Statement from Sweden Bodes Well for Positive E-Cat Report

I was quite surprised yesterday to read the statement from the five Swedish professors responding to negative insinuations on Swedish Radio and defending their role as testers of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat. My expectation was that we would hear nothing from anyone involved in the testing until the report was published, but I guessed wrong. Perhaps the professors did not want doubts about their competence and credibility, and the value of their work (which were the main focus of the radio report) to linger and poison the reception of the report when it is finally published.

Whatever their motivation, I feel that the fact that they made this statement at this point is an indication that these men are as convinced of the reality of the E-Cat as they were following their 2013 test. If the new round of testing had revealed that they had made errors in their previous report and they had discovered the E-Cat does not work after all, it is very doubtful that before the new report is published they would have gone on record backing the importance of their research, and defending their credibility in this way.

I think it’s significant that each professor was willing to stick his neck out and sign his name to this statement — each probably aware that he could become the target of criticism and ridicule for doing so. To me, that indicates confidence.

While there were no statements giving any prediction about the results of the testing (which they say is now over), there was an indication of a new aspect involved. They stated that the previous test did not attempt to uncover the source of the excess heat that was measured, and that in order to understand the cause of the anomalous production of energy more testing was needed:

“In particular ​​no connections were made to cold fusion, which can not be done without knowledge of reactor fuel isotopic composition before and after combustion.

The conclusion is that new tests must be partly to clarify whether an anomalous heat production actually takes place and also investigate whether a change in the fuel’s overall isotopic composition takes place.”

This is possibly the most interesting part of the professors’ statement because it appears likely now that in the upcoming report there will be some analysis of the fuel used inside the E-Cat that could give some clue as to how the E-Cat works, not just that it works.

To me, this statement is a positive development, and it seems to bode well for a positive report when it is finally published; however, I must say here that these are my own interpretations of the professors’ statement, and it remains to be seen how accurate they are.

  • georgehants

    From Vortex with thanks —-
    An article more documented than usual on Cold Fusion early hisory
    Alain Sepeda
    Thu, 05 Jun 2014 00:11:25 -0700
    I ust found that article
    http://www.conspirazzi.com/cold-fusion-proven-true
    it seems more documented than most even positive articles.
    if some can correct possible errors, or complete.

  • georgehants

    Science Alert
    World first: Australian solar plant has generated “supercritical” steam that rivals fossil fuels’
    A CSIRO test plant in Australia has broken a world record and proved solar power could efficiently replace fossil fuels.
    http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20140506-25618.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencealert-latestnews+%28ScienceAlert-Latest+Stories%29

  • Alan DeAngelis

    i think the mechanism was known before Fermi worked on it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lise_Meitner

  • georgehants
    • Ophelia Rump

      It cannot power a home.
      A fuel cell utilize a fuel source to provide energy.
      A fuel cell cannot create the fuel.

      This is yet another example of barely literate people reporting on science.
      Their words have no precision to their meaning. The words are little more than grunts, if they are unable to communicate the equivalent to the difference between a piece of wood and a fireplace.

    • Fortyniner

      There seem to be many claims recently about great strides forward in fuel cell technology, some conceptual, some actual.

      As long as the e-cat technology requires significant heat input and no efficient means of generating electricity from heat is available, then fuel cells may offer serious competition in the CHP market when all factors are taken into consideration. Perhaps it’s no coincidence that the technology seems to have become very newsworthy of late.

    • Alain Samoun
  • Gerard McEk

    I truly hope the atomic composition of the matter inside the E-cat is measured before and after the test. The only question would be: wouldn’t that reveal Rossi’s secrets also? How can Rossi avoid that it does not? Can it be that his catalyzer remains in the E-cat while H2, other gasses and the Nickel are being removed to analyze it? Perhaps his catalyzer is dispersed on the interior surface of metal pipe or on the heater of his E-cat. Or maybe it is a small piece of metal that can be taken out separately? “Be patient”, Rossi said, “Please be patient”. Time will tell hopefully.

  • georgehants

    O no please, we poor Humans can do better I think, times will change but we must be willing to look at our faults.
    Imagine a science that happily looks at the Wonders and Marvels of our reality and allows our young students the freedom to truly Research and investigate the unknown.
    Seems impossible today but if we all work at it it could come True.

