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, http://magicsound.us/MFMP/MFMP_Research-August2016.pdf, 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 (http://www.optris.com/thermal-imager-optris-pi-640?file=tl_files/downloads/Manuals/Englisch/Infrared%20Cameras/Manual%20optris%20PI.pdf) 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,  http://www.scigiene.com/pdfs/428_InfraredThermometerEmissivitytablesrev.pdf, 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.
  • Obvious

    In the manual linked above by “Rander” in the update, on page 76, you can see under Ceramic 0.95 for the 8-14 um IR band. Note that they list several IR bands for each material. These are there because Optris makes several models, with different spectral ranges. The emissivity suggested is of course specific to the spectral range of the camera that uses that band to “see” with. See the Optris spectral range below.

    I also had an email chat with Douglas Wright, president of Scigene (emissivity chart link, suggested by Rander above).
    He said (in part) “So even if our tables were perfect for you they would be off for someone else. They are really meant as a guide. I usually advise my clients to buy a dual model (IR/T.C) and to take the TC reading and then calibrate the IR by adjusting the Emissivity.”

    and
    “So again this stresses the need to check IR against an actual certified TC.
    So back up a step and take real temperature reading using a thermocouple. Even a cheap TC might only introduce a 3% error full scale so it should be good enough to tell you if you need to go
    above 1000C or not.”

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c0b4db2f21d9afc1adc8574245a550f2b0d6af24a279cc4ff3032d562881aa96.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9a63741f68f25bd21fcc69bab2eec68b5a9815583bd07e6758b210cab33f8edd.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9a0ba180a50de95d6fbba1f34b293a207a30695d79c3473b2b177005d204e418.jpg

  • Obvious

    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.
    ” – “Rander” https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0d23f73312aec7f7e6a6228fa5b5fc36c851eefebf0b9ff7e0ebe2e08ff13675.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/86950f398a4dfd24e16ddd84cd128eef0548c458565836addd71bb8f1780a13e.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/028a6ea54f3f5f58cce8a3c531065a57df31fac940a134443c3496019fe80dfd.jpg in article above

    We therefore took the same emissivity trend found in the literature as reference; but, by applying emissivity reference dots along the rods, we were able to adapt that curve to this specific type of alumina, by directly measuring local emissivity in places close to the reference dots (Figure 7).” – Lugano Report, Page 9.

    However, there is no indication of any/i> modification to the alumina TOTAL emissivity curve, (figure 6 and plot 1). Note that this curve was used to modify the recorded data after the experiment, once the results of analysis of the alumina casting material removed from the ridge were received.

    In Figure 7, we see an emissivity “dot” on a rod. On close inspection, part of the dot is exposed, below the computer generated circle. It is not as bright as the circle, indicating that the circle has a slightly lower ε than the dot. Using radiant power matching over the 7.5 to 13 micron band, the difference between the dot and the circle is actually only about 20°C from ~235°C reported at the Plot 1 ε (~0.74), and the ε at 0.95 , so the rod temperature could have been 200°C, easily confirmed by a thermocouple (which was available). “We also found that the ridges made thermal contact with any thermocouple probe placed on the outer surface of the reactor extremely critical, making any direct temperature measurement with the required precision impossible.

    Insofar as the recursive iteration method used to “prove” the correct emissivity was used, the method can ONLY return the value on the plot used (Plot 1 in this case) when iterated to the node value. This can be demonstrated by inserting ANY smooth curve in a ε vs T plot, and selecting the arbitrary value scribbled in place of the alumina TOTAL ε plot used for Lugano. I have produced a rainfall in Switzerland plot, transferred onto a ε vs T plot for anyone to try this out with.

    • Obvious

      Here is another “dot” further down the Rod. Note that this Rod photo is taken from behind the reactor, facing towards the tables containing the controller, laptops, ect. There are no other photos of this side of the rods, except in Figures 12a and 12b (enhanced, https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images below), where the “dot” above is clearly visible when the image is enhanced slightly (you can see it without any help directly in the report, but not as clear)
      /8edc022c2f6c54660484fc2e407b5bc73abf653332568bccb9944aec8db61e78.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e8d30a71d38d3ad0be32a46f5480821b04fc571ebc9f2761a22651a8681ca1d6.jpg

      • Obvious

        The photo images I posted above are best viewed on a large screen, or expanded on a pad or device, in order to see the details more clearly. I notice this morning that the details are not as obvious when using a pad.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Stimulation for coherency…

    Waveforms for stimulation of LENR based on Coherent Correlated State theory of Vladimir Vysotskii

    https://youtu.be/83_ZaJaRaIU

    • Axil Axil

      The issue is what is the goal in coherency. IMHO, the goal is the production of metalized hydrogen(aka rydberg matter). One means to meet that goal is to provide a shock to change pressure to a level in which ultra dense hydrogen can form.

      Coherency is inherent in metalized hydrogen because it is a superconductor and it supports bose condinsation.

