Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Controlled angular momentum injection in a magnetically levitated He II droplet

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A magnetically levitated superfluid helium droplet can be given controlled spin by pulsed electric forces, the paper's simulations indicate.

desk verdict A plausible design for driving orbital motion of a levitated He II droplet, but the title-level claim of angular momentum injection rests on an unvalidated conversion step that the paper itself flags. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17115 v1 pith:KJSNCDRO submitted 2024-11-26 cond-mat.other physics.flu-dyn

Sosuke Inui , Faezeh Ahangar , Wei Guo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.otherphysics.flu-dyn
keywords superfluidheliumHeIImagneticlevitationlevitateddropletangularmomentuminjectionquantizedvorticessurfacedeformationelectricdriving
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a way to inject controlled angular momentum into an isolated, magnetically levitated droplet of superfluid helium (He II), which has so far been an open experimental problem. The method charges the droplet, measures its surface charge, drives it with pulsed electric forces from two orthogonal pairs of plates so it circles the trap at the natural frequency, and then switches off the drive so that dissipation shrinks the orbit while angular momentum conservation is expected to turn the orbital motion into spinning motion. The authors' numerical simulation shows the orbital angular momentum growing as the square of the number of pulses, with the final orbit radius set by $R_{\mathrm{orb}} \approx f_e N_{\mathrm{pulse}}\Delta t/(M\omega_0)$. If the conversion step behaves as assumed, the setup would let experiments watch how rotating He II droplets distribute angular momentum between quantized vortex arrays and irrotational surface flows.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the four-step sequence: thermionic charging of the droplet surface, measurement of the total charge by balancing magnetic and electric forces, orbital driving by pulsed voltages on two orthogonal plate pairs at the trap frequency $\omega_0$, and finally the off-drive conversion of orbital to spinning angular momentum. The quantitative core is Eq. (4), $R_{\mathrm{orb}} \approx f_e N_{\mathrm{pulse}}\Delta t/(M\omega_0)$, which ties the final orbit radius to the electric force amplitude $f_e$, pulse width $\Delta t$, and pulse count $N_{\mathrm{pulse}}$; combined with $L=\omega_0 M R_{\mathrm{orb}}^2$, it predicts the quadratic growth in $L/L_{\mathrm{vor}}$ that the simulation confirms.

What would settle it

Use tracer particles (fluorescent nanoparticles or laser-ablated metal particles, as the paper proposes) to image the velocity field inside a levitated He II droplet after the drive is switched off. If the orbit radius decays but no circulation, vortex array, or surface deformation corresponding to spin appears, the proposed orbital-to-spin conversion is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that controlled angular momentum injection into a magnetically levitated He II droplet is achievable with the described magneto-optical cryostat and a time-dependent, non-axially symmetric electric drive. For a 1-mm droplet the magnetic trap has a natural frequency around 0.8 Hz, and driving a charged droplet at that frequency with pulsed voltages on orthogonal plate pairs builds up a nearly circular orbit with $R_{\mathrm{orb}} \approx f_e N_{\mathrm{pulse}}\Delta t/(M\omega_0)$, so the angular momentum $L = \omega_0 M R_{\mathrm{orb}}^2$ grows quadratically with the number of pulses. The simulation in Fig. 5 displays $L/L_{\mathrm{vor}}$ growing as $N_{\mathrm{pulse}}^2$, where $L_{\mathrm{vor}} = M\kappa/2\pi$ is the angular momentum of one central quantized vortex. Once the drive is off, the paper argues, dissipation gradually shrinks the orbit and, because no mechanism breaks axial symmetry, angular momentum is largely conserved and transfers from orbital motion into spinning motion carried by surface traveling modes, quantized vortex arrays, or both.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Step 4: as the orbit shrinks under dissipation, the droplet's angular momentum is conserved and a torque exists that spins up the droplet's interior, rather than the orbital momentum being carried away by gas collisions, evaporation, or surface-electron interactions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, a levitated He II droplet can be prepared with a known, adjustable angular momentum, set by the number of pulses, the voltage, and the pulse width.
  • The setup would allow time-resolved observation of a single rotating superfluid droplet, rather than one-time snapshots of stochastically rotating nanodroplets.
  • Comparing the deformed shapes of He II droplets with classical rotating-drop shapes would reveal whether the superfluid behaves like a solid-body rotator or an irrotational flow, or a mixture of both.
  • The ratio $L/L_{\mathrm{vor}}$ gives a practical quantized scale for the injected momentum, so experiments can target states with a specific number of vortex lines.
  • Independent measurements of the internal flow through tracer particles would calibrate whether classical surface-deformation analysis can be used to infer the angular momentum of He II droplets.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An experimental consequence not spelled out by the paper: varying the background gas pressure during the decay phase is a direct way to test the conservation assumption, because gas collisions are one of the main dissipation channels and would remove angular momentum if they couple asymmetrically to the droplet.
  • The driving scheme is not specific to helium: the same pulsed-orthogonal-plate technique could be used to spin up other diamagnetically or acoustically levitated charged droplets, making the orbital-to-spin conversion a general way to create isolated rotating fluid systems without container walls.
  • Deliberately breaking axial symmetry with a small static electric field while the orbit decays would test the paper's key symmetry assumption: if the field suppresses spin-up, that is evidence the symmetry of the trap is what preserves angular momentum for transfer.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a magneto-optical cryostat for magnetic levitation of He II droplets and a time-dependent electric driving system intended to inject angular momentum. After charging the droplet and measuring its surface charge, two orthogonal electrode pairs drive the droplet on a circular orbit at the trap frequency. The authors derive the scaling law R_orb ≈ f_e N_pulse Δt/(M ω_0), simulate the orbit with a point-particle model, and assert that after the drive is turned off, dissipative shrinking of the orbit converts orbital angular momentum into spinning angular momentum carried by surface modes and/or quantized vortices, because no mechanism is assumed to break axial symmetry. The paper claims that this system should enable controlled angular momentum injection into the droplet.

