Dear Colleagues,

We published a new paper

" Several experiments studying dynamic magnetic field "

in our journal "SELF Transactions", volume 3 (2003), issue 1

*Abstract*

We substantiate three sets of experiments studying EM induction,
describe and present their results. These experiments corroborate that
the lines of force of dynamic magnetic field are open, as well as that
the phenomenology of process of mutual induction is true if based on
the direct interaction of parallel sections of primary and secondary
loops. Additional theoretical calculations on the basis of this
phenomenology well coincide with the experimental results.

Please enjoy reading full text:

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...ntents3.html#b

I hope, it will be interesting for many of you, and look forward to
hear your opinion.

Sergey.

Sergey Karavashkin wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

We published a new paper

" Several experiments studying dynamic magnetic field "

in our journal "SELF Transactions", volume 3 (2003), issue 1


Wow. What power! You peer review yourself.

In common terms, you're a mental masturbator.

John Anderson

John Anderson wrote in message ...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

We published a new paper

" Several experiments studying dynamic magnetic field "

in our journal "SELF Transactions", volume 3 (2003), issue 1


Wow. What power! You peer review yourself.

In common terms, you're a mental masturbator.

John Anderson


I feel, you are font of this paper. You have no other arguments and
you understood what is your own knowledge of pitecantrop worthy.

Sergey.

Sergey Karavashkin wrote:

John Anderson wrote in message ...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

We published a new paper

" Several experiments studying dynamic magnetic field "

in our journal "SELF Transactions", volume 3 (2003), issue 1


Wow. What power! You peer review yourself.

In common terms, you're a mental masturbator.

John Anderson

I feel, you are font of this paper. You have no other arguments and
you understood what is your own knowledge of pitecantrop worthy.


I realize that English may not be your native language. But I can'trespond to something that is not
only incoherent, but which contains
stuff like "pitecantrop worthy" which seems to be your own
creation.

John Anderson

"pitecantrop worthy"
Good name for a rock band?
But don't forget that ole Bill Shakespeare is the reigning champ in this
area. I once read that the bard created over 100 words while he penned his
plays, and he never took much heat for it.

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...
Dear Colleagues,

We published a new paper

" Several experiments studying dynamic magnetic field "

in our journal "SELF Transactions", volume 3 (2003), issue 1

*Abstract*

We substantiate three sets of experiments studying EM induction,
describe and present their results. These experiments corroborate that
the lines of force of dynamic magnetic field are open, as well as that
the phenomenology of process of mutual induction is true if based on
the direct interaction of parallel sections of primary and secondary
loops. Additional theoretical calculations on the basis of this
phenomenology well coincide with the experimental results.

Please enjoy reading full text:

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...ntents3.html#b

I hope, it will be interesting for many of you, and look forward to
hear your opinion.

Sergey.

Sergey, this looks highly interesting, and I am sorry that I don't find the
time to look at it thoroughly.

One little practical comment: evidently you put a lot of effort into your
papers, so would it be much work to have a downloadable file, "in one go"
instead of having to do it in 10 times? (ideally PDF). It would likely
increase the number of people who -at least- put your articles on their
computer!

Harald

Dear Harald,

I'm so glad to hear from you again. Thank you very much for your
appreciation. In 3-4 days I'll send you the doc file. Please let me
know of your progress in research, the more that you hopefully
understood this paper as a way to your problems. ;-)

Kind regards,

Sergey.

"Harry" wrote in message ...
"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...
Dear Colleagues,

We published a new paper

" Several experiments studying dynamic magnetic field "

in our journal "SELF Transactions", volume 3 (2003), issue 1

*Abstract*

We substantiate three sets of experiments studying EM induction,
describe and present their results. These experiments corroborate that
the lines of force of dynamic magnetic field are open, as well as that
the phenomenology of process of mutual induction is true if based on
the direct interaction of parallel sections of primary and secondary
loops. Additional theoretical calculations on the basis of this
phenomenology well coincide with the experimental results.

Please enjoy reading full text:

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...ntents3.html#b

I hope, it will be interesting for many of you, and look forward to
hear your opinion.

Sergey.

Sergey, this looks highly interesting, and I am sorry that I don't find the
time to look at it thoroughly.

One little practical comment: evidently you put a lot of effort into your
papers, so would it be much work to have a downloadable file, "in one go"
instead of having to do it in 10 times? (ideally PDF). It would likely
increase the number of people who -at least- put your articles on their
computer!

Harald

John Anderson wrote in message ...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:

John Anderson wrote in message ...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

We published a new paper

" Several experiments studying dynamic magnetic field "

in our journal "SELF Transactions", volume 3 (2003), issue 1


Wow. What power! You peer review yourself.

In common terms, you're a mental masturbator.

John Anderson

I feel, you are font of this paper. You have no other arguments and
you understood what is your own knowledge of pitecantrop worthy.


I realize that English may not be your native language. But I can'trespond to something that is not
only incoherent, but which contains
stuff like "pitecantrop worthy" which seems to be your own
creation.

John Anderson


John,

Had you an intention to respond sensibly? ;-) Seemingly, you began
accusing me of self-reviewing and brought to NG the lexicon of cheap
pubs. True, I don't know, do you grasp the difference between the
abstract and review? ;-) I can say only, this is not your invention -
to clutch at the slip of opponent's pen, while understanding full lack
of own arguments. Yes, I was grammatically mistaken (the meaning
remained clear) - was it so important as your prejudice and cheap
jargon in communication with a colleague? Would you first learn the
ethics of behaviour, then learn a little the methodology of physics,
then get in discussion with your hoofs.

Sergey.

"Leo" wrote in message ...
"pitecantrop worthy"
Good name for a rock band?
But don't forget that ole Bill Shakespeare is the reigning champ in this
area. I once read that the bard created over 100 words while he penned his
plays, and he never took much heat for it.

Thank you, Leo, for comparing me with Shakespeare whose greatness is
for me unattainable even in Russian, though I actually sometimes
invent "new words" in English. I would like to see, how Anderson will
invent words in Russian! ;-)

Kind regards,

Sergey.

Sergey Karavashkin wrote:

John Anderson wrote in message ...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:

John Anderson wrote in message ...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

We published a new paper

" Several experiments studying dynamic magnetic field "

in our journal "SELF Transactions", volume 3 (2003), issue 1


Wow. What power! You peer review yourself.

In common terms, you're a mental masturbator.

John Anderson

I feel, you are font of this paper. You have no other arguments and
you understood what is your own knowledge of pitecantrop worthy.


I realize that English may not be your native language. But I can'trespond to something that is not
only incoherent, but which contains
stuff like "pitecantrop worthy" which seems to be your own
creation.

John Anderson

John,

Had you an intention to respond sensibly? ;-) Seemingly, you began
accusing me of self-reviewing and brought to NG the lexicon of cheap
pubs. True, I don't know, do you grasp the difference between the
abstract and review? ;-) I can say only, this is not your invention -
to clutch at the slip of opponent's pen, while understanding full lack
of own arguments. Yes, I was grammatically mistaken (the meaning
remained clear) - was it so important as your prejudice and cheap
jargon in communication with a colleague? Would you first learn the
ethics of behaviour, then learn a little the methodology of physics,
then get in discussion with your hoofs.



You talked about "in our journal "SELF Transactions".

I responded to two things, "our" and "SELF".

It sounds like you were using the royal we and talking
about your private journal. The term SELF only reinforced
that.

If this "journal" only takes abstracts, which your present
post seems to imply, then it isn't a reviewed journal
Which is what I was saying that you implied.

You're not a colleague of mine, my friend, you're a crank.

John Anderson