A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's resultsJones-- A similar notion of the model of the proton, neutron etc. made up of electrons and positrons has been presented by Philippi Hatt at the ICCF-19 and also presented recently to the Russians at their invitation. Peter Gluck also recently noted Hatt’s theory on his blog as being of interest. I reported his work on Vortex-l on April 26 2015 for those interested.
Hatt’s theory predicts the mass of the proton and neutron, their magnetic moments etc. It is good to many significant figures and correctly predicts the empirical parameters now associated with these particle attributes. I think his does apply to the Holmlid results. See the links below for Hatt’s theory. The theory describes a many-step process for creation of protons in small time increments until a stable configuration is achieved. This involves negative mass and anti mass concepts. Its new and probably not accepted even though it is correct to many significant figures based on current experimental mass determinations and magnetic moment determinations. The muon may be an acceptable subdivision of protons and neutrons considering their electron-positron makeup. I am not sure what Hatt’s theory say about the makeup of muons. As suggested above, the exciting thing about Hatt’s theory is that it provides very accurate predictions of rest masses etc., that may be confirmed by experiments that provide more accurate measurements. http://philippehatt.com/document1.pdf The authors web cite: http://www.philippehatt.com/ Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 8:43 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results A provocative model of the proton has appeared on the web this year which can help explain the surprising results of Leif Holmlid. It comes from a retired nuclear engineer – Bill Stubbs. Stubbs also has an older book available on Amazon called “Nuclear Alternative”. Here is the gist of it (paraphrased to account for Holmlid): The proton is composed of nine similar particles whose mass is each about 1⁄9 that of a proton - there are three groupings of three. Those particles are identified as the muon/antimuon. The muon and the antimuon have unit negative and positive charge, respectively so that there is a net positive charge of 1. The combined mass of nine muons is 1,863 electron masses which is 27 electron masses greater than the proton's mass of 1,836 -- 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 to what is 204 equivalent electron masses, and they cannot annihilate in bound form. The common name for the high energy version of proton disintegration is “quark soup” but the muon will be by far the longest lived component of a low energy version (Holmlid’s version). Thus quarks are really muons which is a radical departure from present models. Unfortunately, the reflexive comment from the physics establishment will be to label this as a crank notion. Maybe it is. Were it not for Holmlid’s results, meshing directly into the detail of the Stubbs model, it will probably end at that, instead of gaining traction. But given that Holmlid could be proved correct, and very soon, it is wise to keep an open mind until you read what Stubbs has to say, in the context of Holmlid. In short, there is little experimental evidence to validate the Stubbs model, outside of Holmlid’s work – but it appears to me that both of them together form a very compelling argument to explain LENR (or one version of it) with the apparent production of muons in situ. http://wlsprojects.com/seeing-inside-a-proton.html http://wlsprojects.com/particles-inside-a-proton.html http://wlsprojects.com/structure-inside-proton.html
