Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Frequency-Division Multiplexing in Magnonic Waveguides

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two spin waves of different frequencies can propagate simultaneously in a single magnetic waveguide without measurable interaction, provided the excitation remains in the linear regime.

desk verdict The all-electrical FDM framework is a useful step, but the VNA measurement can't actually see the second channel, so the 'no interaction' claim rests on expectation rather than evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20102 v1 pith:D3AXRNT7 submitted 2026-07-22 cond-mat.mes-hall

Alina-Cristina Bunea , Laurentiu Stoleriu , Giacomo Talmelli , Dan Neculoiu , Christoph Adelmann , Florin Ciubotaru This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords spinwavesmagnonicsfrequency-divisionmultiplexingCoFeBwaveguidelinearsuperpositionmicrowavetransmissionvectornetworkanalyzercrosstalk
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 reports an experiment in which two independent microwave sources excite spin waves of different frequencies in the same cobalt-iron-boron waveguide. The transmission seen by each source is unchanged when the other source is switched on, which the authors take as evidence that spin waves at different frequencies propagate through the same conduit without interacting. The observation is reproduced with two different drive schemes and backed by micromagnetic simulations showing each mode's amplitude and wavevector stay the same along the propagation path. If correct, the result establishes frequency-division multiplexing as a practical feature of magnonic waveguides: multiple data streams could share one physical channel, increasing throughput without enlarging the device.

What carries the argument

The central object is a CoFeB spin-wave waveguide with U-shaped inductive antennas, driven by two independent vector-network analyzer sources combined at the input and split at the output. The mechanism that carries the argument is linear superposition in the linearized magnetization dynamics, together with phase-sensitive detection: a VNA referenced to its own source averages out the contribution from a free-running second source, leaving the transmission of its own signal unchanged. Micromagnetic simulations confirm that the two modes remain independent throughout the waveguide.

What would settle it

Run the two-source experiment again while sweeping the excitation power from well below 0.5 mW to above it; if the transmission spectrum of one channel changes when the other channel is turned on, or if intermodulation sidebands appear at frequencies like f1 ± f2, then the spin waves are interacting and the linear-regime claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the linear regime, spin waves of different frequencies and wavelengths can be excited simultaneously in a single CoFeB waveguide by independent microwave sources, and each wave propagates as if the other were absent. The transmission spectra under single-source and dual-source operation are identical within noise; circuit-level simulation traces this to phase-sensitive detection of unsynchronized sources, and micromagnetic simulation shows no change in amplitude or wavevector of either mode over the entire propagation distance. The result is presented as direct experimental evidence for frequency-division multiplexing in magnonic waveguides.

Load-bearing premise

The entire demonstration rests on the assertion that 0.5 mW excitation power lies in the linear regime; the paper states this but provides no power-dependent measurement to prove it, so if this power already generates nonlinear spin-wave dynamics, the observed non-interaction would not actually establish linear-regime behavior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multiple frequency channels can share one magnonic waveguide with no measurable cross-talk, letting data throughput grow without increasing device footprint.
  • All-electrical transmission measurements are sufficient to characterize multiplexed spin-wave operation, offering a practical route to test magnonic FDM devices.
  • The observed independence means channels need only be resolvable in frequency; side-by-side bands within the same transmission window coexist cleanly.
  • The result supports parallel magnonic computing and microwave signal processing architectures where several signals are routed through a common magnetic conduit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The natural next test is a power sweep: the paper asserts linearity at 0.5 mW but does not show where nonlinearity begins; measuring intermodulation products would set a quantitative bound on the linear regime and on channel capacity.
  • If the independence holds for more than two channels, the same waveguide could carry a frequency comb of signals; the paper demonstrates only two, but its superposition argument suggests the absence of pairwise interactions may extend to many pairs.
  • Because the phase-sensitivity explanation implies that phase-locked sources would add coherently and alter the measured spectrum, practical FDM transceivers on magnonic waveguides may need to manage relative phase or intentionally use incoherent sources.
  • The independence relies on waveguide uniformity; real devices with magnetic inhomogeneities might show coupling or parametric effects, so testing graded or disordered films could reveal practical limits.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental and numerical study of frequency-division multiplexing in a CoFeB spin-wave waveguide. Two vector network analyzers drive the same input antenna; transmission spectra under single-source and dual-source sweeps are compared, as are broad sweeps with and without a fixed 12.22 GHz tone. The authors report 'excellent agreement' between single-channel and multiplexed operation and conclude that co-propagating spin waves at different frequencies do not interact measurably in the linear regime. The conclusion is supported by circuit-level simulations of phase-dependent S-parameter combinations and by MuMax3 micromagnetic simulations showing unchanged amplitudes and wavevectors of individual modes.

