Pay attention to what the author of the video says at 16 minutes 36 seconds - “Why today we continue to use the results of discoveries 200 years ago without visible attempts to clarify them?” -
17. Structure of the field of a conductor with current. Notes on magnetostatics. Part 17. -
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
18. Magnetic field of several conductors. Notes on magnetostatics. h 18. -
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
19. Magnetic field of a coil with a current of different diameters. Notes on magnetostatics. Ch 19. Mag-notes P19. -
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
there are a variety of written forms which allude to Maxwell's sins
Here is third Maxwell critic re:
"vicious electric magnetism ...Sisov
"As the result the true sources of the magnetic field - real magnetic poles (magnetic charges) which are the structural components of atoms and substance, were “buried alive”.
It is Maxwell’s vicious electric magnetism that suppressed the interest of scientists in the search for and detection of real magnetic charges in atoms and substance and pushed of the physical theory into the “swamp” of relativism.
Display More
Austrian researcher Felix Ehrenhaft was engaged in "magnetic charges"...
Felix Ehrenhaft's experiments on the interaction of particles with magnetic and electric fields, 1947 -
But... But he, just like Millikan, was mistaken when he applied voltage to the plates, thinking that an "electric field" was formed between the plates. Electrons formed magnetic poles on the plates, due to their magnetic properties - where the wire with the "+" sign was connected, the south magnetic pole was formed on the surface of the plate, and where the wire with the "-" sign was connected, the north magnetic pole was formed on the surface of the plate. But there was no "electric field" between the plates.
Rice. 03: Forces in electric and magnetic fields and under the influence of gravity
When you say nested topological effects I hear the word 'Magic'. There's no relation to reality. Are we supposed to believe that all the Mobius strips get together to create a charge? If you really have a way to do that convincingly then you also have a way to create gravity (anti gravity). That's where the action would be. Let us see that solution.
I down loaded a paper of yours. You said your theory is based on the 'Biot Savart Law'. I don't believe there is such a law. There is a Biot Savart Equation, but it doesn't rise to the level of a physical law. At best it is an approximate equation that applies to some situations but not all.
Consider a rotating charge. The Biot Savart Equation requires a current element, a charge moving through space. Is a rotating charge moving through space? No. Rotation is not that.
Now your theory claims to be four dimensional or higher and the magnetic field in three dimensions to be a projection. Then the magnetic moment of the electron, for instance, could be created in a higher dimension so the electron does not need to spln.
Display More
And again about the law of Biot-Savart ... Watch this video and analyze the information posted in it - 20. The magnetic field of coils with current. Notes on magnetostatics. h 20. -
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
My conclusion is that the Biot-Savart Law does not reflect real physics...
In fact, our independent studies complement each other and reveal the essence of Maxwell's errors.
From my point of view, Kuligin and his associates have very good research, they draw, from my point of view, the right conclusions ...
Why again do I get sarcasm from you regarding this kind of research? None of you present your own arguments other than ridicule towards the authors ...
You laughed .... And so what? We have a Russian proverb for this case - "Pug yapping, and the caravan goes on ..."
Ну, провод, по которому течет ток, всегда отклоняет стрелку компаса, когда я пытаюсь это сделать. Может у вас в России другое электричество?
The author of another video at 1 minute 55 seconds shows us "zero instrument readings" ... Thus, there is a point or line above the wire in which there is no magnetic field
WEll, a wire carrying a current always deflects a compass needle when I try it. Maybe you have a different kind of electricity in Russia?
Alan! You are inattentive... In the video presented above, the experimenter shows a zone above the wire in which this deviation is absent - in this zone, for the same reason, the cylindrical magnet does not rotate.
