User talk:Matslewan

Welcome!

Hello, Matslewan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Energy catalyzer

While it is good that you're blogging so enthusiastically about Rossi and his Energy Catalyzer, I am bit concerned on a couple of points. First, on Wikipedia we tend to discourage editors from linking to their own work due to concerns about the potential conflict of interest. — TenOfAllTrades , — (continues after insertion below.)

Having looked at the conflict of interest guidelines and studied Matslewan's answer, I don't believe there is a genuine conflict of interest (he is not acting on behalf of Rossi but simply reporting on a subject he considers to be of interest). Can I again request that if you have a complaint you be specific about what the problem is, rather than just (much easier of course) e.g. quoting the mantra 'conflict of interest'? --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

My second, more urgent concern is the manner in which you're writing about this topic. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but my understanding is that your writing and journalism experience is primarily in the field of information technology: predominantly software and consumer gadgets. In general, I suspect that you usually cover products made and sold by established companies; things that you can go out and purchase and test with your own hands. The Energy Catalyzer is a much different sort of device. The history of cold fusion is littered with claims that failed to amount to anything, and I fear that this device will be just another such disappointment. A journalist without extensive experience covering science topics might be unfamiliar with the questions that should be asked about Rossi's work, or how best to evaluate the strength of his claims. I would tend to group the important unanswered questions into two major categories: those dealing with the technical details of the Energy Catalyzer, and those surrounding Defkalion's role and operations. — TenOfAllTrades , — (continues after insertion below.)

• I have a Ph.D in experimental physics and Cambridge BAs in both physics and mathematics. Also, several years ago someone persuaded me to take 'cold fusion' seriously. As a result, not only did I read about what had been done, but during a visit to Boston for a conference I was able to set up a visit to a lab where research in this was being done, and to convince myself that there was a real effect. In all I have visited 5 labs. where LENR research was being done; in 2 of these the evidence seemed absolutely clear cut and in a 3rd. reasonably so, while in the remaining 2 I did not really have the details explained to me so I was not in a situation to be able to come to any conclusion. I suggest therefore that I am reasonably well qualified to address these issues (but if you are similarly qualified, and have studied CF/LENR in adequate detail I am prepared to take this fact into account). Anyway, my conclusion is that the prevailing opinion that CF was in error is to be understood in sociological terms (e.g. 'groupthink') and does not reflect the actual situation. I view your comments about 'claims that failed to amount to anything' and 'disappointment' as deriving from an erroneous consensus rather than indicative of the true situation.

• As regards Mr. Lewan's qualification, it is important to acknowledge (as you have done) the fact that there are 2 distinct issues (i) is there excess heat, in useful quantities (ii) are nuclear reactions occurring. The first, which is what matters as far as energy applications is concerned, involves only elementary physics and I am sure Mr. Lewan is qualified to explain the issues. On the second, there are some direct indications of nuclear processes in terms of isotope detection, and stronger indications based on the fact that we know of no non-nuclear processes capable of generating the quantities of energy observed. Since the situation is not as yet completely settled the issue here is 'did Lewan report what is claimed accurately?', and my judgement is that he has done.

• I have elsewhere commented on the difference between writing a blog and writing articles for a respectable publication. My I express the hope that you will observe this difference in future? -- Brian Josephson (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Evaluating the Energy Catalyzer

Under what circumstances has the device been tested? As far as I can tell, the Energy Catalyzer has never been operated outside of Rossi's hands.

Have you interviewed any scientists who have examined the (limited) public data about the device and who have reached a negative conclusion? Have you asked any physicists not affiliated with the Energy Catalyzer what sort of evidence would persuade them that it works, or what types of tests a nuclear physics laboratory might perform to investigate Rossi's claims? (In most cases, one would expect to observe a) excess heat produced by the nuclear reaction; b) radiation as a byproduct of the transmutation, including gamma radiation and possibly neutrons depending on the specific reactions that occur, c) the depletion of nickel isotopes involved in the reaction, accompanied by the formation of corresponding isotopes of copper.)

