Irregular heartbeat of the Sun driven by double dynamo

July 9, 2015 by Dr Robert Massey, Royal Astronomical Society
Montage of images of solar activity between August 1991 and September 2001 taken by the Yohkoh Soft X-ray Telecope, showing variation in solar activity during a sunspot cycle. Credit: Yohkoh/ISAS/Lockheed-Martin/NAOJ/U. Tokyo/NASA

A new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645. Results will be presented today by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

It is 172 years since a scientist first spotted that the Sun's activity varies over a cycle lasting around 10 to 12 years. But every cycle is a little different and none of the models of causes to date have fully explained fluctuations. Many solar physicists have put the cause of the down to a dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep within the Sun. Now, Zharkova and her colleagues have found that adding a second dynamo, close to the surface, completes the picture with surprising accuracy.

"We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun's interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time. Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%," said Zharkova.

Zharkova and her colleagues derived their model using a technique called 'principal component analysis' of the magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. They examined three solar cycles-worth of magnetic field activity, covering the period from 1976-2008. In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of . All the predictions and observations were closely matched.

Looking ahead to the next solar cycles, the model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

Comparison of three images over four years apart illustrates how the level of solar activity has risen from near minimum to near maximum in the Sun's 11-years solar cycle. Credit: SOHO/ESA/NASA

"In 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a 'Maunder minimum'," said Zharkova. "Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago."

Explore further: Sun experiences seasonal changes, new research finds

Related Stories

Sun experiences seasonal changes, new research finds

April 7, 2015

The Sun undergoes a type of seasonal variability with its activity waxing and waning over the course of nearly two years, according to a new study by a team of researchers led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research ...

Why is the sun going quiet?

January 22, 2014

The sun is our nearest star and the source of all our light and heat on Earth but recent reports have highlighted an ongoing steep decline in solar activity.

Solar cycle primer

October 28, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Telescopes spotted the first blemish on the sun in 1611. While the sun had long been thought—at least in the Western world—to be an unchanging, "perfect" orb, sky-watchers observed black sunspots ...

The Sun Loses its Spots

July 24, 2007

While sidewalks crackle in the summer heat, NASA scientists are keeping a close eye on the sun. It is almost spotless, a sign that the Sun may have reached solar minimum. Scientists are now watching for the first spot of ...

Recommended for you

Solar-powered rover approaching 5,000th Martian dawn

February 16, 2018

The sun will rise on NASA's solar-powered Mars rover Opportunity for the 5,000th time on Saturday, sending rays of energy to a golf-cart-size robotic field geologist that continues to provide revelations about the Red Planet.

Hubble sees Neptune's mysterious shrinking storm

February 15, 2018

Three billion miles away on the farthest known major planet in our solar system, an ominous, dark storm - once big enough to stretch across the Atlantic Ocean from Boston to Portugal - is shrinking out of existence as seen ...

Kepler scientists discover almost 100 new exoplanets

February 15, 2018

Based on data from NASA's K2 mission, an international team of scientists has confirmed nearly 100 new exoplanets. This brings the total number of new exoplanets found with the K2 mission up to almost 300.

60 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (10) Jul 09, 2015
A good piece of work - even better that it results in a pretty definite prediction of future solar activity. Now we wait and see whether the prediction holds up...
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 09, 2015
Get ready for the freezing, pre-industrial temperatures, the AGW Cult wants so much.
docile
Jul 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 09, 2015
To be clear, we did not have to speculate about an unseen dynamo inside of the Sun in order to predict that temperatures will drop in the coming decades. We know this based upon sunspot correlations, which of course correlate with the Sun's magnetic activity. What would be interesting -- now that scientists increasingly recognize that the galactic spiral arms exhibit electric currents -- is to also create a model which attributes the Sun's magnetic cycles to changes in these large-scale electric currents.
katesisco
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
But 1% is all ALL the planets contribute. Could that little even lined up in a row influence Sol?
katesisco
1.4 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
What if this second resonance deep inside Sol--conjectured only---is the result of an instability between hemispheres? If it is, then possibly this second resonance could be building to be the core of a neutron star anticipating the nova of Sol? That sounds crazy even to me.
docile
Jul 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Sigh
not rated yet Jul 12, 2015
solar activity will fall by 60 per cent
None of the reports I have seen on this has stated what exactly is meant by "solar activity". Sun spots? I doubt it is a 60% reduction in energy output.
docile
Jul 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Vietvet
4 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2015
The study authors made a presentation but haven't published it in a peer review journal as of yet.
Until that happens I'm going to remain skeptical, as I am whenever a pr release precedes the actual paper.
docile
Jul 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
For another perspective on this article:

