E-Cat Test Critique Published on Arxiv

Göran Ericsson and Stephan Pomp of the Division of Applied Nuclear Physics at Uppsala University, Sweden have published a critique of the recent E-Cat Test published by Levi et al on Arxiv.org.

The authors are not satisfied with the test for a number of reasons. Here are some of their main objections:

  • The testers were not independent enough or qualified to do a black box test. They say it would have been better for this test to have been carried out by an independent agency in their own lab, and feel it was not appropriate for the tests to be carried out on Rossi’s own premises. They note that some of the testers had previous connections with Rossi.
  • They state that the reporting of electrical measurements is not thorough enough, and mention that there is a possibility that DC power could have been input into the system through ground leads or other ways.
  • They criticize the authors stating that nickel and hydrogen are used in the test when they were not able to determine this because they could not open the reactor.
  • By using the COSMOL physics simulation tool Ericsson and Pomp have been able to replicate a waveform that is similar to what is presented in the March test of Levi et al’s report without any anomalous heat being involved.
  • They question the authors’ reasoning in how they interpret the thermal signature of the March test, saying it is “unfortunately typical of a kind of thinking that otherwise is ubiquitous in pseudo science: the tendency to quickly jump to interpretations and conclusions that support the extra‐ordinary claim, rather than to try to find more mundane explanations based on already known, standard physics.” (p. 6)
  • No data is provided from the ‘dummy’ test, and the dummy reactor was not tested in the same way as the live one.

In their conclusion,  Ericsson and Pomp state:

“We note that the proposed claims would require new physics in several areas. Besides a cold‐fusion like process without production of any radiation also extreme new material properties would be needed to explain what rather seems to be a problem of correct measurement. We are surprised that the authors make such remarkable claims based on a report with so many shortcomings . . . Wishful thinking seems to have replaced scientific rigor in some cases. These are characteristics more typically found in pseudo‐scientific texts and have no place in a technical/scientific report on this level”.

My own reaction to this critique is that despite these objections, the results of the E-Cat testing show that Rossi’s reactor is producing far more energy than it consumes. The testing was always going to be black box — Levi et al do not begin to speculate about what is causing the excess heat. The testers were qualified scientists used standard measuring equipment and reported what they measured. To reject this report, you have to conclude that that either fraud or gross incompetence was involved, and I don’t believe either is the case.

I accept that not all will be convinced that we have a new and better form of energy at hand because of a report published on Arxiv.org. It is going to take a lot more for the E-Cat to be widely accepted — we’re going to have to see working plants in action, and satisfied customers reporting on its benefits. From my perspective, however, the May 16 report is a solid piece of evidence that Andrea Rossi’s invention is what he has always said it was.

  • Roger Bird

    Dear Rockyspoon, Klas2k did say something true. And that is that he (and everyone else on Planet Earth) will believe it when he sees it. But aren’t we the same? The difference between Klas2k and us is that we also believe the word of other people who have seen and believed, especially when it is in their interests to be honest. The Magnificent 7 would know that they would have to deal with a tremendous crash in their reputations and self-esteem if they lied or were incompetent. It is inconceivable that Rossi could hand pick such an international collection of fools and nincompoops to be his deliberate or accidental shills.

  • Roger Bird

    Klas2k, let us restart this from the top.

    You have demos in 2011 that were carefully watched by a number of scientists, even members of and the freaking president of the Swedish Skeptical Society, and you have a number of Italians PhDs in science and nuclear physics. Con artists would not go transnational with their co-conspirators. You have at least one Greek PhD who may or may not have stolen Rossi’s secret but definitely acts like Rossi is for real. And in fact there generally are NO co-conspirators to a con. So, a conspiracy forces me to believe socially impossible contrivances. And you have the 3 tests reported in May 2013. There is also National Instruments, etc. etc. etc. If it is a con, then you have to believe that either all or some of these people that I mentioned and some I did not mention are all stupid and/or part of the con. That makes no sense whatsoever in terms of social Occamizing.

    It is true that Rossi’s emails do not inspire confidence. But emails are easy; they can be all over the map. If it wasn’t for the social evidence, the emails would be meaningless and in fact NO ONE would believe them.

  • Barry

    There’s a lot of opinion science in this critique. In my opinion a computer can in no way simulate a test involving Cold Fusion when the science behind it is unknown. As far as staying with the “known, standard physics.” Good thing A Einstein didn’t think that way. You would have to deny, not just the Ecat but the entire field of LENR. Are Ericsson and Pomp willing to discard the whole CF phenomenon?