Природа довольно волшебна, не так ли? Является ли реальность абсолютной или относительной, кто читает как более близкое приближение, это наверняка Закон Био-Савара упрощен как правило правой руки электромагнетизма, верно? Я в замешательстве, почему вы отклонили это как закон, это очень хорошо задокументировано из подобных. Возможно, вы путаете его с уравнением Ефимиенко, которое заменило уравнение Био-Савара, чтобы включить релятивистские эффекты? Вот и снова тот самый "настоящий" корень слова. Из-за этих релятивистских эффектов с поправками, открытыми гениальным украинцем Олегом Дмитриевичем Ефименко., вращающийся заряд движется в пространстве относительно других изменяет угловой момент и массу. Я думаю, что потенциальные спиновые состояния из релятивистских основных состояний на самом деле называются спинорами в квантовой механике. Я полный дилетант, но я приветствую, когда меня поправляет человек, который хорошо разбирается в предмете, как, я полагаю, вы?
Скептицизм — это здоровое сопротивление, но не кажется ли вам, что цинизм может стать самовольной клеткой, если человек не будет осторожен?
Display More
How important it is for us, modern physicists, to study and understand the source of the delusions of physicists of the past.
Here, for example, the well-known law of Biot-Savarra ...
We read the story ... "Jean-Baptiste Biot, together with Savard, conducted in 1820 a study of magnetic fields flowing through thin wires of various shapes. The experimental data they obtained formed the basis of the formula derived by Laplace for the magnetic induction of the field created by a current element of length dl This formula is called the Biot-Savart-Laplace law.”
1820 ... In fact, these people did not know physics in its modern volume, but you are their followers blindly - like kittens, use their delusions ...
These physicists brought a magnetic needle into a current-carrying conductor and observed its deflection...
Now think what a gulf lies between their knowledge in 1820 and your knowledge in 1923!!!
This is the first!
Secondly... I present to your attention modern experiments with modern measuring equipment, and in these experiments the Biot-Savart Law does not work at all. The Efimenko equation does not work in this case either. The Heaviside-Feynman formula does not work. Think about it ... So let's look at the experiments -
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
Rotation of a permanent magnet around a wire with a current of 100A. Magnet Rotation near wire with current -
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
And now we are looking at the simplest experiment and trying to explain it with the help of those laws and formulas that are presented in our modern textbooks...
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
My analysis is as follows - only the paradigm of physical chemistry of the microworld today is able to explain these experiments.
As long as we use charge to explain chemistry we will miss a part of the answer. Effectively charge based QM is just usable for a low precision approach and totally fails for many molecules
Nevertheless: For macroscopic physics charge is a good approach to model EM effects.
Yurg! Are you sorry to part with the "electric charge according to Maxwell"? Mistake Maskwell! There is no "electric charge according to Maxwell" in nature ...
Repeat my simple experiment, which I demonstrate in this video - from 26 minutes 35 seconds -
Physchemistry of the microcosm, Experiments proving that there is no electrostatics in nature, h 13, 08/25/2020 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= cibpt_eyg9E
«§22.2 Magnetic field as a special kind of matter. Let us agree to call the field, through which the interaction of electric currents located at a distance, a magnetic field. Experience has shown that a magnetic field is created by moving "electric charges" or an alternating "electric field" (§27.5) and acts only on moving charges."
Explain to us why a plastic ruler behaves like a magnet or like a piece of iron...?
But Cherepanov still has no calculation or mechanism as to how LENR occurs?
Neither do I
Preaching " the Coulomb Maxwell barrier is wrong" serves to pass the time
until you come up with something..
Display More
Robert !
Once again, I am convinced that you are a lover of humor ...
You are pedaling a theme in which Cherepanov cannot do this and cannot do that ...
But besides Cherepanov, there are a lot of researchers ... In 2014, Edurad Tsyganov (JINR, Dubna) published his presentation and in it he presented the research of the Japanese from 2013 ... See the slides of this presentation below - the permeability for the Coulomb barrier for DD fusion -
I'm wondering how you will "humor" about these slides and the results that were presented?
Are you really not puzzled by "the size of the Kulln barrier of 0.04 eV"?
