In the Swedish science and technology magazine Ny Teknik, four Swedish professors from the Universites of Uppsala and Lund (Sweden) authored an article titled “”Surprising that Elforsk is so uncritical” in which they expressed their surprise that the authors of the third party test could be so credulous about the things that they reported in their paper.
Below is a translated version of the Uppsala paper (original was in Swedish) that was posted on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, interspersed with Andrea Rossi’s comments in response to their points.
Elforsk AB is the Swedish electricity company research and development company. Thus, Elforsk a heavy role and a responsibility to conduct the important research on the current and future energy supply in a way that is both responsible and relying on good science and critical thinking.
MOST OF ALL, I WOULD SAY, ON EXPERIMENTS THAT REALLY MAKE PRODUCTS THAT WORK: ELFORSK DOES NOT PRODUCE THEORIES, BUT ENERGY.
On NyTekniks debate page on 9/10 states now Magnus Olofsson, CEO of Elforsk, it’s time for Elforsk to proceed with research on so-called Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), and this is largely because of the “amazing results” that is now being published in a report written by researchers from Uppsala University. We find it surprising that just hours after the report is released, without waiting or asking for more critical comments on the reported material, is prepared to launch an entirely new area of research.
We note that the new measurements have been carried out in southern Switzerland and that funding for the report comes from Elforsk, and that three of the authors are retired, formerly employed at Uppsala University. But as far as we know, this report has otherwise no connection to Uppsala University, financially or operationally.
LET’S BE PRECISE:
THE FUNDS DID NOT ARRIVE ONLY FROM ELFORSK; THE LIST OF FUNDINGS IS REPORTED AT THE END OF THE REPORT; AND NOWHERE HAS BEEN WRITTEN THAT ANY FUNDING CAME FROM THE UPPSALA UNIVERSITY
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the E-Cat deal, which now has rolled in blogs and the media since 2011, it is perhaps that it is still “alive” and question why anyone still believes in it. Periodically test new variants of the E-Cat and criticisms of tests of previous E-Cat variants are never to be and answered. Instead investigated now even a new variant of “energy catalyst” and even more amazing results presented.
ALL THE QUESTIONS TO WHICH WAS POSSIBLE TO ANSWER PUT AFTER THE FORMER TESTS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED AND NEW TESTS HAVE FOLLOWED SUIT THE EVOLUTION OF THE WORK
We agree that what is reported is amazing. But we believe that it is surprising is that the authors and Elforsk are so naive that they uncritically swallow something that would set the entire nuclear physics on its head; in a gram of “fuel”, consisting mainly of nickel, the proportion of the isotope Ni-62 in the “fuel” through some type of nuclear processes have increased from 4 percent to 99 percent. And this without any radiation emitted, either during operation or in the resulting “ash”. An equally spectacular nuclear transformation must have been of a proportion of lithium in the fuel powder. This goes against all the accumulated nuclear physics knowledge collected over the last 100 years. But rather than rewrite the textbooks, we believe that you first have to thoroughly investigate if there are other, simpler explanations.
I AGREE ON THE FACT THAT THE RESULTS ARE DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE, AND WE ARE STUDYING ON THIS. IF WHAT HAPPENED WITH LITHIUM SUITES IN PART OUR EXPECTATIONS, FOR NICKEL WE HAVE DIFFICULTIES TO RECONCILE. CLEARLY, THERE IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD.
THESE SCIENTISTS FORGET THAT IT HAS BEEN MEASURED AN EXCESS OF ENERGY NOT RECONCILIABLE WITH ANY CHEMICAL REACTION. THIS TOO CONTRASTS WITH 100 YEARS OF FORMER EXPERIENCE. RELATIVITY CONTRASTED WITH 500 YEARS OF FORMER EXPERIENCE. GALILEO RISKED TO BE BURNT ALIVE BECAUSE CONTRASTED 3 000 YEARS (OR MORE) OF FORMER CONSOLIDATED SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.
SUCH AN EXCESS OF ENERGY, MEASURED IN A LONG PERIOD ( MORE THAN 1 000 HOURS STRAIGHT) NEEDS AN EXPLICATION TOO, THAT DOES NOT RECONCILE WITH ANY CHEMICAL REACTION.