      Metalized hydrogen is itself a means to an end, the production of a special form of magnetism. There are other more direct ways to get to that end that does not require coherency.

      See this post for a more detailed explanation

      https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3736-The-possible-Role-of-Axions-in-LENR/?postID=38813#post38813

    • Axil Axil

      Rossi uses mica as a separator between the heater and the fuel. I beleive that the mica generates vortex rotation in the dipole magnetic fields that the heater produces. An experiment can be done to verify this theory. Will MFMP support an very simple and uncomplicated experiment to verify this posit based on this experimental setup shown in the video:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIlijUSJMmg

      where a thin sheet of mica is placed on the dipole electromagnetic magnet.

      The mica could produce a vortex of bubbles by filtering the magnetic field generated by the dipole electromagnet.

      • Bob Greenyer

        interesting. I cant promise anything, but I think Mathieu has some mica.

        • Axil Axil

          The reason to bring up the characteristics of magnets is not to engineer a LENR system based on magnets, but to reduce the variables in the LENR theory to the bare minimum as exemplified by the Cravens ball reactor which uses only a magnet, charcoal and deuterium. With all the theoretical underbrush removed, it seems to be possible to penetrate the LENR reaction to its core…that core being magnetic effects on the nucleus of the atom.

          The reaction in the golden ball does not require shock, pressure change, EMF stimulation and the other dozens of reaction complications that confuse the LENR reaction issue. There is a simple reductionist experimental process that can allow for an amateur scientist to penetrate deeply into the mysteries of LENR with simple equipment and the proper use of reductionist logic.

          The Cravens golden ball has fascinated me as a theoretical outlier but as the simplest LENR reactor, and the most fundamental.

          With the underpinning of the Cravens golden ball theory in hand; all other LENR theory can be analyzed under its revelations.

          • Mats002

            I support this – where do I pay money to MFMP?

  • Stephen

    Rainer Rander. This is a serious question (actually a request on my side if it’s possible for you to do and not too difficult) have you and your colleagues you contacted and discussed this with considered contributing to the LOS approach of MFMP?

    I think the idea behind LOS is brilliant and could lead to a lot of positive things but it really benefits when more skilled and professional people also contribute their experience and knowledge and expertise. LOS depends on people with diverse and opposing views with all kinds of backgrounds getting involved and contributing so that the “wisdom of the crowed” can benifit form this. The more skilled and diverse that crowed is the better it benefits.

    The nature of this work is open and always open to discussion by being so it is also open to criticism. I think this is its strength.

    (I think their investigation this particular case was in response to critics of Lugano to make an independent calibration rather than targeted against Lugano in anyway. If there are errors in their approach you see. I think they would really appreciate your help too).

    I hope you can see what benefits this LOS approach can bring especially as it grows attracts more and more expert contributions to the discussion and involves the combined wisdom of thousand rather than a few.

    I know there is huge experience in academia and industry and it is not always easy for those organisations to be open about their work for various reasons but I think embracing this approach to some extent could really bring benefits. Both to your selves, to academia and industry in general and to the wider community.

    Im just a bystander who makes occasional contributions but perhaps if you and your colleagues could embrace the idea of LOS and what MFMP are trying to promote with this I think everyone would see the benefits.

  • Because hot fusion is based on thermalizing the energetic neutrons/protons in liquid Li, there has been a lot of work done on material compatibility with liquid Li. Li will attack most aluminas, and the higher the purity of alumina (less silicates) the better it resists attack. Because it is a pretty slow attack, it is not chemically very energetic. What is rated as the best against Li corrosion is pure Fe. It doesn’t take many watt-hours of energy for the potential chemical energy of 1g of fuel to be exceeded, hence showing a process beyond chemical. Most of the recent Parkhomov experiments only have 0.1g of LiAlH4, hence the Li present is exceedingly small.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      So then, the alumina in mullite (alumia/silica) would more easily react with lithium metal than pure alumina would?

      • Yes, mullite would react more quickly with Li and this is what was seen in a lot of Parkhomov’s early experiments. It is believed that the central fuel tube in the Lugano reactor was a high alumina tube. Emissivity on the outside finned area of the Lugano reactor would not be affected by the Li in the fuel. The Li is not a -catalyst- for breakdown of the alumina, it is a chemical reaction. Once the available Li has been used in reacting with the alumina, the Li no longer plays any role in further corrosion. In the Lugano fuel system, much of the Li is taken up, wicked, wetted onto the high surface area of the Ni powder in the fuel (if it is done correctly) and is unavailable for reaction with the fuel tube.

        • Axil Axil

          Just wondering, If the LENR reaction produces blue light as indicated by Rossi in his QuarkX reactor, would that production of internally generated light change the temperature readings in the Lugano demo from the actual temperature?

          • This blue light would be more highly absorbed by the thick cast alumina layer and would be thermalized. The Optris camera only imaged in the far infrared.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          So, Parkhomov switched from mullite to pure alumina and that’s when he saw the exothermic reaction?