What evidence has been presented that a nuclear reaction is occurring? Taking the three points above in order:

Excess heat. As far as I can tell the only positive evidence reported by independent observers is excess heat. The calculations are based on measurements of hot water or steam output from the device over periods ranging from several minutes to hours. While suggestive, I do wonder how thoroughly the independent observers were allowed to investigate Rossi's setup. I will assume for the moment that the measurements of water input and output volumes and temperatures are not grossly inaccurate, as errors in these measurements ought to be relatively obvious even without relying on any instruments. Perhaps the most likely source of error would be the fact that a continuous electric current needs to flow through the reactor during its operation. This, by itself, isn't a problem, but one needs to be very careful to account correctly for resistive heating from this current—otherwise, one has just observed the world's most complex electric kettle. Errors made in measuring the current flowing through the device could account entirely for the heat output observed. Were the voltage and current measurements made using instruments provided by Rossi and his collaborators, or were they supplied by the independent observers? How were the instruments checked for accuracy? Did the observers examine the Catalyzer and all of the electrical leads coming in to it in order to account for all possible current sources?

Gamma and neutron radiation. Independent scientists at the January demonstration did not detect gamma radiation or neutrons. Rossi (and a few others on the cold fusion fringe) argue that there is some novel physics responsible for the absence of radiation during cold fusion processes; these types of low-energy nuclear reaction schemes have never gained any traction in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. If Rossi's device really is producing energy through nuclear fusion, there has to be some mechanism by which energy is conveyed from just-fused nuclei into the surrounding milieu; if it isn't through the usual and expected process of gamma ray emission, then how?

Isotopic composition of the fuel. Samples of the nickel fuel before and after two months of 'burning' in the reactor were recently tested (as reported recently in your column). Those tests found that the nickel fuel was not depleted of the fusible isotopes nickel-62 and nickel-64, and the 'used' fuel sample contained copper with exactly the same ratio of copper-63 to copper-65 as one would find in naturally-occurring metal; further, the quantity of copper in the 'used' fuel seemed to exceed the amount of fusible nickel present. The 'used' fuel also contained a large proportion (11%) of iron, for which no explanation is apparent. At best, the result might be explained by corrosion of Rossi's device during operation, leading to contamination of the sample with copper and iron/steel used in the Energy Catalyzer's construction—but even this most charitable interpretation leaves us without evidence of a fusion process. Have you asked independent nuclear physicists to examine the isotopic composition data and comment on the most likely explanations? Did you ask Kullander if he considered any non-nuclear interpretation of the isotope data, or if he could suggest where the iron in the sample might have arisen? Are copper and steel components used in the Energy Catalyzer's construction? — TenOfAllTrades , — (continues after insertion below.)

A few comments:

• The experimenters were able to bring their own instruments and examine everything except the crucial working parts. The basic test of energy production depends on the conservation of energy and comparisons with known sources of energy. It is hard to see how Rossi could have fooled so many experimenters.
• I am not aware of any negative reports. Rossi willingly modified his setup in response to criticisms of the first demonstration.
• all an electric kettle? No way, do the maths!
• isotopic consitution? Agreed, there are uncertainties here which we must wait for the future to resolve. As long as what is claimed is distinguished from what is reasonably certain, there is no problem. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I am impressed that you are so persuaded by the data which agree with your preferred outcome, but so prepared to dismiss evidence ("uncertainties here which we must wait for the future to resolve") which does not. I hope that Mr. Lewan is prepared to do his own investigations, rather than rely solely on the words and wisdom of 'true believers'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Defkalion

Have you investigated who is involved in this company? They appear to have a 'spokesperson' Symeon Tsalikoglou – about whom very little seems to be known – but no other reported staff. (The only online information I can locate about Tsalikoglou is that someone by that name is (or was) Director of International Sales for Milotos Editions ([1]), a division of the Greek publishing company Troia Publishing.)

Who is the company's president? CEO? CFO or treasurer? Who sits on their board of directors? Is there anyone associated with the company who has experience in the energy industry?

The company website is just a placeholder: a single page of contact information. It offers no name, but there is an office address. Has anyone actually visited their office? Do they have any employees? Are there engineers? Scientists? A marketing staff? A legal department?

How are the company's activities financed? Is it all straight out of Rossi's pockets, or are there independent investors? Are there any formal partnerships with other companies or organizations (not counting Rossi's other companies, Leonardo and Eon)?

There are claims that they are equipping a factory in Xanthi. Has anyone visited the site? Are there photographs? How large is the facility? Who is paying for the purchase/lease and for any equipment?