For apparently thinking Elforsk not seriously if researchers simply may have been deceived by an inventor proposals. The drastic isotope enrichments that should have been accomplished during the operation of the E-Cat can be quickly purchased from several different companies. The inventor Rossi has what we can understand of the report dealt with the fuel itself both in terms of replenishment and withdrawal.
THIS IS REALLY FUNNY: SHOULD I HAVE TEMPERED THE SAMPLES, I WOULD HAVE MADE IT TO MAKE RECONCILING POSSIBLE, OR AT LEAST CLOSE TO LIKELY ! THESE SCIENTISTS ASSUME THAT I SUICIDE MYSELF MAKING ARTIFICIALLY A NOT RECONCULABLE CHARGE!
BESIDES: IN THE REPORT IS WRITTEN THAT THE SAMPLES HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE COMMETTEE.
Already in 2011 there were two very professionally conducted fuel analyzes at the Natural History Museum.
THIS IS MORE FUNNY: THESE SCIENTISTS DEFINE VERY PROFESSIONALLY CONDUCTED AN ANALYSIS MADE UPON A SAMPLE SUPPLIED BY ME, AND DO NOT, BY LOGICAL DEDUCTION, CONSIDER PROFESSIONALLY CONDUCTED ANALYSIS MADE UPON SAMPLES INSERTED AND EXTRACTED BY A THIRD PARTY
The result of this time showed that the nickel contained in both the “fuel” and “ash” had the natural distribution of isotopes of nickel, that is, no isotope change of nickel which could be observed. It then alleged reaction product of copper occurred additionally in separate flakes of “ashes”, not mixed in nickel flakes which should have been the case if nuclear transformations occurred. Therefore, one can suspect that Rossi did not hesitate to provide the testing with researchers manipulated the material. Without a rigorous and documented inspection, one can not draw any conclusions regarding Ecatens function based on the fuel analyzes presented.
AS THESE SCIENTISTS CORRECTLY SAY, I SUPPLIED THOSE SAMPLES, IN 2011 (TO PROF. SVEN KULLANDER), AND I GAVE A SAMPLE FROM WHICH THE COMPONENTS, THAT AT THOSE TIMES WERE NOT DISCLOSABLE, HAD BEEN EXTRACTED, BECAUSE NOT YET PATENTED. I CLEARLY WARNED PROF. KULLANDER OF THAT. SO WE ALL KNEW THAT TOSE ANALYSIS COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS COMPLETE, BUT JUST AS A FIRST APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM. THE COPPER FOUND WAS PROBABLY AN IMPURITY AND I MADE CLEAR THIS SUSPECT OF MINE . IN THAT CASE THE SAMPLE HAD NOT BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM A REACTOR BY A THIRD PARTY AND I HAVE NO DIFFICULTY TO SAY, AS I DID WHEN I DELIVERED IT, THAT I HAD TAKEN OFF FROM IT THE PARTS THAT I WANTED NOT TO DISCLOSE.
Stephan Pomp, Professor, Uppsala University
Göran Ericsson, Professor, Uppsala University
Peter Ekström, Professor Emeritus, University of Lund
Ane Håkansson, Professor, Uppsala University
This all brings to my mind the question — What should the professors have reported, if not what they observed in their own experiment? It appears that the testers did not have a foregone conclusion going into the test, and that they did their best to be as thorough and professional as possible in their protocol.
Yes, the results are astonishing, but thank goodness we have professionals with the integrity and humility to report what they measured, even though they explicitly stated in the report that they have no explanation as to what is going on, and the testers seem to be as surprised as the rest of us.
To me, critical thinking involves being open to new ideas and discoveries, even when they go against long-held beliefs and assumptions. I say congratulations to this testing team for their courage. They must have expected the kinds of responses we see in this article — but I think the testing team has done us a great service. Most serious observers are astonished at what was discovered, but I think if we are in the search for truth, we should take very seriously honestly-obtained facts carried out by qualified professionals, even if we cannot explain them. This is how we make progress in scientific endeavors.