Some Points Regarding a Recent Presentation at ICCF20 on the ‘Lugano Report’ (Rainer Rander) [Updated]

The following post has been submitted by Rainer Rander

Recently Mr. Robert Greenyer from the so called “MFMP Project” attacked, during a presentation done at ICCF20, the results of the “Lugano Report”, a technical report written, more than two years ago, by an international group of scientists that clearly shows that a prototype of the Rossi High Temperature Reactor, was producing Energy with a COP of about 3.6.

The harsh critical statements, claiming that the whole analysis was wrong and that just a tiny effect was observed, was spread over the net without any details and this behavior pattern seemed immediately to me, and other colleagues from European Universities and Research Centers, quite unscientific and unprofessional.

In fact, I was able to retrieve from the Internet a document, dated August 2016,, written by the same person in name of the MFMP where substantially the same declarations are made adding that: “the Optris thermal camera needed an emissivity in the range of 0.95 to match temperatures seen by the thermocouples”.

This statement is absolutely surprising and disappointing. We should remember that Alumina total integrated emissivity is, at low temperature, about 0.64 and that this figure di decreases with increasing temperatures.

Supposing that there was no problem with the thermal contact of the Thermocouple, that is not trivial due to the fact that Alumina is a good thermal insulator, the figure obtained by MFMP simply means that the material used by them was not pure Alumina.

Even a small fraction of Mg as found in common “Alumina” cements as “Durapot”, can change material emissivity dramatically.

So with that result MFMP has simply demonstrated that:
1) The material they used was NOT the same of the Lugano measure, or
2) Thermocouple positioning and/or thermal contact was not correct.

In both cases we must conclude that their results are NOT significant in any way. The MFMP report also does not include a real energy calibration, just temperatures being reported, that is necessary in order to know how much power is really injected in the coils.

We should note also that MFMP is ignoring the fact that the Lugano group had measured emissivity of Alumina on the pipes and also calibrated the empty reactor up to 450 °C obtaining a perfect agreement with the measured power and the known values of Alumina emissivity.

This also rules out any of the fanciful considerations about “spectral emissivity” of Alumina that do not consider the fact that any IR detector is factory calibrated in order to permit usage of total emissivity values during measure.

In conclusion we think that the points raised by MFMP against the Lugano Report lack any foundation and have no scientific value.

Rainer Rander

UPDATE: (October 10, 2016)

The following follow-up comment has been submitted by Rainer Rander

Mr. Bob Greenyer  affirms that :
“In the Optris camera manual on page 42 it said to use 0.95 for Alumina, this was ignored by the lugano report authors”

Which Manual? In the online version of the Optris Manual ( on page 42 there is the “Electrical Installation” and at the end of the manual two emissivity tables for metals and non metals “Oxidized Aluminium” has for the camera spectral range a maximum emissivity of 0.4.

For the Emissivity of Alumina on Inconel, quite the same situation of the Lugano report, could be found to have values: “Alumina on Inconel 800-2000 (427-1093) .69-.45” in the table retrieved at,, for the IR thermometers of Scigene that have a spectral response from 8 to 14 micrometers; that is very similar to Optris Pi160.

Mr. Greenyer also affirms that the material was pure Alumina. On what basis? Did they have an analysis done? If they have used a cement even the impurities in water could affect the emissivity values. In fact the Lugano group has verified that the material of the reactor body was pure Alumina by x ray scattering.

Also I have looked with interest to the plot reported in the comments by Mr. Greenyer but I have two points:

1) In the plot it is explicitly said that convection is NOT considered, and also radiation(?) referring just to a “thermal state”.  That is surprising because when speaking of “power” (i.e. energy/time)  all means of thermal energy transport are important (An isolated system could maintain a certain temperature  using much less power than a non isolated one). Convection, radiation,and also heat conduction via the cables, were all considered by the Lugano group.

2) Moreover, because an IR sensor respond to received energy (and NOT temperature) and any (common) camera or thermometer would attempt to calculate temperature using an input emissivity value, and the SAME emissivity value is used to calculate back energy, then the two cancels and energy should have NO dependence on emissivity. In the real case, because of the internal algorithms of the camera, there is still a weak dependence, that would still NOT justify the big differences found by the MFMP.

The comment about the emissivity measure with the reference dots is completely wrong. As we can see in page 71 of the previously cited Optris manual, it is normal procedure to read the temperature value in the center of the dot where it is less probable to have artifacts (due to air under the dot not perfectly sticking surface, than on its borders). Any speculation about parts of the dot “sticking out” is to be considered just FUD. The procedure that the Lugano group have followed is perfectly correct.

Also, personally I found the comments about the Lugano team being unable to carry out the measurement  inappropriate. Personal attacks show only the (low) level of the attacker. And probably it is these kind of comments that are keeping the authors of the Lugano report as far as possible from blogs.