ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 193 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events

Hot Links
Aetherometry

American Antigravity

Chava Energy

Closeminded Science

EarthTech

Energy Science

Energy21

Innoplaza

Integrity Research Institute

Interstellar Technologies

JLN Labs

KeelyNet

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

The Orion Proj.

Panacea-BOCAF

QVac_Eng

RexResearch

Science Hobbyist

Tom Bearden's Page

Unlimited electric energy

USPTO

Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
AER_Network
Alternative Energy News
KeelyNet_News
NextEnergyNews
PESWiki/News
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
Energy2000
Free_Energy
Greenglow
JLNLabs
KeelyNet
NuEnergy
OverUnity
Sarfatti_Physics
Sweet-VTA
Tapten
Tomorrow-energy
Vortex
Magazine Sites
Distributed Energy
Electrifying Times
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine
radioioAmbient

New experiment (April-2013) corroborates Aether proposed in Quantum Ring Theory
Posted on Tuesday, April 09, 2013 @ 21:47:01 EDT by vlad

Science WGUGLINSKI writes: To the readers of ZPEnergy: I’m glad to announce a new experimental discovery: New experiment corroborates the structure of aether proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory

In QRT it is proposed that the space is filled by the aether, which structure is composed by a particle and an antiparticle.

The photon proposed in QRT is formed by the agglutination of both them. So, the particle and antiparticle are a fermion and an antifermion.

The size of a photon depends on the quantity of fermion and anti fermion agglutinated in its body.

A new experiment is corroborating such hypothesis:



The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7#page-1

In the item 3 of the article (The vacuum permeability), the authors say:

“We propose a physical mechanism to produce the vacuum permeability from the elementary magnetism of the charged fermion pairs under a magnetic stress. Each charged efemeral fermion carries a magnetic moment proportional to the Bohr magneton.

We assume the orbital moment and the spin of the pair to be zero. Since the fermion and the anti fermion have opposite electric charges, the pair carries twice the magnetic moment of one fermion”

This is just what is proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.

The photon formed by a lot of particles and antiparticles (fermions and anti fermions) moves in the “soup” formed by the elementary fermions and anti fermions, a soup named aether.

Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI


 
Login
Nickname

Password

Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

Related Links
· More about Science
· News by vlad


Most read story about Science:
100 miles on 4 ounces of water?


Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad


Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


"New experiment (April-2013) corroborates Aether proposed in Quantum Ring Theory" | Login/Create an Account | 8 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Plagiarism in the European Physical Journal (Score: 1)
by vlad on Friday, April 12, 2013 @ 13:31:15 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com

From: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:09:42 PM
To: epja@itkp.uni-bonn.de (epja@itkp.uni-bonn.de)
Cc: jyeston@aaas.org (jyeston@aaas.org); prc@aps.org (prc@aps.org); apr-edoffice@aip.org (apr-edoffice@aip.org); nature@nature.com(nature@nature.com); JOHN ARRINGTON ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY (johna_6@yahoo.com)
Subject: Plagiarism in European Physical Journal‏


Prof. Ulf Meissner
Editor in Chief
European Physical Journal


Dear Editor,
The European Journal of Physics had published in March 2013 the article The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light , in which is proposed that the space is filled by particles and antiparticles. Such proposal is a plagiarism, because it had been proposed in the article entitled ETHER, published in 2006 in my book Quantum Ring Theory.

But there is a difference between the proposal published now by EPJ in 2013 and my proposal published in 2006, as follows:

a) The authors of the paper published by EPJ had proposed that the space is filled by particles and antiparticles because the new experimental findings published in 2012 require an reevaluation of the concept of space, and so the authors of the paper had proposed it as an ad hoc hypothesis, so that to explain the results of the experiment.

b) Unlike, my proposal in 2006 had been conceived so that to eliminate some inconsistency in the foundations of current Theoretical Physics. So, my theoretical proposal in 2006 actually had represented a prediction to be confirmed by future experimental findings.


In 2012 the journal NATURE had published the article How atomic nuclei cluster, in which there is a plagiarism of a proposal of mine published in 2006 in my book Quantum Ring Theory. Now a new plagiarism is published by European Physical Journal.

