|
Arabic
Bengali
Chinese
English
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Malay
Polish
Portuguese
Spanish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese|
EFFECTIVE FOCUSES AND THEIR CLUES How to distract the viewer. Tips for a magician
Directory / Spectacular tricks and their clues Remember "Robinson Crusoe" - the great and grandiose book of childhood? This novel, after its publication, did not have to queue for fame. He was recognized immediately. "... The book hypnotizes with its authenticity..." "... Persuasiveness of great power pervades this novel..." enduring success of "Robinson", a huge, global success. But a simple statement of this obvious fact is hardly capable of satisfying the inquisitive mind. And the Soviet literary critic, Doctor of Philology D. M. Urnov, from whose works the quotations are taken, asks an extremely interesting question that requires exceptional accuracy: what caused the “incredible authenticity” of the novel, by what literary means was it achieved? The ingenious "Robinson" is not without paradoxes. The roar of the sea is constantly heard from its pages, and this is taken for granted. Meanwhile, its author, Daniel Defoe, was a purely terrestrial man and almost never got into a boat, because he suffered from seasickness ... Where did the plausibility mentioned above come from? What is its reason? Here are the observations of the literary critic: “At the beginning of the book, Robinson seems to confuse two Moorish boys, and in the second part he confuses two Russian princes. He says that he did not meet compatriots in Turkish captivity, and then it turns out to be some kind of “English carpenter.” He is mistaken in Spanish words ... Why do such errors not violate the general illusion of plausibility? And really - why? D. M. Urnov's version sounds like this: "Very skillful management of reader's attention." Or, to put it in more scientific terms: the creator of "Robinson" managed to distribute creative efforts in the best possible way, optimized them taking into account the psychological characteristics of the reader's perception. “Defoe acted quickly, simply, riskily, but effectively,” Urnov writes. he will say ... Convincing with various everyday trifles, Defoe accumulates an excess of persuasiveness, which, by inertia, will help him out ... " As you can see, the point is not only in the magnificent literary technique, not only in the famous selection of one - the only word that expresses everything. Understanding the peculiarities of the reader's perception, Defoe, who had a fairly deep literary breath, designed in advance and placed invisible psychological fetters in the novel, which were felt only in the cinematic dynamics of Robinson's successive actions and actions. And suddenly D. M. Urnov slips an unexpected remark. As if by chance, as if in passing: "... It's, you know, like a magician ..." How about a magician? Completely, doesn’t this mean that Defoe, a brilliant master of the pen, the author of an immortal, in many respects exceptional novel, suddenly begins to pass through the department of man-made illusionism, revered by some as a frivolous, frivolous genre? If a zealot of the purity of style may argue with anyone, then it is better with masters of the fine, classical arts - with a bewitching musician, for example, or with a skilled artist. Such analogies are certainly possible. They are sublime, generally accepted. But they are less accurate. Because it is in illusionism, this mystical buffoonery, that the incredible is demonstrated, as we have already found out, in the most obvious way. However, let's read the statement of the literary critic to the end. "... It's, you know, like a magician: all sorts of mysterious preparations are made, magical passes, and when the audience's attention is sufficiently distracted, the handkerchief is simply shifted from one pocket to another ..." Let's pay attention to the sound of the phrase - it is very distinct there is some rhythm. Focus rhythm. "...So is Defoe." Well, whoever - who, but magicians have something in the ability to control the attention of the audience, in creating spectacular mirages, they have experience not of many years, but of centuries. How do they work? Or rather, how should one act based on the recommendations of such a long practice? I want to introduce to the readers of the Lenconcert artist Yuri Obrezkov, an expert of the Moscow Club of Magicians in tricks with playing cards. - The fact that not all viewers have a positive and benevolent attitude towards card tricks is well known to me, - he says. But if you approach not from an emotionally negative position, but in essence, rejecting a negative opinion prepared for the future? Then it turns out that cards are a very ancient entertainment invention that requires an attentive attitude, and cheating can rather be interpreted as the desire of other dodgers to extract self-interest from a very common and attractive hobby. For magicians, the cards are nothing more than magnificent props. Props - and no more. Having studied foreign encyclopedias, I found that today there are about 30 thousand magnificent and amazing card tricks. This means that a skilled magician, having a small deck of cards in his pocket, is able to entertain the audience for several evenings in a row, never repeating himself. Such requisite convenience and stunt inexhaustibility - aren't these the advantages of cards? But there is another, more important feature for beginners. Having learned how to show card tricks, it will become easier for them to move on to other props, transferring to it the techniques and methods