Posted on 07/10/2013 3:57:15 PM PDT by Kevmo
Professor Bo Höistad Answers Critics July 8, 2013
Following the negative critique given to the Levi HotCat paper, the Italian magazine, IB Times, conducted an interview with Bo Höistad, one of the seven members of the test team and signatory to the paper. This is an appropriate choice because Ericsson and Pomp are Nuclear physicists at Uppsala. As a peer at the same establishment, Höistad is understandably miffed at the criticism and takes a pot-shot at them in return for their unprofessional attack. I have some sympathy for this. While they made some valid points it was obvious that their own paper was full of non-scientific observations reflecting their determination to find fault.
There is little new information but it is interesting to see Höistad come out fighting and standing by their findings. He does confirm that one of Rossi’s technicians started the eCat but otherwise he and Rossi left them to it. One other interesting snippet is that it is true that they did not get to see Rossi’s surgery to remove the’fuel’ but in his opinion this did not effect their conclusions because the results were in excess of ‘any’ known chemical fuel.
The article is here and the following is a Google translation:
There is no peace for Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat. The publication of the now famous independent third-party testing on the E-Cat high temperature seemed to represent a turning point in the story starring the Italian engineer and his creature, which promises to revolutionize the world of energy.
But even the new test came in the middle of strong controversy, carried out by an article made by Professors Goran Ericsson and Stephan Pomp, nuclear physicists at the University of Uppsala, which is highly critical of the test and puts openly questioned the results.
The criticism of Ericsson and Pomp – Published on arxiv.org , the platform of Cornell University on which they were made public also test the E-Cat, in their report Ericsson Pomp and question the real independence of the testers noting that some of them had already participated in previous demonstrations organized by engineer Rossi. Is also criticized their own qualifications to perform these tests because they do not have adequate preparation for the test to “black box.”
Ericsson Pomp and wonder how testers can be assured that inside the reactor there is nickel and hydrogen if they have not been able to open.
Furthermore, the same reference to “trade secrets” about the “fuel” the reactor brings down a veil of shadow over into the real operation of the reactor itself overshadowing the possibility that it could be used a second source of energy.
This accusation stems from the fact that Ericsson Pomp and do not share the choice to perform the tests in the laboratories Leonardo Corporation made available by engineer Rossi. The two scientists also point out that in both tests the reactors were put into operation by authorized personnel by engineer Rossi and not by testers themselves.
Regarding the measurements, according to Ericsson and Pomp, the December test must be invalidated because no data have been reported on emissivity. For the test in March, the two critics claim to have been able, through the COSMOL (a simulation tool used in physics) to replicate the same results without the involvement of any abnormal heat. The two critics consider that there is no data were provided on the reactor outlet (“dummy”).
Test indipendente Independent test
The conclusions of the report of Ericsson and Pomp were harsh: accuse their colleagues have done prevail their hopes on the scientific rigor and, based on all the observations reported prior, express the conviction that no truly independent test was performed on the E -Cat. Ericcson Pomp and therefore conclude that neither the test published on Arxiv or elsewhere has never been proven to be a “abnormal production of energy.”
The answer of Professor Bo Höistad – This is clearly a very heavy report in which, not only doubt is cast on the operation of the E-Cat, but also the reliability of the same scientists who have carried out two tests in December 2012 and March 2013 so as to explicitly accuse them of having followed a typical method of “pseudo-science”, that is to be skipped to extraordinary conclusions without first having sought explanations in traditional physics.
We therefore decided to contact Professor Bo Höistad, a nuclear physicist and professor at the University of Uppsala and one of the authors of the famous independent testing, to allow it to replicate and to explain its position on the target of criticism by Ericsson and Pomp.
IBTimes: Dear Professor Höistad, Ericsson Pomp and bring into question the independence of the tester, especially Professor Levi and Petterson. How do you respond to this charge?
Bo Höistad: First, let me point out that the article of Pomp and Ericsson is written with a provision very negative towards Rossi and tried to find all the possible arguments to support their idea that Rossi there is cheating. As a result they are very critical about our results tentatively positive. Their paper, instead of directly discuss our findings in a scientific manner, focuses on a number circumstantial issues that have no relevance to the primary outcome ie if our results are correct within the errors estimated. For most of us give different statements that are false. Also there are many deliberate omissions, unwarranted opinions and false claims. Finally, their article is written in a polemical style tended to insult and ridicule rather than bring clarity to a complex scientific controversy.
On the question of independence, is an obvious contradiction that the result of our measurements may be rejected only because one of our authors (Levi) and Rossi know. Our result should be judged on scientific grounds and not on the basis of insignificant relationships.
IBTimes: In the report of Ericsson Pomp and it is also said that neither she nor the other authors of the study have the appropriate skills to carry out a test “black-box”. Is that so?
Bo Höistad: How researchers in experimental physics, chemistry and radiology with a long experience in advanced techniques of high precision our expertise is evident. It should be noted that both Ericsson Pomp that are nuclear physicists, while our group includes a much broader field of science.
IBTimes: We come to criticism “technical”, the fact that the tests were carried out in the laboratories of Leonardo Corporation puts into question in any way the results published by you and your team?
Bo Höistad: We used our experimental tools. Rossi has only provided his E-Cat reactor with its electrical box. It also allowed us to use his laboratory we have carefully inspected before testing. Rossi was not involved in the test in any way. One of his technicians helped us to operate the E-Cat, but then did not take part in any way to the measurements.