I know you have been discussing this with Bob Greenyer about this, he also referes to Afanasaev and other similar Russia researchers and results. But he doesn’t agree with your ideas about how these effects can be explained.
The fact that Bob Grinier does not agree with me is not surprising ... If 7 years ago I had entered into an argument with a hypothetical character named Cherepanov, who had a conversation contrary to official physics, then I also did not agree with Cherepanov's opinion, since At that time, I had a clear understanding of physics, which I was taught at the institute ... Over the past 7 years, I have learned so many new things that my views on nuclear physics and elementary particle physics have changed radically, my knowledge has been transformed .... And I am very glad about this, because such a concept as "orbital motion of electrons around the nucleus of an atom" has completely disappeared from my consciousness.
The "mysticism" that is somehow present in physics has left my mind - for example, the electron-electron bond between molecules, which is allegedly realized in nature in a fantastic way with the help of electrons "furiously rotating" around the nuclei ... This is an absolutely false idea of nature ... In the physical chemistry of the microworld, electrons do not rotate in orbits and electrons carry out the connection of molecules in a linear way - this is a magnetic interaction.
Yes I know you propose this as proof, I think the work of Afanasaev is one more of a series of research that proves LENR in hydrodynamic systems where cavitation is abundant (which is known to generate conditions favorable for charge separation, ironically). I know you have been discussing this with Bob Greenyer about this, he also referes to Afanasaev and other similar Russia researchers and results. But he doesn’t agree with your ideas about how these effects can be explained.
The Russians have a proverb on this matter - "Moscow was also not built right away ..." I ask everyone who really wants to understand physics, and not to arrange useless disputes, carefully consider what I want to convey to the physical community - carefully study my the material in which I state the causes of Maxwell's errors ... You won't believe it, but it happened to me - I re-read paragraph 40 10 times in the "Electrostatics" section and did not find anything that could be recognized as Maxwell's error, but on 11 times I was just stunned and started laughing at myself... The fact is that this is how a person works - you don't see any catch in simple things... You read the text and nod to Maxwell - well done Maxwell! But then insight comes and you ask yourself this question - "Why didn't I see this mistake in Maxwell before?"
It's hard to explain .... Maxwell even today, after 150 years, presses with his authority and it seems to you that such a great person as Maxwell cannot make such a stupid mistake ... But when you realize that a mistake has been made, then you regret, but correct the situation is impossible ... The bitterness of disappointment remains, which gnaws at your consciousness and you understand the terrible truth, the terrible truth that all these 150 years a huge number of physicists were simply mistaken ... You ask yourself - "How is it - Maxwell was mistaken, but at the same time, all these years, new equipment has been created and new technologies have been introduced?"
And I found the answer to this paradox ... Actually, a certain Kogan wrote about this back in 1899 in the Electricity magazine - "I believe that the revelations of Karl Schreber will not have any consequences for us, since we measure the current in amperes , and the voltage is in volts ... "Kogan's insight is impressive - it really was like that ... But ... But the 21st century came and the physicists were puzzled by the LENR ... It was the physics of the LENR that ran into a misconception in physics, since in this The mechanisms of nuclear reactions are involved in physics... This is the physics of the highest flight... It was in it that it became clear that Maxwell's formulas do not work... The absence of the Coulomb barrier, which was predicted by theoretical physics, which is based on Maxwell's theory, plunged physicists into shock. .. And after this shock, they began to look for ways to solve this problem ... Gamow invented "tunneling" ... Other physicists came up with proton shielding ... But all this turned out to be just nonsense after Maxwell's fatal mistakes were revealed ... To physicists who are literally in love with Maxwell, it is very hard to read my accusations... I understand them... But the truth is prickly in the eye...
The most interesting thing is ... 3 years before writing his treatise, Maxwell made a speech in 1870 in which he actually outlined what he himself did - he said this - "A lot of disturbing factors influence the thought of a mathematician, for example, fatigue , gaps in memory, too hasty conclusions; for these reasons, and for many others, mathematicians make mistakes.