developed and tested on card tricks. I will only talk about some of them. And I will choose those that some magicians usually neglect, consider them unworthy of attention. Meanwhile, there are no bad tricks, there are bad conjurers. If the desired effect is not achieved, the trick is not to blame - it is the performer who failed to reveal it, could not achieve a magical sound. Trick first. The magician takes twenty cards, lays them out on the table in twos and asks the viewer to remember any pair. Then he collects the cards and lays them out on the table again, only not in two, but in the form of a table consisting of four rows and five columns - in each row, thus, there are five cards. Then the performer asks the question - in which rows of this table are the cards from the intended pair. Having received the answer, the magician points to these cards. The secret of this trick has long ceased to be a secret. The performer uses the key - four words learned by heart. Most often these are: THE SCIENCE
To tell the truth, I don’t know what “githik” is, just as the young hero of Lev Kassil’s brilliant story “Konduit and Shvambrania” could not find this word in the encyclopedic dictionary. But without the mysterious and unknown "githik" the trick would fall apart. The meaning of this secret formula is as follows: each card from a conceived pair is placed in a place in the table corresponding to the same letter. If the viewer calls at the end of the focus, for example, the first and fourth lines, then his cards are located in the places corresponding to the letter K. Anyone who intends to show this trick exactly according to the outlined scheme must be aware that he can incur a lot of questions from the viewer. For example: "Why did he, the magician, choose exactly twenty cards from the deck? A trick, nothing else. Let me ask him." And asks. And the sorcerer, who was taken by surprise, with an angry expression on his face, frantically searches for an answer. Focus "slips". But the viewer has nothing to do with it. He's always right, viewer. What should be done in such cases? There is a famous saying: sensitive questions should be answered before they are asked. That is - to invite the viewer to participate in the focus. Tell him that in order to master the card skill, one should learn to hold cards in the most strange at first glance, the positions of the hands. Ask him to stretch his arms forward, direct them with his palms towards the magician, and then slightly spread his fingers. Only after this preparation can you get a deck of cards. All 36 sheets. And now to start the magic. “Usually magicians perform miracles with one card,” I would start the conversation. “But I want to use a more modern approach. Our trick will be performed with not one, but two cards.” At this point, I would remove two cards from the top of the pack, put them between the spectator's little finger and ring finger, and ask him to bring these fingers together so that the cards would be squeezed and not fall on the table. I would place the next pair of cards between the ring and middle fingers and again ask them to hold. Well, and so on - until the moment when all eight spaces between the viewer's fingers on both hands are filled. How many cards does the spectator have? Sixteen. How much does the magician have left? Twenty. Those with which the focus will unfold. Do you think - will our viewer have a question about why twenty cards are involved in the trick? Hardly. In addition, the viewer experiences a special pleasure, personally participating in the focus - I was convinced of this more than once and now I use every opportunity to involve as many spectators-partners as possible in sorcery. What's next? When will the viewer's hands remain filled? "You don't have enough fingers already? - I ask. - Well, then let's turn to your memory." And I suggest that he memorize two cards. Then comes the layout of the cards by letter - in pairs. Some magicians have a pause here - but how, after all, you need to spell twenty cards and not go astray, not an easy task. And so they begin, moving their lips and painfully remembering the order of the table, to place the cards on the table. And - stop paying attention to the viewer drawn into focus. And by this time, he had already mastered the coordinate system of magic and, gradually reviving, regains the desire to be curious - why is he, the sorcerer, digging for so long? He's up to something, nothing else. It is simply impossible to talk about magic, about magic in such a show, because the trick is not thought out, not worked out, not rehearsed. Well, to serve such a magician! My advice is to spell out pairs of cards letter by letter should be as easy and defiantly casual as possible, and at this time it is also desirable to tell something interesting. You can recall "Konduit and Shvambraniya", dwell on a comic incident that happened to you during the last show of this trick, even if there was no such incident - then you need to invent it, or you can sympathize with the viewer that he will not be able to point his fingers at the right lines , for his hands are still occupied with cards - well, then let him speak. The main thing is to make it fun and interesting. At the end of the trick, I, pointing the viewer to the cards he has conceived, with one movement remove the cards from his fingers, throw them next to those that are on the table and offer to repeat the experiment, only I warn that this time it will be necessary to conceive not two, but four cards. The viewer usually disagrees. And I do not insist. Not because I'm afraid to tire him out, but because I haven't yet come up with a secret formula for such a complicated demonstration. The second trick is one of the most well-known. 