In the post I replied to, you linked to two PDF's. Only the first was a published article. And neither source lists the magnetic fields used for or derived from their simulations.
Did you bother to read the 1998 article I linked from Astrophysics and Space Science, "Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas, Part II. Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale"? Apparently not. It states very clearly that papers by him published in 1996 and 1997 contain a complete description of the algorithms and computational parameters. Just a little digging on your part (i.e., looking at the reference list at the end of the article) would have handed you the specifics for these two references:
Peratt, A.L.: 1996, Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas, Advanced Topics on Astrophysical and Space Plasmas, Vol 242, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. (see
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Ap&SS.242...93P ).
Peratt, A.L.: 1997, Advances in Numerical Modeling of astrophysical and space plasmas", Astrophys. Space Sci., 252, 93-163.
And if you'd spent 1 minute using your browser you'd have encountered those papers on the web. They, and other peer reviewed papers by Peratt, can be downloaded here:
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/papers.html
I suggest you download the following 3 articles from that site:
Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, A. L. Peratt, APSS 242, 1997 (3.3MB)
Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale. A. L. Peratt, APSS 256, 1998 (2.1MB)
Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale. A .L. Peratt, APSS 256, 1998 [Adobe annotated edition] (8.3MB)
They should answer any questions you have. If you aren't too lazy to read them. And again, folks, note that NOT ONE peer reviewed article by mainstream astrophysicists was published challenging the specifics of this model or it's results. They simply ignored it.
By the way, Ziggorat, note this statement in the conclusion section of the first paper: "Today it is recognized that 99.999% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state." I mention it so you don't try to again argue it's mostly neutral gas.
And you might also want to download these from the above link:
Guest Editorial Sixth Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, A. L. Peratt and C.-G. Fälthammer, December 2003 (1.4MB)
Guest Editorial Seventh Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, A. L. Peratt and T. E. Eastman, August 2007 (3 MB)
They show that Peratt and other experts in plasma and electromagnetism haven't just gone away since 1998. They are still out there, publishing in peer reviewed journals of the IEEE, and still being ignored by mainstream astrophysicists. You see, folks, there are other known electromagnetic phenomena in plasmas that mainstream astrophysicists are simply ignoring. The plasma focus (z-pinch) they mention is one.
And you want some other peer reviewed articles by Peratt that were just ignored by Big Bang supporting mainstream astronomers and astrophysicists? Here:
Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 3-11, A. L. Peratt, 1995.
Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Issue 1-2, pp. 89-103, A. L. Peratt, 1996.
Plasma and the Universe: Large Scale Dynamics, Filamentation, and Radiation - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 97-107, A. L. Peratt, 1995.
Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 167-173, A. L. Peratt, 1995.
Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 229-253, A. L. Peratt, 1995.
And by the way, Ziggurat ... you and the other naysayers might find this a very disconcerting development:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0503657 "Astronomy & Astrophysics, September 12, 2006, Are rotation curves in NGC 6946 and the Milky Way magnetically supported?, E. Battaner and E. Florido, Abstract:
Following the model of magnetically supported rotation of spiral galaxies, the inner disk rotation is dominated by gravity but magnetism is not negligible at radii where the rotation curve becomes flat, and indeed becomes dominant at very large radii. ... snip ...
This magnetic alternative requires neither galactic dark matter (DM) nor modification of fundamental laws of physics ... snip ... Recent data about regular magnetic fields in spiral galaxies have been presented by Beck (2004b) in a recent review that clearly confirms what is to be expected in the magnetic scenario for rotation curves ... snip ...
The magnetic alternative remains a serious, competitive theory. It requires neither the existence of DM nor the modification of classical laws (including General Relativity). It is based on MHD, a relatively recent chapter of Astrophysics, but one that has roots in classical electro-magnetism. ... snip ... the inclusion of magnetic effects, which is in any case necessary, could help to theoretically reproduce some unexplained, well known facts, for example, the rotation curve. Gravity alone does not explain the rotation curve very well, simply because magnetic fields cannot be ignored. ... snip ...
The dynamic role of galactic magnetic fields is a matter that can no longer be ignored, neither at the small nor at the large scale."
Because where there are magnetic fields, there are electric currents. And the above is NOT inconsistent with Alfven and Peratt's model or numbers.