Significance. If the conversion step were established, the apparatus would provide a genuinely controlled way to prepare rotating He II droplets and to study how injected angular momentum is partitioned between vortices and irrotational surface-mode flows, a question that is currently open. The orbital-driving part of the work is clean and useful: Eq. (4) is a parameter-free scaling law whose inputs are controllable experimental variables, and the Fig. 5 simulation confirms the point-particle orbital dynamics without any fitting to a target result. The proposed charge-measurement procedure and the three independent measurement schemes for L_spin are thoughtful and experimentally concrete. However, the central claim in the title and abstract depends on Step 4, which is not modeled or tested; as it stands, the manuscript establishes controlled orbital motion of the droplet center, not controlled spin injection into the He II.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3, Step 4] The conversion of orbital angular momentum into spinning angular momentum is asserted on the basis of axial symmetry, but the dissipative mechanisms named in the same paragraph can exert external torques on the droplet. For a droplet on a circular orbit of radius R in a background gas, a drag force opposite the instantaneous velocity produces a torque τ_z ≈ -γ R^2 ω_0, which removes orbital angular momentum from the droplet rather than converting it into internal rotation. The same concern applies to the other listed processes (evaporation, surface-electron/magnetic-field interactions), and the driving electrodes themselves break axial symmetry during the injection phase. The manuscript provides no estimate of these torques relative to L_orb, no model of the coupled center-of-mass and internal (surface-mode/vortex) dynamics, and no simulation of the decay phase. Since Step 4 is the only mechanism that turns the controlled orbital motion into droplet spin, this is a load-bearing gap for the paper's central claim.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. 4] The claim that the system "should enable controlled angular momentum injection into the droplet" is stronger than the evidence presented. Equation (4) and Fig. 5 demonstrate control of the orbital angular momentum of the center of mass; the final spinning angular momentum L_spin is explicitly acknowledged to be uncertain in Step 4. Without a quantitative model or an experimental demonstration of the orbital-to-spin conversion, the title and abstract should be revised to claim controlled orbital-motion injection, with the conversion to internal spin treated as an open step to be tested.
  3. [Sec. 3, Fig. 5] The numerical simulation treats the droplet as a point particle in a harmonic trap subjected to prescribed electric forces; it does not include the finite droplet size, surface deformation, or the back-reaction of internal fluid motion on the orbit. This is appropriate for validating the orbital injection step, but it cannot support the later claim of spin conversion, which is precisely an internal-fluid effect. The revision should either provide a separate analysis of the conversion stage or clearly restate the scope as limited to orbital injection.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2)] The denominator "x2R2 − 2Rx cos φ" appears to be a typographical rendering of x^2 + R^2 − 2Rx cos φ; please correct the missing exponents and signs.
  2. [Sec. 3, Step 3] The sentence "the droplet gains momentum by Δp_x and Δp_x" should presumably read Δp_x and Δp_y.
  3. [Sec. 3, Step 4] There is a typographical error in "evaporation of from the droplet surface"; the extra "of" should be removed.
  4. [Sec. 3, Step 1] Several typographical errors appear in this section, including "inplement" (should be "implement"), "acheieves" (should be "achieves"), and "less that" (should be "less than").
  5. [Sec. 3, Step 4] The text says "coexit" where "coexist" is meant; please correct this and check the rest of the manuscript for similar OCR-type errors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (4) is a derived impulse-approximation scaling, the simulation verifies the same point-particle model, and the orbital-to-spin conversion in Step 4 is an explicit assumption rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative result, Eq. (4), is derived from the impulse approximation: each pulse gives Δp ≈ f_e Δt, and for circular motion Δp ≈ Mω_0 ΔR, so summing over N_pulse cycles gives R_orb ≈ f_e N_pulse Δt / (Mω_0). This is a self-contained analytic derivation whose only inputs are control variables (Q, ΔV, Δt, N_pulse) and known system parameters (M, ω_0). The numerical simulation shown in Fig. 5 uses the same driven point-particle model and confirms the N_pulse^2 scaling of L/L_vor; this is a consistency check, not a fit to a target result, so it does not constitute a fitted-input-called-prediction circularity. The weakest step, Step 4, asserts that as the orbit radius decays the orbital angular momentum becomes spinning angular momentum because 'the system lacks any obvious mechanism to break axial symmetry.' That is an unverified physical assumption, and the paper explicitly acknowledges the difficulty and proposes independent measurements of L_spin; it is a correctness risk rather than a circular derivation. The paper also does not rely on load-bearing self-citations: the prior levitation work cited is by other groups (Maris, Seidel, Harris, etc.), and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the present authors' prior work. Therefore the derivation chain is not circular, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The orbital-driving result depends on standard magnetostatics plus a point-mass harmonic-trap model. The true cost enters in Step 4, where conservation of angular momentum during dissipation is taken as a physical premise rather than derived. Control parameters Q, delta_V, delta_t, N_pulse and droplet radius are inputs, not fitted outputs.

