{"id":23907,"date":"2014-06-10T16:35:04","date_gmt":"2014-06-10T14:35:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it\/?p=23907"},"modified":"2021-10-02T17:04:50","modified_gmt":"2021-10-02T15:04:50","slug":"kall-fusion-vi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/2014\/06\/10\/kall-fusion-vi\/","title":{"rendered":"Kall fusion – VI"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ny Teknik<\/em> ha concesso il diritto di replica<\/a> <\/strong>a Ulrika Bj\u00f6rkst\u00e9n, criticata sul sito della rivista (e diffamata sul blog di Mats Lewan<\/a>).\u00a0With a little help from Google translate, link miei:<\/p>\n

Ulrika Bj\u00f6rkst\u00e9n, science editor in chief of the Swedish Radio, responds to the criticism of last week’s opinion piece<\/a>. Swedish researchers said the Science Radio program on Andrea Rossi and his energy catalyst was not serious.<\/p>\n

“Cold fusion is contrary to scientific knowledge”
\nPublished June 10, 2014
\nREPLIK<\/strong>.\u00a0\u00a0Why anyone should give Andrea Rossi’s credibility in the form of scientific reports is a mystery. His projects show clear warning flags, writes Ulrika Bj\u00f6rkst\u00e9n, science editor in chief of the Swedish Radio.
\nWhether Andrea Rossi’s energy catalyzer is a scam is of course impossible to know. It is basically a scientific impossibility to prove that an effect does not exist.\u00a0And yes, it is science’s duty to have an open and inquisitive mind. Sometimes entirely new and unexpected mechanisms that revolutionize our ideas are discovered.
\nUniversities and their researchers have a special status in our society. Through tax revenues, institutions and individuals manage and develop our collective knowledge bank. We pay taxes for training of researchers, university infrastructure and liberal teaching hours.
\nThere is every reason in a democracy to protect the universities’ and their researchers’ unique position. But this specificity also implies obligations. We have a right to expect a scientific approach from university-based operators. Whose expertise do we need, and rely on, more than the university researchers’ own?
\nNy Teknik<\/strong> calls our examination shallow. We have spoken to a wide range of sources in Italy – judges, lawyers, technical experts and people affected by Rossi’s previous activities. We also gave Andrea Rossi himself the opportunity to comment, but he declined.
\nAs for Andrea Rossi’s alleged invention, our review found four clear warning flags. Together they show that the scientists who devote themselves to help him test his machine do not take their scientific responsibility seriously:<\/p>\n