          • Alan DeAngelis

            PS
            I know (I think) that Parkhomov used an elegantly simple system, just nickel and LiAlH4 (no lithium metal).

          • Parkhomov saw excess heat in his original mullite reactors, with a high alumina tube, and with the fuel in a stainless canister inside the high alumina tube. It seems to show that the tube itself is not important except for maintaining the integrity of the gas container.

            • Alan DeAngelis

              OK, thanks

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Ah, yes. Beta-alumina (although it may not be beta) is a “fast ion conductor”, Li+ and H+.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-alumina_solid_electrolyte

      • Alan DeAngelis
  • Alan DeAngelis

    Could the lithium metal be reacting with the alumina?

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022311585904544

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      800 Kelvin is 526.85 Celsius

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PPS
      Therefore, changing its emissivity.

      • Bob Greenyer

        The Williamson Pyrometer uses dual wavelengths and a bunch of math to dynamically correct its emissivity.

        The B-Type and K-Type thermocouples did not care.

        We did not have Li in the Thermal assessment experiment.

        We did in the experiments since – still with Al2O3 on the outside of our reactors (GS series) and still with the Optris Pi160 agreeing with the TCs.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          OK thanks

  • cashmemorz

    Not to pretend to be an economist or anything of that ilk but if a well financed corporation sees an advantage in LENR for powering its own processes, then would not such an entity try and possibly succeed in making LENR devices for its own use, no market considerations in terms of the device itself. Just the lower cost of power to make their products, and in that way increase their profits on products they make using that cheaper power. With NDA’s in house for installers and users of such power. Might be not long before some one opens their mouth to show off that “their” company has something no one else has. Would that be risky? If so then if it becomes known what is happening outside that company only then apply for a patent with ready made application ready to submit on a moments notice to get ahead of the competition at that point in time.

  • To add to Bob Greenyer’s comments … This data was previously presented at RNBE-2016 in France by Mathieu Valat, and a detailed paper describing the analysis will imminently be published in the proceedings of this conference in a special proceedings issue of the Journal of CMNS. The proceedings will include a detailed paper, not just a reproduction of the slides. This MFMP report is based on co-analysis of data from a replica (made by Hunt Utilities Group) wherein the thermal state (vs. heater input power) is matched to the reported Lugano data. This analysis basically removes all calculation of emitted heat (as the Lugano experimenters did to arrive at an output heat value), and REMOVES emissivity as a factor in assessing the heat. Essentially it provided the wide range calibration run that everyone wishes had been performed in the actual Lugano experiment.

    • Mats002

      Well done. Lugano was – if possible – not using the self sustain mode (HAD).
      I wonder if Rossi have HAD as a high COP enabler or is it a scam?

      • Because Rossi has been in a “going commercial” mode for the last 2-3 years, there has been relatively little experimental information available (Lugano the exception). The early eCat experiments were more public and Rossi had Focardi – a very credible scientist – working with him. Reports of COP were probably more believable from the Focardi days. I think Focardi believed real excess heat was present and he also measured low energy gamma from Rossi’s early eCat reactors (credible because Focardi was a long-time nuclear scientist).

        If you have excess heat, self-sustain is possible merely by having a means to store heat and a means to adjust-ably allow heat removal (a controlled fan, for example). Self-sustain mode is more a control issue than anything else once you have quantified the nature of the excess heat. It is not an invention, it is engineering.

        • Builditnow

          Yes, Once there is heat generated, insulation and then controlled heat extraction = Self Sustained. Air is an excellent medium to extract heat.
          An engineering issue.

      • Bob Greenyer

        See my comment below to Gerard

  • Gerard McEk

    There was another reason to doubt on the temperature of the Lugano experiment. Somebody made also an estimation based on the coil resistance. Based on that, the specific resistance vs temperature was not (near too) linear be but showed a relatively sharp curve, which is unusual for this material. If that was corrected to meet the standard specific resistance vs temperature, then the assumed temperature was also considerably less then shown on the graphs published (similar to what MFMP has found).

    AR has defended that curve in the graph, but gave no reason why it happend. I have assumed that the Al2O3 started to conduct above 1000C and that this caused the curve. (Remember the 3 phase coils and the small distance and relatively high voltages between the coils). Running currents through the Al2O3 and the fuel can be essential to start LENR.

    It is a pity and a disgrace that the ‘professors’ of the Lugano team did not react on the critics. They were probably under NDA, but they could at least have given a confirmation of what was published and having read the critics. (Like: ‘We confirm our statements in the report’). Now it looks like they were not.

    • Stanny Demesmaker

      Why should they react to people who have no professional credentials? I read alot of comments of people criticizing the report, and there was one common theme. They all had no practical or professional experience. It’s not up to the Lugano team to teach people how to do proper calorimetry. I wish I could read a expert review of the Lugano test, but after 2 years none appeared.

      • DNI

        Much of the critique has been valid no matter the credentials of the people criticizing. For instance that the Lugano team assumed the E-cat to be a gray body which it is not. And to my knowledge none of the Lugano team had practical or professional experience in termographic calorimetry. I can’t see why the people criticizing the report must have better credentials than the authors.

