy was in Texan Jim Hall’s Chaparral 2D. The 5.3L small block put out 420 bhp and had a semi-automatic transmission. Driven by Phil Hill and Jo Bonnier, they made a big impact winning the Nürburgring round just two weeks earlier. |
Porsche came with a new model – the 906 designed by the team led by Ferdinand Piëch. With the 2.0L flat-6 engine from the 911, it had recently been homologated for Group 4 with the requisite 50 cars. It was race-proven too, after winning the Targa Florio the month before. However three langheck (long-tail) prototypes were also entered by the works team, driven by Hans Herrmann/Herbert Linge, Jo Siffert/Colin Davis and Udo Schütz/Peter de Klerk. Alfa Romeo, and its works team Autodelta, had withdrawn from racing for a year to prepare a new car for 1967. But this year, a significant new manufacturer entered the fray: Matra had bought out Automobiles René Bonnet in 1964, rebadging the Djet. |
However it was a new design that was entered. The M620 had a 2-litre version of the BRM Formula 1 engine developing 245 bhp that could match the Porsches in speed, making 275 kp/h (170 mph). The three cars were driven by up and coming young French single-seater drivers Jean-Pierre Beltoise/Johnny Servoz-Gavin, Jean-Pierre Jaussaud/Henri Pescarolo and Jo Schlesser with Welshman Alan Rees. Remarkably, given British dominance of the race barely a decade earlier, there were only three British cars in this year's race. Defending class-champions Austin-Healey had two works entries. The other was a Marcos Engineering kit-car based on a Mini Cooper 'S' chassis. |
Entered by Frenchman Hubert Giraud and driven by Jean-Louis Marnat and Claude Ballot-Lena, the team was able to get a works engine and gearbox from BMC. The spectators laughed at the small car and its apparent resemblance to a flea. But the Mini Marcos would became the 'darling of the crowds' later on in the race. Alpine, after its poor showing in the previous year, returned with 6 cars. The new A210 had a 1.3L Gordini-Renault engine with a Porsche gearbox making it more durable if only a little faster at 245 kp/h (150 mph). This year a new customer team, the Ecurie Savin-Calberson was supported by Alpine, with former Index winner Roger Delageneste. |
Charles Deutsch (CD) brought his new aerodynamic SP66. The car was powered by a 1130cc Peugeot engine, marking the return of the French company last seen in the 1938 race. Another competitor in the small prototypes was ASA. Originally a Ferrari design by Carlo Chiti and Giotto Bizzarrini before their famous walk-out from Ferrari, it was sold to the new Italian company and uprated with a 1290cc engine giving 125 bhp. Two cars were entered, one by ASA and one by NART. The new Group 4 category started attracting interest as the earlier prototypes were meeting the homologation and production requirements. |
There were six GT40s entered by customer teams, with the 4.7L engine. Jochen Rindt, the previous year's winner, had moved across from Ferrari to Ford, in the new Canadian Comstock Racing Team. They joined Ford France, Scuderia Filipinetti and new privateers Scuderia Bear and Essex Wire. Joining Skip Scott, team owner of the Essex Wire team, was a 21-year old Jacky Ickx in his Le Mans debut. Up against them was Ed Hugus’ modified Ferrari 275 GTB and the Equipe Nationale Belge ran its 250 LM. Porsche also ran three regular 906s in the Sports category, two works entries as well as one for their Paris importer Toto Veuillet. |
With Shelby now fully concentrated on the Ford program, the Cobra GTs were abandoned. There were only three GT entries: the Ferrari customer teams Ecurie Francorchamps and Maranello Concessionaires both entered a 275 GTB. The third was a quiet though significant entry: Jacques Dewes, ever the pioneering privateer, brought the first Porsche 911 to Le Mans. Production of what would become the ubiquitous Le Mans car had started in late 1964 and the new 911 S model had its ‘boxer’ 6-cylinder engine tuned to 160 bhp. Finally, in a subcompetition of its own, there was the tire race between Firestone, Dunlop, and Goodyear. |