21 cards are taken, laid out into three piles - seven cards each. The magician goes into another room or turns away. The spectator thinks of any card from any pile. Then the magician turns to face the viewer and asks to show him the pile where the conceived card turned out to be. Next, the performer collects all three piles into one and once again lays out on the table into three piles, also 7 cards each. The spectator again points to a pile with his card. The wizard again puts the seven-card groups together. Again, three sets of seven cards are formed on the table. Again, with the help of the viewer, a set is revealed, inside which the intended card is located, and then the magician finally names it. Here's a traditional show. How dull and monotonous are its repetitions! The secret, as you may have already realized, is built on elementary mathematics. It's all about picking up heaps. The performer always puts the heap named by the spectator between the other two. And then the mechanism works automatically - in the final, the conceived card turns out to be either the central one in the indicated 7-card pile, or the 11th in a row in a total 21-card assembly, which, as you can easily find out, turns out to be the same. Everything here is boring - even, I suspect, the story about this trick. And what can we say about his demonstration, when everything is perceived much sharper?! Here, such a field of activity opens up for the meticulousness and causticity of the mocking spectator that not a single sorcerer can withstand malicious comments - if he slavishly follows the outlined scheme. Well, if the viewer is polite and patient, it doesn't matter - the mathematical background will immediately become clear to him. Human psychology is such that even a hint of a solution deprives the riddle of the halo of romance. Remember the dialogue in The Legend of Ulenspiegel? "What's worth less than a burst bubble?" - "Don't know". - "The Mystery Revealed". In the hands of a sorcerer, the trick should look like a trick. A fascinating curiosity. Or, at worst, an exciting scam. Where, when does the suspicion of one and the ingenuity of the other viewer begin? I believe - from the selection of exactly 21 cards. “It’s clear,” the viewer thinks, “with an arbitrary number of cards, the trick, therefore, will not work. I’ll offer him not 21 cards, but the whole deck!” Tricky thought! But after all, the performer himself brought the viewer to it, why be surprised? Protection is not set, there is no safety precautions - what kind of alchemy can there be ?! Such an unfortunate sorcerer will meet with the audience more actively - and sorry, goodbye, trick! Is not it? However, remember - trick number one has just ended. There were scattered cards on the table. 16 and 20 - separately from each other. Why not a pedestal for the next trick? The performer is only required to keep a keen eye on what is happening, outwardly maintaining complete ease, and tell something interesting from the trick life - for example, that the famous Austrian magician of the mid-20th century, Johann Hoftsinser, invented, according to legend, more than five thousand card tricks, and alone, without co-authors - an absolutely incredible number, unthinkable by today's standards. At this time, the performer's fingers shift the cards lying on the table from one place to another, and it does not cost him anything to quietly add one card to 16 - from the adjacent XNUMX-card area. "By the way," adds the master, "I'm going to show you one of the tricks in his repertoire - with the same cards that I just used." Of course, the performer deliberately joked here at least twice - when he attributed this trick to the Hoftsinser repertoire and when he assured the audience of the "same" cards. Of course, the true number of cards is "the same" plus one transferred, but the guarantee of conflict-freeness at this stage of the demonstration turns out to be extremely high, and the amusing swindle can easily develop further. The viewer must memorize the map. You can, of course, do it directly, frontally, but will it be a sparkling, bewitching find? I doubt. But you can remind others about the magic of the number "7" - that it is not without reason that folklore commemorates it. "Seven spans in the forehead", "Seven do not expect one", "Seven troubles - one answer" - you never know! To connect the extraordinary seven with the seven colors of the rainbow, to turn to the psychophysical observations of modern scientists, who have revealed that the maximum bandwidth of human attention and human memory falls precisely on seven units - then the seven cards will not come as a surprise. It is not at all necessary that the viewer memorize any of the 21 cards. It is quite enough if he chooses one of the seven cards offered by the magician. This removes one more question - about specifying the desired heap. And then the magician simply collects the cards, casually, naturally, all 21 cards, taking care only that the seven cards he offered to the viewer are between the two remaining 7-card piles. So, the first of the three layouts is completed, 21 cards are in the hands of the sorcerer. “I have a friend,” the performer continues, “who all the time wants to do memory training, but regularly forgets about it. I am convinced that the issue of memory is relevant for many of those present. that in our fast-paced life it is difficult to find free time for such activities. Let's do this. I will now show the cards one at a