Low Radiation Fusion Through Bound Neutron Tunneling (Proposed LENR Theory by Carl-Oscar Gullström)

The following paper was submitted by Carl-Oscar Gullström who is a doctoral student in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Uppsala University, Sweden.

He writes, “I have managed to prove how the e-cat can work theoretically. If there’s any interest I have attached the theory here.”

Low radiation fusion through bound neutron tunneling

  • http://www.facebook.com/ian.walker.7140 Ian Walker

    Hi all

    According to forum posts that were discovered by Sifferkol, just now; one of Stephan Pomp’s, three arch sceptic co authors, appears to have switched sides and is now saying Rossi and Carl-Oscar Gullström will win next years Nobel prize! Hmm…

    Kind Regards walker

    • http://sifferkoll.se Sifferkoll®

      Unfortunately, not really… It seams that he was trying to be ironic… He however accepts the calculations but not the lack of radiation in the E-cat.

  • pelgrim108

    Etiam is talking about rydberg matter https://www.dropbox.com/s/46g0h84t93crjig/Etiam_oy_patenttihakemus.pdf
    and Axil Axil is talking about E-Cat maybe working with rydberg matter. I read from wikipedia that rydberg matter is contained by thermionic converters.
    Rossi has build thermionic converters in the past and still is interested in thermionic converters.
    For a thermionic converter you need a very hot electrode ( 1250 C).
    I can not see how this could work ( I am a layman). Im interested in your opinions on this.

  • Gerrit

    can such bound neutron tunneling be tested in a lab? Maybe Gullström could propose an experiment to test the idea.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Not a whole lot of a problem. However a device that consumes hydrogen would suggest a much lower running cost and a rather low environmental footprint over the life of the system.

    Having to CONSUME a metal certainly changes this game, and there is less “wonder” as a super cheap and clean source of energy. However as you well note since we are consuming the substance (nickel) at the atomic level, it likely not that we become short of nickel for some time.
    However we still less then ideal since we ARE consuming a substance that takes substantial effort to mine and refine. Hydrogen on the other had is plentiful and cheap (relative to nickel) and does not need to be mined and refined along with a huge industry (and worse that nickel tends to be traded on open commodity markets). You can get all the hydrogen you need from a cup of water. I doubt you can walk into your back yard and start finding and refining nickel!

    While there no reasonable source of hydrogen to run your car at the chemical level, if you consuming hydrogen at the atomic level you have super abundant and super cheap and super clean technology. And you can walk into your kitchen and grab a cup of water = your fuel.

    The fact that we now having to burn + consume nickel is simply “lessor” of an ideal here. You cannot possible think that having to consume nickel is a better choice then having to consume hydrogen? Sources of hydrogen are virtually EVERYWHERE on this planet and are yours for the taking. The nickel on the other hand not only needs a HUGE mining industry, but likely SPECIAL refining of that nickel.
    It much means you be beholden to the nickel industry not much different then you wanting to consume gold. It is EASY to control the nickel industry like diamonds or gold.

    If you come up with a way to dig up and refine nickel in your back yard that will work in these devices, then please do share your magic ability with everyone here!

    So this is not the end of the world, but I don’t think it takes a lot of imagination that we all would prefer these devices runs on hydrogen as opposed to running on nickel. In a way this issue is more an issue of independence and freedom based on what substance we will consume to create this energy. I don’t mind purchasing a product manufactured out of metal such as a pot to cook dinner for the next 15 years.

    However, I am LESS willing and less happy to purchase a device that consumes metal as it source of fuel as opposed to the miracle of fusion that powers the sun based on consuming a one of the most abundant substances known to man (hydrogen).

    Regards,
    Albert k

  • http://sifferkoll.se Sifferkoll®

    It might not be a coincidence that Gullström is working in the same department as professor Bo Höistad of the ITRPs. Anyhow, this is a really good sign.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    The neutrons are stripped from one nucleus and captured by a second nucleus. They do not have to be generated, as in Widom-Larsen theory, where they result from electron capture by a proton (aka inverse beta decay). The “temporary neutralization” you mention is still another process, where the electron of a hydrogen atom “screens” or “shields” the charge of the proton, so that the resulting “virtual neutron” can penetrate into the target nucleus.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I do not think it is an issue of right or wrong, as long as his theory is solid.
    If his work is not flawed then it is a good theory and makes quantum low radiation fusion theoretically possible. This theory provides a credential which LENR had previously lacked.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      „Theories do not have to be correct, they only need to be predictive.”

      This would apply to hypotheses such as “If I rub two sticks together, I will get smoke and flames, because I have attracted the attention of the God of Fire”. But science is looking both for correct predictions and correct explanations.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    In plain English?