        • Stanny Demesmaker

          If they didn’t had the expertise they would hire a consultant to do the job(Alan smith hinted at that). They had access to a knowledge base of 3 universities.
          So it doesn’t matter that you know where you’re taking about? You know what happens if you don’t have that expertise. This means that after 2 years you’re still taking about it, nobody knows the answer. and everbody has his theory.
          Btw if the report really did contain big errors, they would have updated or retracted the report by now. Mister Darden would have forced them by now.

          • Obvious

            Some of the Professors have working on trying to replicate in Sweden since May 2015. That says something in itself.

          • Bob Greenyer

            If they would accept being forced, they would loose their aura of independence.

          • DNI

            I whish you where right in your assumptions. To me it’seems clear that they did not use the right expertise. If they had they would have calibrated at the right temperature and not assumed the E-Cat to be a black body. Those are obvious mistakes.

    • Obvious

      Hoistad was relatively responsive, early on. I have collected at least a couple interviews with him.

      • Gerard McEk

        I can’t remember any in which he defends on criticism about mis adjustment of the IR meter or the strange bend in the heating coil temp vs resistance curve.

        • Obvious

          I’ll have a look. I have transcripts, Q & A’s and audio files.
          I don’t recall any discussion about emissivity, or electrical resistance specifically.

          The resistance vs. temperature of the HT cat has a strange profile also, BTW. That one has the coils quite far apart compared to the Lugano device, and lower voltage.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I intuited that we needed to pass electricity through the fuel last year and told as much to me356 – I advise discharge or a central electrode.

      Perhaps people missed it at the start of my Doppelgänger video, but my thinking has advanced somewhat following a lecture by Christian Amatore at Aarhus

      http://www.electrochem.org/amatore

      He was discussing Pt in chemical reaction catalysis and said that a catalyst cannot return to its original state (where it has the ability to facilitate the reaction) by heat. Instead you must apply some form or electrons or light.

      In the case of electrolytic cells, the application of electricity is a given, in the case of glow or spark discharge, again it is there in abundance. In the case of laser stimulated reactions, such as those by Cravens, you have the light. But what of the Lugano / *GlowStick* series?

      In the case of the Lugano reactor, there are three parallel phases – now Alan re-discovered that Alumina progressively becomes a conductor as the temperature rises – this is why I made recommendations to me356. With 3 phases and pulsed energy you can have a differential of 240 X Sqrt3 differential I think (may be wrong) between the phases, and so that would create some electrical power through the fuel – if how ever the 3 phase was configured as a star – with the neutral in the middle of the fuel, then there would readily be electricity passing though the fuel.

      So what of the *GlowStick* type cells? In one of my videos, I showed that the peak IR was around 900ºC, after that we start to move into the visible spectrum. For Visible, read “light” so whilst there is no appreciable electricity possible though the alumina in a GS, there is more and more light above 900ºC, could this be why we appear to see the effect take off at the highest temperatures?

      • Gerard McEk

        I agree that licht (photons) takes a role, as it is clearly demonstrated by Holmid et al. My question would be how AR then managed to get a low temperature Ecat working. IR photons are much less energetic.
        Maybe he ran also a current through the fuel e.g. like this:
        Connect the fuel-powder via the vacuum system to earth (or Zero). Maybe using a thin iron wire running from the copper vac system through the fuel? Obviously there should be no (insulating) transformer between the triac controller and mains. (>1000C). I am sure that there is insulation (thermically and electrically) between the internal Al2O3 system and the water system.

      • LT

        Leakage current trough alumina

        That Alumina becomes progressively becomes a conductor is a known issue. It is true for alumina and also for quartz.
        People working in the semiconductor industry know this and have to cope with this issue because at higher working temperatures in diffusion ovens, these leakage currents can induce currents and voltages into the thermocouples used for the temperature measurements, thereby creating additional errors in those temperature measurements. Especially the 50/60 Hz of the mains voltage can then interfere with the sample frequency of the temperature acquisition system, causing lower frequency beat frequencies and thereby creating low frequency oscillations in the temperature control.

        As far as the reactor used in the Lugano test, we can make a rough estimate of the leakage current through the alumina tube
        The tube in the Lugano test was 20cm in length and had a diameter of 2cm (20 mm)
        The inner diameter of the tube is estimated to be 15 mm.
        So the cross section area of the tube is pi*20*20/4 – pi*15*15/4.
        This gives a cross section of about 137 mm squared, or 137*1E-6 meter squared

        At 1000 degree C the resistance of alumina is about 20000 Ohm*m

        So the total resistance of the Alumina tube at 1000 degree is

        20000 * .2 / (137*1E-6) = 29E6 (29 Mega Ohm)

        This gives an estimated leakage current between phases of 230 * sqrt(3) / 29E-6 = 14E-6. (14 microAmps)

        From the above calculation we see that even at 1000 degree C, the leakage current is still quite low and possibly too low to have influence on the fuel.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Thanks for the contribution. There will also be an electrostatic effect.