    The smarter we become the more we realize how much we do not know.

  • psi

    ““unfortunately typical of a kind of thinking that otherwise is ubiquitous in pseudo science”

    When I got to that phrase I could only conclude that this critique is not really science, but ideology. Sorry, before that the critique seemed reasonable and believable. But that kind of off-color language right there tells you that there is nothing impartial about the critique. Frank rightly identifies that it assumes that the testers are either incompetent or part of a conspiracy to defraud.

    No. That is not a reasonable assumption. It never was and is even less so now than two years ago.

  • ivanc

    I belive ideas should pour from this forum, for a test that is bullet prove, the ecat and power supply should be isolated from the normal electrical net, use a bank of fully charged lead acid batteries, we know the max power that could be stored in this batteries per kgr. put the ecat and batteries in a glass chamber and test.
    I have been reading this blog for two and half years, I wonder How long before we could see a working device or a conclusive test.
    The last report is positive, and as future test are expected, lets hope they think a science paradigm changing test setup. It should no be difficult as they reporting 10x gain in energy.

    • Roger Bird

      ivanc, stop being shy about commenting. I like this one and agree with it.

    • Klas2k

      I have seen a number of suggestion of such tests, but Rossi seem to have avioded them all 🙂
      Wonder why…

      Also I wonder one thing, in this latest test the COP was concluded to be around 2.9 -+0.3
      A normal NIBE heat pump is around 2-3.5 (depending on ambient
      temperatures). Of course such devices are usually larger, but what if you put a heat pump in a cylinder and used that to demo the effects – you could then get up to 3.5 in COP (relation between in and out power) – and it still wouldnt mean any new tech :/

      The E-cat is supposed to have COP 6+ -but that has yet to be even demonstrated in a “controlled” test environment…
      Until then we only have the word of the inventor that it is some kind of new reaction going on inside the “tube”.

  • Klas2k

    I used ot be hopeful that the E-cat would indeed work.
    But so far the past 3 -years has been a lot of claims, promises and non-conclusive “public” tests.
    I am since more than a year convinced that this is either a fraud or a “honest” misstake.
    However, If Rossi has build one or more E-cats – give one to a third party tester to test wit htheir setup. Sure Rossi can be there, to make sure they dont cut it in half or something to revel the “mystery powder” – but not do anything other than that.

    And he did promise to start sell commercial units two years ago, and hast done so (other than a “mystery” sell to a “mystery” customer – so no one can confirm this or if it works at all).

    So I personally have no problems with new physics (in history many “unexplainable” things has been discovered in a garage somewhere). But the person behind this (with a history of fraud) and the way this has played out means that this is not real.

    And if it turns out to be real – lets say an independant group reproduces the results and revaeals how – then I will confess to have been wrong and cheer with everyone else 🙂

    • Barry

      Yeah Klas2k, I’m afraid we have to wait for the Ecat to emerge on Rossi’s terms. He said there would be a 3rd party test in the Spring and there was. That was huge, though the critics jumped to the next level. We will see soon enough what 2013 will bring. Peace Barry

      • Klas2k

        @Barry: well I was highly involved in the debate on a swedish forum about 2yr ago. Rossi promised the same thing then, carried out a number of demo, all alike and none adressing the critics. Then he promisem larger versions and sales – and said that he managed that, although no one has been able to confirm it. The story just goes on, but a common denominator is that Rossi always “says” or “does” things. no one else is testing or verifying claims etc.
        The most you get from sciencetists are vague statements that you cannot rule ut effects herre and there…

        • Roger Bird

          I don’t understand your attitude. The report in May reported 3 tests. One a puddle of molten metal on the floor, my favorite. The other two tests close to but not right on bullet proof, and you are still complaining. I’d have to say that the second two tests were bullet resistant; only a skeptopath wouldn’t be impressed.

          • Deleo77

            I wish you were right. But the third wire was a dead wire. It had no reason for being there. They measured it, but they should have cut it. That wire was the difference in the test. There are videos showing how the power meter that was used in the test can show no power coming through, when there is power. It leaves the door open for a trick, whether anyone likes it or not. The testers need to bring a generator and a power chord with them the next time (if Rossi will let them). The skeptics may be nasty at times, but they have a point with this one. Again, I wish they didn’t.

