Limitless Fusion Power Using Plasma Guns!!!

Generating endless energy with zero emissions by just slamming hydrogen atoms together has been somewhat of a pipe dream for decades. Building a fusion reactor isn't that hard, all things considered. But building a useful one is a different matter. Now, scientists may be getting a tiny step closer to feasible fusion power, thanks to a futuristic experiment and dozens of plasma guns. 

Eighteen of 36 plasma guns are in place on the machine that could make fusion power a reality. Those guns are the key components of Los Alamos National Laboratory's Plasma Liner Experiment (PLX), which uses a new approach to the problem. PLX, if it works, will combine two existing methods of slamming single-proton hydrogen atoms together to form two-proton helium atoms. That process generates enormous amounts of energy per speck of fuel, much more than splitting heavy atoms (fission) does. The hope is that the method pioneered in PLX will teach scientists how to create that energy efficiently enough to be worthwhile for real-world use.

The promise of fusion is that it produces tons of energy. Every time two hydrogen atoms merge into helium, a small portion of their matter converts into a whole lot of energy. The problem of fusion is that no one's figured out how to generate that energy in a useful way.

The principles are simple enough, but the execution is the challenge. Right now, there are plenty of hydrogen-fusion bombs in the world that can release all their energy in a flash and destroy themselves (and everything else around for miles). The occasional kid even manages to build a tiny, inefficient fusion reactor in their playroom. But existing fusion reactors suck up more energy than they create. No one's yet managed to create a controlled, sustained fusion reaction that spits out more energy than gets consumed by the machine creating and containing the reaction.

The first of the two methods PLX combines is called magnetic confinement. This is what's used in fusion reactors called tokamaks, which use powerful magnets to suspend the superheated, ultradense plasma of fusing atoms inside the machine so it keeps fusing and doesn't escape. The biggest of these is ITER, a 25,000-ton (23,000 metric tons) machine in France. But that project has faced delays and cost overruns, and even optimistic projections suggest it won't be complete until the 2050s.

The second approach is called inertial confinement. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, another Department of Energy facility, has a machine called the National Ignition Facility (NIF) that is taking this route to fusion. The NIF is basically a very big system for firing super-powerful lasers at tiny fuel cells containing hydrogen. When the lasers hit the fuel, the hydrogen heats up and trapped within the fuel cell fuses. The NIF is operational, but it doesn't generate more energy than it uses.

PLX, according to a statement from the American Physical Society (APS), is a little different than either of those two. It uses magnets to contain its hydrogen, like a tokamak. But that hydrogen is brought to fusion temperatures and pressures by hot jets of plasma shooting out of the guns arrayed around the device's spherical chamber, employing the guns instead of lasers like those used at NIF.

The physicists leading the PLX project have done some early experiments using the 18 guns already installed, according to APS. Those experiments have offered researchers early data on how the plasma jets behave when they collide inside the machine and researchers presented that data on Oct. 21 at the Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Plasma Physics in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. That data is important, the researchers said, because there are contradictory theoretical models of exactly how plasma behaves when it collides in these sorts of collisions.

Los Alamos said that the team hopes to install the remaining 18 guns in early 2020 and conduct experiments using the full 36-plasma-gun battery by the end of that year.

Read More

What Is Energy?

We all know what it feels like to be energetic to have energy, it's this something that allows us to move, be active, get out of bed in the morning. And you can have more or less of the stuff. You can get it from breakfast. You can lose it by mowing the lawn.

Energy seems near tangible to us. We imagine it as this ephemeral substance or a mystical influence. But that intuitive sense has inspired us to discover the most powerful and useful concept in all of physics.

In physics, energy is not a substance nor is it mystical energy, it's a number, a quantity. And the quantity itself isn't even particularly fundamental. Instead, it's a mathematical relationship between other more fundamental quantities.

Power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, especially to provide light and heat or to work machines is Energy.

Energy is everything. It’s everywhere. It’s one of the true constants of the universe because as long as there has been a universe, there has been energy. And while it comes in lots of different forms that can seem different to us, they all amount to the same thing: Energy is the ability to do work. And work is just the act of displacing something by applying force.