The plagiarisms on my ideas have started to occur in reputable journals of Physics (and other plagiarisms will continue to be published) because the new experimental findings are requiring a reevaluation of some current wrong concepts in Theoretical Physics, in order to replace by the wrong concepts by new ones. Since the wrong current concepts had been rejected in my Quantum Ring Theory (and replaced in my theory by new concepts compatible with the new experimental findings published in 2012 and 2013) then it is obvious that any author nowadays (inspired by the results of the new experimental findings) has to proposed the same proposals of mine proposed in 2006, otherwise he cannot explain the new experiments.

In my paper ETHER it is proposed that the space is filled by electric particles e(+), magnetic particles m(+), permeability particles p(+), gravity particles g(+), repulsive particle G(+), and their respective antipariticles e(-), m(-), p(-), g(-), G(-). In the paper it is shown that structure of the space is able to explain the electromagnetic phenomena.

In the paper A MODEL OF PHOTON, published in the page 20 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, it is proposed that the photon is formed by one particle and one antiparticle, they moving with helical trajectory (zitterbewegung). The particle of the photon is composed by the agglutination of the elementary particles of the ether, and the antiparticle of the photon is formed by the elementary antiparticles of the ether. Such model explains all the properties of the light. In the paper it is also shown that from such model we get the Maxwell Equations.

The physicists had used to suppose that the photons are formed by the excitation of the matter (atoms or nuclei) only, that’s why they had used to suppose that the space is an empty vacuum. Now the experiments are showing that photons can be created from the space, which means that the space cannot be an empty vacuum, as they supposed suggested by Einstein’s theory. The new experiments are showing that photons can be created from the structure of the space, and this means that photons are composed from the agglutination of elementary particles and antiparticles of the ether, as proposed in Quantum Ring Theory in 2006.

Dear Prof. Ulf Meissner ,
in order to eliminate the plagiarism commited by EPJ, I suggest you to publish a note in the upcoming issue of the journal , so that to explain to the readers that the hypothesis (regarding a space filled by particles and antiparticles) had been already proposed in my book, in 2006.
Otherwise, if you do not publish it, I will be obliged to suit in law the European Physical Journal.

Regards
Wladimir Guglinski




Plagiarism in the journal Nature – AGAIN ??????? (Score: 1)
by vlad on Tuesday, May 14, 2013 @ 11:21:32 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com

From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: nature@nature.com
CC: epja@itkp.uni-bonn.dehelayel@cbpf.brjyeston@aaas.org;prc@aps.orgapr-edoffice@aip.orgcjp@fzu.czver@cisp-publishing.compnj@bauuinstitute.comjohna_6@yahoo.com;chupp@umich.edu
Subject: Plagiarism in the Journal Nature: AGAIN ???????
Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 12:27:24 -0300

Dear Dr Karen Howell

Senior Editor , Journal Nature

In 2012 the journal Nature had published the paper How Atomic Nuclei Cluster, where there is a plagiarism of an argument proposed in the page 137 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, publihed in 2006.

Now it seems that the journal Nature had published a plagiarism again, in the paper of May-2013 entitled Studies of pear-shaped nuclei using accelerated radioactive beams.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7448/full/nature12073.html

Tim Chupp, one of the authors of the paper, gave an interview for the Brazillian blog Inovaçao Tecnológica, where he says:

”The pear shape is special. It means that neutrons and protons which compose the nucleus take positions a litle different along an internal axis“

Well, the existence of the internal axis of the nuclei is proposed in my book.

According to the new nuclear model proposed in my book, the nucleons gyrate about the z-axis (see the nucleus 46Pd in the page 13 of the article Stability of Light Nuclei, published by Andrea Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics):

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

According to my theory, deuterons form hexagonal floors about the z-axis.

In my email to the editor of the European Physical Journal I told him that each day the journals of Physics will continue to publish plagiarisms of my book, because as many experiments are suggesting that my theory is correct, then it is obvious that new experimental findings (which are coming to light now and will be coming in the future) will oblige the theorists to addopt the arguments of mine proposed in my book.

In 2013 the journal European Physica Journal had published a plagiarism of the idea of mine on the space filled by particles and antiparticles.

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3464&mode=&order=0&thold=0

Now the journal Nature had published the plagiarism of my argument that there is a central axis within the nuclei.