          • Gerard McEk

            See my reply to LT above.

        • Gerard McEk

          Sorry, the above calculation is wrong.
          1. The distance between the coils is maybe 5 mm. The resistance is 40 times less.
          2. Between these coils is a voltage of 400*sqrt(3) so the resulting current is about 40 times sqrt(3) so about 68 times higher.
          Obviously the voltage may have been a lot lower because it was not a full wave, but triac controlled.

          • LT

            Hello Gerard,

            Don’t be sorry. It is good to have these discussions on this forum to sort things out. Also the actual situation is even more complex !

            My intention was to get as i stated “a rough estimate” to get an order of magnitude of an expected current.(Not to get an exact value) For those calculations I used RMS values because those are more related to the energies dissipated.

            You are right in your statement that between adjacent windings the currents are larger, but since I wanted an order of magnitude, I did not perform those calculations, but will try to give a more detailed analysis.

            On the ends of the coils, which are connected to a phase of the 230 volt, the maximum voltage difference (RMS) is 230 * Sqrt(3) = 398 Volts.
            In the middle of the coils the maximum voltage between windings has a maximum of 200 Volt RMS. You can easily verify this in a spice simulation by simulating each coil resistance by two equal resistances in series and then verifying the voltages between the connection points of these resistances.

            There is an additional effect of the coil windings acting as surface contacts to the ceramic tube. This also means that since currents tend to take the shortest path between the contacts, the current decreases with depth, just as in high frequency applications the skin effect does.
            In our case the current distribution will likely be following an exponential curve, with the current being near zero at the inner surface of the tube. However When a conductive fuel is in the tube, the current will not be zero, but at least lower then on the outer surface.
            If a separate (ceramic) inner tube in the middle of the outer tube is used to hold the fuel, the current will largely being reduced, the amount depending on the conductivity of the gas between inner and outer tube.

            But lets assume there is no inner tube and the fuel is placed in the middle of the tube, the maximum voltage differences between windings at this point will be 200 Volt RMS,(not taken into account that the triacs will cut the phase to a lower voltage). In this situation and taking your distance of 5 mm between windings we get without compensation for the depth :

            40 * 14E-6 * 200/398 = 280E-6 (280 microAmp)

            However we have to take into account the decreasing current with depth.Now if we roughly estimate this to be a factor 10 we arrive at 28 uA.
            This is still the same order of magnitude as previous calculated.

            Personally I think that Rossi in his Lugano test used an inner tube, but I could not found evidence for this. (somebody knows ?)

            • Gerard McEk

              Hi LT,
              I agree largely with what you are saying about the depth that currents may run, it seems to be nearly impossible to calculate because you need to know exact construction details and e.g. the resistance of the fuel powder as well. One thing about the voltage: The coils were delta connected (not star). (In Europe – Lugano- the voltage between the three phases is 400 Vrms). (240 V between 1 phase and Zero, but that was not used). At both ends of the reactor tube the local voltage between the coil wires is the highest (momentary voltage maximum 488V) and in the middle of the tube half of this.
              Because the resistance of the coils is very low I doubt that the voltage was as high as 400Vrms. Using the triac control leads to short and high current peaks. Because of this I have also suggested that maybe also the magnetic field and harmonics caused eddy currents in the fuel.

      • SG

        Your thoughts are also pretty consistent with one of Rossi’s provisional patent applications, which explains running current through the fuel “is the Rossi effect.” In that disclosure, Rossi states that it is DC. He also has stated later on his blog that electrical pulses may actually slow or stop the reaction. So maybe time to try running DC current through the fuel in a glow stick experiment?

        • Axil Axil

          Rossi patented the establishment of an electrostatic potential between 50 and 100 kv. Using this method, photons flow through the fuel not electrons. This method is NOT arc discharge. Spark production produces disruptive magnetic fields that kills metalized hydrogen, Bose condensation and superconductivity whereas electrostatic potential does not product this type of magnetic disruption.

        • Bob Greenyer

          goo.gl/lMxQ2K

          • SG

            Nice. So glad to see this planned.

  • georgehants

    Michael, Ha, I don’t care if it is Venezuela or North Korea, but if Cold Fusion is genuine then our friends the Chinese must be a favorite.

  • georgehants

    Gregory, many thanks for your reply, it does not I think change the gist of my comment, that after all this time no known publication of a repeatable conformation of Cold Fusion with a COP above 1 is available.

    • Warthog

      “……and I could not be happier if all patents where removed and only those
      people contributing to society where personally rewarded….”

      Society already tried that back in the days of the guilds. It didn’t work out well….critical technology was repeatedly lost. The system of patents was a direct result of that problem.

      How do you plan for the system you propose to identify and reward “only those people contributing to society were personally rewarded”??

