Force Between Parallel Conductor Currents Without Magnetism.

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Force Between Parallel Conductor Currents Without Magnetism.

Unread postby Chan Rasjid » Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:06 am

Dear scientists,

A recent revision has been made to my paper: "Bucherer Experiment and the Lorentz Force Law" (pages 11).
The pdf file is available at my website:
http://www.emc2fails.com

The reinterpretation of the Bucherer experiment reveals the need of a revision to the Lorentz force law. It is determined that the correct form is:

F = q(√(1 - v²/c²)(1 + v²/c²) E + √(1 - v⁴/c⁴)(v × B))

A corresponding change is made to give a relativistic Coulomb's law; for small relative velocities between the charges (as with current electron drift speed in conductors), the approximate form may be used:

Relativistic Coulomb's law : Force = √(1 - v²/c²)(1 + v²/c²) * (1/4πε₀)q₁q₂/r².

Coulomb's law (approximate form for small velocity) : Force = (1 + ½v²/c²) * (1/4πε₀)q₁q₂/r².

The approximate form of Coulomb's law has been used to derive the formula : F= (u₀/2πR)I₁I₂l, for the force between parallel current-carrying conductors based only on the Coulomb forces between the conductors, free of the magnetic field and magnetic forces. A real possibility exists for a formulation of a revolutionary Newtonian electric theory free of magnetism and the Biot-Savart law.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid,
Singapore.
Chan Rasjid
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: Force Between Parallel Conductor Currents Without Magnet

Unread postby lamare » Thu Oct 20, 2016 11:06 am

Chan Rasjid wrote:A real possibility exists for a formulation of a revolutionary Newtonian electric theory free of magnetism and the Biot-Savart law.


I think I just presented such a theory. See this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16468

Regards,

Arend.
User avatar
lamare
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: Goor, The Netherlands.

Re: Force Between Parallel Conductor Currents Without Magnet

Unread postby Chan Rasjid » Thu Oct 20, 2016 8:29 pm

lamare wrote:
Chan Rasjid wrote:A real possibility exists for a formulation of a revolutionary Newtonian electric theory free of magnetism and the Biot-Savart law.


I think I just presented such a theory. See this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16468

Regards,

Arend.

There's a possibility that one of the ToE out there may be correct or in the correct direction. I would say that, in general, it is "not yet" ready. Usually, a complete and good theory will somehow receive attention and recognition rather easily - as with the case of Newton's Principia and Maxwell's theory (?).

So far, it seems none has garnered enough attention.

Chan Rasjid.
Chan Rasjid
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: Force Between Parallel Conductor Currents Without Magnet

Unread postby lamare » Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:22 am

Chan Rasjid wrote:There's a possibility that one of the ToE out there may be correct or in the correct direction. I would say that, in general, it is "not yet" ready. Usually, a complete and good theory will somehow receive attention and recognition rather easily - as with the case of Newton's Principia and Maxwell's theory (?).

So far, it seems none has garnered enough attention.

Chan Rasjid.


Well, I've only published this this month. I announced it by e-mailing to all the 4000+ email addresses on this list at october 14th:

http://editionsassailly.com/livres/clim ... %20htm.htm

So far, 1266 unique IP addresses accessed the page and I'm very pleased with the amount of attention, but it's too early to tell whether or not it will "break trough".

Of course, I believe it will eventually lead to a revolution in physics, but then again: who am I to judge my own work?

Regards,

Arend.
User avatar
lamare
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: Goor, The Netherlands.

Re: Force Between Parallel Conductor Currents Without Magnet

Unread postby kasim » Wed Nov 02, 2016 8:18 am

As far as I'm concerned, the New Standard Model has 2 fundamental particles, the electron and positron, and one fundamental force, the electromagnetic force and its carrier the photon. The photon is not fundamental as it splits into an electron-positron pair if it has sufficient energy. Also, it's not a component of anything else, for now anyway.