I look forward to reading your upcoming columns. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have questions concerning Defkalion then the obvious person to ask is Rossi himself as he will have the answers. If you have not contacted him about these matters then I suggest you post your questions to his blog at http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com. I have some thoughts concerning your other queries as well, and will post these on this page when I have the time. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing detailed and independently-verifiable responses to these questions, if any should be forthcoming. I will note, however, that part of the reason why I am asking these questions of Mr. Lewan is because the level of research and investigation that he has done for his column should help us evaluate the appropriateness of relying on him as a source for Wikipedia articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident, on the basis of my experience, that no problems will be found. Let me add this thought. Suppose say Britannica Encyclopedia were to decide they wanted to have an article on the Rossi reactor. I think it very likely that, having evaluated a range of options, they would look at Lewan's contributions in Ny Teknik and conclude (unlike yourself, clearly) that he was the most suitable person to write this article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Further Tests At University of Bolgna

Just a heads up that may be worth incorporating into the article should you wish to investigate it [2].
Seems that a university team [3] has been investigating. Several names are unknown to me. Perhaps they would care to be interviewed by yourself?94.170.239.207 (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Answer by Mats Lewan

Dear TenOfAllTrades,

Thanks for your comments and questions. I will provide this answer in one single piece as it makes more sense in this case.

First some facts.

I hold a Master of Science in Engineering Physics from the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology (KTH).

I’m a staff writer at Ny Teknik since 2002, and have been at the same publishing company since 1999.

Ny Teknik was founded with the current name in 1967 (but is older than that) and has about 300,000 readers, mostly professional engineers, and a circulation of about 146,000. We are about 20 journalists in the newsroom.

Our readers have very high expectations of accuracy in our reporting. Therefore everything that we present is thoroughly researched, although for natural reasons not every part of the research is presented in our articles.

In the same way, in order to be brief, not all of the material in my articles is included in my contributions to the article on the Energy Catalyzer in Wikipedia.

Regarding the risk of conflict of interest when I do contributions citing my own articles in Ny Teknik I agree with you (update: I'd rather say I understand your point). I have decided not to do any more contributions to this article. (Update: I notice the comment above by Brian Josephson regarding conflict of interest, and maybe I am too severe with my own contribution. What I expect is that I will not have to do any more contributions as I hope more sources will be available soon -- see the following paragraph).

The reason I started contributing was simply the lack of information from other sources; until now Ny Teknik has been the only major media in the world to cover this topic with regularity and in-depth research. All other major media has chosen to remain silent.

Out of these two stand points we have chosen the first one for a reason.

I our opinion, and I mean the newspaper, not just me, experimental data presented, the competence of the scientists presenting this data, and the possible implications of this technology, lead to the conclusion that it is of high importance to report on this topic with as much research as possible.

In this way people have a chance to ask more questions and discuss aspects that should be researched further.

You have lots of questions, and you’re not alone. I believe that Ny Teknik’s coverage has answered more of the questions regarding the Energy Catalyzer than any other source so far. And of course, we’re not finished.

Wikipedia has the same kind of choice that media has: Refer to existing reports, even if many questions still are unanswered, or to avoid them (you can of course amend my contributions any time you like).

A few words on my methods:

- I have focused on the experimental data presented. As for the theoretical aspect I haven’t touched this part of the Wikipedia article, which I find comprehensive. A theoretical explanation of the effect is of course lacking, but I don’t think that this is a reason for not reporting, given that the experimental data are so convincing, and given that the implications of this technology if it works, are huge. Kullander and Essén have also pointed out to me that the knowledge of physics in this area is weak from certain aspects, which is an important aspect.

- I have interviewed all persons involved several times. As I speak Italian fluently, interviews with Rossi, Levi and Focardi have been made in Italian.

- I have investigated all potential ways of fraud or misunderstanding that people have presented to me and that I have come up with myself, and found nothing.

- I have turned to the most qualified and, as I hoped, critical scientists I could find (Essén was the former chairman of the Skeptics Society and Kullander is chairman of the Energy Committe of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the body that decides on the Nobel Prizes in physics and chemistry) to get their opinion.

- Through contacts with Rossi I obtained that these scientists, basically chosen by me personally and thus independent, got access as observers to a test of the Energy Catalyzer in Bologna, free to investigate what they wanted, except for the inside of the reactor, and also to make analyses of the fuel powders. Their report went further than I expected.

- As for the Greek Company Defkalion Green Technologies I have done research to prove that the company exists. I have more questions on this topic and continue to do research. And in general terms – this is how far I have reached while others have been watching. I’m not finished, and if I find anything that would discredit this technology I will be the first to report it.

Please feel free to improve my contributions in Wikipedia.--Matslewan (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

Hej och välkommen till Wikipedia. Tack för en bra artikel i Ny Teknik. Skriv gärna något om dig själv på din användarsida. --LA2 (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)