Collective Neutron Reduction Model for Neutron Transfer Reaction (New Paper by Carl-Oscar Gullström)

Last month we published here a paper by Carl-Oscar Gullström, a doctoral student in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Uppsala University, Sweden titled “Low radiation fusion through bound neutron tunneling” which attempted to provide a theoretical model for the E-Cat Reaction.

Today, Carl-Oscar submitted a new paper titled “Collective neutron reduction model for neutron transfer reaction” and prefaced it with these remarks:

So I have improved the neutron transfer theory. In my first attempt the radiation was still a bit high but it is solved now. The trick is to not have high energy protons to drag out the neutrons but instead neutrons that are so low in energy that they can’t enter the nucleon but at the same time they could drag out more neutrons. If it is of interest I attached a document with some simple calculations.

Collective Neutron Reduction Model for Neutron Transfer Reaction

  • LilyLover

    This paper is good for Carl-Oscar’s PhD. Again – good for PhD. May he get a good job. And then, shut-up. Or help the Galileos of the world. ‘Me PhD – me want free food’ is less acceptable to me than, ‘me exist- me want free food’.

    If you remember the ‘Fantastic Voyage’, think of the syringe with two or more needles as opposed to one – and attempts to establish the equations for probability of exit through one of them. That is analogous to this paper. Rossi, Mills and the other doer’s work involves developing
    navigation systems or forming vortices so that exit happens only through the desired needle.

    To cause is different from proposing probability of an improbable premise.

    The days of proposing simple random hypotheses and evaluating them for ‘if true’ scenarios to come up with the ‘pair of scenario and solution’ are over. Easy pairing is already done. Unless, new truth is being described, the attempts of discovery of new truth through the acausal hypothesis testing is antilogical. But then again, if you explain two opposing views for the reasons explainin ups or downs in stock market, one is bound to be plausible. Similarly, if you explain thousand reason everyday, no one can really figure out those by the end of the day to simply begin the testing anew each day!

    The tunneling probability games with ground state and various mechanisms explained by many ivory tower workers are analogous to following analogy, hence practically meaningless:
    A frog advances 1 foot a day. Although that is observable behavior, the reality is thus – in a time frame uncapturable on the video camera, once every night, the frog jumps backward 2 feet and jumps forward 3. But on every leap year night, the frog jumps 2 feet backwards and 2 feet forwards every second in between the frame rate change so as to be uncaptured on camera, except on one occasion when it jumps backward 2 feet and jumps forward 3 resulting in similar day to day behavior. There exists a magic treadmill that generates energy with every backward jump. This energy must be real and appreciably larger on the leap year night. Since the energy cannot be generated or annihilated and therefore the virtual conjugate of the forward jump energy must be captured by another treadmill in any other format like – strong-force forward displacement energy. Therefore, we must set up equations that maintain the absolute (value) probability ratios of 1:1 for the forward jump energy and backward jump energy. Note: we are not proposing nonsensical 2X energy out of nothing; rather, sensibly, we are proposing, -x+x=0 therefor , |-x|/x=1:1. In experimental setting, when we construct a real treadmill for energy capture of the backward jump, this must yield in overall reduction in entropy based on our
    probabilistic analysis while producing real energy.

    To make the above concept probabilistically real in the real world, we invoke, ignore the conjecture principle of perceived reality of something probably correct a few times is always correct all the time as long as you ignore the times, when it is incorrect, and as long as you do not insist on integrating over time to find resultant outcome. If someone points this out – simply devise an experiment as large as Hadron Collider and get parties invested in a project which by virtue of investment creates ambience for the hopeful desired outcome. Later, when things don’t pan out, introduce a ‘missed’ variable that needs to be studied further.

    If you still don’t understand what I said above, consider a simple case of ‘A selling object X to B’ for $x.
    A, X ↔ B,x ≡ A,x ↔ B,X
    ≡ A,x-1+1↔ B,X
    ≡ A,x-5+5↔ B,X
    Now, say,+5 represents the dollar amount that A has acquired in the process of selling the object, this must come from the -5 that A must have promised to pay B or the acquired debt of +5. If the debt does not need to be paid for a long time, it can be assumed that for short term +5 was the wealth creation with 50% probability, and since the equal amount of debt is created it must be 50% of the probability. If this can be done hundred times in a day but repayment is set to be met asymptotically, the daily wealth generated is 50% (100) = 50.
    Although, it can be said to be equivalent of 100%(50) = 50.