free parameters (5)
  • Surface charge Q = 2.01e-13 C in the Fig. 5 simulation
    Chosen for the example simulation; in practice measured via Eq. (3) and adjustable by thermionic emission. Not fitted to a target result, but the simulated angular momentum scales with Q.
  • Pulse voltage delta_V = 50 V
    Example drive voltage with E = 49 +/- 2 V/cm near the center; a control parameter chosen by the operator, not fitted to data.
  • Pulse duration delta_t = 0.1 T_0
    Example pulse width; the injected momentum per cycle is approximately fe*delta_t. A control parameter, not fitted.
  • Number of pulses N_pulse = 20 pulses over 20 T_0 in Fig. 5
    Determines the final orbital radius and angular momentum; the paper verifies that L scales as N_pulse^2. A control parameter, not fitted.
  • Droplet radius a = 1.0 mm
    Representative radius used for f_0, M, and L_vor estimates; actual droplets may range from 100 to 1000 micrometers. A design example, not a fitted quantity.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The magnetic field of each coil is accurately given by the Biot-Savart integral in Eq. (2).
    Standard magnetostatics; used to compute the trap potential, levitation point, and spring constant k.
  • domain assumption The magnetic susceptibility of liquid helium is chi = -8.6e-7 (SI) and is constant in the relevant temperature range.
    Taken from Ref. [22]; stable levitation and the calculated trap depth depend on this value.
  • domain assumption During driving, the droplet can be treated as a point mass in a harmonic trap, ignoring surface deformation and internal superfluid flow.
    This simplification underlies Eq. (4) and the Fig. 5 simulation; it is valid only if the electric field is nearly uniform over the droplet and deformation modes are decoupled from the orbit.
  • ad hoc to paper Step 4: during orbital decay, no mechanism breaks axial symmetry, so total angular momentum is conserved and orbital motion converts into spin.
    This is the load-bearing premise for the method's stated goal. It is asserted rather than derived, and it conflicts with the listed dissipation processes, which can carry angular momentum away.
  • domain assumption The droplet surface is stable when the electric pressure Pe is much smaller than the surface curvature pressure Ps.
    The paper uses Ps >> Pe as a requirement for stable surface dynamics, but does not give a full stability criterion or Rayleigh limit calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Controlled angular momentum injection in a magnetically levitated He II droplet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KJSNCDRO

@misc{pith2026241117115,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Controlled angular momentum injection in a magnetically levitated He II droplet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KJSNCDRO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17115}
}
abstract

