Carl-Oscar Gullström Presentation Video (Update: Paper Now Published)

Update: The paper presented by Carl-Oscar Gullstrom has now been published on the Journal of Nuclear Physics here:

The presentation of Carl-Oscar Gullstrom at the November 24 E-Cat QX presentation, which was omitted from the official early videos released on the official Ecat YouTube channel has now been published as a separate video.

The link is here:

  • orsobubu


    (a joke in italian, I could not resist)

  • Alan DeAngelis

    LiAlD4 is commercially available. Could the following
    reaction take place by this theory?

    Better yet, lithium-6 deuteride is commercially available.

    We should give it a try.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Eureka! He has the answer! But just how optimized do we want this thing to be?

  • Axil Axil

    Notice no mention of fusion. Where did this special meson type come from. How was it created?

  • Engineer48

    Hi Zephir, who wrote:
    “This implies that the plasma has an equal amount of positive ions flying in the direction of the current and negative ions(electrons) in the opposite direction.”

    My simple theory, which ties into your statement:

    Consider 2 x 0.08mm dia electrodes, 0.25mm long, seperated by say a 0.1mm gap. 0.6mm overall length. One electrode Ni and one say SS. Seal both electrodes in a H2 filled high temp transparent tube.

    Apply -1kv to the Ni electrode and +1kv to the SS electrode for a short time, say 10us.

    Plasma forms between the electrodes, disassociating localised H2 into 2 x H+ protons & 2 x electrons.

    Protons are driven by the 2kv electrical potential to the negative Ni electrode, while electrons are driven to the positive SS electrode.

    Protons arrive at the Ni surface with some KE and are driven into the Ni matrix, initiating a LENR reaction.

    Electron and proton movements also create an electrical potential between the electrodes generating a back EMF, flowing current and energy out of the reactor after the plasma ignition pulse ends. Ni with H+ ions is positive and SS with electrons is negative, which generates a back EMF that we see as the +100mv DC level with a +-100MV AC signal imposed on it.

    QX control circuits monitor the self generated electrical output as an indication of reaction strength. When the reaction slows, as H+ protons are consumed, self generated voltage drops until at some point the control circuit generates another plasma ignition pulse, increasing the supply of H+ protons, increasing LENR reaction strength.

    Frpm the scope images it is clear there are many ignition pulses, spikes on the scope that continue until the control circuit decides to stop the reaction for a few seconds.

    This video is important to seeing the plasma state exists between the clicking large input pulses that either ignite the plasma or terminate it.

    As this video clearly shows the plasma existing long term, it also explains why we see the feedback waveform between the clicking large input pulses.

    • 🙂

    • Axil Axil

      I saw large negative voltage pulses on the scope. Did you miss those?

    • Thomas Kaminski

      I don’t quite see your observation that: “From the scope images it is clear there are many ignition pulses, spikes on the scope that continue until the control circuit decides to stop the reaction for a few seconds.” What I see is a regular waveform that looks like a beat between two sinusoids over which is overlaid a more random pair of pulses, one plus and one negative. In my view, the ignition pulse is at the start of the emission and is quite a bit larger.

    • Stephen Harrison

      I think this post by Alan Smith ties in with what you have said above.

  • Axil Axil

    What Rossi is saying is that LENR is extracting energy from protons and neutrons using a special EMF stimulation ( quadriple). This nucleon polarizability involves spin.

    Rossi’s theory is too narrow and is addressing only what goes on in the Lugano and QX reactors. There are many more types of LENR that the theory must cover that this Rossi theory is not addressing.

    But on the other hand, amazingly, it is close to correct. The basics are valid. LENR energy comes from protons and neutrons catalyzed by magnetic fields where spin is affected.

    Rossi’s theory does not provide a means from large amounts of nuclear level high energy to be transferred from subatomic particles to low grade heat.

  • Axil Axil

    I speculate from a feeling I got from lisening to Fabiani, who said the the compound sign signal was a safety measure and Rossi shut him up fast.

    That continuing signal in action for 3/7 of the cycle in length might be a reaction suppression measure that keeps the reaction from going out of control after it is initiated by the initial high voltage arc activation signal.

    That 3/7 signal might cut the top off the power curve by dampening it to stabilize the reaction so a meltdown is eliminated. Think of it as a control rod that keep the reaction under control. After the 3/7 point in the cycle, the power profile of the reaction output begins to fall and no longer requires suppression.

    The control box heat could come from a power feedback current from the reaction when the reaction is near the peak of its power production. The suppression signal must be maintained and the power feedback signal must be dissipated by an internal circuit in the control box. The interface circuit must be maintained to suppress the reaction so it cannot be cut to avoid power feedback. Heat carried by the feedback current must therefore be dissipated as heat.

