Chief Science Editor of Swedish Radio Defends E-Cat Programme

Ulrika Björkstén, chief science editor for Sveriges Radio has written an article in Ny Teknik which defends and explains the stance taken in the report recently aired about Andrea Rossi and the E-Cat. While Björkstén admits that there is no proof that the E-Cat does not work, and that scientists should have ‘open and inquisitive’ minds, she explains that there are four warning signs, which taken together offer a strong possibility that the Rossi and the E-Cat are not trustworthy:

  • “He has no formal training in the relevant fields.
  • “His energy catalyst is claimed to work through some form of cold fusion, LENR, or whatever one chooses to term effect. It is a reaction which in this case is contrary to previous scientific knowledge and an area that has a history of a long list of alleged breakthrough that could not be confirmed.
  • “He has a criminal record history related to an earlier alleged inventions in the field of energy.
  • “He refuses to let anyone look into the secret drawer and examine what’s really happening there.”

Björkstén states that scientists in public institutions have an obligation to take a scientific approach to research — implying that in the case of the the E-Cat, scientists in Sweden who are taking it seriously are taking a different approach.

She also says that bringing up Rossi’s past is relevant in this instance because his actions with regard to Petroldragon 20 years ago, have parallels with how he is acting today. She also brings up failed demonstrations and unconvincing isotopic analysis as reasons for being dubious about Rossi’s claims of the E-Cat.

One thing she doesn’t mention, however, is the report published by Levi, et al., which was done by (Swedish) scientists in controlled conditions which give a strong indication that the E-Cat does produced some kind of unexplained phenomenon — and which has led to the new round of testing, the results of which we are currently awaiting.

  • LCD

    Umm I did say “or not”

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I’m so glad that Ulrika Björkstén understands that bringing up the past is relevant. So, being the responsible journalist that she is, I’m sure she’ll leave no stone unturned. I look forward to her looking into and reporting on what the late Eugene Mallove (another responsible journalist) witnessed in July of 1989. (at the 4:20 mark)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y98YwJ2GEE

  • psi2u2

    It was in English and it said that her arguments are bogus (or words to that effect, with a link back to this discussion). It was very brief and I did not think it was any more polemical than comments of Alain and others already posted.