IBTimes: The report some questions that are addressed in the study. As you know that inside the reactor is nickel and hydrogen because you could not open it? Because the reactor was put into operation by technicians assigned by Rossi?
Bo Höistad: We were there when Rossi emptied the reactor fuel, although we have not seen him doing it. We have also implemented a fuel analysis after the operation of the reactor. But strictly speaking we can not be 100% sure that the fuel that we have analyzed is the same that was present in the reactor. However, this has no relevance to the main result of the measurement that has produced a large excess heat compared to the combustion chemistry of ANY substance (see story)
IBTimes: What can you tell us about the “fuel” and “trade secrets” that surround him? Is it really possible – as suggested in the study by Ericsson and Pomp – which has been used a second source of energy?
Bo Höistad: If you are referring to some form of hidden energy to cheat, we have made every effort to unmask an agreement of this kind.
At this point of our investigation does not make sense to make assumptions about the nature of the excess heat produced by the reactor fuel. In particular, any hypothesis on the prevalence of a nuclear reaction is understandable only if a nuclear transition can be localized, and so far has not been so.
Note that we communicated in the “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder” (the title of the third-party testing, ed), and our results should certainly be controlled by more comprehensive studies. Our current results are interesting enough to continue these studies. Presumably there is still a long way to go before we can confirm or deny the operation of the E-Cat reactor (I made this observation to the Swedish newspaper Ny Tekink, New Technology, and Ericsson and Pomp know).
IBTimes: How do you respond to criticism on the measurements for both the December test for the March?
Bo Höistad: Their conjectures about the difference in the excess heat produced between the test in December and March are incorrect. Just look at our article.
IBTimes: Finally Ericsson Pomp and argue that in tests made by you will encounter a typical attitude of pseudo-science, which is extraordinary steps quickly to conclusions rather than trying to find explanations in the physical standard. It is a very heavy criticism: How do you respond?
Bo Höistad: It is very unfortunate that Ericsson Pomp and resort to bad comments and mischievous. Accusing colleagues with a long and distinguished series of hundreds of scientific articles published in the most important international journals in physics be hired to pseudo-science is simply an insult severe and beyond any reasonable level of a decent academic behavior. Frankly speaking I am ashamed of having colleagues at the University of Uppsala that you refrain from personal attacks of such a low level.
Here the abstract and full text of the study of Ericsson and Pomp
Here the abstract and full text of the independent third-party testing on the E-Cat
[With thanks to Delio77]
ETA – OT for this post but worth highlighting that Cold Fusion Now points out that the US Navy (Pamela Boss et al) has been awarded a patent involving transmutation through LENR. I reserve comment until I’ve studied it except to say that it is an interesting development given that their lab was closed down. Of course, a patent guarantees nothing – even so; US Navy Granted Cold Fusion Patent makes for a good tabloid headline.
After scanning the patent, I see it is for generating particles as reported in reference to their earlier CR-39 results. As with all things LENR, these were attacked at the time (what’s new?). With an application date of 2007, it makes no direct claim for CF or LENR but it is there in f9rm and explicitly references many cold fusion papers and claims].
The best proof would be for Rossi to start selling these things for cash money and for his customers to be happy.
What it, in order for his customers to be happy, they demand that he keep silent?
I don’t understand your question.
Ericson & Pomp???
Of Pomp & Prakt?
Typo removed. Was that the thing that impeded your understanding?
What if, in order for his customers to be happy, they demand that he keep silent?
And your point is...????
I don’t understand the premise. Why would his customers want him to keep silent?
Because his customers are in the business of heat generation... cheaply. If they open themselves up to the kind of scrutiny that is proposed, they become a demonstration company for LENR.
So, let’s see how good you are at inductive reasoning, shall we? If a company associated with Rossi has set up a request for a company to be a public demo, would that be more favorable for Rossi or less favorable? It’s a simple question, but those who can’t reason inductively are incapable of answering it simply.
Lol. Just a private joke. Norwegian-language joke.
I have no idea what your are talking about.
All I said was if he can sell his product to customers and they come back for more that would be the best proof that it works.
Yup. It was a very simple inductive question. And very, very simply: you are incapable of answering it.
Here’s another: His own customers demand proof. So how do you know they have not been provided it?
My prediction is that eventually you will answer one of these inductive questions because you can’t resist. It’s because your idea of inductive reasoning is that you keep quiet if it lends any support whatsoever to your opponent. Your approach to inductive reasoning is basically idealogical reasoning, not inductive reasoning. You’re an idealogist, not a scientist, nor an inductive reasoner, nor even a conservative as far as I can tell.
What in the hell are you talking about?
Why do you consider me an opponent? You must have confused with someone else.
I am your debating opponent. The fact that you play games with the term suggests that, again, you do not know how to engage in inductive reasoning.
Perhaps I have you confused with someone who actually knows how to reason inductively.
Clearly state the proposition you would like to debate.
Deflection. Note that you’ve answered none of the inductive questions.
You’re here to generate as much negativity towards LENR as you can. That seems to make you an anti-LENR anti-science activist. I’m not allowed to say more than that without trouble from the mods.
Clearly answer the questions put forth to you.
Nonsense. No I’m not. I have been following your threads but don’t post much. I’ve see the attacks you’ve been taking.
I’m afraid you are getting punch drunk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.