Practice Once again there was rain at the April testing weekend. And once again there was tragedy with a fatal accident. American Walt Hansgen's Ford hit water on the pit straight and aquaplaned. He aimed for the escape road at the end of the straight, not realising it was blocked by a sandbank, which he hit at about 190 km/h (120 mph). Taken with critical injuries to the American military hospital at Orléans, he died five days later. A notable absentee at the test weekend was the Ferrari works team. Chris Amon was fastest at the test weekend in the experimental Ford J-car with a 3:34.4 lap. |
But come race-week it was Gurney who put in the fastest qualifying lap of 3:30.6, a second faster than his stablemates Miles, Gardner and McLaren. Ginther was 5th in the fastest Ferrari with a 3:33.0, with Parkes and Bandini in 7th and 8th respectively. Phil Hill, in the Chaparral, broke up the Ford-Ferrari procession in 10th. Jo Siffert put the quickest Porsche 22nd on the grid with 3:51.0, with Nino Vaccarella's Ferrari in 24th (3:53.5) and Jo Schlesser's Matra just behind it (3:53.5). Over the test weekend, Mauro Bianchi had surprised many in the 1-litre Alpine, going as fast as the 1959 Ferrari Testa Rossas. |
The quickest Alpine in practice was Toivonen/Jansson (4:20.1), well ahead of the best CD (Ogier/Laurent 4:27.5) and the Austin-Healey's (4:45.1) and ASAs (4:49.8). There were also two significant dramas in practice. The biggest news was the walkout of Ferrari's lead driver John Surtees. He and team manager Eugenio Dragoni had decided that he, as the fastest Ferrari driver and driving with Mike Parkes, would act as the hare to bait and break the Fords. He was also still recovering from a big accident the previous year and would hand over to Scarfiotti if he got overly tired. Yet during raceweek, with news that new FIAT chairman Gianni Agnelli would be at the race, Dragoni changed the plan, putting Scarfiotti (Agnelli's nephew) in first. |
Surtees was furious and stormed off to Maranello to argue his case with Enzo Ferrari. Not listened to, Surtees, Ferrari's 1964 F1 World Champion, quit the team. The second incident was more serious – Dick Thompson in the Alan Mann Ford Mk II collided with Dick Holqvist who was going far slower in the Scuderia Bear Ford GT40 and pulled right in front of him at Maison Blanche. Holqvist spun off with heavy damage, while Thompson was able to get back to the pits. While repairing the damage, officials told the team that they were disqualified for Thompson leaving the scene of a major accident. |
Thompson was adamant he had advised pit officials, and in the hearing Ford's director of racing Leo Beebe threatened to withdraw all Fords. He was supported by Huschke von Hanstein who was prepared to withdraw the Porsche team as well. In the end, the car was reinstated though Thompson was banned. This still posed a problem for Ford as they were lacking spare drivers, with injuries with A.J. Foyt, Jackie Stewart and Lloyd Ruby. In the end Australian Brian Muir, who was in England was flown over to France. He did his two laps, his first ever at Le Mans on raceday morning to qualify. |
Race Start On a cool and cloudy afternoon, it was Henry Ford II this year who was the honorary starter. Last minute raindrops caused a flurry of tyre changes and some cars switched from Firestone to Goodyear or Dunlop. At the end of the first lap Ford's cars led – Hill ahead of Gurney then Bucknum, Parkes in the Ferrari, followed by Whitmore's Ford, the Chaparral, then the GT40s of Scott and Rindt. There had been instant excitement when Edgar Berney spun his Bizzarrini on the start-line amongst the crowd of departing cars. Miles had to pit after the first lap to fix his door after colliding with Whitmore's Ford at the start. |