So, say you stomp on a stomp rocket. The force of your foot hitting the pedal is turned into the force of air leaving the cannon sending your rocket sailing. Or maybe you are enjoying a nice patty melt -- the energy from that food is broken down for all of the quadrillions of cells that you have to do all of the things that they have to do -- make copies of your DNA, assemble and repair proteins, transport materials from one place to another, make muscle cells contract -- you know, all the stuff of being alive. And the ability to do these things is inherent in everything around you.

Even things that look inert, completely lacking in energy. For example, a log is chock full of chemical energy because it’s made up of combinations of carbon and hydrogen and oxygen formed into lignin, which is the stuff that makes up wood. All of the bonds between all of those atoms, in every molecule of lignin, contain energy.

How do I know? Because if I were to apply enough extra energy, like as heat, to break those bonds -- it would release that chemical energy as fire. That chemical energy also the kind of energy you get from that patty melt -- your body is fueled by the chemical bond energy in sugars, fats, and proteins.

But this log also contains nuclear energy! Each atom in this wood has a nucleus, made of protons and neutrons, and the energy that binds them together is one of the most powerful sources of energy in the universe. If you could split one of the atoms of carbon or hydrogen in this log and rip those protons and neutrons apart, it would release some of that energy. There is so much nuclear energy in each atom that, if I could unleash all of it that's in this log? There would be a giant smouldering crater where I’m standing and everyone in the state I live in would be dead.

So, everything that is made of atoms has nuclear energy locked up in it, but also, it turns out, that mass and energy are the same things! You might have heard of this little equation that a German patent clerk came up with about a hundred years ago: E = mc2.

Energy disguise in many from like Heat, Kinetic Energy, Potential Energy, Electricity Energy.. etc. But even though they may seem different, they can all be used to do work, whether it’s driving a turbine, or moving an engine piston, or allowing the screen on your tablet to glow. Or, if it’s that most mysterious of energies, dark energy, causing the universe to expand more than it seems like it should.

But here’s the thing to remember. Once the work is done, the energy isn’t done. Because energy never goes away. It can never be destroyed, and in the same way, it can never be created. It can only be transferred from one source to another -- like, how the energy in the plants and animals that were in the patty melt were transferred into you -- or it can be transferred from one form into another -- like the chemical energy in the wood being transferred to light and heat as fire.

You could think of the universe as a constant flow of energy, and we are just little pit stops along the way. Everything your body is doing right now -- whether it’s your lungs absorbing oxygen, your heart pumping blood, your brain cells firing as you watch me and learn things -- all those things are using recycled energy that’s been around since the origin of the universe. And by simply being alive, you are releasing that energy back into the environment around you, to be used by other things in other ways.

Also Read:-  Fat Can Be Healthy

Read More

The Big Rip Due To Dark Energy

Even though nobody else will be around to see it, scientists are fascinated by the end of the universe. It is kind of like the Big Bang there's just something so interesting about knowing where your atoms came from and where they are ultimately going to go in billions of years. Right now, there are a few ideas about how everything could end, where everything is spread so thin that activity basically stops.

Except, based on the results from a paper published in Nature Astronomy, that might not actually be true. Instead, there is a chance that everything in existence will eventually be ripped apart. And it would all be thanks to dark energy. Scientists think it makes up about 70% of the stuff in the universe and that it is the reason the expansion of the universe is accelerating. But there is a lot they are still figuring out.

Some of their research into dark energy has involved tools called standard candles. Standard candles are objects or events of known brightness that are used to measure distance in the far-off universe. Essentially, if you know how bright something should be up close, then how bright it actually looks indicates how far away it is.

For decades, the most important standard candle has been a special kind of exploding star called a type a supernova. These events always have the same brightness and in the 1990s, they allowed scientists to discover that the universe’s rate of expansion was accelerating. But what is really important for this recent study is that all the estimates provided by type 1a supernovas also indicate that the density of dark energy is fixed.

There is a lot of math involved, but this fact is a big reason they believe the Big Freeze is most likely. The problem is, you can only see so far with any given candle before it gets too dim and type 1a can’t take us back to the beginning of the universe. Because light can only move so fast, looking deep into space is like looking back in time. And these supernovas only allow us to see what things were like 4.5 billion years or so after the Big Bang.