Notice, the EM force is the one between moving electric charges. If the charges are static, then only the electric force exists. Hence, the force between 2 parallel current carrying conductors is magnetic because moving electric charges generate a magnetic field; there's no getting away from it. Generating a theory that doesn't use magnetism is false.

You're making the same mistake as mainstream scientists by using abstract mathematical models that bear no relation to reality. I thought that the EU's aim is to explain nature in terms of electricity. Because electricity is usually associated with magnetism, we an use electromagnetic field theory for the time being and eventually replace it by 2 distinct forces - electric and magnetic.

This experiment (force between parallel conductor currents) proves that the electric and magnetic forces act independently even if the magnetic field is generated by the electricity. I'm actually using this very principle to show how Pauli's Exclusion Principle is enforced.
kasim
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:20 am

Re: Force Between Parallel Conductor Currents Without Magnet

Unread postby Chan Rasjid » Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:16 am

Hello kasim,

kasim wrote:As far as I'm concerned, the New Standard Model has 2 fundamental particles, the electron and positron, and one fundamental force, the electromagnetic force and its carrier the photon. The photon is not fundamental as it splits into an electron-positron pair if it has sufficient energy. Also, it's not a component of anything else, for now anyway.

Notice, the EM force is the one between moving electric charges. If the charges are static, then only the electric force exists. Hence, the force between 2 parallel current carrying conductors is magnetic because moving electric charges generate a magnetic field; there's no getting away from it. Generating a theory that doesn't use magnetism is false.

You're making the same mistake as mainstream scientists by using abstract mathematical models that bear no relation to reality. I thought that the EU's aim is to explain nature in terms of electricity. Because electricity is usually associated with magnetism, we an use electromagnetic field theory for the time being and eventually replace it by 2 distinct forces - electric and magnetic.

This experiment (force between parallel conductor currents) proves that the electric and magnetic forces act independently even if the magnetic field is generated by the electricity. I'm actually using this very principle to show how Pauli's Exclusion Principle is enforced.

I am aware some aether theories start with the aether as a sea of electron-positron pairs, but they still do have other elementary particles.

About magnetism. Your view is that we cannot get away from magnetism as you seem to suggest it is physically real. My view is otherwise. Even in the early years of the 19th century, the original works of Ampere and Weber did not have any concept of magnetism nor the magnetic fields. It was mainly forces between current elements.

In pure classical electromagnetism (I am not sure with SR incorporated), the beginning of magnetism as a concept in physics is the magnetic field B from the Biot-Savart law. But the physical cause is currents - or charge in motion. So field B is only an abstract concept for the physics; the physical reality is electric charge in relative motion.

In my theory, there is only a weber-type Coulomb's force law with dependency on the relative velocity of the charges. With only this new Coulomb's law, the formula for the force between parallel conductor currents could be completely derived; there is nothing about magnetism nor the magnetic field being invoked.

Then there is permanent magnetism. Contemporary physics seems to support the explanation that it is due to the magnetic dipoles of elementary particles and they are again due to spinning charges - an equivalent to charge in motion. So even permanent ferromagnetism has its origin in electric charge. There is no fundamental magnetic physical cause underlying the phenomena in magnetism.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid, Kah Chew
Singapore.
Chan Rasjid
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: Force Between Parallel Conductor Currents Without Magnet

Unread postby sketch1946 » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:50 am

Hi Chan,
I like the things you have shared on this forum...
Can you share your thoughts on 'charge in motion'?
Is an 'electric field' the same as a 'magnetic field' and what is
this field physically?
Chan Rasjid wrote:But the physical cause is currents - or charge in motion

I have read that charge is propagated almost at the speed of light through an
electric circuit, but the individual charge carriers, ie electrons actually move slowly
through the circuit, so charge propagates energy very quickly but electrons
move very slowly... I can't understand how energy could be transferred without the
physical movement of electrons?
Can charge be propagated through plasma currents faster than the ions?