    Such a feedback condition was seen in the Papp engine where the feedback produced power to ignite the next cylinder firing.

    There was a control circuit that stored that feedback power so that it could be used in the next ignition step.

    It is my guess that Rossi does not have the circuit design know how to store the feedback current and at the same time suppress the reaction via the 3/7 signal.

    Let us get into the head of Rossi. If the 3/7 input signal produced an activation of the LENR reaction, Rossi would never reveal that secret to the competition. If that input signal dampens the LENR reaction, Rossi would feel that this signal is safe to reveal because if the competition used it, the reaction would fail and the competition would wonder why things were going wrong. Only if the competition had a full scale hard to control LENR reaction going would the input signal be of any value if meltdown prevention were to be performed.

    • Gerard McEk

      The reactor is switched on with a positive pulse and switched off with a negative pulse. While on, you see smaller positive peaks. I do not see any sign of energy feed-back, unless you mean the waveform on top of the DC current. Is that what you mean? Question is: would the LENR reaction be able to generate an approx. 100 kHz feed-back current? I have no idea how that would be generated.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Maybe there is an acoustic resonance that modulates the charge distribution. 100 kHz would seem possible at that tiny size.

        • Gerard McEk

          A very good suggestion Andreas, Thanks!

      • Axil Axil

        I beleive I see high voltage spikes that are interspersed randomly within the compound sine wave input. The sine wave input could be inducing the relaxation of the ionization of the plasma so that the next cycle can be triggered without plasma ionization interfering with the activation signal for the next 8 second cycle. If the high voltage spikes where part of the input signal, then the timing of the spikes would be regular rather than random.

    • LENR4you

      The QX could be a elektron source. With a diode in one wire you can’t see this extra current over the 1R shunt. The electrons flow the other wire back to Earth. It charges up like a storm cloud. Rossi have to discharge it and there are maybe the overheating effects coming from.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Plasma is always quasineutral (otherwise it wouldn’t even be plasma, by definition). Quasineutrality does not imply that the ion and electron currents would be equal. You can have for example an electron beam going through a cloud of cold ions that provides charge neutralisation for the beam. In such case, electrons carry all or nearly all the current. In fact, I do not recall seeing a system where ion and electron current densities would be equal. Usually the electron one is stronger because electrons fly faster at a given energy. A strong enough perpendicular magnetic field can, however, prevent the electrons from moving so that opposite cases (dominantly ionic currents) are also possible.

  • Stephen

    Hmmm looks like I’m going have to go upstairs and dust off some of my old physics books. Even then it’s going to take me years to catch up I think😉.

    But that was a very good presentation. It’s
    obvious that Carl has a rare combination of talents the vision and the ability to do and understand the hard work and the maths. We are getting there I think.

    Right now I get the impression he is satisfied with his concept but is diligently doing the hard work of working through the details of the maths and theory. It’s deep and thourgh work.

    Let’s see where it goes but if this works out I’m thoroughly impressed.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Too many flybys for this feeble mind but just because it’s easy to do, use deuterium with a spin of 1+ instead of protium.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I don’t know if this May 15,1989 letter to C&E News is useful
    but it mentions conduction band electrons. Could they come into play in this

    “….From the media accounts, the Pons and Fleischmann
    experiment appeared to have been motivated by the speculation that since
    electrons in a conduction band move collectively, it is possible for a
    conduction-band electron to act as if it were much more massive than a free
    electron. Thus, if there is a dislocation in the matrix of palladium ions, a
    site at which occupancy by two deuterium ions is marginally possible, an
    electron between these two deuterium ions might, by virtue of is effectively
    greater mass, bring them close enough for fusion to occur. The contradiction
    between the observed large heat release and the very small neutron yield may be
    explained by making the further assumption that catalyzed cold fusion is a
    different process from thermal fusion. In thermal deuterium-deuterium fusion
    the 4He nuclei is an extremely short-lived intermediate; the two deuterons come
    together with both the energy of the reaction and the thermal energy needed to
    overcome the coulombic barrier. This thermal energy brings with it considerable
    angular momentum. Since the 4He nuclei is isolated, the only ways in which it
    can dispose of the excess energy and angular momentum are by decomposition to
    3He + n and to T + H. In catalyzed cold fusion, however, the situation is quite
    different. The 4He nucleus is formed without significant angular momentum or
    thermal energy and is not isolated in that the electron which catalyzed the
    fusion event is available to remove excess energy.

    Thus one possible explanation for the production of heat without corresponding
    neutron production is that when fusion is catalyzed by conduction-band
    electrons in palladium the dominant reaction is to 4He, with 3He + n and T + H
    only minor side reactions….”

    Richard K. Lyon May 15, 1989 letter to C&E News

  • This is a very interesting presentation by Carl-Oscar Gullstrom but I wonder what Dr Yogendra Srivastava would have made of it.