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    In fact concentrating on the excess heat, and not moaning on the cause, is the “Beaudette’s Doctrine”…

    Heat is proven, now try to explain it… not to deny it.

    • GreenWin

      Charles has been accurate and, even forgiving throughout this drama. I would imagine a 3rd edition of his book, “Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed” will be in order.

      • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

        Yes, he is tolerant in his book, even when describing awful misconducts.
        Or maybe he prefer to let the furor to the reader, as a consequence of facts he describe. Calm like a photography.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      From an economical point of view, it does indeed not matter where the anomalous heat comes from. As I have tried to point out earlier, CF or LENR could theoretically be side effects. This would, for example, be the case if Mills’ or Santilli’s explanations of the phenomena were true. (I’m not quite sure with regard to Santilli, though.) The main part of the generated energy would then possibly have a non-nuclear origin. This could make a difference regarding the rehabilitation of F&P, and an unknown non-nuclear effect would raise additional doubts, which would surely be an obstacle for further research and funding.

      • Omega Z

        Or even an as yet, Unknown nuclear reaction.

  • ecatworld

    Interesting comment by Jed Rothwell on vortex-l: “I do not think they would hesitate to announce a negative result when it comes time to publish. I doubt they would hesitate to hint at one now, just as they have hinted the results are positive. I do not get the impression these people are close friends of Rossi, or that they would go out on a limb for him. I have had enough contact with them to say that with confidence.”

    • georgehants

      Is it not an indication of the unbelievable state of science that you are reporting what you are, almost an apology that Cold Fusion could be True.
      Should not all of science be laughing and rejoicing in the possibility of a new Energy source that could save millions of lives and improve many others.
      Am I the only one that see’s the incongruity of the situation?

      • Joel C.

        Those who disagree with the conclusions despite their clarity have a personal agenda, or a perception schema, for which they infallibly are bound to. Their minds are so twisted they think anything that disagrees with their views must be wrong.

        • georgehants

          Joel, are we agreed that there is no place in science for such people.
          Are we agreed that it is the responsibility of every True scientist to fight the battle to remove these people from their positions.
          Are we agreed that such people should not be allowed within a mile of our Wonderful students, to have their minds distorted and polluted with closed-minded religious crap before they have had a chance to release their inherent brilliance of free thinking to help the World.

      • GreenWin

        “Pride goes before destruction,
        a haughty spirit before a fall.”

        Expect to see anger, rage, petulance, denial. Science has so inflated its ego with hubris as to fuel a veritable explosion of cognitive dissonance. There will be shrieking, and stomping of feet. And finally, when tears have dried… quiet, begrudging acceptance.

        • georgehants

          GreenWin, then I am expecting you and the other few True scientists to join me in changing the scientific position that Cold Fusion has brought so clearly to light.
          It is time I think for these pages to be full of True scientists pointing out and condemning every instance of closed-minded debunking and abuse by any scientist and not trying to make out that the problems with Cold Fusion and many other subjects are the fault of reporters, governments, astrologists, or fairy’s etc.
          The fault lies fairly and squarely with every scientist who is incapable of open-mindedly looking at EVIDENCE and not bloody “opinion”.
          Do you agree?

          • GreenWin

            For the most yes, George. However, keep in mind that many good men and women (scientists, journalists, politicians, etc) have been subjected to pressures, ridicule, personal attack and threats – with respect to Cold Fusion. Forced “consensus” is little different from forced confession. Those who are behind such forcing – will be brought to justice.

            • georgehants

              GreenWin, my reply has gone to moderation, lets hope the honest Truth is not censored.

            • georgehants

              GreenWin, my fair reply is still being censored, I have asked Admin by e-mail to clarify the satiation but so far no response.
              I will wait for an explanation before changing my reply to you.

            • georgehants

              GreenWin agreed but it is still up to them to put the situation right, they cannot carry on the way things are, blaming other people all the time and assume that somebody else is going to correct the faults.
              It is no good just blaming TPTB all the time, every voice carries weight.
              It is science and every scientist has a responsibility for it’s moral and Factual behavior.

        • Omega Z

          Was a time, that somewhere during this process, I would put my kid to bed. Little tolerance for spoiled brats. :-)