Also pitting on the first lap was Paul Hawkins whose Ford broke a halfshaft going down the Mulsanne Straight lurching him sideways at nearly 350 km/h. The Holman & Moody crew took 70 minutes to repair it only for Mark Donohue to have the rear boot blow off down the Mulsanne and find the differential had been terminally damaged. On the third lap Gurney took the lead, which he held onto until the first pit-stops. McLaren was being delayed by his tyres going off, so the team quietly changed from Firestones to Goodyears. After only 9 laps, Rindt's Ford blew its engine at the end of the Mulsanne straight, so there would be no consecutive win. |
At the end of the first hour Fords were 1-2-3, with Gurney leading by 24 seconds from Graham Hill and Bucknum. Fourth, 20 seconds further back, was the first NART Ferrari, of Rodriguez. Meanwhile, Miles had been putting in extremely fast laps, breaking the lap record and getting back up to 5th place. Parkes was 6th ahead of Bonnier in the Chaparral who had already been lapped. Within another hour Miles and Hulme had taken the lead. At 8pm, only the Miles and Gurney Fords and Rodiguez's Ferrari were on the lead lap (#64). At dusk it started to drizzle, reducing the power advantage of the big Fords, and allowing the Ferraris to keep in touch. |
The Fords were further delayed as a number chose to change brake pads early. By then all three Dinos were out with mechanical issues, removing one threat to Porsche. A major accident occurred when Jean-Claude Ogier's CD got loose on spilt oil at the Mulsanne kink and was hit hard side-on by François Pasquier in the NART ASA. Both cars hit the wall and caught fire, and Ogier was taken to the hospital with two broken arms. Night After 6 hours, heavy rain was pouring down. Ginther's NART Ferrari was leading from Parkes, chased by the Fords of Miles and Gurney on the same lap, McLaren a lap behind then Bandini and Andretti two laps back. |
But Andretti was soon sidelined with a blown headgasket, as was the Hill/Muir Ford which had broken its front suspension coming out of Arnage corner. As the rain eased, the Fords of Miles and Gurney retook the lead. Just before midnight Robert Buchet aquaplaned coming over the crest at the Dunlop Bridge and crashed the French Porsche. The Chaparral had been running well initially, getting as high as 5th, until a broken alternator stopped them also just before midnight while running in 8th. Another heavy downpour at 12.30 contributed to a big accident in the Esses. Guichet had just spun his Ferrari in the rain and got away when Buchet arrived and crashed his Porsche. |
Then Schlesser's Matra ran into the CD of Georges Heligouin avoiding the accident. As the damage was being cleared, Scarfiotti crashed his P3 into the Matra and all four cars were wrecked, although only Scarfiotti was taken to hospital, with minor bruising. During the night the Ferraris started to suffer from overheating. When the NART P3 retired from 4th with a broken gearbox at 3am, and the Filipinetti car of Mairesse/Müller from 5th an hour later, the Ferrari challenge was spent – there would be no privateer-saviours for the marque this year. At halfway the Ford Mk IIs held the top-4 places (Miles/Hulme, Gurney/Grant, McLaren/Amon, Bucknum/Hutcherson) with GT40s in 5-6-8: Essex, Filipinetti and Ford-France (Revson/Scott, Spoerry/Sutcliffe, Ligier/Grossman). |
Siffert/Davis were leading a train of Porsches in 7th and the nearest Ferrari was the Bandini/Guichet P3 limping in 12th. Ford told their cars to drop to 4-minute laps, but Gurney and Miles kept racing hard for the lead. Morning What could have been a procession was anything but for Ford. At 8 am, a pit-stop for the Filipinetti Ford running 5th spilled petrol on a rear tyre. On his out-lap Spoerry lost traction and spun at the Esses wrecking the car. The Ford-France and Essex cars had already retired with engine issues during the night. At 9am the Gurney/Grant car, which had been dicing for the lead with Miles & Hulme (against strict team orders), retired from 1st when the car blew a headgasket. |
That left Ford with only three Mk IIs left (albeit running 1-2-3) as all the GT40s had retired as well. Porsches now held the next five places and the two Ferrari GTs were 9th and 10th chased by the Alpines. Finish and post-race With the field covered it was now that Leo Beebe, Ford racing director, contrived to stage a dead heat by having his two lead cars cross the line simultaneously. The ACO told him this would not be possible — given the staggered starting formation, the #2 car would have covered 20 metres further, and thus be the race winner. |
