Audio in English of Radio24 Interview With Bo Höistad

Thanks to Andreas Moraitis for finding a link to an English language interview that Maurizio Melis of Italian Radio24 Smart City hosts conducted with professor Bo Höistad of the University of Upssala (Sweden)

You can hear the audio here:

http://freeenergyscams.com/andrea-rossi-e-cat-industrial-heat-llc-complete-bo-hoisted-interview-on-radio24-in-english/

This is really the first serious statement we have heard from any of the testing team since the Lugano report was conducted. I think it’s clear from listening to the interview that Professor Höistad is puzzled as to what is going on with the E-Cat because it goes against fundamental principles that he as a physicist has held to. He even says that he is a skeptic, but he seems not doubt the results of experiment, even though he would like to conduct more to confirm the effect they measured.

Importantly, he states that it was the testing team that selected the sample of ash from the reactor, with Andrea Rossi being present.

At the end of the interview he was asked if there was any way that Rossi could have manipulated under the testers’ eyes the fuel or the ashes. Dr. Höistad replied, “we were very careful to see that nothing obscure or hidden was going on with the ash, just as a precaution. But the answer is no. We handled the ash. Mr Rossi was present, he helped us in some way . . . we picked up the sample we wanted to have a look at. But of course, in principle, it’s possible to cheat anyone if you really have that gift . . . but no, we don’t operate on that scale; we take for granted that this is done in an honest way.”

  • mike

    Dang, why wasn’t he asked if he thinks Rossi has something special here? I mean there was so many questions he could have asked. But I would have put this Nuclear scientist on the spot and tell the world he didn’t believe it was fraudulent. But this in my mind legitimizes a new form of energy. I mean I believed before, but now I am a bit more excited about the reality of a new energy source coming our way.

  • Alain Samoun

    Does anybody here knows how to calculate the energy from the isotopic shift mentioned by Bo Höistad?

  • Jack T.

    The problem I have with the Lugano report is not scientific. I don’t trust Securitas.

    • Fortyniner

      I’m sorry to hear about your problem. Perhaps if you actually read the report that might help. Otherwise I guess Industrial Heat will just have to get by without you.

      I’m curious to know what the Swedish security company, Securitas AB has to do with the Lugano report?

  • Job001

    Coulomb barrier repeats ad nausea and is based upon an exceptionally bad assumption, “Two Atoms in isolation”. or worse “Two nucleus in isolation”.

    In this case we have 1 gram of something like NiLiH3 which is equivalent to about 44,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms. This provides huge degrees of freedom for EMF, charge shielding, lattice waveguide effects, tunneling, virtual particles, virtual charge, excited atom electron states like 1p(where coulomb barrier can be nearly eliminated), and many other exotic states that modern nano science has just begun to explore.

    Lack of radiation criticism rests on equally absurd assumptions because a multitude of alternate soft radiation paths exist (unlike hot fusion isolated atoms nonsense assumptions). Three dozen proposed theories exist, obviously ranging from exceptional to inadequate.

    What surprises me is that the old physics experts are falling for obviously absurd assumptions when their college professors hammered them about making good assumptions. Methinks many need a physics 101 refresher course, and even more a modern cognitive bias course since many obviously exhibit “Funding bias”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

  • Robyn Wyrick

    So, “we take for granted that this is done in an honest way.”

    That is why Rossi’s scam is not discovered. He is very probably using a Thermal Laser from space, which was undetectable because he wrapped it in a Tachyon Carrier Signal and a Vort Templar Accelerator – which he Hypertransbeamed three months before the Lugano test.

    That’s what I would have done. Did they test for that? Did they?

  • Billy Jackson

    One by one the cries of foul play and treachery are torn down. Soon the skeptic will have no where to hide and must face the truth of LENR lest they find themselves with their heads buried in the sand thinking no one can see their desperation.

    • Omega Z

      “Soon the skeptic will have no where to hide and must face the truth”

      That they are the only ones who carry the truth & the rest of the world has gone Mad. 🙂

    • mike

      No, soon skeptics will claim they have discovered a new form of energy and shut down opposition and control it. You know shoot down all other lenr devices cause they have the right theory. What makes you think they will ever change?

  • Fortyniner

    No. In other words they would like to carry out further experiments to further elucidate what happens in the reactor. Responding to the invented charges of pathoskeps and trolls would be futile, as they simply invent new ones, as old ones are discredited (whatever happened to thermite, misplaced temperature sensors and powered earth leads?).

    • Donk970

      Not to mention that the very nature of pathological skepticism requires you to reject any answer as being part of the conspiracy to deceive you. Therefor there can be no argument that will change a pathoskepts mind.

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

        this tactic in french is names “hyper critical method”. It is described to apply to many case of denialism.

        the french wikipedi is funny it could be funnily translated :

        hypercritical method is to critical method, what is longitudinal hair splitting to haircutting.

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

      what is afscinating for me is that the only serious and really annoying critics agains the Lugano test, the lack of high temperature calibration, are really underexploited…

      I suspect that whatever you assume reasonably around calibration problems, the COP>>1 is a sure fact, even if COP>3.3 is still questionable.

    • LuFong

      Actually he says, “The observation must be confirmed by more experiments.” “One observation is never enough.” This is not trying to “elucidate” but to just repeat the experiment to confirm the result.

      It seems to me that in the minds of many here, this makes Hoistad one of the “pathoskeps and trolls”, doesn’t it?

      • Fortyniner

        Of course not. Hoistad is simply stating the the obvious – that more experiments could have strengthened the existing data and perhaps provided some additional information.

        Pathoskeptics and trolls would prefer the data to go away, but as they can’t arrange that they have to settle for quibbles, denial and innuendo.

      • Omega Z

        I believe the Professors acknowledge the Rossi effect,
        But to move the Scientific community, it will require an additional 3rd party test with no prior exposure to Rossi or the device.

        However, As Rossi/IH have no patent at present, another test would also be a black box test & would only move the Scientific community marginally. Note that Rossi would still need to be present for part of such a test.

        Add to this, Another year will have passed & if the Pilot plants performs well, it will no longer matter at that point. Science will just have to catch up after the fact.

  • Veblin
  • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

    This is excellent.
    It goes to show how translation and dubbing can be manipulated: even though the translation was close to what Bo Höistad said exactly, in dubbing it was cut, presented and “adapted”. Radio24 should have posted the English version on its website immediately.