time, and then I will put them in three envelopes - also one at a time. Then I will mix the envelopes. You will need to tell me in which the envelope turned out to be your card." And the magician does what he says. As a result, each of the three envelopes is loaded with seven cards. I will allow myself one remark - in case the viewer really has a poor memory, the envelopes should have different designs. Let him remember - we will help him. Here is the completed second layout. The turn of the third comes. Last. Give a pack of 21 cards into the hands of the viewer - let him take part in his own hoax. Put three envelopes in front of him - the same envelopes, only laid face down on the table. He, the spectator, taking one card from the pack you handed over, must put it in turn in each of the envelopes. Here - attention! The spectator may make a mistake by taking one card from the top of the pack, and the next one from the bottom. This cannot be allowed. Focus won't work. The independence of the viewer is good only in moderation. The viewer is also able to unintentionally disrupt the sequence of the layout of the envelopes. And it is fraught with breakdown. The only requirement here is to be attuned to the wave of utmost tact and respect. Despite everything. Be not a dispatcher, but a navigator. Do not argue with the viewer, do not argue with him - you can lose if he unexpectedly becomes stubborn. Show pedagogical tact, point out the mistake to him, and even better - correct it immediately, gently and beautifully, and then immediately resume the course of the focus. If everything is done delicately and quickly, the viewer will immediately forget about the fleeting failure, and the focus will move along its own course. Envelopes will be filled out correctly. The final is left. Just take and open the card? Poor for a wizard. Let's think - is there a more magnificent finale? Shouldn't we choose such, say, option? You point to any envelope and ask if the intended card is here? In two cases out of three, according to probability theory, the viewer answers in the negative. But you still take this envelope, extract a pack of seven cards from it and say - let's check. And lay out a pack of these cards on the table in a column, one under the other, face up. "Indeed," you state, "your card is not here. What envelope is it in? Show me." The viewer points - here, in this. Invite him to get out the cards himself and put each of them next to some card from the newly formed column. Let him lay down his cards randomly, at random, without observing any reasonable sequence. Moreover, face down. That's right - down! Magic is so magic. Here, you will again need attentive vigilance - in order to notice where the central card of the pack, the fourth in a row, will fall. Only she. And remember the card from the column next to which it lies - let it be a nine of diamonds. Remember - and enough. You can safely pronounce any text that comes to your mind. For example, "the nine of diamonds points to the card you have planned" or "take a ballpoint pen - let it be our magic wand, and turn over the card next to the nine of diamonds with it." And if the viewer from the very beginning says that his card is in the envelope you indicated - this happens once out of three, according to the same probability theory - what to do? Well, here's an option for you - pick up this envelope, put it behind your back and, taking two cards out of it, put them face down on the table as well. Do I need to remind you that in this case, again, you do not let the fourth card out of your field of vision? Finally, there will be only one card in the envelope. Take it out and, holding it face down above the table, say - "Some people think that this particular card was conceived because I took it out last. But to think so is a mistake. In this case, the trick would be from among the traditional ones, and I have more I like originality. It's not your card in my hand. Take a look. But it will help us find the one we're looking for." With these words, you put it between the fourth (sought) card and the third, and with an elegant gesture turn the fourth card face up on the table. If the viewer is surprised, you have reached the goal. What to do with the envelopes left on the table? Take out the cards from them and turn them face up - "you see, my deck is the most ordinary, and there is no duplicate of the intended card in it." Or think of something else. Own. Let's summarize. An extremely important principle for illusion, which I call "the importance of the inessential", was illustrated. The magician in every way focuses the viewer's attention on minor, decorative, non-core details. Performs this seriously, purposefully, as if they are the essence of the focus of execution. Reread what D. M. Urnov wrote about Defoe's methods, and you will catch the similarity. The magician also, playing on the spectator's field, appeals to the psychological aspect - what the performer considers important, the spectator also gradually begins to consider important. The thing is generally obvious, but obvious - when you know about it. Don't forget about it! Trick three. Invite the viewer to think of any number - no less than five and no more than twenty-five. Let him then take up a deck of cards, previously lying face down on the table, and from above, one at a time, count the number of cards equal to the intended number. Since you are not going to touch the cards in the future, the viewer does not need to hide the number he has chosen. So, the required number of cards is counted and lies on the table. To the viewer. you should take these cards in