Admittedly, there are some data sources like one called the Cosmic Microwave Background, that can tell us what things were like around 400 thousand years after the Big Bang. But that Background actually seems to disagree with what supernovas say about the expansion rate, which has had astronomers debating different options for years. There is also been a 4-billion-year gap between the two data sources, so it has been hard to figure out what’s going on.

That’s where last week’s news comes in. In their paper, a pair of astronomers proposed a new kind of standard candle, one that can let us peer back to that sweet spot just 1-2 billion years after the Big Bang. Their idea relies on quasars, rapidly-growing black holes that are among the universe’s brightest objects. Although quasars vary a lot in brightness, the authors claim that the ratio of ultraviolet brightness to X-ray brightness is not only more predictable but also reliable enough to indicate a quasar’s distance.

They point out that, at distances where both type 1a supernovas and quasars are visible, they provide comparable results, too. But the key is, farther from Earth, and further back in time, only quasars are visible. And after looking at some of those super-distant objects, the authors claim to have made a surprising observation: In the first couple billion years after the Big Bang, the growth rate of the universe didn’t match the predictions made by the supernova-based models. Back then, things seemed to be getting bigger more slowly than expected.

That implies that the amount of dark energy driving that expansion hasn’t been constant after all. Instead, it has been increasing over time. It sounds like a wild idea, but it would help explain why there isn’t a perfect match between the expansion rate we see from supernovas and that of Cosmic Microwave Background. So it is not like there is no foundation for it. But still, before they rewrite your Astronomy textbook, it is important to remember two things. One, these results will need a lot of confirmation before they are accepted into the mainstream theory. And two, scientists have effectively no clue what dark energy actually is.

So it is not even worth asking questions like what would be generating more and more of it, because we don’t even know what IT is. But if these results are true, there is one thing we do know, instead of ending in the Big Freeze, the universe would eventually end in the so-called Big Rip, where ever-increasing dark energy tears apart every particle until there’s nothing left and no one to see it. But the assumption is that it’s not such a big deal, because there is no way we would be around by then.

Reference:- Quasars as standard candles
Also Read:- Let's Understand Wormholes

Read More

SPARC Project May Be On The Verge Of A Breakthrough

Anyone looking for a bright side in the climate crisis may want to learn about a potentially revolutionary research project that could help redefine energy as we know it. Researchers are gathering at a meeting of the American Physical Society Division of Plasma Physics in Portland, Oregon, this week to deliver a kind of state-of-the-science report on fusion energy, the space-age technology that promises essentially infinite and carbon-free electrical power.

Scientists from MIT and the privately funded energy company Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) are presenting critical updates on their SPARC project, an effort to manufacture the world’s first fusion power generator. If successful, the accomplishment could, like the Wright brothers’ first flights at Kitty Hawk, change everything.

Fusion energy is a form of power generation in which energy is produced through controlled nuclear fusion reactions, which is essentially the same process that powers the sun and other stars. Fusion occurs when the nuclei of small atoms bind together (or fuse) into a single, larger atom, releasing colossal amounts of energy in the process.

For terrestrial utility purposes, that energy can then be harnessed to provide the heat required for various kinds of electricity generation. A fusion energy plant could potentially operate entirely carbon-free and issue very little waste material, while at the same time offering ridiculously powerful energy yields. Theoretically, it would be the ultimate alternative energy source, deriving power from the same process that lights up the cosmos.

But generating fusion energy on Earth presents some daunting challenges. The process requires superheating a dense plasma of subatomic particles inside a fusion device called a tokamak at extremely high temperatures — like, inside-of-a-star kind of temperatures, millions of degrees Fahrenheit, which is too intense for solid materials to contain.

Small fusion reactions, isolated from ordinary matter within magnetic fields, have been produced in labs. But so far, the conditions for net energy gain haven’t been achieved. The trick, scientists hope, is to strengthen those magnetic fields. In the initial three-year phase of their collaboration, SPARC researchers are trying to build the world’s most powerful superconducting magnet, which in turn could make possible the world’s first viable fusion generator by increasing its effectiveness while reducing its volume and cost.

“By putting the magnet development up front, we think that this gives you a really solid answer in three years,” said Dennis Whyte, director of MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center, in March, “and gives you a great amount of confidence moving forward that you’re giving yourself the best possible chance of answering the key question, which is: Can you make net energy from a magnetically confined plasma?”