I'm trying to get my head around the apparent ether in Maxwell's equations,
Faraday's concept of force as a infinite substance, and Tesla's concept of charge
being separate from matter...

I've been looking for someone to explain to a non-scientist like myself the way that
energy is transferred in and out of an magnetic field when the magnetic field
has no theoretical substance...
or point out a link to a good treatment of the subject
of how charge is differentiated from moving particles, and what sort of physical things are going on when a charge repels like charges, and how energy is stored in a magnetic field and then 'returned' when the field 'collapses'

What is charge in other words? :-)

What is the physical difference between a positive charge and a negative charge?

What are your thoughts on Dirac's ocean?

Where could I get a good explanation of what physics would be involved if a planet in an erratic orbit passed by another planet so close their van Allen belts interacted? ie one set of belts passing through another....

I'm curious about the electric universe theories, Velikovsky etc, Just watched Pierre-Marie Robitaille demolishing Plank's constant...
this is a site I just saw with something about charges being induced on the moon each month by the earth's magnetic 'tail':

"Earth's magnetotail extends well beyond the orbit of the Moon and, once a month, the Moon orbits through it," says Tim Stubbs, a University of Maryland scientist working at the Goddard Space Flight Center. "This can have consequences ranging from lunar 'dust storms' to electrostatic discharges."

"...During the crossing, the Moon comes in contact with a gigantic "plasma sheet" of hot charged particles trapped in the tail. The lightest and most mobile of these particles, electrons, pepper the Moon's surface and give the Moon a negative charge..."

"...But on the nightside, in the cold lunar dark, electrons accumulate and voltages can climb to hundreds or thousands of volts..."

"...Earth's magnetotail isn't the only source of plasma to charge the Moon. Solar wind can provide charged particles, too; indeed, most of the time, the solar wind is the primary source. But when the Moon enters the magnetotail, the solar wind is pushed back and the plasma sheet takes over. The plasma sheet is about 10 times hotter than the solar wind and that gives it more "punch" when it comes to altering the charge balance of the Moon's surface. Two million degree electrons in the plasma sheet race around like crazy and many of them hit the Moon's surface..."

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... agnetotail

Best regards,
Graeme
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Force Between Parallel Conductor Currents Without Magnet

Unread postby Chan Rasjid » Tue Mar 07, 2017 9:38 am

Dear Graeme,

The questions you have covers a rather broad range of issues in our present day physics. My knowledge of physics is rather rudimentary and I would not be able to answer you well. But it is good to examine a brief outline history of physics.

It may be said modern physics began with Newton's laws of motion. Before that, most physical sciences were rather only qualitative. We don't have much ability to give quantitative predictions in the sciences. It was only with Newton and the calculus that we could start quantitative predictions; e.g we could tell where the planet Mars would be at an exact date six months ahead. It is done through Newtonian mechanics.

Other branches of classical physics also developed together with Newtonian mechanics till the 20th century. We also have new discoveries of electricity and magnetism, the electron, proton, neutron and the atomic theory. Even until now, we actually have very little settled physics except one - Newtonian mechanics. There are controversies in all of modern physics - electromagnetism, atomic theories, particle physics, Higgs boson, gravitational waves, cosmology of black hole. But if your ask the physics professors from Princeton, MIT, Cambridge, they will tell a different story; that we have made huge progress in physic for the past one hundred years. It is a matter of who you believe. There are qualified physicists - not amateurs like me - who hold the view that much of our popular modern physics are sheer nonsense, very different from the views of the mainstream.

I think the question of how energy is transmitted in field theory is too difficult for me. There are some physicists like Neal Graneau who take issue with the whole notion of fields in physics:
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2470
We use mathematics of vector calculus to model a vector field around bodies - like gravitational, electric, magnetic fields. They are only mathematical objects and so the fields have no physical reality. As an example. what has reality is that iron filings get attracted to a magnet. Of course, there are real difference between the iron filings being far away and being near. So field theory may treat the fields as real and physical and may even store energy. I am not sure I am qualified to investigate this at present.