      • georgehants

        Warthog not the place for genuine, open-minded, unbiased economics based on today’s technology and populations.
        Like Cold Fusion keep away from all experts.
        All I will say is, no finance is required beyond simple credits for personal accounting, only working people and their production is required and a system of basic and needed care and then further rewards and democratically agreed luxuries based on abilities, talents and efforts for society paid by society.
        You of course can disagree and that is understood, but here is not the place to go into any details of the stupidity and inequality of current economics, we would need at least a fortnight.
        Just point out this is not 1066 but 2016.

        • Warthog

          “….not the place for genuine, open-minded, unbiased economics based on today’s technology and populations.

          So why are you on every thread posting the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over………………………………………………………….

          • georgehants

            Warthog, I post that a caring and sharing society would be for me preferable, I can only answer those that put up reply’s stating that is impossible, by ignoring them or trying to encourage them do their own Research, just as with the majority of scientists who say Cold Fusion is impossible if they have not done or followed all Research then their opinions etc. are worthless.
            I except your point and will only give a further clue to my above reply, the percentage of the working population in the UK, in all farming and fisheries is approx one percent.
            Only jobs of production and services are necessary anything above that is by choice.
            You may wish to Research the number of jobs engaged in worthless finance tax etc.of all kinds.
            I am not backing down or saying you do not have good points and will read your answer if any, but like the argument of Cold Fusion it cannot be resolved without experimentation etc.
            Best

            • Mylan

              You are basically demanding communism. Which went terribly bad whenever tried. Right now, people in Venezuela are starving, although the country is so rich. Some inequality on a very high level is better than everybody starving.

            • Warthog

              “I can only answer those that put up reply’s stating that is impossible,
              by ignoring them or trying to encourage them do their own Research

              You will find, if you look back over my replies, that I have NEVER at any point said “it’s impossible”. What I “have” done, repeatedly, is ask you HOW. You want change, then you have to define the change. “We’ll experiment” isn’t an answer, it is a dodge. And an intellectually dishonest one, at that.

  • Alan Smith

    Having spoken to people who were present in Lugano on the general appearance of the system while operating, I can pass on the following answer to my question.

    “Q. Was the reactor the red colour it looks in the photographs published in the report? There are claims the temperature measurements were too high.
    A. The colour balance in the photos is not a fair represention of how the reactor looked- it glowed bright yellow- even in a well lit room. And it was very uncomfortable to stand anywhere near it.”

    • Gerard McEk

      That is the first time I read this, Alan, did you ventilate this openly before?

      • Alan Smith

        Never. This is my quote from what was a private conversation, and as I point out myself, it is only an anecdote. It proves nothing without data. BUT -it certainly adds colour to the many many versions of the Lugano story.

  • georgehants

    Purely circumstantial but in the years since this report, I think many serious industrial Researchers around the World would have been working to achieve an economically worthwhile Cold Fusion, forgetting all the crazy, secret black projects.
    In that time not a single repeatable report or patent confirming the claims.
    Capitalism demands profit and by definition the only way to attain that profit is a fully repeatable valid patent giving all details necessary for a person skilled in the art to replicate.
    Of course this is no proof of anything, but still surprising that Mr. Rossi still has no published competition.

    • Mylan

      George, I don’t understand, did you become a sceptic?

      • georgehants

        Mylan, What gave you that idea, I am and always will be open-minded on everything, I am also a realist that follows Facts and Truth, like us all, I still as much as ever Hope that Rossi etc, Cold Fusion, is a practical reality.
        We wait as we have for five and a half years for that conformation that Rossi is genuine.

  • Bob Greenyer

    There will be a more comprehensive paper discussing this imminently available in the next ICMNS journal. Here are some points.

    1. The Lugano reports authors used data from before the time of the Optris thermal imaging camera existence as basis for their work
    2. In the Optris camera manual on page 42 it said to use 0.95 for Alumina, this was ignored by the lugano report authors
    3. We used both a B-Type, K-Type thermocouple in contact with our Lugano analogue model reactor and they agreed with the Optris when the Optris was set to 0.95
    4. We used Al2O3 exactly as claimed by the Lugano teams analysis of the Lugano external structure
    5. We used the same optris PI160 camera, lens and calibration as the Lugano authors
    6. The reactor had same physical dimension and was supported in same way
    7. We used a Williamson IR dual-band spot pyrometer ($11,000 tool considered by all in the heat treatment industry to be the only effective and accurate way to measure the temperature of Alumina over a wide range of temperatures since it correctly adjusts emissivity based on years of research at MIT as the Alumina temperature varies) This agreed with our B-Type, K-Type and Optris (when Optris set to 0.95)
    8. we used high emissivity paint to verify emissivity values selected (Aramco paint) at 1000ºC as recommended by the Optris manual and not done by the lugano team.
    9. Calibrating to 450ºC is simply not adequate when working with Alumina since it massively changes its properties above this.

    We did our research live on camera and the data was streamed, it is unfortunate that you cannot see the reality of our work or its value.

    As harsh as your words are, we have received similarly harsh words from those that criticise us for saying we cannot fully dismiss all of the excess heat based on our experimental data.