The building of magnets at the necessary scale will require a new class of high-temperature superconductors — and the big news is that the SPARC has figured this out. Superconductors are materials that conduct electricity with absolutely no electrical resistance, so no energy is lost. The catch is that in order for them to do so, superconductors need to be very cold, maintaining a temperature below a critical threshold.

The SPARC team says that it has found a way to manufacture breakthrough high-temperature superconductors in the form of “tapes” or “ribbons” that will enable fusion at scale. But they have yet to be incorporated into appropriately sized magnets and aren’t suited for existing fusion machines.

After creating a superconducting magnet with unprecedented performance, the next step will be to design and construct the long-anticipated SPARC fusion reactor, which will aim to produce more energy than it consumes. The MIT and CFS researchers expect that SPARC will be running by 2025, with a modest output of between 50MW and 100MW, which is roughly enough to power a small city.

But SPARC is just an experiment. The idea is that its demonstration will lead to the building of a net-electricity producing fusion pilot plant and, in turn, a new class of commercial fusion power plants. Other experimental reactors of this type are already in development around the world, but with climate change troubles approaching fast, the SPARC crew is working to dramatically speed up development on their iteration of the technology.

According to MIT’s online project page, a successful run of the SPARC reactor “will demonstrate that fusion energy can be developed in time to provide carbon-free power to combat climate change.” The billion-dollar question, of course, is when. MIT scientists believe that a viable fusion pilot plant could be built and plugged into the grid in about 15 years.

Also Read:- Discovery Of A Neighboring Super-Earth In A Neighboring Star System

Read More

Ocean The Ultimate Weapon To Fight Climate Change

The ocean covers more than 70% of the surface of our the Earth. If somehow we harness the Power of Oceans to fight the World from Climate Change then it will be a big success. Well, International scientists have issued an ambitious 13-point plan for fighting global warming by focusing on ocean-based solutions. So let’s know what those plans are.

In the wake of a devastating report issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of marine scientists has announced a 13-point plan for using the power of the oceans to combat global warming.

The plan is even more ambitious than it sounds. The research outlines potential techniques to not only reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, but also address the existing crises — like ocean acidification, oxygen loss, and sea-level rise — that are already being triggered by rising temperatures around the world.

The report, published in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science, was authored by 17 international scientists with specialities in oceanography, marine biology, and sustainable energy development. This collaboration is the first major action plan from a newly-formed scientific action group called the Ocean Solutions Initiative (OSI).

Ocean-based solutions to combat climate change have received relatively little attention compared to land-based solutions, says OSI. The researchers hope to persuade world leaders and decision-makers to harness the power of the oceans to undertake this effort in earnest.

“The ocean already removes around 25% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and could remove and store much more,” said the study's lead author, Dr. Jean-Pierre Gattuso. “However, little guidance is currently available on which ocean-based interventions will work best to reduce the scale and impacts of climate change.”

To help spread the word, OSI produced a clever animated video that effectively summarizes the science in plain English. The narration emphasizes the notion, echoed by the IPCC’s dire climate report, that our current climate situation is extremely grave, and that solving the crisis will require multiple strategies.

“In the end, there is no miracle solution,” the narrator says. “Leaving aside those that seem too risky, the others can be helpful on either a local or a global scale. They should be cleverly combined, taking into account regional considerations relating to biodiversity and human activities. Without such subtle arrangements, we will fail.”

The full report gives world policymakers plenty to chew on, but the plan can be broken into four basic goals: reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations; increasing the proportion of solar radiation reflected back to space; protecting marine ecosystems and manipulating biological and ecological adaptation to climate change impacts.

According to the study, one technology, in particular, has the highest potential for immediately addressing the root cause of climate change. By quickly developing ocean-based renewable energy systems — such as tidal generators, offshore wind farms, and geothermal heat pumps — we can quickly reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuel sources.

“Not only do offshore wind farms, wave energy and other ocean renewables have a very large potential to reduce carbon emissions, but they are also cost-effective and ready to be implemented at a large-scale,” said study co-author Dr. Alexandre Magnan, from France's Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, in a statement.