The morphology of rotating viscous classical liquid droplets has been extensively studied and is well understood. However, our understanding of rotating superfluid droplets remains limited. For instance, superfluid $^4$He (He II) can carry angular momentum through two distinct mechanisms: the formation of an array of quantized vortex lines, which induce flows resembling classical solid-body rotation, and surface traveling deformation modes associated with irrotational internal flows. These two mechanisms can result in significantly different droplet morphologies, and it remains unclear how the injected angular momentum is partitioned between them. To investigate this complex problem experimentally, one must first levitate an isolated He II droplet using techniques such as magnetic levitation. However, an outstanding challenge lies in effectively injecting angular momentum into the levitated droplet. In this paper, we describe a magneto-optical cryostat system designed to levitate He II droplets and present the design of a time-dependent, non-axially symmetric electric driving system. Based on our numerical simulations, this system should enable controlled angular momentum injection into the droplet. This study lays the foundation for future investigations into the morphology of rotating He II droplets.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Procee dings of the Royal Society of London

    Chandrasekhar, S.: The stability of a rotating liquid drop. Procee dings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 286(1404), 1–26 (1965)

    work page 1965

  2. [2]

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    Brown, R.A., Scriven, L.E., Lighthill, M.J.: The shape and stability of ro tating liquid drops. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathe matical and Physical Sciences 371(1746), 331–357 (1980)

    work page 1980

  3. [3]

    LEE, C.P., ANILKUMAR, A.V., HMELO, A.B., W ANG, T.G.: Equilibrium of liquid drops under the effects of rotation and acoustic flattening: r esults from usml-2 experiments in space. J. Fluid Mech. 354, 43–67 (1998) https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S0022112097007544

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112097007544 1998

  4. [4]

    Hill, R.J.A., Eaves, L.: Nonaxisymmetric shapes of a magnetically levita ted and spinning water droplet. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 234501 (2008) https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.101.234501

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Scientific Report s 5(1), 7660 11 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1038/srep07660

    Baldwin, K.A., Butler, S.L., Hill, R.J.A.: Artificial tektites: an experimen tal tech- nique for capturing the shapes of spinning drops. Scientific Report s 5(1), 7660 11 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1038/srep07660

    work page doi:10.1038/srep07660 2015

  6. [6]

    Seidel, G.M., Maris, H.J.: Morphology of superfluid drops with angular momen- tum. Phys. B: Condensed Matter 194-196, 577–578 (1994) https://doi.org/10. 1016/0921-4526(94)90618-1

    work page 1994

  7. [7]

    Physical Review B 97(18), 184515 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.97

    Ancilotto, F., Barranco, M., Pi, M.: Spinning superfluid 4He nanodroplets. Physical Review B 97(18), 184515 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.97. 184515

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.97 2018

  8. [8]

    Physica l Chem- istry Chemical Physics 19(36), 24805–24818 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1039/ C7CP03307A

    Coppens, F., Ancilotto, F., Barranco, M., Halberstadt, N., Pi, M.: C apture of xe and ar atoms by quantized vortices in 4he nanodroplets. Physica l Chem- istry Chemical Physics 19(36), 24805–24818 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1039/ C7CP03307A

    work page 2017

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Physical Review B 91(10), 100503 (2015) https://doi.org/10

    Ancilotto, F., Pi, M., Barranco, M.: Vortex arrays in nanoscopic su perfluid helium droplets. Physical Review B 91(10), 100503 (2015) https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevB.91.100503

    2015

  2. [10]

    Journal of Low Temperature Physics 16(5), 533–555 (1974) https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00654901

    Fetter, A.L.: Vortex nucleation in deformed rotating cylinders. Journal of Low Temperature Physics 16(5), 533–555 (1974) https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00654901

    1974

  3. [11]

    Scienc e 345(6199), 906–909 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1252395

    Gomez, L.F., Ferguson, K.R., Cryan, J.P., Bacellar, C., Tanyag, R.M .P., Jones, C., Schorb, S., Anielski, D., Belkacem, A., Bernando, C., Boll, R., Bozek, J., Carron, S., Chen, G., Delmas, T., Englert, L., Epp, S.W., Erk, B., Fouca r, L., Hartmann, R., Hexemer, A., Huth, M., K...

    2014

  4. [12]

    O’Connell, S.M.O., Tanyag, R.M.P., Verma, D., Bernando, C., Pang, W., Bacel- lar, C., Saladrigas, C.A., Mahl, J., Toulson, B.W., Kumagai, Y., Walter, P., Ancilotto, F., Barranco, M., Pi, M., Bostedt, C., Gessner, O., Vilesov, A.F.: Angular momentum in rotating superfluid drople...

