Paul, why are you showing this? We already went down this path. Chemical reactions aren't going to work. Yes, we know that there's no way you can combine any of these things to anything, or like enough energy to power the sun for how long those pesky geologists say it was going for. And this was what 90th century people thought were the fundamental particles. Maybe there's something, maybe you can break it out of a part, maybe there's, there's not fundamental, maybe there are components within it. So you're saying if we look inside potentially what is creating these elements, this may be the clue to the sun? It could be best ideas at this point, no. I mean, this is a regard as ridiculous. A lot of people thought, well clearly, the geologists must be wrong, or maybe we can just fudge the things slightly and bend your 10 million years up and 100 billion years down and give them to agree in the middle. I mean, there are many controversies in astronomy right now, people are trying to do the same sort of thing. That's true. And actually the tension becomes so great that you realize it's just not going to work and you have to find something new. And so maybe looking inside atoms, and the first clue that there is something inside atoms is already around this point. And this comes out of something like a balloon, static electricity. If you take a balloon and say rub it in your hair or a woolly jumper, you can pick up pieces of paper or a pellet of the balloons. And this was the discovery of static electricity. And there had to be some sort of particle being moved when you rub something with something else that causes this to happen. Because the way you're saying is because you're doing a reaction, but it's not chemical or kinetic energy, there's something else creating that static electricity. And a lot of experimentation in the early 19th century discovered that there was, indeed, some sort of particle that carried electric charge that was being moved from one place to another. And you could actually channel this and send it down wires. This made electricity. And this was, of course, the greatest discovery of all of physics, discovery of electricity. And JJ Thompson famously was able to find out that you could take these mysterious particles, which are normally flowed down a wire electric current, the things that we now call electrons. And if you apply a strong electric field to them, a strong voltage, you can rip them out and they can fly down a vacuum tube. And you can deflect them sideways and measure their properties. So you're saying that you can see these things that are smaller than the atom, flow down this chamber. So somehow, when you take a whole bunch of metal atoms in this plate and you apply a really strong voltage to them, it's ripping something out of the atoms. And then shooting it down here. And the something that's ripped out is a particle called an electron with a quite a strong charge, but a very, very low mass. And so this led to the idea of so-called the plum pudding model, that basically an atom is a large plum pudding of positive charge and lots of weight. And it's got like plums or saltanas or something inside it, chocolate chips that are good. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I never agree with the plum pudding model on being a delicious model, but it was the working one. So let's call it the chocolate chip model. So you've got the cookie, which is got a positive charge in most of the weight, and these chocolate chips, which are negative charge and are only a small fraction of what's in the overall cookie. And if you put that electrical current through it, you can... A strong electric field can wrench the chocolate chips out. But, I see my mouth open. This is good. But then you would just be left with a boring, much chocolate chip cookie. It'd be left with most of the weight as a positive charge plum pudding or chocolate chip cookie. No chocolate chips anymore. Whereas the mice, yummy chocolate chips, the negatively charged electrons have been pulled out. So you're my son stealing all the chocolate chips off the cookies, even the boring stuff behind. You found me out, yes. So this was the model back then, that for the first time we've seen that there was something more to atoms, they had a number of electrons. Hygiene had one electron, helium had two, and so on, the atomic number. So as you go through that table, this increases that electron number. Yep. And you have left behind most of the weight, which had the left of a positive charge, and that was the cookie or the plum pudding or something like that, which was the rest of the atom. So do this start people to think that maybe you could use these smaller things or this substructure of what an element or an atom is to power this on? Well, not really, because it didn't seem to be any way to get energy out of this. I mean, you need to put energy in to pull the electrons out. Yeah, that's true. So it doesn't really get you any energy. It's very important and useful, but how does it actually help? Hmm, we should look at it into it.