            • Roger Bird

              But they don’t. How could Rossi know that the testers wouldn’t have cut the wire or do any number of other things?

              • Klas2k

                And why didn’t they ?
                That is the problems of all tests that have been performed. They have been setup and controlled by Rossi with observers present !
                An illusionist can make a car fly in front of an audience – surely one can make heat with no apparent source !

                I certainly hope that I am wrong, but after all unfullfilled promises and more and more signs of dellusion and even fraud I have become a sceptic…

                The latest test has tried to adress complaints about measurements methods of output heat – but the conditions of the tests are still fully controlled by Rossi and not any independent people.

                • Roger Bird

                  Your weak social awareness is the problem here. You understand that very few people have actually seen LENR in action, whether it is true or not. We have to take someone’s word for it, or not. You choose the “or not”. I choose the “someone’s word”. I trust the credentials of the people testifying. You don’t; you trust the Big Bad Coulomb Barrier. People like you did not trust the Wright Bros.

              • Klas2k

                @Roger: Well if it is up to “social awarenss” then this is definately a fraud !

                Just look at Rossi’s history !
                And Levi has been very close from the start.

                I am just trying to look at it from a realistic perspecitve, and sa I mention above I do not think that you need to explain everything. If it works it works, and as said a lot of stuff has been invented in backyards – and later this has revealed “new” physics. So arguments about “not fitting the models” is not the strongest ones for me…

                I would have trusted the Wright borthers because the evidence that the did indeed fly was very obvious – photos and observers could clearly see that they did indeed fly, and very soon afterwards other could replicate the same achievments. The Wright brothers also made sure to describe the requirements for a succesful test very accurately and in hindsisght we now also know that they actually had carried out a number of test flights before the offical “first controlled flight”.

                If they had, on the other hand, talked a lot about their invention, but hed very little to show for it during 3 years, and the tests never showed an actual flight but just the plane being launched, disappearing behind a screen, and then on the ground on the other side again, paired with earlier attempts of dubious projects which was clearly not working, then I would probably have doubted Wright as well 🙂

                • Rockyspoon

                  Nobody trusted the Wright Brothers.

                  If you’d check with history, you’d find they were invited to Europe and were giving flying demonstrations there before people in the US woke up to what was happening.

                  So your saying “very soon afterwards” was actually YEARS, Klas.

                  Your whole argument has just gone up in smoke. In other words, you are telling historical fiction to bolster your claim when what it really does is destroy it.

                  Sorry about the facts–I just didn’t want people believing your lies.

                • Klas2k

                  @rockyspoon. Eh, what are you talking about ?
                  i didnt know the Wrights id controlled flights in Europe way before the official attempt in the Us.

                  However that is not the point- if they did it before, tthat is ok, and as I said even more people were right there with them- in the case of the E-cat there is one man, actually two started this, and a bunch that has tagged along from the start.

                  If the claims is true – why cant we see the promised results. Rossi said when they went official with this that he would deliver commercial products within 6 months, and that they had already had them running for years…and that is three years+ since now.

                  Sure tech dev can hit snags – but no claims of any snags has been published, only now and then reports and demos and more promises…

        • Barry

          I don’t know Klas2k, HydroFusion is right in your back yard. They’re offering an Ecat system, free set up, just pay for the energy. That’s bigger than Rossi. Now it’s become HydroFusion says. And at this point people have to stretch their criticism of the 3rd party testers pretty far to invalidate them, besides a more thorough test is coming in August/ September.

          By the way I admire Sweden. They don’t seemed to be as mired in resistance to CF. Wouldnt be surprised if CF debuts to the masses from Sweden. Right now I’m quite embarrassed of MIT in Massachusetts (USA) my home state with CF resistance that could fill a book.

          • Klas2k

            Well, that looks exacly like the setup presented about one year ago. The difference is that they claim to look for buyers (more of leasing actually) in Sweden.
            If they suceed and the buyer is deeemed impartial and can back up performance with measurements then I will cheer as well. Until then it still seems to be the same story which has been going on for years now, only the time limits are ever pucshed forward…

          • GreenWin

            Barry, recall that Rossi said something about certain reptiles being very tasty with Mayonnaise. And champagne.

  • malkom

    Rossi has manufactured the device. This is one way. If a lot of scientists can do better, then show it.

