In the electron beam, electrons do not fly, but stand, and therefore a "standing cluster of free electrons" is deflected.
How did you come into it?
In the electron beam, electrons do not fly, but stand, and therefore a "standing cluster of free electrons" is deflected.
How did you come into it?
How did you come into it?
Vodka!
Взаимодействие с другими людьми
In the electron beam, electrons do not fly, but stand, and therefore a "standing cluster of free electrons" is deflected.
How did you come into it?
You won't believe me ... I came to this knowledge in a very strange way ... I returned to the study of physics after the death of my friend, Vladimir Afanasyev, in April 2015, and I wanted to reveal the secrets of his "hydro-wave tenology", in which it is possible to generate a huge amount of excess heat ... For example ... A single unit of a hydro-wave plant with a capacity of processing "dirty water" of 50 cubic meters per hour is capable of producing distillate and, consuming 150 kWh of electricity, generate 15 MWh heat energy ... This is in the inventor's idea, which he was not allowed to implement ... I was driven by curiosity and a thirst for knowledge ... Below is the material to help you -
"THE SCIENCE SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM ITSELF" - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/X2bm/p7h3AEAed
“SCIENCE SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM ITSELF” - https://drive.google.com/file/…xLKfA9gs/view?usp=sharing
Answer by A.I. Cherepanov Cherepennikov Vladislav Borisovich, January 12, 2021 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/6PYL/jshNZnusU
Answer by A.I. Cherepanov Cherepennikov Vladislav Borisovich, January 12, 2021 - https://drive.google.com/file/…rp6iW9FV/view?usp=sharing
In the electron beam, electrons do not fly, but stand, and therefore a "standing cluster of free electrons" is deflected.
How did you come into it?
Return to the origins of physics and you will find that "some bad uncles" for 150 years "lead you by the nose", they defame you ...
Translate from French this passage from Charles Coulomb's treatise ...
Pay attention to this part - "D = le produit de la masse electrique".
D is equal to what? It is equal to the result of the action "de la masse electrique" ... But we were inspired and slipped something completely different -
Where does the "multiplication" sign come from in this formula ??? Why did Coulomb, Poisson and Thomson mean by the symbol "q" the masses of electricity, but in the modern formula there is nothing of this at all?
Thomson defined charges -
«Charges. – En vertu des theorems fondamentaux, on devra distribuer sur la surface de la sphere A une masse qaa = ∑An d’electricite, et sur B une masse de signe contraire qab = ∑Bn pour produire les memes potentiels sur ces spheres.»
Why is the name of the outstanding German physicist Karl Schreber consigned to oblivion ??? Read his excellent article in which he exposes Maxwell and his electrodynamics -
Die Jfaasse der elektrischen Grössen, 1899 г. – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/2ZuE/6EhstsLjG
Die Jfaasse der elektrischen Grössen, 1899 г. – https://drive.google.com/file/…GK-6KBIZ/view?usp=sharing
Wittenbach knows nothing about Russia except vodka and I sincerely feel sorry for him ...
Display MoreReturn to the origins of physics and you will find that "some bad uncles" for 150 years "lead you by the nose", they defame you ...
Translate from French this passage from Charles Coulomb's treatise ...Pay attention to this part - "D = le produit de la masse electrique".
D is equal to what? It is equal to the result of the action "de la masse electrique" ... But we were inspired and slipped something completely different -
Where does the "multiplication" sign come from in this formula ??? Why did Coulomb, Poisson and Thomson mean by the symbol "q" the masses of electricity, but in the modern formula there is nothing of this at all?
Thomson defined charges -
«Charges. – En vertu des theorems fondamentaux, on devra distribuer sur la surface de la sphere A une masse qaa = ∑An d’electricite, et sur B une masse de signe contraire qab = ∑Bn pour produire les memes potentiels sur ces spheres.»
Why is the name of the outstanding German physicist Karl Schreber consigned to oblivion ??? Read his excellent article in which he exposes Maxwell and his electrodynamics -
Die Jfaasse der elektrischen Grössen, 1899 г. – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/2ZuE/6EhstsLjG
Die Jfaasse der elektrischen Grössen, 1899 г. – https://drive.google.com/file/…GK-6KBIZ/view?usp=sharing
Wittenbach knows nothing about Russia except vodka and I sincerely feel sorry for him ...
What is the conclusion from all this? The mass of a free electron is the real "charge" - the greater the "magnetic mass of the electron", the higher its "magnetic potential" or "magnetic charge" ... And this means, in turn, the following - the higher the "magnetic mass of the electron" or " the magnetic charge of an electron "the more powerful magnet is created from the data of free electrons ... And this in turn means the following - free electrons with increased magnetic mass are able to transfer photons with a higher mass to each other - the higher the photon mass, the higher the" energy " which he carries within himself ...
Try to understand and delve into the discovery by physicists in 1947 of the electron's own magnetic moment ... You will have to admit, if you recognize this discovery, then the substance of the electron - its mass, has a circular rotation - this is the current that creates the magnetic moment. And if so then the electron has an angular velocity ... And if so then by emitting photons, the electron emits mass and obeys Planck's constant - the energy of the electron -
E_{e} = h • ω_{е} = (m_{e} • r_{e}) • (ω_{е} • r_{e}) • ω_{е},
where h is Planck's constant, which the electron obeys ... But at the same time it obeys the law of localization of the electron, which makes it fulfill the following -
k_{0} = m_{e} • r_{e} = const
What is - m_{e} • r_{e} • r_{e }in the formula - E_{e} = (m_{e} • r_{e}) • (ω_{е} • r_{e}) • ω_{е} ???
First of all, m_{e} • r_{e}^{2} is the moment of inertia of the ring. Since the ring performs such rotations for which the sum of the moments of forces acting on it is equal to zero. Therefore, the angular momentum of the base ring remains constant. This is the law governing the constancy of Planck's constant. It says: if the sum of the moments of external forces acting on a rotating body is equal to zero, then its kinetic moment (angular momentum) remains constant in magnitude and direction. It automatically follows from this that Planck's constant h is a vector quantity.
As soon as the electron absorbed the photon, its mass increased by the mass of the photon and, so that the localization constant k_{0} = const remained constant, the electron decreases its size re and moves away from the proton - a secondary magnetic field acts. .. Why does it leave? The answer is that the condition r_{е} • ω_{е} = const must be satisfied, since m_{e} • r_{е} = const and since - h = (m_{e} • r_{e}) • (ω_{е} • r_{e}) = const
It turns out that a decrease in the size of an electron leads to an increase in its angular velocity, which entails an increase in the secondary magnetic field of the electron, which moves it away from the proton ...
As soon as the electron has emitted a photon, it has lost its mass, its size increases, and in order for r_{е }• ω_{е} = const its angular velocity decreases ...
It seems that Coulomb's "masse electrique" is simply our present "electrical charge". Mere semantics!
Look at Mills : he envisions the electrons as a 2D surface of moving "charge/mass" or "mass/charge", yet he certainly doesn't ignore the reality of charge. You *seem* to be doing this, which has me scratching my head...
What is the conclusion from all this? The mass of a free electron is the real "charge" - the greater the "magnetic mass of the electron", the higher its "magnetic potential" or "magnetic charge" .
In the synchrotron where I worked summers at Cornell (materials handling, not theoretical physics), electrons and positrons were accelerated to relativistic speed. Their relativistic mass should have been way larger and they should have been deflected more than expected since you say electron charge = mass. Why did they not notice this? (Oh I forgot Einstein is a moron like Coulomb.)
Взаимодействие с другими людьми
In the synchrotron where I worked summers at Cornell (materials handling, not theoretical physics), electrons and positrons were accelerated to relativistic speed. Their relativistic mass should have been way larger and they should have been deflected more than expected since you say electron charge = mass. Why did they not notice this? (Oh I forgot Einstein is a moron like Coulomb.)
Because "relativism" is a pseudoscience!
Where does the "multiplication" sign come from in this formula ??? Why did Coulomb, Poisson and Thomson mean by the symbol "q" the masses of electricity, but in the modern formula there is nothing of this at all?
In French mass has a broad meaning. Basically the term mass stems from "amasser" = "the piled up mass" of something where mass is not kilogram and means something like needed to measure.
The actual formula is pretty clear as current physics is based on unit charges and the measured force between opposite charge is linear dependent on the mass= "amount of" (= amasse - French) charge. So there is nothing hidden as always the same terms with the same meaning were used.
measured force between opposite charge
I thought it was pretty clear in the French treatise that electrostatic charge was indicated by,, the reference to
l'on nomme positive... l'on nomme negative..
Coulomb's preliminary results were subsequently verified by many researchers... always with reference to electrostatic charge..
"
Harris and his followers pointed out that Coulomb had only ever published one experiment,
comprising three data points,to support his conclusions
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.01520
leading by the nose... is what Cherepanov is doing .. with spam answers.. which have little to do with the topic
as with this answer to poor Sharmi
Взаимодействие с другими людьми
In French mass has a broad meaning. Basically the term mass stems from "amasser" = "the piled up mass" of something where mass is not kilogram and means something like needed to measure.
The actual formula is pretty clear as current physics is based on unit charges and the measured force between opposite charge is linear dependent on the mass= "amount of" (= amasse - French) charge. So there is nothing hidden as always the same terms with the same meaning were used.
Wittenbach! Don't lie! No need to get out! No need to present your position as beneficial to you! Enough! Stop messing with our ears! Charles Coulomb, as a physicist, acted very wisely - he presented the formula in words - this is a text, not mathematical symbols, and he clearly stated his idea - this idea is that there is "interaction of masses of electricity" and this idea is that under he understood the concept of "charge" as "the mass of electricity" or "the mass of an electric liquid" ... Even then, the concept of "mass" meant for physicists "the amount of matter" .... Stop distorting the "heritage" of Charles Coulomb!
230 years ago Charles Coulomb could not have known that on the surface of bodies he had a "mass of free electrons", but we know this and we understand this ... If you still do not understand this, then this is your personal trouble!
No need to slip your personal interpretation of the French language onto us! Without your help, we are able to produce the correct translation of the text from the treatise by Charles Coulomb. Two phrases are used in Coulomb's text - “de deux balles électrisées de la même nature d'électricité” - “two electrified balls of the same nature of electricity” and “des deux balles chargées d'une electricité de différente nature” - “two balls charged with electricity of different natures "... For me, the logic of Coulomb is important - after all, he talks practically about what he does not know and could not know then ... Namely, he could not know that in fact he is dealing with the same nature of electricity - this is free electrons - it was they who, with their opposite magnetic poles, created for Coulomb the impression that he was dealing with a different nature of the same electricity ... Understand this - and this is surprising to me today - Coulomb really understood that he was dealing with the same - electricity, but could not realize that this "electricity" - electrons, two "different", opposite natural qualities - the north and south magnetic poles ...
This is followed by an even more striking statement, which in modern physics is ABSOLUTELY distorted - Coulomb writes - "l'une de l'électricité que l'on nomme positive" - "one of the electricity we call positive" and further - "l'autre de l 'électricité que l'on nomme négative "-" we call another of the electricity negative "...
Here it is very important to correctly translate the text! My translation is based on the fact that I made Google translate this phrase into a "breakdown" and it immediately becomes clear that the Pendant meant the same "electricity", but which had two different natural qualities and for convenience these qualities got their names - "positive" and "négative" ... And today you can breathe out and say - "Hurray! “Positive” is the magnetic south pole and “négative” is the magnetic north pole ...
Also notice how the preface sounds - “OU L'ON DÉTERMINE SUIVANT QUEIXES LOIS LE FLUIDE MAGNÉTIQUE AINSI QUE LE FLUIDE ÉLECTRIQUE AGISSENT SOIT PAR RÉPULS " - "FROM WHICH THE FOLLOWING LAWS OF THE ACTION OF A MAGNETIC FLUID ARE THE SAME AS THE ACTION OF AN ELECTRIC LIQUID AND ARE EITHER REPETITION OR ATTRACTION" - it is in this paradigm that Coulomb did not argue that in modern textbooks.
But it is possible to have (for example) a charged body with a single polarity of macroscopic size in isolation. That is not possible with a magnetic body - it always has both poles.
Display MoreЯ думал, что во французском трактате довольно ясно, что электростатический заряд обозначается ссылкой на
l'on nomme positive ... l'on nomme negative ..
Предварительные результаты Кулона впоследствии были проверены многими исследователями ... всегда со ссылкой на электростатический заряд.
