This is beautiful. In response to an elementary physics argument, you don't present a counter argument, you don't even express your own well-founded skepticism, and you don't cite the skeptical argument of others - you "recall skepticism".
Heh, whoa, easy there big guy. I just wanted to note this discussion has been had, not rehash it (my point was just if you're deriving the Debye equation in a context where calculating the Debye length that way may not work, you may be making some bad assumptions in said derivation (I know there are different Debye equations that are appropriate depending on whether the mobility of ions is negligible compared to the process's timescale, though I'm not sure how relevant that is here without some more analysis...)). Do I really need to go look up the argument and cite it, or can I just say...
Done that. Check the archives.
Your only prediction I can recall was an ion current to the wall, which Rick says we don't see. OK, so from there we can assume Rick is lying or wrong or we can adjust our assumptions and make some more predictions for WB-8. Maybe something specific as a number for the current?
Do you know how to plug numbers into a formula?
Do you? If so, why haven't you done so to test their meaningfulness? They're your
equations, after all, and for those of us who don't encounter rho or T_e on a daily basis they're a tad obscure, esp. when you don't explain what your terms represent.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...