  • Boondogled

    These guys should offer there advise on how to test and what further information they would like to see given during the 6 month test the Swedish team will start this August.

  • AlexRitoris

    An easiest way to cheat is wireless energy transfer.

  • Ron

    These critiques are easily answered. First use clamp on ammeters that read both AC and DC for checking current on all wires. Second, let Göran Ericsson or Stephan Pomp participate in the next test.

    • freethinker

      By all means, use instruments that carefully measure both AC and DC in the input power. I doubt Rossi would ever allow those two to come within a block of the lab, never mind participating in any testing.

      • Chris I

        Errrrr, it would be bad policy if he were to forbid their participation.

        • Roger Bird

          But remember, Rossi doesn’t care about good or bad scientific and/or academic policy. He only cares about getting it to market. Then maybe people will be more willing to think for themselves and less willing to fall at the feet of some boffin who lives in an ivory tower.

          • Barry

            True Roger, many researchers are trying to understand the nuclear/quantum science of LENR and smaller groups are trying to bring a product to market. Not sure which is the bumpier road.

    • Bob

      The people who should be included in any future tests should be the same Swedish people who did the earlier test on the e-cat HT and quickly concluded there was no excess power.
      This was the same device that is photographed orange hot in the most convincing photo we have.
      If these people can be convinced that there is now an excess power, and lots of it, this would go a very long way towards dispelling any doubts that we have something which works.
      There is nothing more convincing than the testimony of a convert.

  • elasticbucket

    The necessity ? this argy-bargy could possibly be negated if, as Rossi claims, an active e-cat is operational in the Continental USA, and no NDA’s were observable, and the general “public”, universities, industry, government bodies and etc. were permitted to inspect and measure the equipment at leisure without the baggage alluded to in points one and three by Eriksson and Pomp.

    That is, there is no proprietary protection for Rossi and his device/s. Why should he act otherwise than coy?

    Again, Eriksson and Pomp’s critique appears to be a undisguised attempt by so called skeptics to disenfranchise Rossi from his discovery. As in point three inquirers were not able to determine that nickel and hydrogen are used. It may have been “unobtanium” for all that matters, as it was net energy gain that was the basis of the scientific inquiry not necessarily the fuel.

    To me, Eriksson and Pomp present a critique that is less scientific for several reasons one, on what methodology were data for their model/s gathered? By using the COSMOL physics simulation tool in point four, what rule of physics did they use?

    Point five, “…rather than to try to find more mundane explanations based on already known, standard physics.” when the LENR reaction is yet little understood by anyone? To what null hypothesis do they posit the basis of their claim that standard physics provides the solution?

    Nevertheless, Mr. Rossi has a lot answer, but nothing a working E-cat or two for public display could not achieve.

  • Claes

    You shouldn’t be upset with these authors at all. Seems to be legitimate points, at least some of them, and if they’re writing it, others are thinking it, so there is no way around dealing with them.

    By not ignoring the report they did it a lot of service! Being ignored is the fate that befalls most science, being criticized is much more preferable since that means that there is something to work with.

    • Fisher8965

      I agree. These guys bring up good points that should be addressed. It doesn’t mean that good information did not come from the testing being critiqued here but rather that following up with tests that meet the standards listed here would shut down and therefor shut up the nay sayers.

      Currently, due to these openings in the argument, there is still room for others to cry foul. If it were me, I would have another test that gave these answers knowing that I would have them by the short hairs once the tests were completed.

      • freethinker

        They did bring up a lot of points, almost none of them relevant to the scope of the paper. That is how this debunking is perpetrated.

        Lift out anything you can from the text and put it into question. Argue it so ardently that the real purpose of the paper is forgotten, and people only see all problem.

        There is only one real issue remaining, and that is the lack of DC data on the input power.

        Any other line of argument in Ericsson and Pomp’s commentary is either outside the scope or simply bs.

      • Roger Bird

        In a sense, they are shooting themselves in the foot, given that they are probably not real interested in LENR being real. Their critique tells Rossi and testers and anyone else just exactly how to do a test and a report such that they are forced to believe said report.

    • AlainCo

      First I agree that critics are good, and much better than being ignored.

      The problem is the most of the paper is not critics, but muddying water with problems out of the story, misunderstanding, off-topic.
      Anyway even off-topic it is informing people of what might be opposed.