https://andthenth...03439921

Lots of other links too.
docile
Jul 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2015
IMO the solar radiance is relatively stable, it's influence to climate is indirect through emissions of solar wind particles, which are expanding the atmosphere and initiate the nucleation of vapors in atmosphere, by their charge etc.


Evidence?
docile
Jul 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2015
We predict that this will lead to the properties of a 'Maunder minimum'," said Zharkova


Well Stumpy, how long have I been saying this now? The only difference this time is we have accumulated much more heat in the oceans, and our GHG concentration is higher. Perhaps this will keep it from not being as brutally cold as the last "little ice age".
docile
Jul 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2015
So phys.org finally saw fit to actually post an article about this (days after other news orgs did)... odd that there was no headline about the potential effect on the climate. Why would that be?
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2015
Hi Scroofinator. :)
The only difference this time is we have accumulated much more heat in the oceans, and our GHG concentration is higher. Perhaps this will keep it from not being as brutally cold as the last "little ice age".
The main culprit in "Little Ice Ages" most likely volcanism. Similar thing happened to lesser degrees more recently in 1800s, involving Mt. Tambora and Krakatoa; by which time there were witnesses/instruments to record events/effects...
From Wiki: The eruption caused global climate anomalies that included the phenomenon known as "volcanic winter": 1816 became known as the "Year Without a Summer" because of the effect on North American and European weather. Crops failed and livestock died in much of the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in the worst famine of the 19th century.
Just goes to show what atmospheric Ash/Sulfur OR CO2 content can do either way....despite variable sun activity/inputs! Atmosphere determines net global average temps. :)
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2015
Critiques of this announcement are beginning to roll in. It is going to an interesting debate.

http://www.slate....030.html
docile
Jul 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2015
The problem is, we actually have no clue about it

Actually, we know very well that we won't have another little ice age since the loss of energy due to another Maunder Minimum is less than the gain in energy due to the excess levels CO2.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
Well Stumpy, how long have I been saying this now?
@scroof
i will tell you the same thing i told another poster just about 5 minutes ago on another site... a single paper does not a fact make

this is no different than other claims to this or that... as a single paper, it is a point of interest, and i am interested in what it has to say. HOWEVER, and i capitalized that for a reason, until it is a validated paper, and it can be demonstrated, then it is a point of interest only. there is also the fact that i've not seen the paper or model at all... only the claims and press releases. so i am doubly skeptical until i see the paper and can read that...

I've also seen plenty of dispute against it: see Vietvet's post
also here: http://spaceweath...ear=2015

until i see something else validating the study or proving the claim (like accurate fulfillment of predictions), i remain interested but skeptical, as always
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2015
The lead author seems to be something of a crackpot (she claimed that Mars is warming - http://blog.hotwh...tml#more ). So it might be good to wait until there have been real reviews of this paper. So far, this has just been presented at a conference, so has little or no review.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2015
The paper has been published but is behind a paywall. You can find the abstract here:

http://iopscience...age=true
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2015
Another critique of the announcement points out the" little ice age" began well before the Maunder Minimum and continued after it ended.

http://theconvers...ge-44677
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2015
RC, volcanism as the cause is just as speculative as the solar cycle. Plus the timelines don't sync up as well for the LIA/major volcanic eruptions as it does with the MM.

Stumpy, I realize that this is by no means an accepted theory, but it is evidence that my claims (based on Landscheidt's work) are at least plausible. The good news, we won't have to wait much more than a few years for it to be validated.

