With compliments to RenzoB for the corrections to Google Translate.
http://it.ibtimes.com/articles/52396/20130708/fusione-fredda-gravi-critiche-test-indipendenti-intervista-bo-hoistad.htm There is no peace for Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat. The publication of the now famous independent third-party test 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 openly questioned the results. The criticism of Ericsson and Pomp -published on arxiv.org, the platform of Cornell University on which also the E-Cat tests were made public, 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. It ss also criticized their own qualifications to perform these tests because they do not have adequate preparation for a “black box” test. Ericsson and Pomp wonder how the testers could 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” of the reactor brings a veil of shadow over the real operation of the reactor itself overshadowing the possibility that it could be using a second source of energy. This accusation stems from the fact that Ericsson and Pomp do not agree on the choice to perform the tests in the laboratories of Leonardo Corporation made available by engineer Rossi. The two scientists also point out that in both tests the reactors were put into operation by personnel authorized by engineer Rossi and not by the 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 unloaded dummy (“dummy”). The conclusions of the report of Ericsson and Pomp were harsh: they accuse their colleagues to have made to prevail their hopes above the scientific rigor and, based on all the observations prior reported, express the conviction that no truly independent test was performed on the E -Cat. Ericcson and Pomp therefore conclude that neither the test published on Arxiv or elsewhere has never proven that there’s an “abnormal production of energy.” The answer of Professor Bo Höistad – This is clearly a very harsh report in which, not only doubt is cast on the operation of the E-Cat, but also on 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 skip 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 test, to allow him to replicate and to explain its position on the target of criticism by Ericsson and Pomp. IBTimes: Dear Professor Höistad, Ericsson and Pomp bring into question the independence of the testers, 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 very negative provision towards Rossi and tried to find all the possible arguments to support their idea that Rossi is cheating. As a result they are very critical about our tentatively positive results. 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 i.e. if our results are correct within the errors estimated. Furthermore they attribute to us 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, it is an obvious contradiction that the result of our measurements may be rejected only because one of our authors (Levi) and Rossi know each other. Our result should be judged on scientific grounds and not on the basis of insignificant relationships. IBTimes: In the report of Ericsson and Pomp it is also said that neither you nor the other authors of the study have the appropriate skills to carry out a test “black-box”. Is that so? Bo Höistad: As 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 and Pomp are nuclear physicists, while our group includes a much broader field of science. IBTimes: We come to “technical” criticisms, 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 that 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 he did not take part in any way to the measurements. IBTimes: I report some questions that are addressed in the study. How do you know that inside the reactor there are nickel and hydrogen since you could not open it? Why was the reactor 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 it has produced a large excess heat compared to the combustion chemistry of ANY substance. 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 – that a second source of energy has been used ? Bo Höistad: If you are referring to some form of hidden energy to cheat, we have made every effort to unmask an trick of this kind. At this point of our investigation it 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 it has not been so. Note that we communicated it in the “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder”, and our results should certainly be repeated 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 paper. IBTimes: Finally Ericsson and Pomp argue that in the tests you made you find a typical attitude of pseudo-science, which is moving quickly to extraordinary 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 wicked and mischievous comments. Accusing colleagues with a long and distinguished series of hundreds of scientific articles published in the most important international journals in physics to be sold to pseudo-science is simply a severe insult and beyond any reasonable level of a decent academic behavior. Frankly speaking I am ashamed of having colleagues at the University of Uppsala that don’t refrain from personal attacks of such a low level.