Actually, my complaints are not even to Maxwell ... My complaints are to the followers of Maxwell's teachings, who could not recognize Maxwell's fatal mistakes ...
The exception concerns the German physicist Karl Schreber, who was the first to expose Maxwell in 1899 .... But they did not listen to him ... His article - Dimensions of Electrical Quantities, Karl Schreber, 1899 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public /rZpb/fzFv6ttNv
Cherepanov2020 , As I pointed out early when you started commenting your ideas, I still don’t derive any practical consequence from your model, while the concept of electric charge is used on a daily basis for a miriad of practical purposes, I think if you could explain or provide one example of how your model can be harnessed for practical purposes, that would greatly help your case. So far, I don’t see it.
The fact that you still have not understood me is normal ... I also had a difficult period when I tried to understand Philip Mikhailovich Kanarev and his textbook "Fundamentals of Physical Chemistry of the Microworld" ... It is very difficult to move from the knowledge that you get at the institute and which I have long been accustomed to...
The whole physics of detecting elementary particles turned out to be false ... The reason is elementary - there are no charged particles in nature ... The ionization process is false ... There is no movement of electrons and protons, since there is no "electric charge" on either the proton or the electron, there is no electric fields and there are no electric forces that would move electrons and protons. With your devices you measure the "electric current" - it comes from your devices - for example, the "ionization chamber" ... The chamber received a false name - "ionization" ... But no ionization occurs there - other processes occur there, as a result of which a "photon or ethereal mass" is delivered to your measuring device - its movement is the electric current.
So coincided in time - on March 1, at the Klimov-Zatelepin seminar, Anatoly Ivanovich Klimov made a report in which he questioned the correct interpretation of THAT the device (detector) measures ... He did a tremendous job and he was shocked by the results and he presented his doubts at the seminar.
I had to record 25 videos in which I explain in stages the reasons for the delusions of experimenters like A.I. Klimov. Today I called him and asked him to thoroughly study my material and comprehend it... Klimov A.I. well-known personality among LENR researchers. Bob Grinier regularly participates in our seminars.
The physics that is taught at the institute does not allow you to correctly interpret the results that you get on your ammeters or oscilloscopes.
This is a big problem... For this reason, physicists incorrectly think that they measure the neutron flux, but in fact they measure the movement of the ethereal mass by electrons... concept as an "electric field", but it does not exist in nature.
There are so many misconceptions that it makes your hair stand on end...
In such an environment, it remains to rely on the ingenuity of some engineer - for example, such as Rossi, who makes a device on his own intuition and contrary to official physics ...
My friend Vladimir Stepanovich Afanasyev was the same person, who obtained unique results in the processing of LRW and who was not believed - officials did not believe his results, since they contradicted official physics. For example...
How can the radioactive isotope of strontium-90 be converted into a stable isotope of zirconium-94 by simple processing of LRW in the unique rotor of Afanasiev, who called all this hydrowave technology?
No one could give an explanation for this, but I did my analysis and found the reason. But I did it not with the help of official physics, but on the basis of "Physical Chemistry of the Microworld of Kanarev F.M."
Above is the response of the system MAIL.ru about reading my letter by Zhores Alferov - "Read. On the fatal errors of mathematicians in elementary particle physics, October 11, 2018"
In my speech on December 28, 2017 - 1 hour 37 minutes 25 seconds in the video "Cold Nuclear Fusion and Ball Lightning - Nikitin - Parkhomov - PFUR - 28.12.2017" - I first publicly stated that there is no "electric field" in nature. And after 3 years he proved it completely.
In this screenshot, translated into English, it says -
"Hello !
We analyze the report of A.I. Nikitina - "Three sources and three components of the foundations of the theory of BL"...
On December 28, a seminar was held at RUDN University, at which Anatoly Ilyich Nikitin, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, Institute of Energy Problems of Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, made a report -
"Three sources and three components of the foundations of the CMM theory" ... - from 15 minutes -
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
But I recommend starting from somewhere else...
