F.: Comment on: “By fluctuations in the magnetosheath and azimuthal flow velocity transient in the dayside ionosphere” by Newell and

tions to our interpretation of dayside auroral transients and associated azimuthal flow bursts in terms of pulsed recom•ec-tion [e.g. Lockwood et al., 1989; 1993a]. They present what they term an "apparently overlooked " alternative xplanation in terms of steady reconnection and fluctuations in the magnitude of the By component of the magnetosheath field. The objections of N&S can all be answered by reference to our previous publications and their alternative explanation was only "overlooked " in so far as it fails to explain the observations. Here we discuss just some of the reasons why the objections of N&S are invalid, and then give reasons why the events are not simply due to magnetosheath IByl changes. Objections of N&S to Bursty Reconnection 1. N&S state "If the sheath parameters have not changed since the open field lines just poleward of the NMR merge