There is a group of physicists - may be a minority - that dismiss outright Einstein's relativity theories. But mainstream has created a form of relativistic electromagnetism based on special relativity. This relativistic stuffs seem to teach that nothing can propagate faster than light speed; even action of gravity, electrical interactions too is limited to this light speed. But before Einstein, there was the notion the there could be "action-at-a-distance" - instantaneously. Why is that "instantaneous" cannot happen. Well, many physicists of old examined physical laws, yet many also believed in an Almighty God. And God created his Creation by just a command - Be! And it be.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
Chan Rasjid
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: Force Between Parallel Conductor Currents Without Magnet

Unread postby MerLynn » Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:50 pm

Chan Rasjid wrote: for the force between parallel current-carrying conductors based only on the Coulomb forces between the conductors, free of the magnetic field and magnetic forces. A real possibility exists for a formulation of a revolutionary Newtonian electric theory free of magnetism and the Biot-Savart law.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid,
Singapore.



Many a scientist and theoretician have claimed that absolutely every 'parcel' of matter is 'magnetic' in nature.
I stand by that thesis as well. It is the basis of 'gravity' being a non existent force that is more accurately described as the attractive forces of magnetism.

So if this MAY be the case, how on earth, being a magnetic field in its entirety, do you propose to do any experiment or theoretical calculation about matter in the absence of a magnetic field when you are living on one?

Does not the absurdity of these theoretical "laws" become self evident?
MerLynn
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:28 am
Location: Land of OZ

Re: Force Between Parallel Conductor Currents Without Magnet

Unread postby Chan Rasjid » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:01 pm

MerLynn wrote:
Chan Rasjid wrote: for the force between parallel current-carrying conductors based only on the Coulomb forces between the conductors, free of the magnetic field and magnetic forces. A real possibility exists for a formulation of a revolutionary Newtonian electric theory free of magnetism and the Biot-Savart law.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid,
Singapore.



Many a scientist and theoretician have claimed that absolutely every 'parcel' of matter is 'magnetic' in nature.
I stand by that thesis as well. It is the basis of 'gravity' being a non existent force that is more accurately described as the attractive forces of magnetism.

So if this MAY be the case, how on earth, being a magnetic field in its entirety, do you propose to do any experiment or theoretical calculation about matter in the absence of a magnetic field when you are living on one?

Does not the absurdity of these theoretical "laws" become self evident?

Dear MerLynn,

There is nothing wrong with your view on magnetism being fundamental in nature nor my view that magnetism is just a superfluous concept. The ultimate test in science is empiricism - based on empirical evidence. It seems that our state of physics at present is not able to choose decisively which is the better theory.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
Chan Rasjid
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: Force Between Parallel Conductor Currents Without Magnet

Unread postby MerLynn » Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:47 pm

Chan Rasjid wrote:Dear MerLynn,

There is nothing wrong with your view on magnetism being fundamental in nature nor my view that magnetism is just a superfluous concept. The ultimate test in science is empiricism - based on empirical evidence. It seems that our state of physics at present is not able to choose decisively which is the better theory.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.



I think you would do well to read my posts on the Newer experiments on water.
Instead of just 2 electrodes in water to make H & O, when one uses more electrodes and even neutral plates, this holy grail of water experiments falls in a big heap leaving the entire Atomic Theory full of holes that dont hold water.
This has a follow on effect of redefining every known 'concept' from magnetism, light, matter and life itself.
MerLynn
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:28 am
Location: Land of OZ

Re: Force Between Parallel Conductor Currents Without Magnet

Unread postby sketch1946 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:21 am

Hi Chan,
Sorry! Somehow I missed your reply.. forgive me, I didn't mean to be rude...
Chan Rasjid wrote:Even until now, we actually have very little settled physics except one - Newtonian mechanics. There are controversies in all of modern physics - electromagnetism, atomic theories, particle physics, Higgs boson, gravitational waves, cosmology of black hole. But if you ask the physics professors from Princeton, MIT, Cambridge, they will tell a different story; that we have made huge progress in physics for the past one hundred years. It is a matter of who you believe.