So, new plagiarism are coming, of course…

Regards

Wladimir Guglinski



]


Re: New experiment (April-2013) corroborates Aether proposed in Quantum Ring Theory (Score: 1)
by nanotech on Saturday, April 13, 2013 @ 09:08:52 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Mr Wladimir Guglinski,

You are a genius and a scientist of top-rated knowledge. There are persistent rings of flow structure within the quantum aether. Nikola Tesla, William Thompson, and others discovered this, as well. We could ultimately tap into this for energy and matter production, cold fusion, and gravitational control.

What are some mechanisms or methods that YOU, Wladimir Guglinski, propose, in your Quantum Ring Theory, in which to do this?





Experiment(Apr 2013) corroborates proton syze calculated in Quantum Ring Theory (Score: 1)
by vlad on Monday, April 15, 2013 @ 22:36:53 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com

From: wladimirguglinski
To: johna_6
CC: epjahelayeljyestonprcnaturecjpverpnj

Subject: Proton Size Smaller Than Physicists Thought, Puzzling New Measurements Suggest
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:41:31 -0300

To: Dr. John Arrington

Argonne National Laboratory

Subject: Proton Size Smaller Than Physicists Thought, Puzzling New Measurements Suggest

Dear Dr. John

In my paper ANOMALOUS MASS OF THE NEUTRON it is calculated that the proton’s radius is Rp= 0,275fm (page 100 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006).

In 2002 the paper been rejected by the Czechoslovak Journal of Physics, with the following reports (by the editor-in-chief and the Referee):

==================================

Prague, 16 May 2002

Ref: CJP-5263

Paper: Anomalous mass of the neutron

Author(s): Guglinski W.

Dear Dr. Guglinski,

we are sorry to inform you that your above paper has not been recommended for publication (see enclosed Referee’s Comments).

With best regards,

P Pavlo

Editor in Chief

==================================

==================================

Referee Report on MS CJP – 5263

Anomalous Mass of the Neutron

by W. Guglinski

The paper deals with an artificial construction of the neutron considered as the bound state of the proton and electron.

There are plenty of well established facts and considerations which strongly contradict claims and deductions of the paper:

A) proton radius is of about 0,8fm

B) deuteron radius is of about 2,4fm

C) magnetic dipole moment and quadrupole electric moment of the deuteron are well explained in modern nucleon-nucleon force models by the presence of the tensor component which is well confirmed alson from scattering data

I recommend not to publish paper in Czechoslovak Journal of Physics

====================================

My paper ANOMALOUS MASS OF THE NEUTRON had been also published in Andrea Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics, in 2012:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516#more-516 [www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com]

Now the experiments are suggesting that the proton’s size calculated in my paper can be correct:

Proton Size Smaller Than Physicists Thought, Puzzling New Measurements Suggest

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/14/proton-size-smaller-physicists-new-measurements_n_3080196.html?utm_hp_ref=science [www.huffingtonpost.com]

In 3th October 2012 you sent me an email where you wrote to me, concerning the new experimental findings published in 2012 in the branch of Nuclear Physics:

“I am not aware of any deficiencies in the current models, and in particular, not in the context of our recent measurement. That does not mean that there aren’t any deficiencies, but I’m not going to believe that these common and well-tested models are wrong simply because you say so and provide a hand-waving argument.”

But now, in the link above, you say:

“Most exciting of all, the discrepancy could reveal some new physics not explained by the dominant physics theory, the Standar Model. Perhaps there is something unknown about how muons and electrons interact with other particles”

So, please tell to me, dear Dr. Arrington:

did you change your mind ?

Regards

Wladimir Guglinski

15th April 2013




Reply by John Arrington (Argonne National Laboratory) (Score: 1)
by WGUGLINSKI on Friday, April 19, 2013 @ 12:45:21 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

Reply by John Arrington:

===========================================
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:30:47 -0700
From: johna_6@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Proton Size Smaller Than Physicists Thought, Puzzling New Measurements Suggest
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
CC: epja@itkp.uni-bonn.dehelayel@cbpf.brjyeston@aaas.orgprc@aps.org;apr-edoffice@aip.orgnature@nature.comcjp@fzu.czver@cisp-publishing.compnj@bauuinstitute.com

Dear Wladimir,

I said that I was not aware of any significant deficiencies in the current models describing the structure of light nuclei. The size of the proton is an almost entirely unrelated question. So no, I have not changed my mind.