"
Харрис и его последователи отметили, что Кулон опубликовал только один эксперимент,
состоящий из трех точек данных, чтобы поддержать его выводы
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.01520
ведя за нос ... это то, что делает Черепанов .. со спам-ответами .. которые не имеют отношения к теме
как с этим ответом бедной Шарми
Robert! You can continue to enjoy your delusions ... You are ashamed to admit that for 150 years in a row physicists slipped the concept of "charge" and deliberately excluded the concept of "charge" as "mass of electricity" or "mass of electrical fluid" ... You are too lazy to dig in the history of physics ... You are too lazy to delve into THAT revelation presented by Karl Schreber in 1899 ... What did this remarkable physicist do? The fact is that any formula can be verified by examining the "dimension of quantities" ... He wrote - "Dimensions of electrical quantities, K. Schreber.
The requirement that the units of all physical quantities be expressed in units of mass, length, and time has been raised so often that it would be fair to wonder that this has not yet been met. As far as I know, no attempt has been made in the field of optics to do this. In thermal theory, the beginning in this direction was actually laid in some books devoted to the so-called absolute measurements2); but it does not seem to have received general acceptance, because both in textbooks that deal with all physics and those that deal with all physics, as well as those limited by the theory of heat, the definition of temperature according to Lord Kelvin is always preferable 3), which is independent of mass, length and time, proof that the former is indeed distrusted. Therefore, there must be something in this requirement that makes them difficult to implement, if not impossible. The fact that the units of measurement of electrical quantities have been reduced to units of mass, length and time, apparently speaks against this last possibility: ohm, volt, ampere, etc. should be only electrical units, depending on the units of these three basic terms. ,
Below I will show that even for electrical quantities, units cannot be represented by units of mass, length and time, and therefore the requirement requires something impossible. "
Die Jfaasse der elektrischen Grössen, 1899 г. - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/2ZuE/6EhstsLjG
Die Jfaasse der elektrischen Grössen, 1899 г. - https://drive.google.com/file/…GK-6KBIZ/view?usp=sharing
The usual assignment of electrical quantities to these three so-called fundamental terms can be achieved in very different ways. The following is very clear:
Hang a magnetic bar of sufficient length on the balance and balance it. If you place the second magnetic bar lower than the first, the balance is disturbed, which can be restored by setting the weight. Thus, the mutual action of two magnetic rods can be balanced by the gravity of certain weights; so we can call it analog power. The law that this force depends on two magnetic rods and their distance was first established by Coulomb at a time when force was still considered a fundamental concept in physics. Pendant found that it was inversely proportional to the square of the distance r from the ends of two sufficiently long magnetic rods. The dependence of the force on the magnetic rods themselves was demonstrated by the measurable property of the ends of the magnetic rod, the poles, which Coulomb called the magnitude of the magnetism of the poles. What you want to represent does not matter: it is important that the magnitude of magnetism is measurable. If we assume that any magnetism is set as a whole, the force is proportional to the product of the magnitudes of the magnetism of the poles facing each other, so that we get the expression for the force:
if μ and μ ’are the magnitudes of the magnetism of two reversed poles and r is the distance between them;
α is a factor depending on the units of K, μ and r. 1)
off topic.. more Cherepanovist revisionism of history
there are no positive or negative magnetic poles...
as little to do with LENR as with the Cherepanov spam answer to
Sharmi 's question about "Glucam Carbohydrate builder
"
"How to assign atomic charges on bio-molecules which were built by a Glycam Carbohydrate builder? The (.pdb) files generated by carbo-builder are without charges of the atom,?
Any help would be appreciated"
I continue ... Karl Schreber writes -
"We make exactly the same observation and from this we conclude, if we hang an electrically charged metal disk and a second on the scales, also put the charged ones under it, or if we hang a coil with a conductive wire and place the same one under it, or, finally, if we hang either a magnetic bar or a coil with a conductive wire and place a coil with a conductive wire, respectively. put the magnetic bar at the bottom. Everywhere the mutual influence can be balanced by gravity so that we can express them by force. The law of the first of these forces has also been divided into is Coulomb and means that if we introduce any unit for the amount of electricity, which should also be regarded simply as an expression of the measurable property of an electrically charged disk
Enter any unit Usually, the question of whether it is possible to trace electric and magnetic quantities to mass, length and time is now answered by these two laws, setting α and ß equal to 1, and then as a unit associated with magnetism. The amount of electricity that receives force 1 at an equal distance of 1 from it, but which should exert force 1. If the answer is to be free from arbitrariness, it is also necessary to take into account the laws of the other two forces defined in the scale, because this is only a historical coincidence that two Coulomb laws were discovered earlier than the laws of the other two forces.
