FYI, I've tried to explain this to you before, but I will try one more time to explain how *irrelevant* your neutrino link is as it relates to Alfven's work, or Birkeland's work.
Let me take you on a little stroll down EU/PC theory lane, and I'll explain to you how it got started, beginning with Birkeland.
Birkeland was curious about the cause of aurora. He believed they were 'caused' by the presence of a strong cathode source near the Earth. He furthermore created a series of experiments to test that idea out in lab. He found that bombarding the sphere with a cathode ray, he could create aurora around the poles of his sphere, and indeed they functioned and looked a lot like aurora in the Earth's atmosphere. He and his team also risked their lives taking in-situ measurements of the magnetic fields around the poles during solar storms that would produce aurora to make very detailed calculations and compare them to their lab results. His published volume is *filled* with mathematical presentations related to moving charged particles and what is essentially the start of plasma physics as it applies to events in space.
Birkeland's work basically was ignored by the mainstream for over 6 decades, but not by Alfven. Alfven realized the importance of his work as it related to electrical process in the Earth's magnetosphere. It took *satellites in space* to confirm that Chapman's ideas, mathematically elegant as they sounded, simply weren't correct in terms of explaining nature. Nature is *current flow* oriented. Chapman ignored that issue, Birkeland didn't. The mainstream *still* ignores the current flow aspect as often as they can.
Birkeland *assumed* that the cathode bombarding the Earth was the sun. He also experimented with that concept, and with it he and his team produced a whole series of now verified predictions related to solar physics. These include, but are not limited to the presence of *both* types of high speed charged particles in solar wind, polar jets, cathode rays from the sun, electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, coronal loops, etc.
Birkeland personally *assumed* that the sun was it's own power source. He and his team preceded the complete understanding of fission and fusion, but Birkeland called it a 'transmutation of elements'. He listed fissionable materials by name, but he left open the option of fusion as well. Either way, what he assumed was an *internal* solar power source.
By the time Alfven came along, the 'standard solar model' has become well entrenched in solar physics circles. Once fusion was discovered, it became all the rage in solar physics. Alfven *embraced the standard solar model* with respect to *all of his published work*. Alfven's model wasn't necessarily a cathode with respect to space as Birkeland predicted, rather it more or less an electrical generator that was "wired together" with other suns. It too however generated all it's basic power *locally* and simply 'shared' with the whole system.
In both Birkeland's model, and Alfven's "electric sun" model, all the energy was created/released *locally* within the sun or within the solar atmosphere. By definition, both of their models would *necessarily* need to emit *exactly the same number of neutrinos* as the standard solar model. Alfven's model in particular is tied to the mainstream model. There's not even a little wiggle room in his model for those numbers not to match in terms of his published works.
"Once upon a time" in the world of neutrinos, there was a "missing neutrino" problem. When they measured the electron neutrinos coming from the sun, they didn't match the standard model. This created a "problem" within the EU/PC community since neither Birkeland's model, nor Alfven's model predicted these lower neutrino counts.
This "problem" was dealt with by Juergen's. He "theorized" that the sun might not be generating all it's energy locally as Alfven assumed. Rather he promoted the idea that suns acted more like "resistors" inside of a very sophisticated set of circuitry that ran through the galaxy. His model allowed for the sun to release the same amount of heat and light, but without having to generate all the energy locally. Since there was a "neutrino problem" at that time, Juergen's model did gain in popularity within the EU/PC community for a time.
As you might surmise, that preference for Juegen's model began to wane within the EU/PC community once evidence began to emerge that there were other types of neutrinos coming from the sun, and there was some evidence of neutrino oscillation. Their may in fact be some folks that still like Juergen's model, but I've personally always preferred Birkeland's solar model, Alfven's solar model, and Juergen's solar model in that order. I don't have to have 100 finality like you do, so I still try to keep an open mind to other solar models.
In short, that neutrino page has *absolutely nothing* to do with Alfven's published and peer reviewed work. If you wish to falsify *Alfven's* published works, you won't be able to do so based on neutrino measurements unless you intend to falsify the standard solar model using neutrino counts in some way.