I also said that there wasn’t much point discussing such matters if you were only going to base your arguments on half-read press releases and blog posts. I haven’t changed my mind on that either. Even in the short news release you refer to, they explain that we are discussing a discrepancy between techniques which result in extracted RMS radius values of either 0.88 fm or 0.84 fm. In either case, your referee’s statement that the radius is “about 0.8 fm” is still correct.

Finally, I suspect that the good people at various worldwide publishing offices aren’t interested in receiving copies of every personal correspondence you send.

Sincerely,

John Arrington
===========================================

My reply to John:

===========================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: johna_6@yahoo.com
CC: epja@itkp.uni-bonn.dehelayel@cbpf.brjyeston@aaas.orgprc@aps.org;apr-edoffice@aip.orgnature@nature.comcjp@fzu.czver@cisp-publishing.compnj@bauuinstitute.com
Subject: RE: Proton Size Smaller Than Physicists Thought, Puzzling New Measurements Suggest
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:52:40 -0300

Dear John

In the muon-proton scattering to be made in 2015 and 2016 the experiments will get the proton’s radius much lesser than 0,84 fm.

Regards
Wlad
===========================================



]


Re: New experiment (April-2013) corroborates Aether proposed in Quantum Ring Theory (Score: 1)
by profraccoon on Thursday, April 18, 2013 @ 03:41:26 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
About the aether particles:

- there are two types: with positive charge and with negative charge
- aether particles do not necessarily have spin nor wave nature, because particle spin or particle wave-nature implies that the particle is not elementary and consists of many much smaller particles that behave coherently. I consider aether particles to be 'elementary',  so they have no spin nor wave nature.
- ather particles have practically no mass


About space and aether:

- "empty" space is usually electrical neutral, meaning the density of positive and negative aether particles is equal
- empty space has a density of aether particles, and GRAVITY is just a density gradient of aether particles that form electrical neutral space.  Such a density gradient explains perfectly well the bending of light and the slight variations in light speed detected by Dayton Miller and others.  This also means that the "constants" epsilon_0 and mu_0  of empty space are anisotropic in case a gravitational field is present.


About photons, leptons, etc ..

- a photon is a rotation of positive aether particles combined with counter rotation of negative aether particles (this defines the "spin 1" of the photon).
The photon has no net charge, therefore involves as much positive as negative aether charge in the space occupied by the photon.  The photon does have longitudinal aether vibration.
- an electron is a locally higher concentration of negative aether charge. It has spin 1/2 because only the negative aether particles are rotating. It's wave nature is simply a localized LONGITUDINAL negative charged aether particles wave.
- a positron: see the electron description, where 'negative' is replaced by 'positive'.
- protons and neutrons,  see the quantum ring theory of Guglinski.
The aether patterns of protons and neutrons are more complicated and also have higher rotational speeds approaching light-speed, therefore have more mass than leptons.
- a neutrino is "half-a-photon",  meaning it is electrically neutral (the neutrino space is occupied by equal concentration of positive and negative aether), but only the negative (or only the positive) aether is rotating.
Therefore it has spin 1/2, and therefore there is also an anti-neutrino (there is no anti-photon).
- spin 2 particles (gravitons)  do not exist.  Gravity is simply explained by aether density gradients.


A classical wave can only exist as a coherent pattern of many particles, so why would this be different for the "quantum" wave? This means that "elementary" particles like electrons (or anything else with wave nature)  are not elementary at all, but in stead consist of many smaller particles that form a coherent and localised wave.

Maxwell's displacement current  [ 1/(epsilon0 mu0)  d(E)/dt ]  is simply a charged aether polarization current, due to a changing electric field.



About longitudinal aether waves.

Tesla's longitudinal aether sound waves are also perfectly possible in case of a charged aether vacuum. Because there are negative and positive charged aether particles, a longitudinal aether sound wave can be described as a superposition of two waves of only negative particles and only positive particles.
 There are two types of aether sound waves:
- the phase shift between the positive and negative charged longitudinal aether waves is ZERO degrees, and this is known as a gravitational wave, since the space that is occupied by this type of wave is electrical neutral.
- the phase shift between positive and negative charged longitudinal aether is 180 degrees,  and this is known as a longitudinal electro-scalar wave.

A longitudinal Tesla aether waves does NOT show a rotation of aether, so such a wave can be viewed as a spin 0 particle.  For instance, the Bohm pilot wave might be a longitudinal aether wave. All kinds of "non-local" "quantum" effects can be explained by such waves, in case these waves have much higher speed than electromagnetic waves.  Non-locality is simply mistake the finite speed of longitudinal aether waves for 'signals' with infinitely high speed (such that cause and effect cannot be discriminated).