Vietvet, as for the LIA/MM timing it's not just as simple as less sunspots = colder Earth. The solar cycles force the ocean's oscillations (PDO/ENSO/NAO etc..). So while the Sun can drastically change every 11 or so years, the oceans take longer to normalize into their new states.
http://plasmareso...Nina.pdf
http://plasmareso...tion.pdf
And more here:
http://www.landsc...node/302
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2015
@Scroofinator

"On May 19th of 2004 Theodor Landscheidt, one of the most scientific contributors to the field of astrology in the 20th century, died. He was known, though not necessarily understood, for his occasional journal articles and presentations at conferences, mostly in the 1960's and 70's. "

http://www.natura.../tlo.php

" In the May-June, 1998 issue (Vol 40, #3) of the Astrological Journal (published by the Astrological Association of England) Theodor Landscheidt presents several findings regarding the distribution of planets in birth charts of famous people. One of his findings is that the angular distance of Mars and Saturn in the birth charst of 16,800 scientists and physicians is more often in a golden ratio aspect than would be expected by chance."

http://astrosoftw...per4.htm

How can you trust anything from a f'ing astrologer?
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2015
BTW using this theory I predicted back in November that we would be heading for a strong El Nino based on the PDO regime shift, a prediction that is now being realized, and one that runrig laughed at.
http://phys.org/n...ino.html
"The next [PDO]regime shift from cold to warm is to be expected around 2016.3, the midpoint between GPTC 2007.2 and LPTC 2025.4.... Once the PDO regime switches to "warm" again the drought stricken southwest will start to receive above average rainfall amounts."
http://www.accuwe...50081969

Plus more debate with the AGW crew:
http://phys.org/n...ion.html
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2015
How can you trust anything from a f'ing astrologer?

Same tired judgmental argument....

I can trust it because the data and predictions back the theory. I don't let dogma influence my views of science.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2015
How can you trust anything from a f'ing astrologer?

Same tired judgmental argument....

I can trust it because the data and predictions back the theory. I don't let dogma influence my views of science.


Astrology is more than dogma, it's pseudoscience of the worst kind.
docile
Jul 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2015
Astrology is more than dogma, it's pseudoscience of the worst kind.

Who cares? Astrology plays no part in his theory, one in which you can't rebut so instead you resort to slander and defamation. Show some class, if you can...
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2015
The paper has been published but is behind a paywall. You can find the abstract here:

http://iopscience...age=true
@Vietvet
i think this is the original... it might not be the version posted above

http://computing....1_46.pdf

Received 2014 June 9; accepted 2014 August 25; published 2014 October 13
this may be the first version, i don't know for sure

if anyone else finds a more modern version, feel free to let me know
THANKS
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2015
I realize that this is by no means an accepted theory, but it is evidence that my claims (based on Landscheidt's work) ...
@Scroof
i really did understand your point... but until i can see validation, i will wait. i am no specialist in the area, so i will not speculate (especially given: Landscheidt)
Same tired judgmental argument
no, it isn't
if one in the scientific world is to be taken seriously, he must stick to the scientific principles and method. it is one thing to blog about opinion re: astrology, another entirely to dedicate yourself/pages to it [edited] - failure in the scientific community means being ostracized by peers and labeling because of the problems with pseudoscience /scientific literacy

this is no different than jvk's claims to support science while posting creationist diatribe:

if the premise is based upon religion or a faith (ie: non-scientific) then you cannot derive scientific results from it
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2015
@scroof cont'd
please note that a faith, by definition, is the belief in something without evidence... also WRT this
if the premise is based upon religion or a faith (ie: non-scientific) then you cannot derive scientific results from it
we are not talking about the belief in something because of a misinterpretation of the evidence, or misinterpretation of reality... when you are talking astrology, you are talking an intentional suspension of logic and reality to accept what is generally a vague comment that can be applied to millions as specific to yourself (you will meat a stranger today - don't we all normally see strangers every day?)

Here is the single most accurate astrology chart i've EVER seen, to date:
http://cdn.themet...-you.jpg
Scroofinator
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2015
Stumpy, what in his research is based in astrology?

These rants are just ridiculous and off topic. Also, weren't you ever told to not judge a book by it's cover?

BTW are you eating people now?
you will MEAT a stranger today
docile
Jul 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2015
what in his research is based in astrology?...not judge a book by it's cover?... eating people now?
@scroof
yes, but not in the sense you infer-- autocorrect mistake- didn't catch that. my apologies
Theodor Landscheidt, one of the most scientific contributors to the field of astrology in the 20th century...Landscheidt's astrology connection was complex..."Cosmic Cybernetics: The Foundations of a Modern Astrology"...Landsheidt was probably the only person interested in astrology ... that actually made an effort to explain the subject in terms of current trends in theoretical science - but in a speculative sense only, he wasn't doing hard science
see above links
speculative, as it says above, is NOT science

as for your book analogy: i judge the science by the primary sources, and the validation of sources... however, i will prioritize reading based upon other info- like above
why waste time on pseudoscience?

pseudoscience affects us all negatively
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2015
so we shouldn't live in illusion about acceptance of lunar effects to human psychics
@zephir
1- the biggest reason crime tends to increase around the full moon is simply visibility, not because of some tidal force acting upon the hippocampus, or some other speculative reasoning based upon fear, religion or delusion, like aether/dense aether...
2- as for " In dense aether model", it is pseudoscience
see also: http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

3
many medical studies are dealing with full Moon effect, as it has an impact to healing
a claim without primary sources is simply conjecture... IOW - BS

thanks for showing you are still TROLLING

pseudoscience is not a victimless crime against humanity, it is a cancer ... there is a big difference between testing hypothesis and science and your pseudoscientific word garbage spouted regularly re:daw/aw

LEARN PHYSICS
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2015
autocorrect mistake- didn't catch that. my apologies

Lol no worries, just thought I get one in on ya when I could.

As for Landscheidt's astrological connections, it matters not with regards to his theories on solar forcing of the climate. None of his theory says anything about 'Jupiter in the 3rd house blah blah blah makes the climate cold', so can we just agree to disagree about his reputation?

The point I was trying to bring up is there is more validity in solar forcing than AGW either wants to believe or accounts for. It's nice to see a paper that is trying to find the missing link.
docile
Jul 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2015
Lol no worries, just thought I get one in on ya when I could.
@scroof
well deserved and upvoted. LMFAO
As for Landscheidt's astrological connections, it matters not with regards to his theories on solar forcing of the climate. None of his theory says anything about 'Jupiter in the 3rd house blah blah blah makes the climate cold',
like i said: it doesn't affect my interpretations of science, nor does it invalidate a study that has been validated... this is most obvious in the eu arguments when they quote Alfven, etc... i don't dispute validated science, only histrionics or pseudoscience

a "reputation" only affects my reading schedule- when i get to a study when things are backed up and i am busy.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2015
The ignorance of primary sources is pseudoscientific ignorance and pathological skepticism instead
@ZEPHIR
this is a perfect example of your inability to cite primary sources... i ask for them, you send an ARTICLE from http://guardianlv.com
lets look at said article: it makes a claim
Recent studies have shown
but then only gives a vague reference
In a study done for ... (AAD) repair
no named people in quotes (why? libel or litigation?) and references to farmers almanac, and... you guessed it... NOT ONE SINGLE CALL OUT TO A STUDY OR PRIMARY SOURCE!
Sources: The Telegraph; How to use Moon Cycles for Health and Healing; Life Coaching; The Old Farmer's Almanac
so... when you ask
What about cardiovascular deaths or traffic accidents?
What about them?
what is it you are specifically trying to say?

be specific...
docile
Jul 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2015
Hi Scroofinator. :)
RC, volcanism as the cause is just as speculative as the solar cycle. Plus the timelines don't sync up as well for the LIA/major volcanic eruptions as it does with the MM
Nothing 'speculative' about the 1800s eruptions of Mt. Tambora and Krakatoa observed/measured to cause the "years of no summer" and the cold and acid rain effects over Northern Hemisphere, causing famine and cold related deaths. And I did say that they occurred later than the "little Ice Age" period. :) The reason I mentioned them is, it proves "volcanism winters" can occur as proven fact. Also, global volcanism around the LIA period was not witnessed/recorded as it was in 1800s case with Tambora/Krakatoa. So who knows how many volcanoes erupted in a series all around the globe leading into LIA period/event? Even now there are many "transient" sea eruptions producing "islands" which "disappear" within months. In LIA period no-one knew what volcanism in unknown lands/seas. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2015
I'm here only for the people, who just want to educate yourself.
@ZEPHIR
no, you are here to spread pseudoscience and try to justify yourself and your belief in something that has refuting evidence

just because you believe in something doesn't make it true, real, or science... this is obvious in your acceptance of just about ANY source as well as your acceptance of pseudoscience over refuting evidence. in case you didn't catch the implication above: you are what is called "scientifically illiterate" and you post about a failed & debunked belief.

that makes you a CULT leader, not "here only for the people, who just want to educate yourself"

education means to learn something. in science, it means learning something that can be validated, repeated, etc... you're beliefs cannot be validated because they've already been debunked
docile
Jul 16, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 16, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 16, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 16, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Scroofinator
not rated yet Jul 16, 2015
RC, I was only stating that the cause of the LIA being volcanism is speculative. Not that "volcanic winters" are, we know that is a real thing.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2015
Hi Scroofinator. :)

Thanks for acknowledging my point per se.

As for 'speculative', the following should give you an indication that there is nothing speculative with the recorded history of the known volcanoes that contributed ash/sulfur etc to ongoing 'volcanic winters' which 'ran into each other' because the individual effects did not subside before the next one came along to continue/intensify the effects locally/globally during those terrible centuries of ash and acid rains.
Wiki: Vesuvius entered a new phase in December 1631.....activity thereafter became almost continuous, with relatively severe eruptions occurring in 1660, 1682, 1694, 1698, 1707, 1737, 1760, 1767, 1779, 1794, 1822, 1834, 1839, 1850, 1855, 1861, 1868, 1872, 1906, 1926, 1929, and 1944.


Here are some others further afield during that terrible period...
Wiki: A recent study found that an especially massive tropical volcanic eruption in 1258, possibly of Mount Rinjani,


[cont...]
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2015
[...cont]
...followed by three smaller eruptions in 1268, 1275, and 1284 that did not allow the climate to recover, may have caused the initial cooling, and that the 1452–53 eruption of Kuwae in Vanuatu triggered a second pulse of cooling.[12][13] The cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed.
Other volcanoes that erupted during the era and may have contributed to the cooling include Billy Mitchell (ca. 1580), Huaynaputina (1600), Mount Parker (1641), Long Island (Papua New Guinea) (ca. 1660), and Laki (1783).
The 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia blanketed the atmosphere with ash; the following year, 1816, came to be known as the Year Without a Summer, when frost and snow were reported in June and July in both New England and Northern Europe.
Add to all that any/many unknown volcanic events in unknown seas/lands during that unusual centuries of volcanic activity, and it's far from 'speculative'. Yes? :)
Scroofinator
not rated yet Jul 17, 2015
and it's far from 'speculative'. Yes?

I'm not saying it isn't the cause, but as we don't truly know what happened by definition it's still speculative.

It likely was a combination of factors, solar/volcanic/oceanic currents. It's never just one thing...
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2015
Hi Scroofinator. :)
and it's far from 'speculative'. Yes?
I'm not saying it isn't the cause, but as we don't truly know what happened by definition it's still speculative. It likely was a combination of factors, solar/volcanic/oceanic currents. It's never just one thing...
Yes, you may be right re 'mix' of factors coinciding. But the coinciding would have to be pretty unusual, and go on for centuries. The most physically evident/supportable evidence/probability is the volcanism around the globe during those terrible centuries. We know serial/persistence volcanism eras have occurred through all ages of Earth's evolution/techtonics dynamics/phases. These particular ones were mild compared to some earlier ones! Anyhow, as you say, other factors may have complicated/prolonged etc the LIA 'event(s)', but for most likely/main culprit, the recorded (and unrecorded also?) volcanism leading into, through and following LIA era 'incriminates' volcanoes most. Cheers. :)
docile
Jul 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2015
At any case, I'd recommend to implement the cold fusion ASAP, or we will face very serious threat of nuclear war for the rest of fossil fuels soon
@ZEPHIR/docile et al
well here is your chance to build an aw/daw based cold fusion generator that will open everyone's eyes and teach us all how the scientific method works...

i tell you, a functional cold fusion reactor/generator that is proven in the world and the corresponding Nobel will definitely make me subscribe to your page and re-think your posts.. let me tell you!

all ya gotta do now is put your physics where your mouth is...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.