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    Feinberg, A.J., Verma, D., O’Connell-Lopez, S.M.O., Erukala, S., Tan yag, R.M.P., Pang, W., Saladrigas, C.A., Toulson, B.W., Borgwardt, M., Shivara m, N., Lin, M.-F., Haddad, A.A., J¨ ager, W., Bostedt, C., Walter, P., Gessn er, O., Vilesov, A.F.: Aggregation of solutes in bos...

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Feinberg, A.J., Laimer, F., Tanyag, R.M.P., Senfftleben, B., Ovchar enko, Y., 12 Dold, S., Gatchell, M., O’Connell-Lopez, S.M.O., Erukala, S., Saladrigas, C .A., Toulson, B.W., Hoffmann, A., Kamerin, B., Boll, R., De Fanis, A., Grychtol, P., Mazza, T., Montano, J., Setoodehnia, ...

    2022

  7. [15]

    Berry, M.V., Geim, A.K.: Of flying frogs and levitrons. Euro. J. Phy s. 18(4), 307 (1997) https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/18/4/012

    1997 doi

  8. [16]

    Weilert, M.A., Whitaker, D.L., Maris, H.J., Seidel, G.M.: Magnetic levitat ion and noncoalescence of liquid helium. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4840–4843 (1996) https:// doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.4840

    1996 doi

  9. [17]

    Weilert, M.A., Whitaker, D.L., Maris, H.J., Seidel, G.M.: Magnetic levitat ion of liquid helium. J. Low Temp. Phys. 106(1), 101–131 (1997) https://doi.org/10. 1007/BF02403919

    1997

  10. [18]

    Vicente, C., Yao, W., Maris, H.J., Seidel, G.M.: Surface tension of liqu id 4He as measured using the vibration modes of a levitated drop. Phys. Rev. B 66, 214504 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.66.214504

    2002 doi

  11. [19]

    Brown, C.D., Wang, Y., Namazi, M., Harris, G.I., Uysal, M.T., Harris, J .G.E.: Superfluid helium drops levitated in high vacuum. Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 216001 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.216001

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Am erican Journal of Physics 78(3), 229–23500029505 (2010)

    Derby, N., Olbert, S.: Cylindrical magnets and ideal solenoids. Am erican Journal of Physics 78(3), 229–23500029505 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    Jour- nal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 456, 423–432 (2018) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jmmm.2018.02.003

    Caciagli, A., Baars, R.J., Philipse, A.P., Kuipers, B.W.M.: Exact expres sion for the magnetic field of a finite cylinder with arbitrary uniform magnetiza tion. Jour- nal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 456, 423–432 (2018) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jmmm.2018.02.003

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    Physical Review 23(2), 209–220 (1924) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRev.23.209

    Wills, A.P., Hector, L.G.: The magnetic susceptibility of oxygen, hyd rogen and helium. Physical Review 23(2), 209–220 (1924) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRev.23.209

    1924

  15. [23]

    (ed.) Chapter 25 - Numerical methods for linear systems of equations, pp

    Rapp, B.E.: In: Rapp, B.E. (ed.) Chapter 25 - Numerical methods for linear systems of equations, pp. 525–566. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2023) . https://doi.org/ 10.1016/B978-0-12-824022-9.00045-0

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Review of Scientific Instruments 85(7), 073705 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1063/ 1.4886811 13

    Meichle, D.P., Lathrop, D.P.: Nanoparticle dispersion in superfluid h elium. Review of Scientific Instruments 85(7), 073705 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1063/ 1.4886811 13

    2014

  17. [25]

    Europhysics Letters 90(3), 34002 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1209/0295- 5075/90/34002

    Moroshkin, P., Lebedev, V., Grobety, B., Neururer, C., Gordon , E.B., Weis, A.: Nanowire formation by gold nano-fragment coalescence on quantiz ed vortices in he ii. Europhysics Letters 90(3), 34002 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1209/0295- 5075/90/34002

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    Ginzburg, V.L., Kirzhnits, D.A.: On the superfluidity of neutron st ars V ol: 47 (1964)

    1964

  19. [27]

    (eds.) Superfluidity in the Interiors of Neutron Stars, pp

    Sauls, J.A.: In: ¨Ogelman, H., Heuvel, E.P.J. (eds.) Superfluidity in the Interiors of Neutron Stars, pp. 457–490. Springer, Dordrecht (1989). https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-94-009-2273-0 43 . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2273-0 43 14

    1989 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.