    Hence, an economical engine with 50% efficiency is able to generate wealth of 50x, for a specific case of x=1, from the above transaction. If the above is repeated for x=1 to x=n, it would be generic principle of wealth generation of xn magnitude with n transactions of x magnitude. Adjusting for various probabilities that are function of evaluation criteria range of my mood, if the veracity is mathematically correct for certain instances, the claims can be made for all instances for which we claim further studies are needed and burden of proof is shifted onto other party or accepted with a substantial investment from the other party.

    Thus from this generic theory of probabilistic bamboozlement, you may develop multitude of mechanisms of operation or explanations of specific cases to justify charging your ‘consultation fees’. Sheep will pay – and if unhappy, will want to take the fee back. The key lies in spending to the bankruptcy so you can never repay even after the sheep wizens up.

    Well, have a wonderful day!!

    Welcome to the future of Ivory Tower, which hopes its continued existence with |p(300%)| after the people begin to read and write. Popeye’s authority is safe for a few more years. Only a few, nonetheless.

    • Job001

      Obviously, “Black box” models may work without resembling reality. Gravity has been known in practical terms and variables for a couple of hundred years without the accompanied knowledge of “Why” also, and yet we go about using it.
      Some philosophers argue that all models are “Black box models”. That science models resemble “Black box models” does not excuse insisting on a past observationally invalid models(i.e. Hot fusion bad assumptions for CF) for mainly “Funding biased” reasons as was done historically to cold fusion.
      Otherwise, I liked your wordy math based cynical skepticism.

  • Job001

    After reading the report a few times, a layman’s analogy might be;

    A mechanism of low energy neutron stimulated coulomb barrier tunneling proposes a mechanism matching LENR non-radioactive observations better then did the original physicists CF model which assumed high energy particle blasting OVER the coulomb barrier and thus resulting in strong gamma ray radiation.

    Similarly, a tunnel through a mountain does not waste lots of your car’s energy going up and back down.

    In summary low energy neutrons in, medium energy neutrons out for net energy gain without gamma radiation loss. Disclaimer;this layman’s analogy is meant to reflect a visual energy view, not a physicists model nor a challenge to the profession. Overall, I rather like Carl-Oscar Gullström’s fairly simple model and paper.

    • Gerard McEk

      So, where do these slow neutrons come from? Can I presume that the formation of these is described in the previous paper? If so, doe we than have a(nother) plausible theory for LENR?

      • Job001

        His report shows a few equations which produce slow neutrons, which is nice. One does not have to believe in magic since a variety of explanations exist to fuel debate for years to come.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        The neutrons are transferred from one nucleus to another nucleus. Therefore, they must not be created on demand, as in Widom-Larsen’s model. The new thought seems to be that the neutrons can be transferred without having enough time to exchange energy with the environment.

        • Gerard McEk

          I indeed would welcome Carl-Oscar Gullström in our discussions and that he would better explain his theory, also to non physicists like I am.

  • pg

    from Andrea Rossi onJONP:

    Daniele Passerini (blogger of “22 Passi”)
    You asked me few days ago about why some of our commercial Licensees have cancelled their websites. The reason is that we decided to offer to all our commercial Licensees to buy back their licence at a price, obviously, superior to the price they paid for it. Some of our Licensees have accepted our proposal and sold us back their license.
    The details of the agreements are covered by NDA ( Non Disclosure Agreement).
    We maintained with our former Licensees a friendly and collaborative relationship, open to the possibility of future collaboration upon specific issues.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • bachcole

    I will wait for the Collective Neutron Reduction Model for Neutron Transfer Reaction for Dummies version.

    • pg

      I think I ll watch the movie

  • tombuktu

    Hi,
    I have never been good in physics, but the last passage of the paper remembers me to the theory of Blacklight Power / Mills where they claim to produce Hydrinos, H-atoms with an electron below the ground state.

    Gullstöm says: “If they enter below the ground state they will loose energy until they hit the bottom of the potential or is transmitted to another state.”

    thomas

    • Andreas Moraitis

      It’s different. Gullström is talking about neutrons and protons (which can be parts of a nucleus), Mills’ theory is about the electron in hydrogen atoms.

      • tombuktu

        OK, thank you

  • Andreas Moraitis

    It looks as if he frequently mixes up „nucleons“ and „nuclei“. Or do I misunderstand something?

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Tried to read it, but didn’t understand anything. Perhaps there is something to it, but the author should strive to express his ideas more clearly.