      Similar critics have already led essen to add data to the report, and in interviews.

      Too bad they did not check DC voltage continuously which would have closed the critics on the materialist side.

      Abd Lomax recently raised an interesting possibility, it is that tha DC is remote controlled, and activated only when the scientists don’t look at the DC voltmeter…
      This is why the future test should use a DC aware voltmeter (no real need of DC ammeter since without voltage, no power can be transmitted- maybe just useful to close the mouth of hypercritics), beside the high bandwidth AC powermeter.

      I hope this will make the next testing report bullet proof.
      that is the good point of making the testing public and facing nay-believers critics.

  • Roger Bird

    “By using the COSMOL physics simulation tool Ericsson and Pomp have been able to replicate a waveform that is similar to what is presented in the March test of Levi et al’s report without any anomalous heat being involved.”

    But I betcha they couldn’t replicate the anomalous heat that the E-Cat produced. Who wants to bet?

    That above quote has got to be the most foolish thing that I have ever read this entire week. Using a computer program I can replicate the Battle of Hastings. That doesn’t make me William the Conqueror. Taking these computer models seriously is how we got into trouble in climate science and how some people still are. I know that this will come as a shock to some people, but “computer model” is a hifalutin way of saying “pretend” or “make believe”.

  • Chris the 2nd

    “By using the COSMOL physics simulation tool Ericsson and Pomp have been able to replicate a waveform that is similar to what is presented in the March test of Levi et al’s report without any anomalous heat being involved.”

    Of course it didn’t, A “similar” not exact and this is a computer model of the scenario not an exact replication of the real world. If the explanation for this phenomena is not well explained it won’t be replicated by a computer model that knows nothing of the effect.

  • Daniel Monteiro Basso

    Some weeks ago I tried to post here a replication of the signal shown in the report, with commented source code. But my post didn’t get through moderation (I wonder why). I’m not going to repost it, but if anybody is interested, let me know.

  • Roger Bird

    The problem with skeptopaths is not that they are schizophrenic. The problem is that they are not schizophrenic enough. They are so one pointed and focused that they cannot see any other viewpoint. I see and appreciate the viewpoints of Hanno Essen, Rossi, Levi, Evelyn, McKubre, Robert Gode, etc. etc. and then I integrate them all into something that makes sense and come up with New Fire being real as the only explanation that makes sense.

    The skeptopath doesn’t do this. They see that LENR violates the so-called known laws of physics, and that is the end of the discussion in their heads. Nothing else matters. Perhaps it is this paucity of appreciating other people’s viewpoints that impels them to be so persistent about trashing everything that does not support this viewpoint. I doubt if skeptopaths have a really rewarding and full social life.

  • Ramey

    So what are the odds that Rossi and Rose would be the spearheads of the two most skeptizobicydal (if thats a word, I got lucky)…infringements in the mental gymnastics of physics ?

  • Ramey

    Ok… so does Vegas have odds? And lets not loose this like how to build monoloths

  • Joe Shea

    This was to be expected. Rossi does need to let go at some point so that truly independent testing at an independent lab can be carried out. I suspect that will be after at least several more “hot” E Cats are sold. It’s unfortunate that we need to use the term “hot” E Cats, because in the US, that means they were stolen! Of course, they were not.

    • Roger Bird

      “Rossi does need to let go at some point so that truly independent testing at an independent lab can be carried out.” No he doesn’t, unless you are referring to certification people and venture capitalists and big box stores like Costco. He never has to go the academic route. And I think that it would be a very therapeutic slap in the face to academic scientists if he did go that market route completely right to the very bitter end when they start selling units out of Walmart.

      • Omega Z

        Anywhere but Wal-Mart.

        Reason being they do a poor job keeping shelves stocked.

        Imagine M.Y. going there 3 times & can’t find 1. They must Not Exist.

  • hempenearth

    IIRC the six month long Elforsk funded testing of the Hot Cat should have started by now.

    • Omega Z

      It was suggested those tests would be delayed until fall.

      Likely due to the age of the testers & not wanting to work in the heat of summer in a metal building in close proximity of a 34K BTU Hot Cat.

      • DustyBins

        Rossi is in the US now, a feared for his life. He won’t be going back to Italy unless he wants to take that risk. He’ll have to schedule a new test at his fresh US factory. Wonder if employees of the US partner could be persuaded to take a few photos of the inside of the plant…

  • Ramey