Significance. If the claim holds, this provides a simple, fully electrical demonstration that multiple frequency channels can share a single magnonic waveguide without crosstalk, a useful step for magnonic FDM. The numerical part is a strength: the MuMax3 simulations explicitly compare single- and dual-frequency excitation and show that mode-specific amplitudes and wavevectors remain unchanged over the propagation length. However, the experimental evidence is less conclusive than the abstract suggests because the two-VNA phase-locked detection scheme is, as the authors themselves note, insensitive to an unsynchronized second channel, and no power sweep establishes the linear regime. The central claim is therefore defensible but requires an additional experimental test or a more carefully scoped statement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Experimental method, Fig. 2(b)] The dual-sweep experiment cannot by itself establish absence of interaction. The text states that non-synchronized sources average out and contribute only to background/noise. Thus VNA-1's S21 is expected to be unchanged when VNA-2 is switched on, provided the second wave does not alter the amplitude or phase of the mode probed by VNA-1. This detection scheme is blind to incoherent cross-channel effects, intermodulation, or scattering into other frequencies. The micromagnetic simulations close part of this gap, but an experimental test sensitive to the second channel (e.g., a spectrum analyzer at sum/difference frequencies, or phase-locked sources with measured cross-coupling) is needed before the claim 'no measurable interaction' can be made at the level stated in the abstract.
  2. [Experimental method, p. 4] The linear-regime assumption is asserted but not demonstrated. 'The low excitation power was chosen to ensure operation within the linear regime' is the only justification for 0.5 mW. No power-dependent measurement (amplitude vs. power, harmonic generation, or intermodulation products) is shown. For a 30-nm-thick CoFeB waveguide, 0.5 mW may already excite nonlinear spin-wave processes depending on mode volume and damping. Without this check, the experiment cannot exclude the possibility that the absence of visible interaction is due to the insensitivity of the measurement rather than genuine linearity. A power sweep with one source and, ideally, a two-tone intermodulation test should be added.
  3. [Fig. 3(a-c) and accompanying text] The observed 'strong increase' in amplitude at 12.22 GHz is not explained by the paper's phase-averaging argument. If a free-running source's signal averages out at a phase-sensitive VNA receiver, it should not produce a large coherent feature when VNA-1 sweeps across that frequency. This suggests an unmodeled coherence or leakage path. The authors should quantify and explain this effect and discuss whether the same mechanism could affect the dual-sweep data in Fig. 2(b), where the two sweeps are separated by a band edge.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2(b)] The two VNAs have different noise floors, and the 'excellent agreement' is assessed visually. Please provide error bars or a quantitative metric (e.g., rms deviation normalized by the noise floor) and describe the stitching/calibration procedure for the combined frequency axis.
  2. [Fig. 3(c)-(f)] The caption and legend use 'Experiment + simulation' without clearly describing how the Touchstone-based circuit simulation was aligned to the measured data. Please specify the normalization or offset used and what the shaded/overlaid traces represent.
  3. [p. 5] The text states that 'the real and imaginary parts of S21 carry information about both the amplitude and the phase' but does not specify whether the 0-mT subtraction used in Fig. 2 is performed on magnitudes or on complex S21. Since Re/Im differences are shown in Fig. 3, please clarify the procedure.
  4. [References] The claim that 0.5 mW is a low excitation power for this device would benefit from a quantitative reference or a prior calibration; currently only the phrase 'low excitation power' supports it.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Dual-VNA non-interaction evidence reduces to phase-averaged detection plus an asserted linearity premise

  1. self definitional [Dual-VNA multiplexing experiment, pp. 5-6 (Fig. 2): phase-sensitivity analysis and conclusion paragraphs]
    "signal components generated by non-synchronized sources average out over the measurement time and contribute primarily to the measured power background and noise floor. Consequently, in the absence of nonlinear interactions, the transmission spectrum measured by a VNA remains dominated by the spin waves excited by its own source … The nearly identical transmission characteristics (within the noise limit) observed under single-source and dual-source operation indicate the absence of interaction between spin waves of different frequencies and wavelengths in the linear regime."

