I asked for a technical reason. You said there are obvious scientific errors. What you just gave are not technical or scientific errors. Those are reasons why a person might feel suspicious about the work, but they are not technical in any sense.
Instead of trying to understand what someone is attempting to express with imprecise language, you twist and turn it, looking for a mistake. Rossi never allowed a truly independent test and never gave up control of the input power to the system and to the method of measuring output power. Most of his experiments were poorly calibrated or uncalibrated. Those are indeed technical errors and errors in scientific method. But yes, what I meant is that I am suspicious (LOL) about Rossi. Very extremely suspicious. What IH should have been. Obviously, I wasn't there, do not have access to his actual equipment or trustworthy access to raw data so I can not say FOR CERTAIN what happened.
- Clarke was wrong. The temperature was confirmed with a thermocouple to within a degree. There was no error in the temperature measurements. Again, you & Clarke have not found an error, so you should stop saying you found one.
I am not going over that experiment again (EVER again) but best I recall, there may have been a few point temperature measurements. That alone would not necessarily guarantee the thermal camera measurement. And again IIRC, that experiment had problems on the input power measurement side. And of course, as we have said ad nauseam, IH was never able to replicate it.