Mats Lewan answers to the Swedish black campaign launched by Sveriges Radio

  • 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.



  • It's really quite a conundrum for CF-LENR. You do as much lab work as is feasible given how the budgeting and political winds have blown these last 25 years, yet it's not only dismissed as being inadequate, it's dismissed as all being outright wrong. Not even worth pushing for a R&D project to investigate further and settle the matter once and for all. I can't believe I still see people floating around saying "CF-LENR doesn't even exist." Not just that Rossi is a crook. Not just that all the other commercial ventures are doomed. But that the F&P heat effect doesn't even exist. It's amazing. And they are very glib and self-assured about it all as well. It's quite telling of the egos and bigotry involved. There is so little peer reviewed research backing up skeptical opinions, it's laughable. Beside failed tests, which are simply the norm of any misunderstood scientific enterprise, there has been no criticism that has stood up to scrutiny. Lewis was wrong for several reasons (i.e. anisotropy in cells, insufficient loading, etc.). MIT wanted it to fail before the tests were even concluded. Morrison went for the old "cigarette lighter effect", and Shanahan has concocted a recombination Rube-Goldberg meta-explanation for why every cell in every experimental setup using every kind of calorimetry has been wrong...OK.


    So yeah it's crazy that they always link the "invalidity of cold fusion effect" despite all the evidence to the contrary. It's an uphill battle for a reporter or anyone like Mats who thinks "Hey even if wrong, there's enough reason to investigate this further before we completely dismiss it!" And even if you don't yet "believe", there is too much impressive data to simply say "throw it all away". No. Let's invest some real money into this field for once and this time make sure all scientists conducting the research have the relevant data in hand (i.e. loading ratios, metal hydride purity, current density, length of wait time, waveform considerations, co-deposition, metal hydride topology, hydride surface area, NAE, etc.).

  • well said.


    The worst is that it is endangering all current consensus, for good and bad reasons, as any people claiming he challenge academic consensus, will comfortably use Cold Fusion tragedy as an example of misguided consensus... It may raise interest on some controversial but interesting ideas, but may also give excuses for old scam and pseudo-medicine, pseudo-fears, to flourish again.