    We did not set out with an agenda to either prove no or some excess heat, we just conducted experiments live without any ability to cherry pick or goal seek. The data is the data.

    If your group has a proven ability in this area to determine the ‘right’ emissivity values and you seem to write in a way that suggests you have – we have a built lugano analogue reactor we could arrange with you to test at your facility.

    Subsequently, our *GlowStick* experiments appear to show thermal anomalies in line with the 0.95 emmissivity adjusted Lugano report residual excess – though we do not claim that it is actually excess since the nominal is too small to be convincing of a real effect.

    Lastly, Parkhomov’s latest long term Mass-Flow calorimetry version of his “lugano” fuel style experiments is now in the same ball park of anomalous excess heat as both the 0.95 corrected lugano and our own work.

    So I guess everyones work has no scientific value other than the non-live Lugano report writers data that dismisses multiple tranches of advice laid out clearly in the Optris manufacturers product manual. The very same thermal imaging camera on which their estimate of excess heat relies.

    • gerald

      @Bob. I’m a little off right now. Do you guys say there was almost no excess at the lugano test that it was meassured wrong?

      • Bob Greenyer

        We showed this live at the beginning of last year. It was written up in Infinite Energy and discussed widely, even here, I am not sure why this old news is meeting with such surprise.

        The MFMP used the same equipment the Lugano team used to determine the radiant heat and we additionally used two types of physically contacting thermocouples and the best in industry tool for determining alumina emissivity – all on an effective external physical Al2O3 replica of the lugano reactor which was just resistively heated and monitored by the exact same PCE-830 type harmonic power analyser.

        Our data, to the best of our ability, shows that the COP was no more than 1.32. At the time we were attacked for not saying there was no ‘excess’ heat, still are – however, the data is the data.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/def41eb22fea2b76623990a4d827d4345654a3b1d9463514698de60d511b5172.png

        That being said, even this is absolutely amazing if true and in excess of what ITER wants to achieve for 8s at some decade in the future.

        • Gerald

          i can’t speak for another person, but I didn’t fully understand at that time. Thats why I was surprised and ask the question in such a direct manner. I knew there where some issues about Lugano but not that the COP could be off by a factor of 3.
          Personaly I don’t like it measured with themo imaging and themocouples. It’s to complicated for me, I rather saw a system that simply heated up water, and control flow so the water doesn’t get steam. In such an enviroment even me with limited knowledge could calculated how much energy was going in and out with a low error margin.

          Your last scentence makes me happy again. Thks and keep working. Build a system with proof even I can understand, then a lot of people will understand it to.

          • Bob Greenyer

            That’s what we are trying to do, but we need to keep it real!

            • Gerald

              I totaly agree, let the data speak. Hence thats the way I work my self, when I troubleshoot a problem don’t let my feelings misguide me, try to get data.
              But then when a conclusion is there, I have to explain it to the manager. I hope he doesn’t read here, but when I explain it I see my 6 year old boy in front of me as my manager.
              My point is you guys advance in the knowlegde of LENR. I don’t advance as much, so it is sometimes harder to follow and so I miss sometimes the conclusion because of the fog of technical discussion.
              It is not a complain or something, just something maybe you can think about.

              • Bob Greenyer

                good feedback

  • Axil Axil

    There was a single large nickel particle extracted from Lugano reactor that was totally melted. That particle was 1000 microns in size and was peeled from the inside surface of the reactor near the center of its core. It was this chunk nickel that showed almost pure Ni62 isotopic content.

    This tells me that the core of the reactor reached at least 1350C for and extended period of time to allow the large chunk of nickel to aggregate from particles that ranged from 1 to 100 microns.

    The argument against this evidence of high internal heat is that the particle was planted by Rossi.

    The evidence against that argument was that the experimenters who conducted the Lugano experiment watched Rossi remove the 1000 micron chunk from the reactor.

    The additional argument use to explain how a 1000 micron slab of nickel got into the center of the core of the reactor is that Rossi planted that particle when he loaded the reactor.

    This argument does not explain how the 1000 micron particle became melted to the side of the reactor.

    In my opinion, the melting point of nickel is an objective and reliable test that the Lugano reactor achieved at some point a temperature that exceeded 1350C.

    • Obvious

      “It was established in this investigation that, in the temperature range
      500–700°C, carbonyl nickel powder is subject to more intensive sintering
      than electrolytic nickel powder.”
      -http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00774272

      • Axil Axil

        Rossi preprocessed the 5 micron carbonyl nickel powder into a porous nickel powder fragments with sizes between 1 and 100 microns. The powder that was used in the Lugano fuel load was therefore not carbonyl nickel powder any more.

        • Obvious

          IH processed the nickel fuel for Lugano, unless Rossi switched it.

          • Axil Axil

            The one nice thing about micron sized pure nickel powder is that these big chunks of nickel don’t melt and fuse together unless the temperature in the core of the reactor is over 1350C, no matter who created those chunks of nickel.