We watch the video from 1 hour 37 minutes 25 seconds - this is my short speech at the seminar ...
In my speech on December 28, 2017 - 1 hour 37 minutes 25 seconds in the video "Cold Nuclear Fusion and Ball Lightning - Nikitin - Parkhomov - PFUR - 28.12.2017" - I first publicly stated that there is no "electric field" in nature. And after 3 years he proved it completely.
Above is the response of the system MAIL.ru about reading my letter by Zhores Alferov - "Read. On the fatal errors of mathematicians in elementary particle physics, October 11, 2018"
The electric charge of a particle q, which follows from equation (29), is determined by the product of the added exchange mass of the particle m and the fundamental frequency of the atomic and subatomic levels (equal to the frequency of pulsations of the spherical wave shell of particles), at which the exchange interaction of particles between themselves and with the surrounding field takes place. Namely,
formula (31)
Thus, as follows from the VM, the charge q of a particle is a parameter associated with its added mass, characterizing its behavior, namely, it is a measure of the mass transfer rate (dimension ). We call charge q exchange charge or mass transfer power. The electron charge e is an elementary exchange charge or an elementary quantum of the rate (intensity) of mass transfer. Here is its true value and dimension:
formula (32)
where me is the added mass of the electron.
Thus, today Shpenkov and Cherepanov are the physicists who really follow the paradigm of Charles Coulomb. Justice triumphs - Shpenkov and I defended the good name of Charles Coulomb with our research ... Maxwell treacherously changed the paradigm of Charles Coulomb and received a fake and strange dimension of the "charge" - [g½ cm3/2 sec-1]...
What is typical? His compatriot William Thomson remained faithful to the paradigm of Charles Coulomb - mass also appears in his formula.
It is absolutely indifferent to me that millions of physicists turned out to be deceived and are mistaken today ... They simply did not have good teachers such as Cherepanov Alexei Ivanovich. In the future, physicists will follow me, not those who continue to err...
If you are interested, I inform you that my articles were read with interest by Nobel laureate Zhores Alferov, who did not live 2 years before January 19, 2021 - the day on which I discovered Maxwell's fatal mistakes ... But already, starting from December 2017, I wrote in articles about the fact that there is no "electric charge" on the electron and proton, which was presented to us by physics textbooks, and Zhores Alferov read about this with interest.
The electric charge of a particle q, which follows from equation (29), is determined by the product of the added exchange mass of the particle m and the fundamental frequency of the atomic and subatomic levels (equal to the frequency of pulsations of the spherical wave shell of particles), at which the exchange interaction of particles between themselves and with the surrounding field takes place. Namely,
formula (31)
Thus, as follows from the VM, the charge q of a particle is a parameter associated with its added mass, characterizing its behavior, namely, it is a measure of the mass transfer rate (dimension ). We call charge q exchange charge or mass transfer power. The electron charge e is an elementary exchange charge or an elementary quantum of the rate (intensity) of mass transfer. Here is its true value and dimension:
So to summarize, you are saying no, there is not a single qualified person on earth who agrees with you and will vouch for your theory (whatever that is, other than "no electric charge"). Am I wrong? very simple question. Reminds me of the questions to Rossi when asked "name one other person on your "team".