The action plan also calls for more radical strategies. One potentially effective measure for combating sea acidification, for example, is to add massive quantities of alkaline materials and nutrients to the oceans.

Another suggestion calls for manipulating marine habitats and ecosystems, or even using genetic engineering, to help species adapt more quickly to climate change. A third proposal suggests radical geoengineering methods, such as covering the oceans with a non-toxic foam to reflect excess solar radiation.

The group concedes that many of these extreme measures aren’t yet feasible, and would require years of additional research. The report is structured to compare the proposed solutions in terms of their risks, benefits, and ultimate viability. But provocative proposals are part of the plan. The idea is to get scientists and public policymakers to start thinking, planning, and collaborating. Hopefully, they all come together before it’s too late.

Also Read:- A Hybrid Material That Leads To A Cheaper And More Effective Way To Store Methane

Read More

Solar Energy

The Sun was humankind’s first source of power and with a little work may be the last one we will ever need. Do you know? A good desert collects more solar energy in six hours than the entire world uses in a year. The surface area of your body is maybe about a meter and a half squared and if you laid out in the Sun all day long every day for a year, you would collect about 1500 watts of solar energy.

Anyway, pretty much all of the power that we humans use originally was solar power. All coal is the fossilized remains of plants and animals that died aeons ago and has been buried in the earth and they got their energy from the Sun. Natural gas and oil same thing the Sun. The nuclear power which produces about 20% of our power is one of the two sources that we have, which is not originally solar power and the other one is tidal which is created by the Moon. Well if you are thinking Hydroelectric power then-No cause water which runs down the rivers come from Ocean by evaporation with the help of the Sun. Wind power as you may have guessed by now all weather on our planet is created by the Sun. Burning trees and corns husk and other biomass which we do in biomass power plants all of those organisms originally got their power from our Sun. Then we have direct solar power, which gets its energy from the Sun and skips all those middleman, so it must be more efficient, right?

Well, It turns out it is more efficient and you do think that being more efficient it would be less expensive, unfortunately, it is not.  When we think about solar power generally what we think of is photovoltaic cells, those big blue panels that people put on their roof to generate electricity. You might be surprised to know that we have known about this photoelectric effect for almost 200 years. It was discovered in 1839 by a 19-year-old kid named Edmund Becquerel.

Edmund Becquerel is part of what we call a scientific dynasty. So Edmund Becquerel discovered the photoelectric effect. His father discovered how to refine ores into their pure metals using electrolysis and his son, along with Marie and Pierre Curie discovered radioactivity.  It’s just interesting to me that there can be that much scientific talent generation from generation in one family.

Anyway, the most efficient solar cell that we have created had found their way into outer space because efficiency is expensive, but it doesn’t matter how expensive something is when you are dealing with the International Space Station because it is not like you can run wire up to it. The International Space Station has 212 ft. long solar wings. All combined at peak these Solar Panels Produce 120 kilowatts of electricity which is a lot.

So now let’s understand the most important part photovoltaic panels. In simplest, if you hit a wafer of polysilicon with light some of the electrons on that silicon will get knocked off and they will be free electrons. Now, this is something that is normal, but it is not anything like the amount of power that you would need to create a solar panel. But what scientists and engineers figured out is that if you dope,(that’s a technical term it just means lacing it with impurities), the silicon with phosphorus it suddenly has way too many electrons and then you get what we call N-type silicon, N because is is negative. and then if you take another wafer of silicon, and you dope it with boron you will get P- type silicon, P for positive. A traditional solar panel is just a layer of N-type silicon sandwiched on top of a layer of P-type silicon and then connected with a conductor which we call a wire. stick something on top of that wire and you can power it with a solar panel.  Depending on the size of that panel it could be a calculator, a house or a space station.



The trick is how do we either get solar panels to be so efficient that they can make up for their high costs or We can find new less expensive materials that we can use to create photovoltaic panels.

 Now I have to get off topic a little bit here and talk about how solar power has an advantage that not a lot of people think about. In generals when we produce power as humans we do it at grant power station which are often hundreds of miles away from where the power is actually used. In order to get the power from the power station to your house, you have to put it on these giant transmission lines which are extremely expensive and also having the power travel all that distance is inefficient. You can lose as much as 30% of the power that you generate just getting it from one place to another which frankly is embarrassing. We created all those megatons of carbon dioxide just so we can lose the power when we are distributing it. But with solar power, you can actually generate the power exactly where you are using it. You can put the panel on your roof and use it in your house. We call it distributed power and it is great.