    Well, the BAD part is this theory suggests that nickel is the fuel and NOT hydrogen. The result is we are not thus consuming hydrogen to create energy, but in fact consuming Nickel as an atomic fuel. (hydrogen is one of the most common substances).

    This could MUCH suggest that nickel will become far more valuable then previously realized or suggested. I am still “happy” for this reactor, but am MUCH saddened that it looks MORE like we are NOT consuming nor are we converting hydrogen at the atomic level into energy. But this does explain that this reactor is thus NOT fusion.

    Up to this point, MOST if not ALL of the LENR theory was based on gas loading of a metal lattice. As noted, the “test” of gases did not occur during or after this test since any hydrogen (and hopefully the resulting helium) would escape from the small reactor when opened to remove materials. And if helium was being produced, it should build up inside of the pipe and start to shut down the reactor. The test shows no tapering off of output energy, and thus again this suggests energy from this system does NOT come from the gas(s), but from nickel being consumed.

    In fact I much question if hydrogen is required for this reactor at all here?
    This also means nickel used in this process cannot be re-processed to be used again.

    This is not all bad, but I am willing to wait for additional theories – ones that “hopefully” suggest that the energy being realized here is from the hydrogen and not the nickel.

    I am “ok” with metal being consumed here, but this now suggests that we are going to consume nickel as the fuel and NOT hydrogen as a fuel.

    Regards,
    Albert k.

  • Mats002

    I wish I was able to peer review Carl-Oscars work, but I lack the education needed. However I am glad to finally see that some tax money go into this area of science and that some administrator at the university promote this work. I look forward too see live open peer review of this and other paper. Looks solid to me. Keep up the good work!

  • Daniel Maris

    Carl-Oscar Gullström is a doctoral student in the Department of Astronomy and
    Nuclear Physics at Uppsala University, in case anyone’s interested…so not someone who’s just googled this stuff.

  • Daniel Maris

    Read the abstract at the beginning – but don’t expect to be much the wiser…(unless you’re a physicist).

    • bachcole

      So, what is “bound neutron tunnelling”? I got the “neutron” part and the “tunnelling” part. But all together I am not sure I understand, but I will take a crack at it. A proton gets cozy with an electron and forms a “bound neutron”, and the bound neutron sneaks past the Coolomb barrier.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Neutrons are not affected by the Coulomb barrier, since they have no charge. But if they are connected to a (charged) proton, they cannot move freely through or into the barrier because the proton will be repulsed. That’s why some tunnelling – a kind of ‘trick’ which reduces the repulsive effect – is required.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I think “bound neutron tunnelling” means that a neutron which is bound to a nucleus (e.g. Li7) moves to another nucleus (e.g. Ni60). There is no Coulomb barrier, but instead a strong interaction potential barrier which tries to keep the neutron attached to its original nucleus.

        It looks to me that the paper is an attempt to look into a particular class of reactions. It falls short of “proving how the E-cat can work theoretically”. The presented calculations are perhaps interesting, but they remain loose-ended and no explanation is provided to why LENR occurs in the E-cat but does not occur in ordinary lump of matter. I was able to understand only part of the text. The English should be improved to make people read the paper properly.

        • Ted-X

          Pekka,
          Could you please comment on the possibility of LENR happening as a neutron exchange between two metastable nuclei? The energy to go back to a non-excited nuclei is in the range of UV-light, x-ray to soft-gamma range (mostly). But… the neutrons in the metastable nuclei are considered to be in shells, relatively distant from the remaining proton-neutron couples in the center of the atom. Gullstrom theory might be related to the collision of metastable nuclei. Note that some nuclei have strong affinity to neutrons, such as Xenon-135: 2,000,000 barns cross section to capture a neutron.
          Please comment what do you think about this.
          Ted

  • winebuff67

    Finally someone spends their time hypothesizing instead of trying to deny.

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Andreas Moraitis

    I’m not sure if I would call this type of reaction “fusion”. If I understood it correctly, the nuclei have to tunnel only partially through the Coulomb barrier, so that they come close enough together that the neutrons can be stripped off. But since neutrons themselves are ‘invisible’ for the barrier, no tunnelling is required from this point. What I would like to know is in what way the second stage of the process – when the stripped neutron is captured by the other nucleus – is different from a ‘normal’ neutron capture (e.g. of a thermal neutron).

  • Freethinker

    Carl-Oscar,

    I appreciate your effort.

    Just one question. Are you completely sure that the WBK approximation for the transmission coefficient is valid in the environment where these reactions are supposed to take place?

  • Andreas Moraitis
  • Obvious

    My first pass comment is that the author calculates 2g of (natural isotope) nickel were consumed in the test, while it is reported that only one gram was used. That is a significant departure from the empirical results. I’ll have to read this over again after some more coffee.