Questions for Carl-Oscar Gullström

Mats Lewan just made this comment in the LENR initiation thread, I thought I’d put it in a separate thread in case people might not see it.

Hi all—if I would get an interview with Carl-Oscar Gullström who helped Rossi with the recent theoretical work on the E-Cat, what would you want me to ask him?
If you prefer not to post here you can email me at

The latest versioof the paper authored by Rossi and Gullstroem, and published July 18th on Arxiv is here:

  • Mats002

    Where you (CG) near the reactor when collecting the datasets or did someone else – if so who – providing you with the datasets?

  • Gerard McEk

    Some questions I would ask OS (Mats002 question would have been my first):
    1. Does the QX generate a current that would be continued during SSM? Is this a current source or a voltage source?
    2. What would stop the QX during SSM? Is it short circuiting as GiveADogABone has evaluated?
    3. Doe OS know how the control system works? Can details provided?
    4. Is the fireball explanation of GADAB a possible route to your final theory and is it in line with this?
    5. Does the QX need a high voltage to start?
    6. Can it be maintained in operation with very low control voltages (about 0.1V to maintain the SSM/control voltage on) on off sequence.
    I guess to all these technical questions OG cannot answer because of NDA. 7. 7. Does OG know the answer to all these?

    • CWatters

      Just for info…Rossi has told me that it doesn’t matter which terminal of the QX is connected to the 1R and which to 0V.

      • Gerard McEk

        Well, this is interesting information because AR seems to confirm that the resistor is in series with the reactor and controller.

        • CWatters

          I asked because I thought it might have implications for those people claiming that the QX generated electricity. If the polarity doesn’t matter then it’s probably not DC?

  • Stephen

    I’m curious what he think he thinks about the text set up. Just as background context really

    1. Is there a larger team during the test or just himself and Andrea? And if so how are the team roles.are there also other scientists like him self involved.

    2. Does the test involve many runs? If so how many?

    3. Are different runs under different conditions exploring the parameters of the test. Under different thermal or electrical power or different control regimes etc?

    4. Can he say anything about other stimulation if any.

    5. Did they use or measure any RF?

    6, how long does a typical test run?

    7. Did he see and test other models of the ECat in addition to this version of the E-Cat QX

    8. Does he see the device as a useful experimental device that could be deployed to universities in general? In particular could it be used for investigating the physics underlying the phenomena
    More generally. This could include exploring his and other people’s theories as well the practical electro chemistry and materials of the fuels involved.

    9. Can the device (or something similar but more versatile, perhaps closer to the original hot cat) be easily adapted to explore use of different fuels and materials as well as different physical control regimes?

    10. How does it feel working in the project and team?

    11. What did he feel when you saw it working for the first time?

    12. How does he best see how future testing of the physics , chemistry etc will be performed going forward?

    Lastly tanks to him for sharing with us his paper and intriguing theory. Looking forward to the developments in the next months.

    • Stephen

      One more point does he know if the E-Cat QX always needs active cooling. Or if it can also operate as a single item or a loosely packed array of sufficient separation with passive cooling in a similar way to a light bulb.

  • Stephen

    Regarding his theory: I wonder if he could explain a bit more about his theory regarding sigma Mesons.

    1. Have these been independently observed elsewhere in other experiments?

    2. Are there there any papers or other publications he can recommend that may explain some background regarding sigma Mesons?

    3. Are the sigma Mesons generated within the rods or the finally generated plasma?

    4. Is the Quadrupole affect described in his paper occurring with and affecting the observed plasma or is it occurring in gaps and small pockets within the rods

    5. Could he clarify a bit in an easy to follow way how the neutrons are transferred between atoms using Sigma Mesons.

    6. If I recall correctly the mass energy of the sigma Mesons are about 500 MeV. This is quite close to the mass energy of Kaons.

    6a. Could there be a resonance at this energy that could generate some relationship?
    6b. If so could this also relate in some way to Holmlids work and his apparent Kaon generation from UDH and UDD?
    6c. Could his theory bridge between Andrea Rossi’s observation and this made by Holmlid?
    6d. Kaon factories such as Delphi I think exploit a nucleon resonance to generate Phi 0 particles that decay to Kaons. I understand that Phi 0 has an energy of around 900 MeV. Could the process you mention play a role in this or be exploited by similar technology?