Can Guglinski show why aether particles are "fermions"???  I disagree with this point of view.



New experiment (May-2013) corroborates nuclear model of Quantum Ring Theory (Score: 1)
by vlad on Tuesday, May 14, 2013 @ 11:23:34 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
The comment bellow had been posted in the Rossi's blog Journal of Nuclear Physics:


Dear Joe

A new experiment (May-2013, journal Nature) had detected that some heavy nuclei are pear-shaped:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7448/full/nature12073.html

”This contrasts with the more prevalent rugby-ball shape of nuclei with reflection-symmetric, quadrupole deformations. The elusive octupole deformed nuclei are of importance for nuclear structure theory, and also in searches for physics beyond the standard model

One of the authors is Tim Chupp, who gave an interview for the Brazillian blog Inovaçao Tecnologica:
http://www.inovacaotecnologica.com.br/noticias/noticia.php?artigo=nucleo-atomo-formato-pera&id=010130130509

In the interview he says:

”O formato de pera é especial. Ele significa que os nêutrons e os prótons que compõem o núcleo estão em posições ligeiramente diferentes ao longo de um eixo interno”

Translation:
”The pear shape is special. It means that neutrons and protons which compose the nucleus take positions a litle different along an internal axis“

Joe,
I think I dont need to remember you about the z-axis in the nuclear model of QRT. Therefore the nuclear physicists are taking a way which corroborates the existence of the z-axis in QRT.

In the interview Tim Chupp also told that the nuclear theorists are thinking about the existence of a 5th fundamental force in nature:

” Os núcleos em forma de pera seriam assimétricos porque os prótons estariam sendo empurrados para longe do centro do núcleo por alguma força nuclear ainda desconhecida –
Podendo estudar e comparar as duas peras, os físicos esperam não apenas descobrir uma nova força fundamental da natureza, como também explicar…

Translation:
The pear-shaped nuclei should be asymmetric because the protons would be pushed far away the center of the nucleus by some yet unknown nuclear force-
From the study and comparison of the two pearls, the physicists hope not only to discover a new fundamental force of nature, but also to explain…

Then we have to consider some points, dear Joe:

1- The speculation on the existence of a new fundamental 5th force of nature do not fit to the Heisenberg’s scientific criterium. So, the theorists are thinking about to reject the Heisenber’s criterium.
But instead of to propose a speculation on the existence of a 5th force…
… why do not think about a speculation not so drastic, as the existence of the flux n(o)?
As the theorists had now concluded that it is impossible to keep the Heisenberg criterium, and speculations cannot be avoided, then why do not consider the flux n(o) ?

2- If a 5th fundamental force should really exist, it would have to manifest itself in other phenomena. Why do the 5th force manifests itself only in the shape of some heavy nuclei?
Why the 5th force do not manifest itself in other heavy nuclei?
Why the 5th force do not manifest itself in other phenomena?

Joe,
dont you think that such proposal of a 5th force is very most speculative than the proposal of the flux n(o) proposed in my new nuclear model ?

Regards
Wladimir Guglinski




Re: New experiment (May-2013) corroborates nuclear model of Quantum Ring Theory (Score: 1)
by vlad on Sunday, July 07, 2013 @ 15:17:56 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
New experiment published in May-2013 by Physical Review Letters  indicate to be correct the prediction of the new nuclear model proposed in the book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006.

Measurement of Muon Neutrino Quasi-Elastic Scattering on a Hydrocarbon Target at E_ν ~ 3.5 GeV

The new experiment shows protons and neutrons pairing up within the nuclei, as correctly predicted in the new nuclear model proposed in QRT.




The experiment is explained for lay readers in Scientific American:
Particle Pals: Neutrino Experiment Shows Protons and Neutrons Pairing Up




The structure of oxygen nucleus 8O16 and carbon nucleus 6C12 are shown in the paper On the Stability, Magnetic Moments, Nuclear Spins, and Electric Quadrupole Moments of Light Nuclei with Z < 9 , published by the Journal of Nuclear Physics.

8O16 is shown in Figure 2
6C12 is shown in Figure 15

Stability of light nuclei


]


 

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.