Ny Teknik Chief Editor Defends Mats Lewan’s E-Cat Reporting

In more fallout from Swedish Radio’s programs critical of cold fusion and the E-Cat, Susanna Baltscheffsky, Chief Editor of the Swedish science and technology magazine Ny Teknik has written a piece defending Mats Lewan’s reporting of the subject.

Baltscheffsky contrasts Lewan’s reporting to that of Marcus Hansson whom she says unfairly concentrated on looking at Rossi’s conviction 20 years ago for breaking environmental laws in the Petroldragon affair — which have nothing to do with the E-Cat.

While she takes a rather skeptical stand about the E-Cat — saying it’s a problem that no one has been able to look inside the E-Cat — Baltscheffsky sees no problem with academics and researchers getting involved in tests and research about it:

“Swedish researchers, for example, experts in the areas of nuclear physics, high energy physics and physical chemistry, have been interested in whether it is possible to detect a cold fusion in Rossi’s case or not. Vetandets World has decided that these scientists are gullible and have been both deceived and duped by Rossi.

Perhaps they have, but is it so wrong that a researcher be open to cold fusion may have occurred?

New Technology chooses not to condemn those who are curious about something that is almost unbelievable. Our approach is to await more independent and scientifically reproducible test that clarifies what happens in Rossi’s reactor.”

It’s a safe and cautious position to take, but an understandable one for a chief editor of a science magazine with a readership that is divided about the E-Cat. And it’s good that Mats Lewan will be able to continue his reporting as usual.

  • Omega Z

    Why do we even have Test Reports if no one apparently reads them?

    “saying it’s a problem that no one has been able to look inside the E-Cat”

    Third Party Report-On Page-22

    Ragone Chart
    Upon completion of the test, the E-Cat HT2 was opened, and the innermost cylinder, sealed by caps and containing the powder charges, was extracted. It was then weighed (1537.6 g) and subsequently cut open in the middle on a lathe. Before removal of the powder charges, the cylinder was weighed once again (1522.9 g), to compensate for the steel machine shavings lost.

    Lastly, the inner powders were extracted by the manufacturer (in separate premises we did not have access to), and the empty cylinder was weighed once again (1522.6 g).

    The weight that may be assigned to the powder charges is therefore on the order of 0.3 g; here it shall be conservatively assumed to have value of 1 g, in order to take into account any possible source of
    error linked to the measurement.
    ———————————————————————
    From this snippet, you can see without a doubt, They had access to the H-Cat innards.
    The only thing they were denied was an analysis of the powder. This Contains Rossi’s secret sauce. It’s not that hard to understand.

    And by the quantity 1g, Chemical Energy is easily ruled out….
    Note: the 1g is triple the actually amount of .3g
    This is akin to saying- It only contained a 3rd of a gallon of gas, but we’ll say it had 1 gallon.
    This has implications also to the Ragone Chart. Already showing energy far beyond chemical energy. It would be much greater then there conservative figures.

    I don’t know. Pro/Con, Doesn’t anyone read for themselves anymore. Do they all only parrot what others say???

    • Buck

      OZ, your piece made my day . . . . I laughed and laughed. ;-)

      • Charles

        Buck, you could send your typed face to an opthalmologist and get the bad eye repaired. :-). And an ENT could do a nose and lips job :>{|)

    • Andreas Moraitis

      One should better say beyond “known” chemical energy (as the testers did, as far as I remember). Don’t forget that, for example, Mills’ hypothetical hydrino state transitions are not LENR.

    • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

      Ragone Chart and details of measurements in “Comparing Energy Sources”:
      http://lenrftw.net/comparing_energy_sources.html

  • Ophelia Rump

    Science dictates that they have not been duped until such time as a consensus body of better work than theirs outweighs their results. So bring on the body of research from the rest of the scientific community disproving the Rossi technology, and stop the word games.

    Science requires a simple equation be applied: Put up or shut up. The or is exclusive.

  • GreenWin

    Sveriges Radio joins the ranks of the National Enquirer, Daily Mail, and gossip television’s TMZ as an accomplished mud-slinging media outlet. The Sveriges editors invented a histrionic “story” relying on ad hominem attack and yellow journalism rather than balanced, honest reporting. Muck raking attack against scientists of high integrity confirms an institution devoid of moral and ethical character.

    It response we have had Elforsk – the scientific body of the Swedish State energy system, the university research scientists themselves, and Ny Teknik, a highly respected technical journal – all condemn Sveriges Radio. Three bodies actually schooled in the scientific method condemn a freelance radio “reporter” with no scientific credentials. Who you gonna believe???

    • artefact

      Good one!

    • AB

      I’m curious how these recent events are actually perceived in Sweden. Any Swedes here?

      • ecatworld

        See a separate thread I just posted here.

    • kdk

      Kind of like the slandering he endured on wikipravda from (obsessively?) dedicated accounts?

  • Gerard McEk

    Because those two reporters of the the radio program so bluntly insinuated fraud of the true scientists involved and of Rossi, nothing less these reporters should be accused to and they should be fired and banned as scientists. Let them feel what P&F felt 2 years ago!

  • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

    The radio station’s reputation is ruined… especially those directly involved.

    • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

      What’s really amusing is that the best way to uncover a scam is to subject it to scrutiny, including independent testing. But once the ultra-skeptical get that… then either the circle of conspirators grows ever wider or everyone involved is a moron, or some combination of the two. And requires radio broadcasts to shame those who would dare look closer. They just wound up shaming themselves.

      Patho-skeps, you suck at logic.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Well said!

    • bachcole

      You need to stop (so accurately) foretelling the future. Their reputation is not yet ruined, but it soon will be. But notice that Scientific American is still in business, which I see as unfortunate.