On NyTeknik, the journal where Mats Lewan works, Ulrika Björkstén director of science editors of the Swedish Radio that organized a clear character assassination against Andrea Rossi and his E-cat, have given an interview to defend her program. (translated in English, in Swedish)
Shot. Why anyone would give Andrea Rossi's credibility in the form of scientific reports is a mystery. His projects show clear warning flag, writes Ulrika Björkstén, director of science editors of the Swedish Radio.
Her crusade against Rossi to save the taxpayer and the citizen from a scam artist is not impressing me as I know that the real goal is to protect the idea that :
"Cold fusion is contrary to scientific knowledge"
(guess why I use Comic font )
I tried to publish a long, boring long, argument against that meme, and the technology prevented me (ok it is very long , not a "comment" ). So I will abuse of my access here to publish it :
EDIT: in fact it was not technical, but for a short answer to a "nay-believer" I was flagged as abusive ! my post is now published ...
Beside a conspiracy way of mind that is just rationalization of denial, what is shocking me is that Mrs Bjorksten takes as evident that cold fusion is disproved by Science, while factually, scientifically, it is a proved scientific phenomenon.
If Mrs Björksten had a real scientific behavior, she would have read or simply counted the 153 peer reviewed articles (some published in specialized journal in calorimetry, or experimental physics like Journal of electro-analytical Chemistry and JJAP) claiming excess heat, then the 5 written critics on those articles, and then the rebuttal (one of the 5 article is refuting 2 others).
She would have understood that:
- Cold fusion is replicated hundreds of times, and it is published by scientists in P/R journals, as scientific method require.
- There is no critic on the calorimetry that is meaningful. There is also great motivation to refute so there is no doubt that if there was anything serious it would be published already.
Thus that according to scientific method it is a scientifically proved fact.
I know it is shocking, but that is the scientific method.
One of the top electro-chemist in Germany, Heinz Gerisher, after opposing strongly finally admitted there was evidence... in 1992 (when chemist had replicated F&P).
To understand that short claim, check the data as she should have done. Claiming that science is pathological is a job, it is not just parroting Wikipedia or badly written conspiracy books like the one of Huizenga,Parks, Morrison and Taubes:
First read the list the peer reviewed papers claiming excess heat in that tally
If you don't believe, check on by one, and ask experts if there are more, peer reviewed or not...
add this recent
which cite the experiment it replicates
Then consult the critics (be kind, don't ask peer reviewed), and their refutation. See if there is answers to refutation ? if the critics are maintained ?
Charles Beaudette have done it, and synthesized all page 5 of his book
Kirk Shanahan propose another critic recently which is refuted here :
but anyway ignored by all critics even Stephan Pomp who don't dare to defend it. Kirk at least have the courage to defend it, and is blocked too, like all LENR researchers.
The refutation is very interesting to understand that Cold Fusion experimenters are not the "loose scientist" that the myth have painted.
To understand who was loose in that story, Jed Rothwell have made a funny article about Titanic Myth propagated by media
You will see who are Taubes and Morrison, beside incompetent scientists.
Beaudette book, with more details but less aggressively note how those authors avoid to cite any paper after 1989, knowing that chemist took few years to make good papers, as any serious chemist do on such subject.
To see how incompetent was Morrison read that debate
if you need more data than the thousands of article found on lenr-canr.org, you can consult the Beaudette donation
and by the way notice how serious is this engineer when doing Science...
Now you will be surprised that the pile of solid evidence that Cold Fusion is real, according to the scientific method , have not convinced scientists, and journalists, and politicians.
To understand that I will advise you to read books of non consensual epistemology, and of non traditional economics, which all have the characteristic to better match the reality than the academic opinion.
- Roland Benabou Collective delusion in organization and markets : http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink IOM 2012_07_02 BW.pdf
- Thomas Kuhn, Structure of Scientific revolution : http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html
- Nassim Nicholas Taleb "AntiFragile" : http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/Triana-fwd.pdf
- Feyerabend : epistemological anarchism : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism
- Alvesson: Stupidity based organization (good on media&corps too) http://www.lth.se/fileadmin/in…onal_stupidity_scaIEM.pdf
If you don't accept the claims, now compare
with the Wikipedia vision.
This erased Wikipedia article, full of irony describe the real battle between scientific method, and scientific consensus
If someone deserve to be a scientific investigator, it is Charles Beaudette.
Read his book before claiming anything on cold fusion science... at least to avoid ridicule . You can buy it on paper (Infinite Energy, Amazon) or read it as PDF :
Of course I don't imagine than any denier will take more than 20 second on those links.
I would say that it matches the theory of Roland Benabou on group-think.
I am still waiting for at least one critical paper against F&P calorimetry, because rambling in skeptics lounge, I have seen no written paper that is not yet refuted to the point of ridicule .
The rest on E-cat denial, is just rationalization, because if E-cat is real, this mean that Cold Fusion is real, and thus that it is an epic failure of academic consensus science.