    The unchanged S21 under dual-source operation is not an independent signature of absent cross-channel interaction: the paper's own phase-sensitivity analysis predicts it for any free-running second source, whose signal 'average[s] out' and produces 'negligible changes in the measured complex response.' That prediction is explicitly conditional on 'in the absence of nonlinear interactions' — exactly the conclusion ('absence of interaction ... in the linear regime') later drawn from the observation. Because linearity is only asserted ('The low excitation power was chosen to ensure operation within the linear regime') with no power-sweep verification, the experiment cannot distinguish 'no interaction' from 'interaction invisible to this phase-averaged detection scheme.' The cited observation

  2. other [Experimental setup / excitation power, p. 4 (dual-VNA section)]
    "The low excitation power was chosen to ensure operation within the linear regime and to avoid nonlinear spin-wave effects."

    The central claim is scoped to the linear regime ('without measurable interaction in the linear regime'), but linearity is assumed without measurement: no power-dependent data or nonlinear-threshold check is shown. Per the paper's own phase-sensitivity model, the dual-source S21 traces are expected to remain unchanged precisely when the system is linear and the second source is non-synchronized; hence the unverified linearity premise is what lets identical traces be read as evidence of non-interaction. This missing support is load-bearing — it closes the loop between the asserted premise and the claimed demonstration.

full rationale

Partial circularity, not total collapse. The crux is the dual-VNA experiment (Fig. 2). The paper's own theory of phase-sensitive detection states that non-synchronized source signals average out and 'produce negligible changes in the measured complex response'; consequently the near-identical single- vs dual-source S21 traces are the designed output of the measurement scheme, not an independent test of inter-channel interaction. The same paragraph premises 'in the absence of nonlinear interactions,' and the paper then concludes 'absence of interaction … in the linear regime' from the observation — restating the premise as the empirical result. Linearity is asserted ('The low excitation power was chosen to ensure operation within the linear regime') without a power sweep, so the experiment cannot distinguish 'no interaction' from 'interaction invisible to phase-averaged detection.' The second experiment (Fig. 3) does not repair this: the reported 'strong increase' at 12.22 GHz from a free-running source contradicts the averaging explanation (or indicates unmodeled coherence/leakage), weakening the theoretical account that carries the inference. Counterweights: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the MuMax3 micromagnetic simulations are a self-contained numerical check of the linear-superposition expectation; the sole self-citation used as a material input (A = 18.6 pJ/m from ref. 5, same group) is a benign constant that does not force the conclusion; the circuit-level simulation merely combines measured S-parameters and is illustrative rather than predictive. Because the central experimental demonstration reduces by construction to the detection scheme plus an asserted linearity, the score is 6; the independent simulation content and the absence of fit-based circularity keep it from being higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an experimental measurement, not a derived law, so no free parameters were fitted to produce the result. The claim relies on the linear-regime assumption, the phase-sensitive detection behavior of the VNAs, background subtraction, and material parameters from prior measurements or prior work by the same group.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Linear superposition of spin-wave modes holds at the chosen excitation amplitude.
    The entire interpretation of non-interaction relies on operating in the linear regime, which is asserted but not demonstrated with a power sweep (Frequency-division multiplexing experiment section).
  • domain assumption Phase-sensitive VNA detection referenced to its own source averages out free-running signals from the second source.
    Used to explain why the second channel does not appear directly in S21; if false, the measurement could miss additive cross-talk (section discussing free-running sources).
  • domain assumption Background subtraction at 0 mT removes only direct electromagnetic coupling and does not distort the spin-wave signal.
    All transmission traces are computed as differences between 43 mT and 0 mT data (Fig. 2 caption and Fig. 3 caption).
  • domain assumption Material parameters used in simulations (Ms = 1.36 MA/m measured here; A = 18.6 pJ/m from ref. 5) are accurate for the CoFeB stack.
    Micromagnetic simulations use these inputs; any error propagates into the simulated amplitude and wavevector comparisons (Micromagnetic simulations section).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Frequency-Division Multiplexing in Magnonic Waveguides." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D3AXRNT7

@misc{pith2026260720102,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Frequency-Division Multiplexing in Magnonic Waveguides},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D3AXRNT7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20102}
}
read the original abstract

