Criticisms and Rejoinders of the Hot-Cat Report
|July 1, 2013||Posted by Jack Cole under Andrea Rossi, E-Cat, Validation Reports|
As noted here previously, it didn’t take long for critics to weigh in on the testing report of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat HT. Now some academics from Uppsala University in Sweden have weighed in with a paper published on the same site as the report by Levi et al (arXiv:1306.6364 [physics.gen-ph]). The paper is a critique of the hot cat report labeling aspects of the researchers work as being “characteristic of pseudoscience.”
In a recent report titled “Indications of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder” [arXiv:1305.3913], G. Levi and co-workers put forth several claims concerning the operations and performance of the so-called E-Cat of Andrea Rossi. We note first of all that the circumstances and people involved in the test make if far from being an independent one. We examine the claims put forth by the authors and note that in many cases they are not supported by the facts given in the report. The authors seem to jump to conclusions fitting pre-conceived ideas where alternative explanations are possible. In general we find that much attention is drawn to trivialities while important pieces of information and investigation are lacking and seem not to have been conducted or considered. These are characteristics more typically found in pseudo-scientific texts and have no place in a technical/scientific report on this level. We also note that the proposed claims would require new physics in not only one but several areas. Besides a cold-fusion like process without production of any radiation also extreme new material properties would be needed to explain what rather seems to be a problem of correct measurement. Therefore, it is clear to us that a truly independent and scientific investigation of the so called E-Cat device, convincingly demonstrating an “anomalous heat energy production” has not been presented in the arXiv report and is thus, to-date, still lacking.
Whereas I think there may be a few items in the paper worth considering for future tests of Mr. Rossi’s devices, the paper on the whole appears to have an agenda of discrediting the paper and the researchers through irrelevancies, innuendo, and dysphemisms (interspersed with a few valid points that could be addressed in future tests). There is a good rejoinder to this paper worth reading in addition to discussion on the Vortex mailing list.