“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.