“No, Melting Quarks Will Never Work As An Energy Source”
This is from Forbes – not Fusion Technology, but it is hard to argue with it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/08/no-melting-quarks-will-never-work-as-an-energy-source/#f23d01922327 However, there are other similar descriptions which semantically fall into place as a kind of “melting” of quarks at much lower energy, which would be outside this argument. To wit, the Holmlid effect. Here is an earlier thread on Stubbs and Holmlid. https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg104933.html The Holmlid effect of muon production from hydrogen annihilation, under William Stubbs’ theory is basically this (paraphrased to account for Holmlid): All matter is composed of leptons. The proton mass is composed of nine leptons whose mass is each about 1⁄9 that of a proton - there are three groupings of three and these are quarks. The particles which give quarks mass are identified as the muon/antimuon and have unit negative and positive charge, respectively so that there is a net positive charge of 1 in the proton. The combined mass of nine muons is 1,863 electron masses which is 27 electron masses greater -- but since the interaction is “binding” in the technical sense, a mass defect similar to that seen in all nuclear binding will reduce the net mass of bound muons, and they cannot annihilate easily in bound form. Laser irradiation however, can and does completely disrupt the quark identity when done properly. The muon will be by far the longest lived component of laser irradiated protons (Holmlid’s version) but scatter for extended distances despite being charged which tends to hide the enormous amount of energy released. In this view, quarks are leptonic combinations - muons at their core - which is a radical departure from present models.