Haha, I couldn't agree more... that's a very perceptive point...

There seems to be a steady regress into a type of mediaeval intolerance towards ideas that are not 'consensus' ideas... ie 10,000 mainstream scientists can't be wrong.. yet I am convinced we are in a sort of dark ages of true science... I mean science meaning 'knowledge' and the contrast where a person can experience wonder at the unknown, and have the ability to say 'I don't know'... :-)

I'm an artist not a physicist, I've followed and read about science for decades, it's part of life...not my job, but I like to keep up with what people are thinking....

I can't swallow some of this dark incomprehensible stuff any more... it's like the Emperor's clothes...

If people can openly debate new ideas, I think it's about time... if people could lighten up a bit and combine some lateral thinking with open minds and add a healthy touch of skepticism to stay on track... I like Einstein, Feynman, Dirac, Tesla, Velikovsky, and now Poincare and Robitaille... it doesn't mean I think everything they represent is true, there are some incompatible concepts in that set...

I'll look at your link, I have been doing some homework trying to get my head around this CMB stuff...
so far my main concerns are the concept of looking ***through the local galaxy and mathematically removing the foreground seems dishonest, combined with removing local 'contamination' and then pinning all of cosmology on this idea of the original sphere of last scattering was x dimensions and 380,000 years old...... I was almost shocked to find out that the COBE map was less resolution than in a ten-year old digital camera... each 'pixel' about 7/60th of a degree... very course... and then the maths to 'mask' out noise is just some sort of a joke... I mean to compare the microwaves collected in one horn on the satellite to another horn pointing at a different angle and infer that one is 100,000th of a degree different to the other, and if one horn is a gezillionth hotter than the other horn, then this is a primordial 'seed' of a galaxy...

Here's a sample of the logic:
"Masks for each frequency band are generated using an algorithm that estimates the magnitude of processing artifacts in each r4 pixel given the WMAP scan pattern, a candidate processing mask and the seven-year map of the sky temperature in that band..."
https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/ma ... esults.pdf

It's almost too sad to talk about... :-)
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Force Between Parallel Conductor Currents Without Magnet

Unread postby kevin » Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:08 pm

I would recommend a glance back in time....
https://issuu.com/zerofieldenergy/docs/ ... -1952--66p

Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Force Between Parallel Conductor Currents Without Magnet

Unread postby sketch1946 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:20 pm

Greetings,
(I'm still trying to understand charge, not charged particles, or atomic theory, or quantum stuff necessarily, just whatever that thing called charge is, that when added to a proton produces a neutron, or produces the force from electron to electron in a current, that makes the current flow within a conductor, or stores energy in a field, or can be felt when trying to push two like poles of two magnets together)

I'd appreciate comments on this little gem :-)

The incredible forces inside of us all:

"What would happen if your body suddenly lost 1% of its electrons?"

"Losing 1% of those electrons would mean that my body acquires an electric charge of 2 times 10^26 electron charges, or about 4 times 10^7 Coulombs."

"40 million Coulombs is a silly amount of charge. It is about 3 million times more than what gets discharged by a lightning bolt, for example. So, in some sense, losing 1% of your electrons would be like getting hit by 3 million lightning bolts at the same time."

"Say, each hand suddenly acquired a charge of 20 million Coulombs. The force between those two hands (spread apart, about 6 feet) would be 10^24 Newtons, which translates to about 10^23 pounds. Needless to say, my body would not retain its structural integrity."