In the experimental representation of these forces, the concept of electric current i was used, which is used to describe the amount of electricity according to the equation for determining
where t is connected - the time during which the amount of electricity e at a current i flows through the cross section of the conductor, the time during which the current i directs the energy e through the cross section of the conductor.
When setting up two laws, everyone faces a mathematical difficulty; one only needs to take into account the finite forces, but one cannot correctly establish them for all possible cases. If the expression of the law is to be generally fair, then one must confine oneself to elementary forces, from which man receives finite forces through integration. However, this does not affect the meaning of the laws, because integration always gives us the meaning of force, which has been shown to be experimentally correct. Both laws contain trigonometric functions that depend on the position of the pivot elements: we want to choose this position so that the trigonometric functions are assigned the value 1; then the laws are as follows:
Since the units used to measure μ and i are initially arbitrary, the factors γ and δ should not be forgotten.
Four power laws (1), (2), (4). (5) do not depend on each other. If you want to make the similarities between electrodynamic and electromagnetic effects of a closed loop the same, the last two force laws (4) and (5) are independent of each other, and you will get a very specific relationship between γ and δ… 1). But there is this arbitrary replacement of similarity with equality, as I will show below, it will not change anything in the following discussion, so I do not use it.
Let's make a problem, units of measurement of electrical and magnetic quantities per unit of mass. Due to duration and time, general and no arbitrary decision, we must take into account the four laws of force and the definition of current. However, we only have these 5 equations available.
I continue
in reference to charges in Glucam Glycan buiider
I answered Sharmi
"In GLYCAM06, the issue of charge-conformation coupling was addressed by employing ensemble-averaged (EA) charge sets.^{61} For any given monosaccharide, an MD simulation, typically 50–100 ns was performed in TIP3P water, with 100–200 structures being selected from the trajectory for individual charge calculations. For each of these snapshots partial charges were calculated by fitting to the HF/6-31G* MEP. Prior to the charge calculations, each structure was optimized at the HF/6-31G* level, with the rotatable exocyclic bonds constrained to their MD conformations.^{61} The charges were then averaged for each monosaccharide to afford a final EA charge set, as exemplified in Table 2. These sets of charges were thus weighted by the actual occurrence of a particular solution conformation in an MD simulation. "
I guess in the newest Cherepanovist revisionism , Karl Schreber had frequent tete a tetes with Charles Coulomb..
but these have been underhandedly covered up by those conspirators leading us by the nose
and in fact Charles Coulomb really wrote about and north and south magnetic poles rather than positive and negative charges..
Je suis desolee...
From 5 equations (1 to 5), we first get:
and then it remains to determine four coefficients of proportionality. Equations:
where v = r / t is the speed. It is easy to show by combining laws (2) and (4) that v is the so-called critical velocity, as, for example, was experimentally presented by B. Rowland.
Thus, we have only two equations for determining α, β, γ, γ, and since a system of two equations with four unknowns cannot be solved, the question is whether the units of measurement of electrical and magnetic quantities are units - Mass, length and time can be submitted to answer "No".
If one more law of the fifth force, independent of the four above, is found again, this will not change this result, since system (7) will have a third equation, but at the same time another unknown factor, the fifth proportionality coefficient, will be obtained. The same can happen if one or the other of the above laws turns out to be independent; it would indeed be a factor of proportionality, since one unknown is less available; at the same time, system (7) would have one more equation. In system (7) we always keep two unknowns more than equations; it always remains unsolvable.
The conclusion from this undecidability of the system of equations (7), the answer "No" to the question that is our topic, seems to be refuted by the fact that electrical quantities were represented by mass, length and time: volts, amperes and
etc. in units that should be based only on the units of these three basic terms. How is this consistent with this negative answer?
Mathematics teaches that a system of two equations with four unknowns cannot be solved. However, the system becomes solvable if we create two more equations independent of these two. Since, as mentioned above, the theory of electricity does not offer us any additional equations, we must give additional equations arbitrarily. This arbitrariness (!) Allows us to set additional conditions in such a way that frequently used derivative laws have a particularly simple form. The law that teaches how to replace a magnetically sheathed circuit is especially important for technology. This law means:
δ • if = α • m, where i is the current, f is the area, and m is the moment of the shell. It takes on the simplest form if we set α = δ. In addition to this one arbitrary complementary equation, I set α = 1 as the second, for no particular reason as you see fit.
(8) α = δ, α = 1
System
α = 1, β = v^{2}, γ = 1, δ = 1.
This system is the so-called electromagnetic system, which includes the units of Ohm, Volt, etc.
Now we want to set a = δ as the second complementary equation
β = 1. Then we obtain for
(9) а = δ, β = 1
System
This system is electrostatic, proposed by Clausius.
Since the second equation of system (7) implies a = γ = δ for a = δ, we no longer have a third system of solutions in which the coefficient can be set equal to 1 in addition to a = δ. However, nothing forces us to adhere to the laws used by technology, and therefore we can choose as additional equations
(10) α = l, β = 1
Then we get the solution
This is the system that v. Helmholtz founded most of his work.
Or we put randomly
(11) β = 1, δ = 1,
then we find Maxwell's electrostatic system
commonly referred to as electrostatic in the wrong way, although he has no preference over Klasius in any respect; rather, it can be seen as a disadvantage of the same thing that α and δ are different, so that an extremely important equation for technicians does not have a simple form.
The additional equations so far have been chosen so that the proportionality coefficients either become dimensionless or their sizes are exclusively functions of the critical velocity. But you don't have to. So, h. B. Joubin1) and Lodge2) set δ = 1, and the resulting equation aα • β = v^{2} is split into α = g^{-1} • cm^{3} and β = g • cm^{-1} sec^{-2} and thus the dimensions for electrical quantities that do not have broken mass potentials. We now want to select additional equations to make the relationship between electrical and magnetic units of fundamental terms and mechanical terms particularly simple. For this we use:
(12а) γ = g • cm ^{-1}, δ = cm • sec^{-1},
(12 b) α = δ, δ = g • cm • sec^{-1},
(12s) γ = g^{-1} • cm, δ = cm^{-2} • sec^{-1},
Robert! You can continue to enjoy your delusions .
Perhaps this is the ad hominen Cherepanovist 2020 revisionism of science history...but it is irrelevant to LENR...
find another unrelated question on researchgate to answer
With these three pairs of complementary equations, we get the following three systems of proportionality coefficients:
α = g^{-1} • cm^{3} • sec^{-2}, β = g • cm • sec^{-2},
γ = g • cm^{-1}, δ = cm • sec^{-1},
α = g • cm • sec^{-2}, β = g • cm^{3} • sec^{-4},
γ = g • cm • sec^{-2}, δ = g • cm • sec^{-2},
α = g • cm^{3} • sec^{-4}, β = g^{-1} • cm^{3} • sec^{-2},
γ = g^{-1} • cm, δ = cm^{2} • sec^{-2},
If we now express the units of the amount of magnetism μ and the amount of electricity e in these three systems, we get in turn:
μ = r, e = cm,
μ = cm, e = sec,
μ = sec, e = g.
This example shows that we can not only get units of mass, length or time for units of magnetism and electricity, but also we can get units of any mechanical size in units of any electrical units. Size can be made. A result that is clearly absurd. Now, when the last three systems are obtained according to the same principle as the first four discussed in science, there must be an error in the whole principle of inference, and this is precisely because it gives one solution to a system of two equations with four unknowns, and mathematics teaches, that such a system is undecidable.
Therefore, based on this mathematical theorem, we find that the units of electrical and magnetic quantities cannot be represented by units of mass, length and time.
The practical use of units of Volt, Ohm, etc., of course, does not stop at all."
That's how easily Maxwell and his followers were exposed! Great article by Karl Schreber! Robert is scoffing and nervous! He has no arguments!
Today, with the advent of the "physical chemistry of the microworld", the following became clear to us - the role of the "mass of the electric fluid" was and is played by free electrons, which have their own magnetic field, their own magnetic poles and their own magnetic moments, and the role of the "mass of the magnetic fluid" was and is played by protons. which also have their own magnetic field, their own magnetic poles and their own magnetic moments, but at the same time, bound electrons and free electrons continue to play a role in this system, i.e. A permanent magnet is a system of protons and electrons ...