“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. 

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.

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.

Reply via email to