            • Obvious

              Aluminum reduces the necking temperature of nickel. Necking is the process by which sintering occurs. The neck is the bridge between two particles.

              • Axil Axil

                The 1000 micron particle was a solid hunk of nickel. It had no necks and was comprised of pure Ni62 nickel that at some point in the 32 day run completely melted in total. For some unscientific reason, you are resisting the fact that the core of the reactor exceeded 1350C and are rejecting the evidence that shows that fact.

                • Obvious

                  I am resisting that for a variety of very good reasons. Which we have gone over many times. You may review our earlier discussions for more details.

                • Axil Axil

                  You have used many situations that just do not apply to a massive 1000 chunk of pure nickel. The most basic science defines that the melting point of that much nickel must exceed 1350C. This fact is a KISS solution.

                • Obvious

                  What is the KISS answer for a particle of pure nickel when there was Li and Al bubbling all around and through it, plus a bunch of other elements?

                • Axil Axil

                  This assertion that Li and Al bubbling all around and through it is discredited by Appendix 4

                  Results ECAT ICP-MS and ICP-AES
                  Jean Pettersson
                  Inst. of Chemistry-BMC, Analytical Chemistry
                  Uppsala University

                  The 1000 micron particle was pure nickel.

                  From Appendix 3, this large particle was covered with lithium but that cover was removed by cleaning the surface of the particle.

                • Obvious

                  Covered by lithium, but not aluminum? Perhaps the KISS principle suggests that the particle was never immersed in LAH or it’s decomposition products.

                • Axil Axil

                  Strange as it may be from the Lugano report, aluminum was not found in the fuel or ash, but seems to have somehow disappeared into the alumina shell.

                • Obvious

                  How does the aluminum disappear into the reactor shell before being inserted into the reactor?

                • Axil Axil

                  Your dialog has me thinking about the aluminum. There is no sign of it in the ash, but in page 44, particle 2 there seems to be an aluminum oxide or dioxide fuel particle extracted for testing. Aluminum lithium hydride might have only been used, if at all, in the fuel pre-processing step.

                  The ash extracted showed no sign of aluminum but does show Z = 23, which could be sodium, however the Appendix 4 analysis specifies magnesium.

                • Obvious

                  There are a number of strange things that likely could only be resolved by testing more particles. No real trend can be discerned from such one-off analyses.

                • Jouni Tuomela

                  Sintering is facinating, these slides made me think of the pores filled with hydrogen, could they have some effects when agitated?

                  http://www.slideshare.net/support.xhht/solid-state-sintering-fundamentals-242041

  • Obvious

    If the material used in Lugano was not Alumina, or substantially alumina, then the emissivity figures used for alumina to calculate heat in the report are invalid. This undermines the report grievously, and would be cause to invalidate all the conclusions.

    It is impossible to calibrate a spectrally limited radiometer to guess the total spectral radiance of an object. In others words, the Optris is blind to a wavelengths outside of its particular spectral range. Wavelengths that are invisible to the camera cannot be accounted for by any internal software or factory calibration.

    Anyone can test this. The MFMP has. Many others have. I strongly suggest more people do.

    • Ged

      I agree. So, now we need a piece of the lugano reactor’s shell to test if it is actually alumina versus durapot versus mullite versus the MFMP dogbone shell? And indeed, all that matters is the emissivity versus wavelength (temperature) for the specific wavelength window of the camera (section 3.1 here for alumina http://www.shimadzu.com/an/ftir/support/tips/letter13/emissivity.html ). The Optris PI640 ( http://www.optris.com/thermal-imager-optris-pi-640 ) has the spectral window of 7.5 to 13 um, with most of that window towards the shorter wavelengths being around 95% emissivity for alumina, just as MFMP measured directly (particularly since high temps means shorter wavelength where 0.95 emissivity dominates, and even the factory recalibration for up to 1500 C would just make that more so).

      • Obvious

        The actual camera ε function is an integrated value, which requires knowing the radiance in each wavelength to calculate from first principles. The longer wavelengths have less radiant power than the shorter ones, so a lower ε in longer wavelengths has less effect on the integrated spectral ε than the shorter wavelengths: the integrated spectral ε is not an average.

        The Optris software and output is calibrated heavily, so the mathematically modeled conversion from raw microbolometer response specifications need not necessarily to be done (although Bob H did a great job of this), since the primary goal of OEM software calibration is to ensure that the microbolometer response is normalized to an accurate output signal for each detectable wavelength and combination thereof for a wide degree of input wavelengths. Since almost all materials have a smoothly varying IR radiance profile, from each wavelength to the adjacent wavelengths, there is hardly any need to assume a large error in the microbolometer response to even a fairly complex selective emittance IR spectrum within the limited spectral response of the Optris. Especially in the long wave IR band, where such variance from wavelength to adjacent wavelength is in general the most smooth, and of significantly lower overall radiant power than in the shortwave band, where significant variance from wavelength to wavelength will have potentially significant changes in radiant power.

    • Obvious