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.