Frequency-division multiplexing is a key functionality for wave-based information processing, enabling multiple information channels to coexist within the same physical medium. Here, we experimentally investigate spin-wave multiplexing in a CoFeB waveguide using all-electrical excitation and detection. Two independently generated microwave signals are simultaneously coupled into the same spin-wave waveguide through inductive antennas and characterized using broadband vector network analyzer measurements. The transmission spectra obtained under single-channel and multiplexed operation exhibit excellent agreement, demonstrating that spin waves with different frequencies and wavelengths propagate simultaneously without measurable interaction in the linear regime. The observation is confirmed using both dual-sweep and sweep-plus-single-tone excitation schemes. A theoretical analysis based on linear superposition and phase-sensitive detection explains the absence of observable inter-channel interference for independent microwave sources. Micromagnetic simulations further confirm that the amplitudes and wavevectors of the individual spin-wave modes remain unchanged during co-propagation, demonstrating the absence of interaction over the entire propagation distance. The results provide direct experimental evidence that independent spin-wave channels can coexist in a single waveguide and support the implementation of frequency-division multiplexing in future magnonic computing and microwave signal-processing architectures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20102 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Microscope image of the investigated device and a schematic of the material stack [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Microscope image of the investigated device and a schematic of the measurement setup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Measured spin-wave transmission power recorded by VNA-1 with the 12.22 GHz RF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Snapshot images of the magnetization oscillation obtained from micromagnetic simu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Khitun and M

    A. Khitun and M. Bao and K. L. Wang. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2010

    2010

  2. [2]

    Talmelli and T

    G. Talmelli and T. Devolder and N. Träger and J. Förster and S. Wintz and M. Weigand and H. Stoll and M. Heyns and G. Schütz and I. P. Radu and J. Gräfe and F. Ciubotaru and C. Adelmann. Sci. Adv. 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    A. N. Mahmoud and F. Vanderveken and C. Adelmann and F. Ciubotaru and S. Hamdioui and S. Cotofana. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Heussner and G

    F. Heussner and G. Talmelli and M. Geilen and B. Heinz and T. Brächer and T. Meyer and F. Ciubotaru and C. Adelmann and K. Yamamoto and A. A. Serga. Phys. Status Solidi RRL. 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    Zhang and M

    Z. Zhang and M. Vogel and J. Holanda and M. B. Jungfleisch and C. Liu and Y. Li and J. E. Pearson and R. Divan and W. Zhang and A. Hoffmann and Y. Nie and V. Novosad. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2019

    2019

  6. [6]

    K. O. Nikolaev and D. Raskhodchikov and J. Bensmann and E. Lomonte and L. Jin and R. Schmidt and J. Kern and S. Michaelis de Vasconcellos and R. Bratschitsch and S. O. Demokritov and W. H. P. Pernice and V. E. Demidov. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    Morozova and O

    M. Morozova and O. Matveev and D. Romanenko and S. Nikitov. J. Appl. Phys. 2025

    2025

  8. [8]

    Pirro and T

    P. Pirro and T. Brächer and K. Vogt and B. Obry and H. Schultheiss and B. Leven and B. Hillebrands. Phys. Status Solidi B. 2011

    2011

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Pirro and V

    P. Pirro and V. I. Vasyuchka and A. A. Serga and B. Hillebrands. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Lan and W

    J. Lan and W. Yu and R. Wu and J. Xiao. Phys. Rev. X. 2015

    2015

  3. [11]

    Wang and M

    Q. Wang and M. Kewenig and M. Schneider and R. Verba and F. Kohl and B. Heinz and M. Geilen and M. Mohseni and B. Lägel and F. Ciubotaru and C. Adelmann and C. Dubs and S. D. Cotofana and O. V. Dobrovolskiy and T. Brächer and P. Pirro and A. V. Chumak. Nat. Electron. 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Vansteenkiste and J

    A. Vansteenkiste and J. Leliaert and M. Dvornik and M. Helsen and F. Garcia-Sanchez and B. Van Waeyenberge. AIP Advances. 2014

    2014

  5. [13]

    B. A. Kalinikos and A. N. Slavin. J. Phys. C. 1986

    1986

  6. [14]

    K. O. Levchenko and K. Dav. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics , volume =. 2026 , month = may, note =

    2026

  7. [15]

    A. V. Chumak and V. I. Vasyuchka and A. A. Serga and B. Hillebrands , title = "", journal =. 2015 , doi =

    2015

  8. [16]

    Vogt and F

    K. Vogt and F. Y. Fradin and J. E. Pearson and T. Sebastian and S. D. Bader and B. Hillebrands and A. Hoffmann and H. Schultheiss , title = "", journal =. 2014 , doi =

    2014

  9. [17]

    M. A. Morozova and N. D. Lobanov and O. V. Matveev and S. A. Nikitov , title = "", journal =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  10. [18]

    A. A. Serga and A. V. Chumak and B. Hillebrands , title = "", journal =. 2010 , doi =

    2010

  11. [19]

    K. Dav. Physical Review Applied , volume =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  12. [20]

    M. S. Sarker and S. Nakamura and H. Yamahara and M. Seki and H. Tabata , title = "", journal =. 2022 , month = feb, note =

    2022

  13. [21]