your hands and, starting from the top, lay them out one at a time into four piles - right on the table, face down. When everything is done, invite the spectator to raise and look at the top cards. He will be surprised to see four aces. This trick is performed automatically and does not require any sleight of hand. The secret lies in the fact that the performer put four aces on top of the deck in advance. Whatever number the viewer has in mind, after scolding, it is these aces that will definitely turn out to be lower. And then, after laying out the pending cards into four parts, the aces will again go to the top of each of the parts, and it does not matter at all whether the intended number is divisible by four or not. Sleight of hand, as is clearly seen, is not required here, but the magician's ability to effectively perform a trick acquires great importance. And how to present it more efficiently? I will answer with a call - let's learn creativity! What kind of magician is he who blindly copies what is offered to him? Let this trick be your little homework. I assure you, it's not that difficult. The main thing is to start. Then things will get easier. One can agree with Yuri Obrezkov regarding the demonstration of tricks in his vein, but it is better, certainly more productive from all points of view, to develop your own, creatively independent version of the performance. Ideally, each trick should have its own face. If only because there are no similar miracles, and each stage magic dictates its own and only its own rules of the game. And if the rules are different every time, then there is no room left for their unity? And what are the roots, foundations, foundation of weaving patterns of magic? And how widely applicable are the techniques recommended by Obrezkov? Of course, the range of tricks set forth by him far from covers all conceivable illusionary effects - the tricks told are characterized by a certain intimacy, suitability for showing not so much from the stage as in a narrow circle of spectators. They are called "Close-Up Magie" - tricks for a narrow circle. Their extraordinary prevalence, extraordinary popularity are undeniable. And yet they are only one section of vast magic. And the features of their demonstration are inscribed in a separate chapter in a huge encyclopedia called "Distractions". The Soviet author Alexander Vadimov understands distractions as those techniques developed by centuries of illusion practice that allow the magician to switch the attention of the audience from one action to another, disperse it, take it away "from revealing a secret associated with some action of the magician, an object, a place that the audience is shouldn't notice." And Vadimov lists some of them - "a wave of the hand, a turn of the body, a head, a closer look - a" game "of the eyes, false movements with a" magic wand ". And then an explanation follows:" The viewer involuntarily begins to follow the performer and loses something that the magician does not want to show him. The atmosphere distracts the attention of the audience, the light, various equipment of a special device, and, finally, the conversation of the magician is nothing more than a witty distraction. "That is what Obrezkov was talking about. In this regard, I would like to tell you about Malini, a German magician of Polish origin. More than once or twice he came to the next concert, having only a deck of cards in his breast pocket. And it was, according to the concepts of ignorant people, a very strange prop for him - Malini's palm was so small that it could not completely cover even the top card, not to mention the entire deck. And yet he was considered a first-class magician. He joked, laughed, told funny anecdotes, and the audience, carried away by his lively, "Oscar-Wilde" conversation, absolutely did not notice the stunt manipulations he performed _- and bred separately, isolated from the general "systemic" picture, they turned out to be manual actions of reduced quality, worsened by its anatomical imperfection. But they were not shown separately. The audience, having listened, believed him in everything - that's why the jewelery of technically complex techniques became no longer so necessary. In general, everything happened according to the recipe of Stanislav Jerzy Lec: "Expand your repertoire. Turn yourself on." But Malini acted accordingly - he did not choose any tricks, but only those that suited him personally. The historians of illusionism, speaking of him as a great master, invariably recall that Malini came to concerts with his hands in his pockets, and to the question of perplexed stewards: "Where is your props?" - answered with an indispensable smile: "My props are me." As for distracting gestures and movements, it’s clear that if an expert performs, say, five successive actions, ordinary, not focal, but very similar to each other, then his sixth action, reminiscent of these five, but already stuffed with focal meaning, also will not arouse suspicion among the audience - but it is precisely this, the sixth act, that leads to the cocking of the secret shutter, which releases the genie of magic from the bottle. Or another - it is known that not a single person in the world is able to equally carefully follow two simultaneously performed actions. Magicians are well aware of this psychological nuance, and if the mechanism of the secret must be triggered by the left hand, they focus all their attention on the right hand, which is charged with performing bright and spectacular, but false actions, causing the public's attention to themselves. And of course, such false actions