"Because of my 40 million Coulombs, the force between myself and the earth would be something like 10^20 tons. To give that some perspective, consider that 10^20 tons is just a bit smaller than the weight of the entire planet earth. So the force pulling me toward the earth would be something like the force of a collision between the earth and the planet Mars."

"But my hypercharged self would not only crush the earth. It would also break open the vacuum itself. At the instant of losing those 1% of electrons, the electric potential at the edge of my body would be about 40 exavolts. This is much larger than the voltage required to rip apart the vacuum and create electron-positron pairs. So my erstwhile body would be the locus of a vacuum instability, in which electrons were sucked in while positrons were blasted out."

"In short, if I lost 1% of my electrons, I would not be a person anymore. I would be a bomb. A Coulomb bomb, if you will, with an energy equivalent to that of ten billion (modern) atomic bombs. Which would surely destroy the planet. All by removing just 1 out of every 100 of my electrons."
https://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/ ... 1-charged/

To clarify what I mean about charge... I understand about e=mc^2
which as I understand it, still doesn't have anything to say about the nature of charge...

I remember (I think :-) ) that Newton wasn't happy about action at a distance either, nor was Bohr happy with his quantum notion..

I guess it's like anything in the realm of metaphysics... it's not easy...
I read how St Augustine of Hippo in North Africa, writing in the late 4th century about the mathematical notion of how three can be one, or how eternal things might be subdivided, and how to put the correct words to such conjectures...

He said "people argue and dispute about it, but who can understand the trinity?"

He also said something like "Who can understand the present? As soon as we think about it, it's gone, yet we live in it..."
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Force Between Parallel Conductor Currents Without Magnet

Unread postby sketch1946 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:49 pm

Hi Kevin,
kevin wrote:I would recommend a glance back in time....
https://issuu.com/zerofieldenergy/docs/ ... -1952--66p

I had a look at your link...
Isn't it sad that the whole planet is addicted to burning up old dinosaurs and dead leaves... it surely is about time we got off spending all our money trying to find bosons, and did something useful...

In your link it demonstrates how science has to go begging for cash... an exact equivalent of the time-honoured phenomenon of poor beggars asking for alms...

Imagine if the whole world had not been concerned with money, greed, corporate stocks, personal rivalries and had instead got behind Tesla and funded him properly, and worried less about patents and more about how the entire world would benefit...

Turn war into a virtual robot game, that could be played off-planet... :-)

When I was younger I rode in an electric bus on the extremely steep hills of Dunedin, I guess similar vehicles were in San Francisco... they were so quiet! Stationary, on a slope with a full bus load, totally silent, then the driver would move a lever, the whole bus just accelerated uphill, people sloshing to the back of the bus in defiance of race rules... the wheels were digging into the bitumen, so concrete pads were built at bus stops...

So much power! Imagine if we had had over a hundred years of real scientific enquiry into Tesla's ideas of power-at-a-distance, super-efficient turbines, plasma research... we pride ourselves on the space achievements, rightly so... but imagine what might have been with more generous funding to electric cars and other more exotic means of propulsion... how much less pollution..

Did you read about how Tesla also designed a vertical takeoff aircraft?

He had radically different ideas on electricity, so did Faraday, as far as I can see, an ether is built into Maxwell's equations - sort of hidden as something that doesn't get discussed...

I don't mean only Tesla, by the way, there should be some sort of world wide think tank structured a bit like this Thunderbolts setup, to give more encouragement to alternative ideas, along with hopefully some constructive criticism to get really crazy stuff back on the rails, and give open-minded consideration to radical alternatives in every branch of science....
'consensus' science often seems a bit too political and blinkered, almost addicted to the status quo..

I think of the enormous power demonstrated on the sun... solar mass ejections that accelerate masses the size of the earth to nearly the speed of light in a very short time.... we have the potential [excuse the pun] to accelerate vehicles or other objects with immense power using electric fields... whatever electric fields really are... :-)

Levitation is not a crazy dream!
http://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation/diamagnetic/
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Next

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests