Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, Peratt's definition requires a breakdown of a medium. In plasma, what is the medium and how does it breakdown?

False. The *DEFINITION* begin *IN* a plasma.

FYI, plasmas are typically not 100% ionized. They are usually "dusty" and/or they include non ionized atoms in them. The ionization around a "discharge" is typically "far in excess" of the plasma around that region, but the "discharge" proces occurs is a partially ionized plasma.

 

[D'rok]

False.

True.

An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Anyone who has not studied the requisite physics and does not have the required mathematical skills has no standing in this or any other discussion about solar physics.
But -- we all know that! From Martin Gardner's book, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science:

1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.
2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the title of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").
3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.
4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.
5.He coins neologisms.

Anyone come to mind?

 

[Michael Mozina]

True.

This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium.

If we were talking about a "gas" that "breakdown" he describes *WOULD BE* a dialectic breakdown. Since we are *already talking about a plasma*, the breakdown he describes is the type of "breakdown" that Alfven describes as an exploding double layer. That Mercury switch example is an example he *OFTEN* sites. Since it's already a "plasma", it doesn't require a dialectic breakdown of a NON plasma. That may of course happen as result of the discharge. In other words "gasses" embedded in the plasma may in fact "breakdown" and become ionized too, but that is *NOT* a requirement *IN* an existing plasma!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Anyone who has not studied the requisite physics and does not have the required mathematical skills has no standing in this or any other discussion about solar physics.

Since you haven't read Cosmic Plasma, or Peratt's book, nor have you commented on Alfven's use of circuits, that lets you out of the discussion.

1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.

Er, I'm no genius, I just "read"! Alfven won the Nobel, not me.

2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both.

The only individuals I consider stupid and/or dishonest are the *HATER* of electric universe theory that never bothered to read the appropriate materials but still fancy themselves as smarter than the guy with the Nobel.

3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.

Nope. EU/PC theory predates little old me by a hundred + years. It's not me against the world, it's the mainstream vs. other competing ideas, one of which I personal find more compelling than mainstream theory.

4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.

But of course I love Einstein's work when it's not Kludged with stuff he never wrote about. You're the one attacking Alfven's work, the guy with the Nobel prize *WITHOUT* ever citing a single flaw in that work!

Your list clearly doesn't apply to me since PC theory isn't even MY theory in the first place and I'm citing *PREVIOUS AUTHORS*, not MYSELF. Ooops?

 

[D'rok]

If we were talking about a "gas" that "breakdown" he describes *WOULD BE* a dialectic breakdown. Since we are *already talking about a plasma*, the breakdown he describes is the type of "breakdown" that Alfven describes as an exploding double layer. That Mercury switch example is an example he *OFTEN* sites. Since it's already a "plasma", it doesn't require a dialectic breakdown of a NON plasma. That may of course happen as result of the discharge. In other words "gasses" embedded in the plasma may in fact "breakdown" and become ionized too, but that is *NOT* a requirement *IN* an existing plasma!

Tusenfem, who knows a thing or two about double layers, says you are wrong. You sound like you are just making crap up by combining jargon into a series of non sequiturs based on your own bizarre thought process and according to whatever it is that you think that jargon will do for your cause.

Sorry, but I think I'll stick to the plasma physicist's explanation. Suprisingly, it is quite easy to understand, even for a layperson like me. A layperson like you should be able to understand it too. Sadly, this seems not to be the case.

 

[Tubbythin]

If we were talking about a "gas" that "breakdown" he describes *WOULD BE* a dialectic breakdown. Since we are *already talking about a plasma*, the breakdown he describes is the type of "breakdown" that Alfven describes as an exploding double layer. That Mercury switch example is an example he *OFTEN* sites. Since it's already a "plasma", it doesn't require a dialectic breakdown of a NON plasma. That may of course happen as result of the discharge. In other words "gasses" embedded in the plasma may in fact "breakdown" and become ionized too, but that is *NOT* a requirement *IN* an existing plasma!

I don't think anybody is talking about a dialectic breakdown.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't think anybody is talking about a dialectic breakdown.

Oops.

 

[GeeMack]

I've quoted the him from his book, and I've cited the WHOLE definition several times. If you don't like the one his gave, how about you personally provide one that you can live with, and that is consistent with Dungey's use of the term, so we can discuss those "discharges" he describes in flares and we can discuss those gamma rays.

So electrical discharges, according to the electric Sun proponents, are not like lightning here on Earth or the sparkles in a toy plasma ball as they have claimed in the past. Redefining terms is, of course, dishonest.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So electrical discharges, according to the electric Sun proponents, are not like lightning here on Earth or the sparkles in a toy plasma ball as they have claimed in the past. Redefining terms is, of course, dishonest.

Speaking of dishonest behaviors, did you *EVER* intend to explain what Alfven meant by a "circuit" in reference to coronal loops?

 

[tusenfem]

Yes, I understand that. It's a question of HOW MUCH current flow, and how HIGHLY ionized the plasma then becomes due to that current flow. The whole definition of an electrical discharge BEGINS in a plasma.

No apparently you do not understand as we can see of the next comment of yours.

Then please give the full definition of discharge that you are going to use from now on. Because in my view the plasma is a product of a discharge not the start.

Ya, but we are not discussing discharges through a GAS, now are we? Some "greater" concentration of "current flow' is going to be required in order to explain multi-million degree plasmas anywhere near an "opaque" 6K surface.

No, we are talking about a current through a plasma, where there is no (Peratt's comment) break down of the medium. Just more ionization does not make a break down of the medium, that happens when it goes from non-conducting neutral to conducting ionized.

The heating part is discussed by me.

Great. We are in total agreement on that point. It's all a function of the pinch and current flowing through the pinched filament.

There is no need to go and discuss pinches here. Also without pinches (look at those loops do they look pinched? I think not) will an increased current heat the plasma more.

No, I'm looking for *ANY* definition of an "electrical discharge" in a "plasma" (already ionized gasses) so we can discuss Dungey's paper, and get on with it. If you insist on deviating from a relatively 'standard" definition from the realm of plasma physics, well, I guess I'll have to live with it, so long as we can *MOVE ON* in the conversation.

No, I am on solid ground, no one at this time will define a discharge as Dungey did it approximately 40 years ago. And actually it is just a word, that has absolutely no influence on what Dungey presented. He says discharge and then also says what he means: a strong current in a plasma. That is enough to discuss the Dungey paper. You have to use the definition in context, I can read the paper with the stingent definition of discharge, and that will get me nowhere. So, start discussing Dungey's paper, but then please start with paper 1 on which the comment was written to which Dungey replied again. Otherwise the discussion is useless, because we don't know the starting point of the discussion.

I think it's utterly ridiculous you're arguing with a plasma physicist too, but then you reject Alfven's work too I suppose, or at least some of it. Even still, this is simply a "definition" of a discharge in a plasma. Unless one believe it's impossible to release EM energy into a plasma, it's must occur.

Well, I also disagreed with Duncan Bryant on the definition of a double layer and particle acceleration, so what. I do not reject Alfven, I do reject some of the things he claims because they have been shown to be incorrect (but that is not the point here). I think the definition is ridiculous, but for reading the Dungey paper I will have to accept that he calls a strong current through a plasma a discharge, otherwise I will not be able to understand what he is writing about. So from your comments I see you want to use the idea that a discharge is "a current in a plasma." I could live with that, if you would just have the balls to make a stand and say, I think it is this, which you will not do.

The Fe will be ionized in the Sun proper (otherwise it cannot rise with the magnetic field, because it would not stick, basic plasma physics thank you very much). It will have something like 5+ or so (humble estimate, not necessarily correct) and then through the heating of the plasma by the current be ionized further quite possibly to 20+.

But then fundamentally we are talking about the "intersection" of two "discharges" at the point of "reconnection". It's not simply a "magnetic" process, it's an *ELECTRO*magnetic reconnection process.

No we are not talking about an intersection of anything. I am talking about one loop, through which a current is driven and where further ionization takes place of the species that are present. There is nothing about reconnection going on here. I am just driving a current through a loop, point, nothing more, and have the plasma heated.

You need to chill out a bit. FYI, I'm typically responding to these posts between tech calls at work, I'm responding to LOTS of individuals and sometimes I do in fact misread things from time to time because (drum roll please) "I'm human".

So, you think I have nothing else to do? You don't think that I am working hard every day? Maybe you should discuss less topics at the same time. Maybe you should ignore most of the post and spend more time thinking about stuff and trying to find out if it has merit and actually do a real discussion of a paper. You want to be the amateur plasma astrophysicist, and thus you have to put some effort in it.

Ya, but we already know that "discharges" produce them. We know "discharges" occur around every large body in the solar system with an atmosphere and a magnetic field and the sun has both. Why do we need to go looking for anything particularly exotic when we already KNOW a "natural' source of such photons in our *OWN* atmosphere?

No doubt at the "base' of the loops where the "discharge" process heats plasma to millions of degrees.

Most of the X and gamma radiation is emitted by the footpoints, yes, where e.g. the electrons enter the Sun again and bremsstrahlung is emitted.

We don't know that discharges produce them, because we apparently don't know what a discharge is in this case. What I see there is a plasma filled magnetic tube that exits the Sun, and which through intial conditions and through footpoint shear, carries a current that gets increased in strength through an electromotive force. If the current gets too strong, i.e. if the drift velocity of the particles get greater than the thermal velocity an instability will start in the plasma (Buneman instability) and possible double layers can be created and we can get highly accelerated electrons and ions. So, that is all we need to know, we don't need to call this a discharge, it has no purpou

Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma is clear, it's concise, and it's perfectly congruent with Dungey's use of the term. Why do we need to deny a perfectly good definition of a discharge in a plasma again? Oh ya, to protect *IGNORANCE* spewed by a couple of clueless individuals.

You and I seem to be able to communicate. Let's just focus on moving forward and I'll just ignore the ignorant for awhile, ok?

Alfven referred to these "pinched" filaments as "circuits", so what would be an appropriate term for two 'circuits" reconnecting and some change in topology between those two circuits?

Okay, then Peratt's complete definition of a discharge including the general break down of the medium. But then we will get into the discussoin of what break down is. (yet another ten pages or so)

Alfven called everything a circuit, there need not be a pinch, forget about that because that is just making things more complicated.

Well, for one thing you cannot describe reconnection in such a way, because the currents do not follow the cables that Alfven is defining, i.e. they no longer flow along the magnetic field. Near the region where it gets interesting, i.e. near the X line in the ion diffusion region, the Hall currents flow perpendicular to the magnetic field. But be my guest, build up your circuit model and then show how it works and show how it explains the data that Runov et al. (2003) measured with the 4 spacecraft Cluster mission. Now that's a starting point for discussions.

 

[Reality Check]

I think Oliver wouldn't mind me posting his recent email comments on that neutron star since he sent that particular email to a list, not just to me personally:

"The Crab Nebula is powered by the central neutron star which acts as a DC unipolar inductor and a source of an AC striped wind".
One sentence from a paper's conclusion?
This hints at quote mining since there is no mention of this in the abstract.
Gamma-Ray Flares from the Crab Nebula

A young and energetic pulsar powers the well-known Crab Nebula. Here, we describe two separate gamma-ray (photon energy > 100 MeV) flares from this source detected by the Large Area Telescope on board the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. The first flare occurred in February 2009 and lasted approximately 16 days. The second flare was detected in September 2010 and lasted approximately 4 days. During these outbursts, the gamma-ray flux from the nebula increased by factors of four and six, respectively. The brevity of the flares implies that the gamma rays were emitted via synchrotron radiation from PeV (1015 eV) electrons in a region smaller than 1.4 × 10–2 pc. These are the highest-energy particles that can be associated with a discrete astronomical source, and they pose challenges to particle acceleration theory.

This is nothing to do with the Electric Universe fantasy since it is not cosmology - it is astrophysics (unipolar inductor).

 

[Michael Mozina]

Tusenfem, who knows a thing or two about double layers, says you are wrong.

Does he? It seems as though he and I are both comfortable with the terms "discharge" in a plasma at this point. What does tusenfem mean by that which is somehow different from my position?

You sound like you are just making crap up by combining jargon into a series of non sequiturs based on your own bizarre thought process and according to whatever it is that you think that jargon will do for your cause.

Excuse me? I'm simply quoting Peratt about a definition of a discharge *IN* (yes, he uses the term *IN*) plasma. It's a darn simple definition too. It's only GM and RC that seem to *INSIST* that it is magically impossible to inject a plasma with additional energy via induction, etc.

Sorry, but I think I'll stick to the plasma physicist's explanation. Suprisingly, it is quite easy to understand, even for a layperson like me.

Evidently not as *EASY* as you think if you think a dielectric breakdown is the same as a 'breakdown' in a plasma. A "breakdown" can occur for the reasons that Alfven outlines in his exploding double layer paper which *NO ONE* has ever commented on!

A layperson like you should be able to understand it too. Sadly, this seems not to be the case.

You can and do understand it too. I think you're too worried about hurting other people's feelings. Dungey spoke of electrical discharges in reference to flares. Unless you think Dungey was less knowledgeable than GM about solar physics and plasma physics, I'd suggest you go with Dungey and ignore GM and RC.

 

[Reality Check]

Speaking of dishonest behaviors, did you *EVER* intend to explain what Alfven meant by a "circuit" in reference to coronal loops?

Speaking of ignorance: what Alfven meant by a circuit in reference to coronal loops is the modeling of them as collections of electronic components such as resistors and inductors.

 

[GeeMack]

Does he? It seems as though he and I are both comfortable with the terms "discharge" in a plasma at this point. What does tusenfem mean by that which is somehow different from my position?

So from your comments I see you want to use the idea that a discharge is "a current in a plasma." I could live with that, if you would just have the balls to make a stand and say, I think it is this, which you will not do.

So given the agreement with tusenfem, and accepting the definition of an electrical discharge as simply "a current in a plasma" without the breakdown of a dielectric medium and the spark jumping and such, all that nonsense about solar flares being electrical discharges analogous to lightning here on Earth and sparks in a toy plasma ball was wrong.

And now we can discard that "sorta like lightning" and that stupid plasma ball analogy and amend the wording of the claim to be...

For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge a current in a plasma.

Dam. Post #1635. Took long enough to get this far. Hope we don't have to listen to as many electric Sun proponents' arguments by lying, arguments from ignorance, various other logical fallacies, and more of that shifting the burden of proof dishonesty before a bit of quantitative objective support starts to come for that claim. It will also require making some quantitative objective distinction between all the currents in a plasma that exist all over the surface of the Sun as compared to those described as a solar flare which *IS* a current in a plasma.

 

[tusenfem]

Peratt and Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

As the whole section dealing with Electical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma is negligibly small in Peratt's book, I decided to copy it whole, to see what actually is said in that section.

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy . This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually detemined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent prαesses such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiatiοη.

As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microωανes. Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m³ . This energy is the n
transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, via a transmission line. The discharge region, or load, encompαsses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiation (Figure 1 .2).

On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electrostatic energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km³. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel.

The aurora is a discharge caused by the bombardment of atoms in the upper atmosphere by 1–20 keV electrons and 200 keV ions spirιlling down the earth's magnetic field lines at high latitudes . Here, the electric field accelerating the charged particles derιves from plasma moving across the earth's dipole magnetic field lines many earth radii into the magnetosphere. The potential energy generated by the ρlasma mοtion is fed to the upper atmοsphere by multi-megaampere Birkeland currents (Chαρter 2) that comprίse a transmission line, 50,000 kilometers in length, as theγ flow into and out of the discharge regions at the polar horm(Figure 1 .5). The generator region may encompass 10¹² - 10¹³ km³ while the total discharge volume can be 10⁹ -10¹⁰ km³ . The stored or generated and radiated energies and powers versus linear dimension (approximately, the cube root of the volume) of several cosmic plasma discharge objects are shown in Figure 1.19.

That is the whole section. So, basically, Peratt does not discuss any discharges in cosmic plasma as defined in the first paragraph in this section. He basically discusses currents driven in a plasma through an EMF. The only real discharge he discusses shortly is lightning.

To call the aurora a discharge (something that Alfvén also did) makes sense only if you define a discharge as a current in a plasma. (and then we will forget about his dubious explanation of how these Birkeland currents are created and the comments about the polar horn where these currents should flow, this is hardly up to date with modern knowledge about magnetospheric physics).

Searching further in the book, you find the term discharge in the Schoenherr Whirl stabilisation (2.5.7) but that does not really add to anything in our understanding of the term, except that Peratt says a high current discharge.

Then we get already to 4.6.1 surface discharges, where there actually find the following:

Surface discharges are produced by large electric fields that develop between the surface and subsurface layers in dielectric materials as a consequence of energetic charged-particle deposition. For example, when spacecraft dielectrics are exposed to bursts of kiloelectronvolt particles during magnetic substorms, the particles penetrate a few micrometers to a few millimeters, building up field strengths which may be of the order of hundreds of kilovolts per centimeter .

and then there are two possibilities, (semi)conductors

If the material is a conductor or a semiconductor, a conduction current will flow in response to the charge deposition and will effectively neutralize the field.

or it is a insulator:

If the material is an insulator, the space charge will build up at a rate faster than the local relaxation time, and the associated electric field will increase . When the field reaches a critical value that depends on the material, surface
smoothness, and porosity, a surface discharge will occur.

So, in (semi)conductors there is just a current flow taking away the charge difference, but in a insulator something drastic can happen, a break down of the material, and the a discharge happens.

Then it moves to plasma gun arc discharges which also works with a breakdown of the gas.

Then something about Io's volcanic plumes:

While an exact calculation of the breakdown field associated with a volcanic arc discharge requires precise knowledge about the region where the breakdown occurs^2
2Comparison of the side-on penumbra morphology (Figures 4.20 and 4.22) to the side-on plume morphology (Figure 4 .26) suggests that the location of the electrical discharge may be well below the surface of lo.

And the latter would make more sense, after reading the discussion about surface discharges earlier in the book (not shown here).

Then discharges creating double layers, where there is plasma created by a discharge.

Then discharges and synchrotron radiation in Z pinches, were discharge merely stands for high current.

So, basically Peratt is rather inconsequent in his usage of discharge, as it can either mean the discharging of a stored charge in a capacitor like situation in a circuit, or it can be a discharge with break down.

Okay, desparate housewives start, so time to stop.

 

[Reality Check]

Excuse me? I'm simply quoting Peratt about a definition of a discharge *IN* (yes, he uses the term *IN*) plasma. It's a darn simple definition too. It's only GM and RC that seem to *INSIST* that it is magically impossible to inject a plasma with additional energy via induction, etc.

Excuse me but you are wrong (see tusenfem's post).
Peratt uses the title (not definition) "Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma" and then goes onto define an electrical discharge as:

An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually detemined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium.

He never defines what an electrical discharge *IN* a plasma is in that section.
The text of that section never mentions electrical discharges *WITHIN* a plasma.
The text of that section is about electrical discharges that can create plasma, e.g. lightning.

You are lying: I have never stated that it is impossible to "inject a plasma with additional energy via induction, etc". I am not aware that GeeMack has ever stated this.

What is impossible is that solar flares are powered by induction. The time scales required for this rule it out as has been pointed out to you.
Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection V by Tim Thompson

Now consider this from me, in the post Magnetic Reconnection Redux VII, dated 17 January 2010:

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
Why not induction?
Now, Mozina insists that what we are really seeing is induction. Is this a reasonable assertion? At the level of real physics it appears to be unrealistic. We know that induction is invariably constrained (or unconstrained) by the characteristic diffusion time for the magnetic field in a given environment. Remember that in the process of induction, the magnetic field move with respect to the charged particles, and it is that relative motion between field & particle that determines the transfer of energy from the magnetic field to the particles. Let me quote once again from Priest & Forbes, this time from section 1.1 ("The Origins of Reconnection Theory"), pages 6-7: "For example, solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona within a period of 100 s. By comparison, the time-scale for magnetic dissipation based on a global scale length of 105 km is of the order of 106 yrs. Typically, phenomena like the solar flare and the substorm require a significant fraction of the stored magnetic energy to be converted within a few Alfven time-scales. Such rapid time-scales are easily achieved in ideal MHD processes, but not in non-ideal ones. Although ideal MHD processes can release energy quickly, they rarely release a significant amount because of the topological constraints which exist in the absence of dissipation. In contrast, magnetic reconnection is not topologically constrained, and therefore it can release much greater amounts of energy (Kivelson and Russell, 1995)."

In about a week it will be a year of you not understanding

1. Solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona in a period of 100 seconds.
2. Induction would take a million years to release the energy of a solar flare for the global length scale of 100,000 km.

 

[D'rok]

Okay, desparate housewives start, so time to stop.

Please immediately turn in your man club membership card. You have been permanently disqualified.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is the whole section. So, basically, Peratt does not discuss any discharges in cosmic plasma as defined in the first paragraph in this section.

Man, I have seen denial in a debate before, but never this bad, never in such numbers, and never to the exclusion of common sense and logic to this sort of an extreme.

Peratt's whole paragraph is a "definition" of an "electrical discharge* *IN* a plasma. It relates *TO* plasma. It's all *ABOUT* plasma. It's *ENTIRELY* consistent with Dungey's use of an "electrical discharge IN a plasma.

I guess the whole problem is that the moment you agree to Peratt's definition the debate is over. You'd rather live in pure denial of a "definition", and Dungey's consistent use of that very same term. Wow!

FYI, the IRS made *REALLY* bizarre payroll changes this year and since I sell an accounting program, it effects many hundreds (thousands?) of my payroll users. The updates are financially lucrative, but exhausting and time consuming. I'm not going to waste much more of my breath around here until we can all agree that:

A) electrical discharges occur in plasma
B) Dungey and others wrote about them
C) They have been associated with flares by Dungey and other authors.

Is anyone here willing to step beyond denial and have a rational conversation on this topic? Right now this conversation is simply not worth my time.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So given the agreement with tusenfem, and accepting the definition of an electrical discharge as simply "a current in a plasma" without the breakdown of a dielectric medium and the spark jumping and such, all that nonsense about solar flares being electrical discharges analogous to lightning here on Earth and sparks in a toy plasma ball was wrong.

Er, no. EU haters keep lying about the actual words that Dungey and Peratt used. They argue from pure and extreme ignorance of the material and never comment on it more than to handwave at it. They argue with nothing but logical fallacies, specifically ad homs galore, and they shift the burden of proof whenever they feel like it. All the while they refuse to read the materials, or at least rationally respond to the materials like Calqvist's use of circuits. They refuse to deal with the discharge aspects of any of the materials or even *ACKNOWLEDGE* Dungey's *USE* of the term 'electrical discharge in a plasma. The whole thing is argument by pure denial. EU haters are exactly like haters of evolutionary theory. They argue from exactly the same place, (ignorance) and with exactly the same primary defense mechanism, AKA *DENIAL*.