One of the most important unfulfilled tasks in elementary particle physics is to develop a comprehensive mass formalism that encompasses leptons, quarks and hadrons. The Standard Model (SM) treatment of particle masses, which places leptons and hadrons in separate unrelated categories, has been admittedly unsuccessful. However, by combining the mass data for leptons and hadrons, and by including particle lifetimes in the analysis, we arrive at an overall mass formalism based on experiment that accurately applies to leptons, quarks, hadrons and gauge bosons
A "Muon Mass Tree" with α-quantized Lepton, Quark and Hadron Masses Malcolm H. Mac Gregor http://arxiv.org/ftp/hep-ph/papers/0607/0607233.pdf On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I wonder what keeps the energetic neutrons Mark Goldes suggests result > from the muon catalyzed fusion reaction from activating the pressurized > water reactor containment material or other elements around the reactor. > > Lots of water would thermalize fast neutrons and transfer lots of their > energy into thermal energy, but resulting neutron activation would seem to > be a severe problem with its attendant gamma radiation. It certainly seems > that reaction is not apparent in any of the nice LENR experience. > > Bob Cook > > *From:* Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> > *Sent:* Saturday, September 26, 2015 7:35 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Revelations > > > Hi Mark, > > > > Interesting – the name is familiar. I see a thread on Vortex from 2011 on > Star Scientific. > > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg57554.html > > > > Looks like they have been around a while. Unfortunately, there is still no > independent test of their claim or Journal Paper. > > > > Jones > > > > > > *From:* Mark Goldes > > > > All, > > > > *Why has muon catalysed fusion not been successful in the past, and how > does Star Scientific plan to overcome this?* > People have been producing nuclear fusion reactions from muon catalysed > fusion for decades – they just haven’t been able to do it consistently, or > in sufficient volumes for it to be considered a viable energy source. > > Star Scientific is developing a method to efficiently and consistently > produce pions, and hence muons economically – and these muons are the > catalyst for fusion energy. > > *How will Star Scientific overcome the “alpha sticking problem” which has > caused many scientists to abandon research into muon catalysed fusion?* > The ‘alpha sticking problem’ refers to the concern that during the muon > catalysed reaction, some muons – about 1% to 2% – bond with the by-products > instead of catalysing. This reduces the number of muons available to > liberate energy, and therefore the energy output. > > Star Scientific is perfecting a method to constantly produce pions, which > immediately decay into muons, which means the natural loss of some muons > during the reaction is of no consequence. > > *How has Star Scientific addressed the issue of energy input vs output in > creating fusion energy?* > Energy input versus output is an issue with plasma fusion, not muon > catalysed fusion. Plasma fusion consumes 18 times more energy than it > produces. The Star Scientific system requires very little energy to run, > which means 99% of the energy liberated by the fusion reaction is available > for use. > > *Has your muon catalysed fusion system been independently tested?* > Our system has undergone, and continues to undergo, rigorous testing by > our own team of scientists as well as leading, independent global experts > from around the world. As long as our IP is protected, we have an open door > policy where results measurement is concerned to ensure this technology can > be officially evaluated and then shared with the world as soon as possible. > > There is also a Joint Japanese - UK effort involved with developing muon > catalyzed fusion. > > >