But Beebe pushed on with his plan anyway. At the last pit stop, the Mark IIs were still in front. Miles/Hulme were leading, followed by McLaren/Amon holding station on the same lap. The gold Bucknum/Hutcherson car was third, but twelve laps behind. Miles was told to ease off to allow McLaren to catch up with him. Just before 4pm, it started to drizzle again. As it turned out McLaren's #2 car crossed the finish line just ahead and was declared the winner. It was rumoured that Miles, upset about the team orders, lifted off to allow McLaren to finish a length ahead. |
At their last pitstop, the 7th-placed Porsche of Peter Gregg and Sten Axelsson was stopped by engine problems. Gregg parked the car waiting for the last lap, but at 3.50pm he could not get it restarted and missed the formation finish. The other Porsches came in 4th to 7th led by Siffert/Davis, who also claimed the Index of Performance. The Stommelen/Klass car in 7th was the first, and only, Sports car to finish. Finally, the new 911 GT ran well and finished 14th starting a long record of success. Four Alpines finished this year, 9-11-12-13, with that of Delageneste/Cheinisse from the Ecurie Savin-Calberson winning the Thermal Efficiency Index. |
The final finisher was the little Mini Marcos. Formerly the object of laughter, it had become a crowd favourite running like clockwork. As car after car ran into trouble and dropped out, the little Marcos, by this time nicknamed 'la puce bleue' (the blue flea) wailed on. Despite finishing 26 laps behind the rest of the field. the car eventually came home at an incredible 15th overall. It had taken three attempts for Ford to win Indianapolis and the NASCAR Championship, and now it added the Le Mans 24 Hours. Chrysler had first entered in 1925, and after 41 years it was the first win for an American car. |
The official Ford press release, erroneously dated 7/5/1966, claims: The Ford team's decision was a big disappointment for Ken Miles, who was aiming for the 'Endurance Racing Triple Crown'—winning Daytona-Sebring-Le Mans—as a reward for his investment in the GT40 development. "I'm disappointed, of course, but what are you going to do about it." Beebe also later admitted he had been annoyed with Miles racing Gurney, disregarding team orders by potentially risking the cars’ endurance. Two months later, Ken Miles was killed at Riverside while testing the next generation Ford GT40 J-Car, which became the MkIV that won Le Mans in 1967. |
In a race of attrition it was fortunate the big teams brought such quantity – only 3 of the 13 Fords finished and only the two GTs finished from the 14 Ferraris entered. By contrast, 5 of the 7 Porsches finished (including their 911 in the GT class) as did four of the six Alpines, showing much better reliability. It was the first time that the 3000 miles/125 mph mark had been exceeded. With the bitter failure of Ferrari's 330 P3 mirroring the failure of the Ford prototypes the previous year (and with salt rubbed into the wound with Ford's formation finish), the "Ford-Ferrari War" moved into its climactic phase. |
The Le Mans results boosted Ford over Ferrari for the 1966 Manufacturers' Championship. Ford's answer to Ferrari's next weapon, the 330 P4, was delayed by development problems, handing Ferrari a rematch with the Mk IIs that so dominated them at LeMans, at the 1967 Daytona 24 Hours. After a defective batch of transaxle shafts sank Ford's effort, Ferrari took a 1-2-3 finish with their new P4s and returned the favor of Ford's victory formation. Ford's Mark IV was ready in time for the 12 Hours of Sebring, where it won on its maiden outing. Three more examples were produced and prepared for the Le Mans 24 Hours, while Ford's championship hopes rested on the older GT40s and the new GT40-derived Mirages to gain points in the intervening races. |
Subsets and Splits