    C. S. Davies and A. V. Sadovnikov and S. V. Grishin and Y. P. Sharaevsky and S. A. Nikitov and V. V. Kruglyak , title = "", journal =. 2015 , month = nov, note =

    2015

  14. [22]

    V. V. Kruglyak and S. O. Demokritov and D. Grundler , title = "", journal =. 2010 , doi =

    2010

  15. [23]

    N. D. Birell and P. C. W. Davies , year = 1982, title =

    1982

  16. [24]

    R. P. Feynman. Phys.\ Rev. 1954

    1954

  17. [25]

    Einstein and Yu Podolsky and N

    A. Einstein and Yu Podolsky and N. Rosen. Phys.\ Rev. 1935

    1935

  18. [26]

    G. P. Berman, Jr. and F. M. Izrailev, Jr. Stability of nonlinear modes. Physica D. 1983

    1983

  19. [27]

    E. B. Davies and L. Parns. Trapped modes in acoustic waveguides. Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math. 1988

    1988

  20. [28]

    Edward Witten. 2001. hep-th/0106109

    2001 arXiv

  21. [29]

    E. Beutler. Williams Hematology. 1994

    1994

  22. [30]

    Donald E. Knuth. Fundamental Algorithms. 1973b 1973

    1973

  23. [31]

    J. S. Smith and G. W. Johnson. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. B. 2005

    2005

  24. [32]

    W. J. Smith and T. J. Johnson and B. G. Miller. Surface chemistry and preferential crystal orientation on a silicon surface. 2010

    2010

  25. [33]

    V. K. Smith and K. Johnson and M. O. Klein. Surface chemistry and preferential crystal orientation on a silicon surface. 2010

    2010

  26. [34]

    Lower Bounds for Wishful Research Results

    Ulrich \" U nderwood and Ned \ N et and Paul \= P ot. Lower Bounds for Wishful Research Results

  27. [35]

    M. P. Johnson and K. L. Miller and K. Smith. 2007

    2007

  28. [36]

    AIP Conf. Proc. 2007

    2007

  29. [37]

    Fifteenth Annual

    Proc. Fifteenth Annual

  30. [38]

    Y. Burstyn. Proceedings of the 5th International Molecular Beam Epitaxy Conference, Santa Fe, NM. 2004

    2004

  31. [39]

    Proceedings of the 2003 Particle Accelerator Conference, Portland, OR, 12-16 May 2005. 2001

    2003

  32. [40]

    A. G. Agarwal. Proceedings of the Fifth Low Temperature Conference, Madison, WI, 1999. Semiconductors. 2001

    1999

  33. [41]

    R. Smith. Hummingbirds are our friends. 2001

    2001

  34. [42]

    J. Smith. Proc. SPIE. 2007

    2007

  35. [43]

    An O(n n / \! n) Sorting Algorithm

    Tom T \' e rrific. An O(n n / \! n) Sorting Algorithm

  36. [44]

    Mastering Thesis Writing

    \' E douard Masterly. Mastering Thesis Writing

  37. [45]

    S. R. Kawa and S.-J. Lin. J. Geophys. Res. 2003

    2003

  38. [46]

    Phidias Phony-Baloney

    F. Phidias Phony-Baloney. Fighting Fire with Fire: Festooning F rench Phrases

  39. [47]

    Donald E. Knuth. Seminumerical Algorithms. 1973c 1981

    1981

  40. [48]

    Jill C. Knvth. The Programming of Computer Art

  41. [50]

    Ballagh and C.M

    R. Ballagh and C.M. Savage. Bose-Einstein condensation: from atomic physics to quantum fluids. Proceedings of the 13th Physics Summer School. 2000. cond-mat/0008070

    2000 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Opechowski and R

    W. Opechowski and R. Guccione. Introduction to the Theory of Normal Metals. Magnetism. 1965

    1965

  43. [52]

    J. M. Smith. Molecular Dynamics. 1980

    1980

  44. [53]

    V. E. Zakharov and A. B. Shabat. Exact theory of two-dimensional self-focusing and one-dimensional self-modulation of waves in nonlinear media. Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 1971

    1971

  45. [54]

    Daniel D. Lincoll. Semigroups of Recurrences. High Speed Computer and Algorithm Organization

  46. [55]

    Oaho and Jeffrey D

    Alfred V. Oaho and Jeffrey D. Ullman and Mihalis Yannakakis. On Notions of Information Transfer in VLSI Circuits. Proc. Fifteenth Annual ACM

  47. [56]

    The Definitive Computer Manual

    Larry Manmaker. The Definitive Computer Manual

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.