It does sometimes make sense to use solar power in a centralized fashion giant fields full of solar panels especially if those giant fields are in places where the sun shines 364 days a year. But don’t get too excited despite the marvellous efficiency of distributed power. Solar panels still remain much more expensive than centralized power stations. Photovoltaic panels now blanket rooftops all over the world but while they make ecological sense they still don’t make economic sense. Getting a good value for your dollar from a solar panel is pretty much impossible, which is why we are still so reliant on coal and natural gas for most of our electricity.

To this day we get more power from burning woods than we do from the solar panels. So you might be saying to yourself that there got to be a better way to do this and maybe there is if you were a particularly malevolent or scientifically- minded child, you may have experimented with a magnifying glass to create power and you are probably used that power to burn paper or to light a match. Sunlight carries a lot of energy and if you concentrate it into one place you can do a lot of work and I prefer if we would be using that work to push electrons into your house so you can watch your pc or smartphone whatever you are holding now. But Magnifying glasses are far too expensive to use in solar power plants so instate we use mirrors. These are called concentrating solar power plants. In general what has been done is that we use the mirror to focus light on a single point and there is two real ways that it is done. One you build a giant tower and then you fill a field with mirrors and you make sure that the mirrors are always focusing the sun on the top of that tower. Now as you might expect building a giant tower that can handle being heated to some ridiculous heat is kind of expensive but it is cheaper than pure photovoltaic. Second they will build giant mirrored  thoughts like parabolic sort of half-cylinders and in the middle of those they will put  pipe so by the time the water finished traveling, it is so hot that As soon as it enters in bar, the water immediately vaporizes and that's generally how powerplant work, you vaporize water and the vapor takes up much more space than the liquid and so these is a tremendous amount of pressure and they use that pressure to drive turbine, which creates electricity. But even with all that fancy engineering concentrated solar power plans still, in the best of circumstances only produce power at about 11 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is about twice as much as the natural gas power plant.

But wait a minute, now we got two solar solutions. One, photovoltaic where the capture of the energy is the most expensive part and two concentrated solar power where the conversation of the energy into electricity is the most expensive part. What if we could have both of these technology and have the best of both worlds? Well, it turns out that we can and it may just be the one solution that allows solar power to become cost-effective in our energy market. By using really sophisticated photovoltaic cells that can take in far more power than the one in your calculator. Engineers and scientists are using mirrors to concentrate light on very small photovoltaic cells. Now, mirrors which are actually capturing the light are 10 times bigger than the solar panel and thus the solar panel is taking in 10 times more sunlight and producing 10 times more energy but the solar panel itself the expensive part, stays the same size. Using this technique which we call “concentrated photovoltaic” we get the most cost-effective form of solar power that we currently have on the market today. They call it CPV for “ concentrated photovoltaics” and there several gigawatts of it getting ready to go online in the next 10 years or so. It’s important to note that a gigawatts is a lot of electricity that's about as much as produced by the largest nuclear power plants in America.

Now Going back to the space station for a moment mostly just because I want to show more of it. As I said before it doesn't matter how expensive the panels on the Space Station are cause there is no other way to get power up there. Now when I sad that those solar panels create about 120 kilowatt of electricity I was kind of lying to you. About half the time the panels on the Space Station are producing 0 watts of power and that's because it is in the shadow of Earth. And here on Earth when we are standing here we call that shadow night time and it is the nemesis of solar power. So unfortunately it would seem that solar power could never satisfy 100% of our energy need. We will always need something else whether it is coal or nuclear or natural gas to keep the lights on at night. Unless of course, we find some way to store the power up during the day and then let it all loose at night. Well, turns out we can do it by saving it in the battery. Any way there is a term in Physics call conservation of energy that means you can't get more out of a system than you put in. What I am trying to say is Solar Energy is expensive but if we love Our home sweet home Earth we should ignore the cost.

If You Have Any Queries Then Feel Free To Ask Us Down In The Comment Section And Visit To The Science Thinkers Again. As Always Stay Curious And Thank You

Read More