    In 2012, Dr Srivastava was invited by CERN to give this presentation:

    – which I commend everyone to watch. Before or after that, you should also read this background paper:

    – whose title says it all: “A Primer for Electro-Weak Induced Low Energy Nuclear Reactions”. Note that the other co-authors are Widom and Larsen.

    As you watch and read the above, you should experience a great many deja vu’s, including those concerning EVO’s or CC’s and high voltage discharges, the work of Rossi, Godes and Mills and the much older work that Bob Greenyer has recently dusted off, and which clearly needs to be re-visited in the light of all we know now.

  • – Well spotted and very timely! It’s always good to have completely independent confirmation of any measurements or observations. Here, they confirm gammas during thunderstorms and Dr Srivastava noted that neutrons had been detected in thunderstorms in earlier work.

    No doubt both ultimately produced transmutations, although that “smoking gun” evidence has not yet been observationally confirmed (as far as I understand). But I’m sure that will come soon.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Good find. On page 2 of his pdf, Gullström writes:

    “No strong magnets are found in nature. (on the surface of earth)

    Control current to enhance special strong directed magnetism in metals not found in nature.

    Control electrons to enhance special strong directed nucleon-nucleon force not found in nature.”

    The only exception that came into my mind was…lightning.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Differences are, however, the involvement of gamma rays and the absence of metals. But non-metals get conductive when ionized, and maybe the gammas are rather a by-product than the decisive factor.

    • Axil Axil

      Strong magnetism is produced by nanoparticles. These particles are the cause of the LENR reaction. The spin of Photons are transformed into monopole magnetic field lines that disrupt quarks by adding to their spin in protons and neutrons.

  • sam

    Andrea Rossi
    November 28, 2017 at 4:34 AM
    Dear Readers:
    Today has been published on the Journal of Nuclear Physics the complete text of the lecture of Carl-Oscar Gullstroem that has been presented in Stockolm on November 24 in the IVA.
    Warm Regards,

  • Axil Axil

    Axil’s theory

    In a nutshell, I believe that the thrust of Rossi’s theory is going in the right direction, that is, disruption of the quarks in protons and neutrons produce transmutation and energy release. But the details in Rossi’s theory are both not correct and not complete. At the bottom of the cause of LENR is a Quark transformation reaction produced by magnetic field lines that increase the energy/mass of the quark causing them to change flavors. Monopole magnetism causes quarks to increase in energy/mass by adding to the spin of the quark. The quarks in the protons and neutrons are transformed into strange and charm quarks that produce mesons (Kaons) that then decay into pions and muons and eventually electrons. The mechanism of monopole magnetic field line production is produced by entangled nanoparticles that condense from metal vapor in a seven second cycle produced by the plasma in Rossi’s QX and metalized hydrogen in Holmlid’s reaction

  • Alan DeAngelis

    H(-) hydride + (+) electron-hole > H(-)(+) rossion, (an exciton)

    4 H(-)(+) (rossion) > 4[H(-)(+)] (Bose gas) > He(4) (helium) + 2 e+(positions)

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I think it would be important to see if this theory could be used to explain the Mitsubishi transmutations. Even numbers of deuterons are reacting with pure isotopes and the products are well characterized (a full analytical package with no guessing).

  • Engineer48

    Slides 36 & 38 are a mind blow.

    Positive ion current in the plasma that will:

    1) generates electrical output,
    2) The KE difference is the COP!
    3) The differential KE will generate THRUST.

    Rossi has mentioned all 3 effects and how the curtain is draw back enough to describe how it all relates.

    • Engineer48

      Paper states QX plasma is composed of Li and H ions. Power is generated when there are more +ions than -ions. COP is KE of +ions/KE of -ions.

      States the missing radiation energy is converted into KE, ie the QX generates thrust without expelling mass. Yes that can happen as it does in the EmDrive.

      The higher the ion KE differential, the higher the COP and the higher the thrust

      • Stephen

        Thanks Engineer48, My main curiosity was trying to link this observation with the underlying LENR process I was also originally thinking along the lines it’s producing more +ions than -ions but then got confused by the fact he talks about KE and in particular the statements in last 3 bullet points on the first slide above.

        I’m far from getting to grips with the sigma meson yet especially in this particular application under those particular conditions and how it mediates a transfer of KE to the ions but I’m really intrigued by it. I’m curious enough to try but I guess it’s going to take me a while.

    • Stephen

      Since COP is apparently related to the ratio of positive ions KE to negative ions KE.

      If I’m not wrong… It implies that positive ions have an independent source of KE than EM and normal thermal acceleration that would affect both positive and negative ions equally.

      It also implies that that KE source originates from the LENR process and that process generates high KE positive ions only and not high KE negative ones.