should organically fit into the tempo-rhythm of the demonstration. People's Artist of the RSFSR E. T. Kio, about whom the Soviet art critic Yu. A. Dmitriev spoke of as one of the greatest illusionists of all times and peoples, recommended: "It is necessary to demonstrate the equipment in such a way, turning and opening it from all sides, so that the public" "I saw and realized that they were not hiding anything from her, but at the same time I would not have discovered professional secrets either. Here, literally a split second decides the matter. the secret of the "focus, alas, will be revealed." And Vladimir Rudnev exceptionally deftly shows the trick, as if specially created to illustrate the organics of distracting actions. Clutching in his left hand a coin taken from the audience, with his right hand he alternately makes two large strokes with a ballpoint pen or pencil - a "magic wand", saying: "One, two ... - and then, stopping, brightens up: - Do you think Is the coin still in the right hand? Spectators usually do not differ in unanimity - some say "yes", others - "no". Then Rudnev opens his left hand - the coin lies on his palm. "Well, of course, she's here. Where can she go?" he says cheerfully and continues: "Let's try again. One, two ..." - and in time with his words, the right hand with the "magic wand" performs two high sweeping strokes. Instant pause. "Where's my wand?" - suddenly hear the audience. They hear but are silent. They carefully looked at the left hand, which is with the coin, and did not pay attention to the right. But now, obeying the question, they notice that the “wand” has disappeared somewhere from the right hand. “I can’t show focus without her,” Rudnev apologizes, “dropped it, or what?” - and begins to look around, not taking his eyes off the floor. And the spectators, who are also beginning to look around, suddenly see that the "magic wand" is snuggly behind Vladimir's right ear. “Ah, here she is,” Rudnev exults, takes it off and makes the last wave. “Three!” - and opens his left hand. She is empty. "Where is the coin?" he asks, and immediately snatches it from his nose. "Here it is!" The performance of this dashing, sparkling and fun trick is largely clear from the description. The "stick" is inserted behind the ear during the second wave of the right hand - after asking if the coin is in the hand. But when does she disappear? It does not disappear at all - Vladimir shifts it into his right hand, looking around in search of the disappeared "stick". To snatch a coin from the nose, one should roll it out from the depths of the right palm to the fingertips and, bringing the right hand to the face, make an appropriate imitating movement. "It is impossible to list all the distractions," Vadimov concludes, "but everyone who is seriously going to work on tricks will come up with many new distractions that are convenient for him." He is echoed by J. Tarbell, the world-famous author of encyclopedias on illusionary art, calling for careful and creative preparation of each trick. He even gives you the recipe - spend 80 percent of your time preparing the trick and only 20 percent demonstrating it. 80 percent for preparation. That is - at the rehearsal. An outstanding Soviet theatrical director Anatoly Efros wrote a book, which he called amazingly simply and succinctly - "Rehearsal - my love." I am convinced that if another Soviet stage director, Sergei Kashtelyan, created his own monograph, it could have exactly the same name. Because rehearsing every day, from ten o'clock in the morning until it is not known in advance what time - until noon, before sunset, until late at night, endlessly checking every gesture of the performers - only a creatively obsessed, outstanding person is capable of such work for many, many years in a row. - This is the trickiest hypocrite - labyrinth genre - an illusion, - says Kashtelyan. - To perform a trick, knowing in advance how it will end, and to show it as if you do not know it - what great casuistry! Recipe, formula, scheme - all trifles. Individuality, personality - that's what is unique, and even a talented person - even more so. But if so, let everyone prove their talent! Einstein argued that talent should not be helped, that talent should break through on its own - if it is really talent. Not sure. I think you still need help. That's why we exist - directors, teachers. You can't leave these people to their fate. But to demand, as from talent - and let it unfold! Luigi Pirandello called one of his early plays "Come prima, meglio di prima". An exceptionally good expression. The law of all rehearsals! "As before, but better than before." Author: Katashkin A.S.
Solidification of bulk substances
30.04.2024 Implanted brain stimulator
30.04.2024 The perception of time depends on what one is looking at
29.04.2024
▪ Maxim MAX30208 and MAXM86161 medical sensors ▪ Deep, measured breathing helps to calm down ▪ The light is on in the brain ▪ Bitterness along the Great Silk Road
▪ section of the site Encyclopedia of radio electronics and electrical engineering. Article selection ▪ article Gaius Julius Caesar. Famous aphorisms ▪ article Was there discrimination based on hair color? Detailed answer ▪ article Working on a brochure cover machine. Standard instruction on labor protection ▪ article Thyristor turn signal relay. Encyclopedia of radio electronics and electrical engineering
Home page | Library | Articles | Website map | Site Reviews
www.diagram.com.ua |
We recommend interesting articles Section 
See other articles Section 
Latest news of science and technology, new electronics:
All languages of this page