After the serie of radio broadcast against E-cat by Sveriges Radio, where Mats Tewan was interviewed but cut following the worst methods of bad journalism.
He answers to that article explaining the structure and the way of mind of Marcus Hansson, the responsible of the investigation.
It explain the manichean way of mind of the journalist, and the way he miss many basic facts about italy, Elrosk...
He also charge against the presentation of Fleischmann & Pons discovery as a proven failure, while it is all but the opposite. Not only F&P were replicated and Mats give link to the list of 153 peer-review papers, but talk of the positive review.
He question why more research is not done on that subject, even if some may raise question, because there is more than doubt of that subject being interesting.
He also express his critics agains the editor who mixed the rational question agains E-cat and Adrea Rossi and the general domain of Cold Fusion , aka LENR.
For me this last point is the key point. there is no doubt that the dismissal of E-cat have nothing to do agains Rossi, E-cat... It have all tod do with the initian pathetic dismissal of cold Fusion by physicistssocieties, Nobel, media, high impact scientific journals, while they have not the least tiny evidence of any artifact in Fleischmann&Pons work, nor in the hundreds of replications done accross the planet with dozens of various protocols.
Denying E-cat is not the problem. The key fact is not to admit that respected outspoken nuclear physicist, Nobel price winners, high-impact journal, DoE and other state agencies, scientific and academic societies, Ivy Leagues universities, have screwed up in the same ways as Lysenkoism pushed all Soviet science to screw up, despite all the evidence are public and non ambiguous for anyone unbiased, and worst of all that this happen regularly, and that we have all the theoretical toolbox to explain how it happens.
The scientific newsroom of Sveriges Radio, the national Swedish Radio, has dedicated four months of research and a whole week of its air time to the story of Andrea Rossi, the E-Cat and cold fusion (part 1, 2, 3, 4), and I’m honored that it has made me one of its main targets.
The result, however, is not impressive.
Ulrika Björkstén, head of the scientific editorial staff, has chosen freelance journalist Marcus Hansson to do the investigation.
Hansson apparently likes easy solutions. Black or white. I won’t go into detail of his analysis of Rossi’s background since I have no reason to defend Rossi.
After his analysis of Rossi, Hansson adds a group of Swedish researchers and the Swedish power industry’s research entity Elforsk, depicting them all as a bunch of gullible fools being used by Rossi for his purposes, and pointing at me as the one who got them involved in the first place. I’m flattered.
Hansson starts his reportage by stating that the famous claim by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, of excess heat compatible with a nuclear reaction, was wrong and later explained by erroneous measurements.
I believe he’ll find that hard to prove, given that there in 2009 were 153 peer-reviewed papers describing excess heat in experimental set-ups such as the one used by Fleischmann and Pons. And that’s only one of many reasons.
But the main focus I have chosen is another, reflecting the title of the book, discussing what is considered to be impossible and asking why more resources aren’t dedicated to investigating this strange phenomenon that could possibly change the world, providing clean water and clean air, saving millions of lives and solve the climate crisis.
Not because I wish this to be true, but because there are abundant scientific results indicating that the phenomenon might be real.
It’s insane that curious researchers are hesitating to enter this field for fear of ruining their careers (yes Björkstén, this is why most of them are old), and it’s insane that poorly researched media reports like this help scientific critics to continue attacking those researchers.
Marcus Hansson says he has read my book, but maybe he hasn’t understood what he read. In fact I’m worried that neither he nor Coyaud have the competence to evaluate this complex story from a scientific perspective. I might be wrong, but from Hansson’s reportage I’m not convinced.
I find this alarming both from a journalistic and a scientific point of view. Such opinions have often been expressed regarding disruptive discoveries, and if we took advice only from people like Björkstén we wouldn’t have any airplanes or semiconductors today.