  • Stephen

    Hi Frank,

    Could you link Carl Oscar Gullstrom and Andrea Rossi’s papers here for reference?

  • Omega Z

    If by end users you mean in home use. Years is probably a good guess.

  • Chapman

    Fluctuations in the effective RANGE of the Strong Nuclear Force would result in much more than a few
    random and previously unanticipated nucleon exchanges between neighboring atoms. IF such fluctuations could occur, then they DO occur, and there is a whole level of atomic activity going on that we have simply overlooked.

    Extending the SNF would not simply result in a few random nucleons jumping ship from one atom to another, but would actually stimulate the wholesale merger of entire nuclei! It would cause an entirely unique form of fusion reaching far higher up the periodic table. Likewise, a reduction in the SNF range would result in accelerated, and in many cases spontaneous radioactive decay, not only in the upper reaches of the table, but there would also be observable decay of otherwise stable elements and isotopes far DOWN the table..

    The SNF is a Bull Mastiff on a short leash. Once nucleons fall within its range it binds them together with a force that even the incredibly dense EM repulsive potential between like charges at distances of nothing more than a protons diameter (and that is a heck of a strong push!) cannot overcome. Every atom, and every isotope on the periodic table has a precise character which is DEFINED by the exact, and CONSTANT, range of the SNF.

    So, MY question would be:
    Insofar as it is highly unlikely that a dramatic exception to the fundamental functions of one of the primary forces would potentially be naturally restricted to happening in only a single unique circumstance, and THAT being one that has gone unobserved throughout the admittedly brief, but none the less vigorous, history of the study of particle physics…
    (A) Aside from the theory’s proposed mechanism by which it accounts for the specific LENR reaction, is there any ESTABLISHED observational evidence of naturally occurring fissions, fusions, or secondary radiations that they theorize, or can demonstrate, is currently misunderstood and is ALSO a result of this previously unknown SNF variability?
    (B) And if so, how can they account for a far less rigid than previously understood SNF function still resulting in such a stable periodic table?
    (C) Would there not be an equal variability in the radioactivity of every isotope, and a noticeable variability in radioactive half-lives across the entire table?
    (D) How accurate is Carbon 14 dating, if half-lives are subject to such variability? (carbon 14 decay just being one example of how such variability would be highly visible in our everyday lives, and unlikely to be missed by our mainstream scientific institutions)

    • Stephen

      Unless you are a postman and there is an angry dog on the other side of the letter box 😉

  • Giorgio Vassallo

    @Carl-Oscar Gullström

    In your paper “Nucleon polarizability and long range strong force from σI=2 meson exchange potential”, I have noted an interesting point on the role of electron as “carrier of the nucleon”:

    “A less probable alternative to the long range potential is if the e-N coupling
    in the special EM field environment would create a strong enough binding to
    compare an electron with a full nuclide. In this hypothesis, no constraints on
    the target nuclide are set, and nucleon transition to excited states in the target
    nuclide should be possible.
    In other words these two views deals with the electrons role. One is as a
    carrier of the nucleon and the other is as a trigger for a long range potential
    of the nucleon”.

    Now, in the Iwamura experiment the CaO layer is hundreds of atomic layers far from the area near the surface where the atoms to be transmuted are deposited or implanted. Therefore, it is important to find a mechanism that explains the action at a distance and the role of CaO, the breaking of the Coulomb barrier and the usual absence of intense nuclear radiation typical of the LENR.

    An interesting hypothesis might arise from considering the formation of ultra-dense deuterium near the calcium oxide layer, where the high difference in work function between Pd and CaO favors the formation of a dense electron layer (SEL).

    Ultra-dense deuterium “atoms” are picometric structures, formed by a deuteron and an electron, that can easily migrate to the area where the nuclei to be transmuted (Cs or Sr) have been implanted. In this case the electrons can be seen as the “carriers” of the deuterons. A quite similar concept has been proposed by G. Bettini in the JONP paper “How can 30% of nickel in Rossi’s reactor be transmuted into copper?”

    This hypothesis seems to me more realistic than the hypothesis of formation of di-neutrons from a nuclear capture of the electron, considering that the neutron mass is much higher than the sum of proton and electron masses.
    Ultra-dense deuterium “mini-atoms”, having no charge but a relatively “long range” high magnetic momentum, according to this hypothesis, may be considered good candidates as the very cause of the transmutation of Cs in Pr and Sr in Mo.

    any comments ?