      On the other hand he mentions that as it’s a neutral plasma and the speeds of the negative and positive ions are equal. And the COP is due to the ratio of the positive and negative ion masses

      Is that right ? Or wouldn’t they just have equal momentum… then the velocities of the electrons would be higher than the ions?

      I missed something I guess.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Stephen

        As I read it, an electron comes between a proton and the positive ions nucleus, disrupting the strong force, then the proton to proton repulsion ejects that proton from the nucleus, thus releasing stored potential energy as kinetic.

        As the positive ions are naked nucleus, ie no orbital electrons, the mass of these nucleus is many times greater than the electrons. Therefore as both ions have the same velocity, the much more massive positive ions have much more momentum.

        The ejection of a proton from the nucleus causes both the nucleus and the ejected proton to undergo an increase in KE due to the stored potential energy being turned into KE. CofM and CofE as well as Newton 3 are obeyed.

        The ejected proton then becomes another H+ ion.

        Seems the total +ion mass remains constant but the +ion KE increases.

        • Stephen

          Thanks Engineer48. Tough to get ones mind around. But I will try.

          Clearly Carl is a very smart physicist with a good understanding of nuclear states their carriers and how to engage them and very importantantly is able do the maths to prove it. I have to say that it’s really good to see this capability applied here. We are all fortunate for this we need people of his capability thinking about LENR. I hope his theory comes through… Then I wonder what else he will come up with.

  • Eyedoc

    Why does it say “34 Comments” up top ( right below the page title), but only 6 are showing here (This makes 7)……by the way this is a really interesting theory, hope it holds up 😉

  • Engineer48

    As I see it now the Gullstroem theory suggests:

    1) The Rossi effect is aneutronic fission that disrupts the strong force bewteen the nucleus and a proton, resulting in that proton being ejected from the nucleus with a KE energy gain. This kicks the Ni nucleus, resulting in heating of the Ni matrix.

    2) The ejected proton, H+ ion, enters the plasma between the Ni wires and generates a current flow back to the control circuits.

    Gullstroem estimates there are between 10^12 to 10^15 such reactions per second, with the ejected proton having an energy of around 1MeV.

    From the demo we saw the QX release 20W of thermal energy and around 30 W of electrical energy based on 0.1A flow through the 1 ohm resistor at 325Vdc being the min voltage needed to sustain a Hydrogen plasma.

    The ejection of an energetic proton was observed by Piantelli, which supports the Gullstroem theory as does the ion generated current flow.

    So it seems Rossi may have developed an aneutronic fission reactor with 40% thermal output and 60% direct electrical output.


  • Alan DeAngelis

    I’m still thinking that the protons could be from the following coupled
    chain reactions.

    “The MeV alphas, He(4) from the classical lithium reaction we’ve been
    talking about could be used to initiate this other well known classical
    transmutation of aluminum into silicon and a MeV proton.

    Al(27) + He(4) > Si(30) + H(1) 2.3722 MeV

    Then this MeV proton, H(1) could be used to trigger the original lithium, Li(7)
    to helium He(4) reaction.

    H(1) + Li(7) > 2 He(4) 17.3 MeV

    These coupled reactions could keep cycling. This could explain the
    disappearance of aluminum in the fuel and the formation of silicon in the ash…”

  • Engineer48

    Gullstrom did present experimental data showing Isotopic shifts and where they believed the Protons and Neutrons came from.

    Shifts from adding and losing Protons and from adding and losing Neutrons were observed.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      But Li(7) > He(6) + p requires -9.975 MeV

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Pardon me, I should say:

        Li(7) > He(6) + p -9.975 MeV

        The reaction requires 9.975 MeV to take place.


        Al(27) + p > Si(28) 11.5855 MeV

        So, it would give off a 11.6 MeV gamma ray.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      And “ …Above this rate 511 keV γ rays from positron annihilation should be at background level.”

      OK then, there can be positrons. It’s time for me to go nuts again.

      Heating the core of the E-Cat creates infrared photons that in turn will create electron “holes”, (+).

      The “holes” react with hydride, H(-) to form an exciton, H(-)(+), a rossion.

      The rossions form a Bose-Einstein condensation of excitons (rossions) in the NAE where they can aggregate and then undergo positron emission.

      For example:

      2 H(-)(+) (a rossion) > 2[H(-)(+)](Bose gas) > H(2) deuteron + e+ (a positron)

      4 H(-)(+) (a rossion) > 4[H(-)(+)](Bose gas) > He(4) helium + 2 e+

      6 H(-)(+) (a rossion) > 3[H(-)(+)](Bose gas) > Li(6) + 3 e+

      62 H(-)(+) (a rossion) > 62[H(-)(+)](Bose gas) > Ni(62) + 34 e+

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.