Like I said, I am just trying to understand why anyone still thinks that the e-cat is something real, regardless of their opinions about CF. There is not a single aspect of the e-cat story that stands up to any critical analysis and yet it appears that most people here still think that there is a pony under that barnful of... well, pony stuff. One just has to wonder why.
Three thoughts here.
(1) The Internet is a big place, and unlike in the 1980's, when there were the superconductivity false starts you describe, the hangers-on nowadays have access to the same forums as everyone else. With some people, hope springs eternal, and an important difference between the 1980's and now is that the E-Cat hangers-on are more visible and accessible than the people who hung onto false claims of superconductivity in an earlier decade.
(2) Observers of this field have by and large refrained from requiring certain proof in order to entertain various possibilities, in contrast to the mode that many scientists are in, of requiring for example that a paper make it through peer review and possibly stand up to subsequent verification before even considering a claim. Hobbyists in this field are happy if some CF claim is vaguely plausible and is slightly consistent with earlier claims, and the more reasonable observers will factor in the low likelihood of a claim in considering it. This is more the mode of thought of a police detective who is entertaining different possible explanations for a crime, which range from implausible to vaguely plausible but still half-baked. It is very different from the mode of thought of a physicist or mathematician, who might want near certainty at each step, or at a least crossing over a high bar, before continuing on to the next step.
(3) The E-Cat has a lineage that runs from Rossi to Focardi to Piantelli, the latter two of whom are/were respected LENR researchers. By (2), above, if one takes Piantelli seriously, there's a remote question of whether Rossi ever had anything in the early days. People's motives change, and for some observers it is sufficient to shake one's head and say, "I don't know. Beats me if he ever had anything. It's bit of a conundrum, although he very well might have been acting in bad faith all along," and leave the judgement as to the earlier stuff at that.