Fair call?
Always $$$ involved. ��
Trying to 'model' something that is physically impossible is a waste of time.
Trying to 'model' something that cannot explain the total lack of evidence that would easily be seen for it is a waste of time.
Trying to replace a model that is accepted science, with shed loads of evidence in favour of it, is a waste of time.
And it seems to me they had $2m to spend on this. How much to publish in a respectable, peer-reviewed journal?
How much to lay out their reasons for doing this experiment in the first place? In other words, what is wrong with the current model that this 'model' can explain, whilst still explaining all the things that the current model does, with evidence to back it up?
Have a trawl through the real scientific literature. Look for 'alternative solar models.' There aren't any. For good reasons. So, how about they lay out this model, with the requisite maths, science and observations, to show that this is nothing more than an exercise in p!ssing money up a wall?
If Monty is such a good and open chap, maybe he'll respond to an email from an EUist?
Ask him what he thinks of the detected neutrinos. Which are of the requisite number to explain a Sun that is powered by nuclear fusion in its core.
Ask him about the energy spectrum of those neutrinos, which confirm that it is most definitely from p-p chain fusion. What are his explanations for those observations, which can easily be found in the scientific literature?
How does he explain the make-up and behaviour of the solar wind, using any sort of electric sun 'model'?
Why does he think the astrophysical analogue of his mains supply, is missing from decades of observations?
How does he think any putative current is going to battle its way, undetected, past the outflowing solar wind, and the associated Interplanetary Magnetic Field?
Those are just a few things that any competent peer reviewer would want to know on receipt of any SAFIRE 'paper'.
Which would be why we see no such papers. And never will.