I will add to what has been said ... You write - "there is not a single qualified person on earth who agrees with you and will vouch for your theory" ... Firstly, I have my own theory in such an understanding as, for example, theory Maxwell "... And what do I have? I have a study of the question of how the concept of "charge" or "charge of electricity" was born in physics, I have a study of how physics developed, starting with the experiments and treatises of Charles Coulomb, I have a study of Maxwell's errors in his treatise "Electricity and Magnetism" - paragraphs 39-44 I have an explanation of the question of why physicists in their LENR experiments see the absence of a "Coulomb barrier" - this explanation is trivial in its essence - this barrier is simply does not exist in nature, since the physicists themselves calculated the barrier using Maxwell's fake formula, which he treacherously called Coulomb's law, but in fact the physicist Charles Coulomb had a different formula and a different paradigm ... It is I, Cherepanov Alexei Ivanovich, who returns physicists to the paradigm Charles Coulomb, which spoke of the "mass of electricity" and the "charge" was understood as the "mass of electricity". My analysis showed that the "mass of electricity" according to Charles Coulomb and the "photon mass or aether mass" according to Kanarev and Cherepanov are one and the same - this is the same mass that the electron moves and which the electron "stores" with it.
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
, at 40 minutes 10 seconds Shpenkov talks about the fallacy of representing "electric charge" in modern units. And I agree with him.
49 minutes Shpenkov makes an assumption - "... under the concept of particle charge, apparently, there is a characteristic parameter associated with mass, reflecting the behavior of particles and their interaction with each other through the exchange of elementary mass quanta."
Then at 50 minutes 57 seconds he presents an equation that leads us to the discovery of the nature of the mass and charge of particles….
At the 53rd minute, he gives an explanation of how he got the dimension of the charge - g / s.
What is typical? Shpenkov and I have different understandings of the nature of the charge, but at the same time we agree that this is an “added mass”, i.e. According to Shpenkov, "added mass" in my understanding is one and the same as "photon or ethereal mass".
So to summarize, you are saying no, there is not a single qualified person on earth who agrees with you and will vouch for your theory (whatever that is, other than "no electric charge"). Am I wrong? very simple question. Reminds me of the questions to Rossi when asked "name one other person on your "team".
I don't create any team next to me. I am a loner... I am a physicist who shares my ideas and my research with the physics community... There are research physicists in the Russian physics community who support my point of view, and I, in turn, support their point of view... For example, Georgy Shpenkov is a lone physicist like me... His videos are
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
.
There are 43 videos on his channel and all of them deserve our attention.
His articles are The Shell-Nodal Structure of the Atoms:
Not everything that Shpenkov claims corresponds to my understanding of nature, each of us remains with his own opinion. I respect his work and he, in turn, respects my point of view... Time will tell which of us is right...
We are in correspondence with him. On October 12, 2022, she wrote to me - "Dear Alexei Ivanovich!
The results of our research show that only the neutron, proton and protium (the lightest isotope of hydrogen) are atoms. The remaining "atoms" of the Periodic Table of Elements are elementary nucleon molecules, do they not have any nuclei?
There are a series of publications about this discovery, and it was also reported at International conferences, in particular, in Berlin in 2017: See The Shell-Nodal Structure of the Atoms:
I do not agree with him on some points in physics, but at the same time I support him on other points in physics.
For example... He introduced the dimension of electric current in the following units - "kg/s". This dimension suits me perfectly. My analysis says that the electric current is the movement of "photon mass or ethereal mass" in space...
At the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia (PFUR) for 25 years he led the seminar - "Cold Nuclear Fusion and Ball Lightning", Associate Professor of the Department of Theoretical Physics of the PFUR Samsonenko Nikolai Vladimirovich. He was trained by Louis de Broglie. He keeps in touch with very many foreign physicists. Many of them spoke at his seminar ... So this physicist supports me. And you can be convinced of this by watching my video - "There is no Coulomb barrier in nature, October 27, 2021" -
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
Listen to my video from 58 minutes... In our telephone conversation, Samosenko supported me - we need to deal with Maxwell's mistakes. Time has passed ... Samsonenko has come to understand and now he supports me more confidently ...
I proved with my research that nuclear interactions have a "magnetic nature" - "etherodynamic magnetic nature" and you will be interested that 4 years before my conclusion, Samsonenko made exactly the same conclusion and voiced it at a seminar at RUDN University in May 2017 - 2017.05.30 (2-2) Samsonenko N.V. Strong interactions are poorly understood magnetic interactions -
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
