Incidentally, what gets me the most about reading the experimental procedure is how they went about testing and how easily it would be to defraud such a system.

Incidentally, what gets me the most about reading the experimental procedure is how they went about testing and how easily it would be to defraud such a system. There are techniques for exactly measuring heat output of significantly more powerful generators without relying on simulations of designs of radiators and air flow. Consider that thermal solar plants produce megawatts of power during the day, several orders of magnitude beyond the E-Cat, and yet all of the technology around thermal solar generation measures to within 1-2% of reality, reliably. If they can be so precise on energy measurement at the scale of a utility, it is laughable that they would even try anything other than industry-standard techniques. And color me an asshole, but I don't buy that the "high" temperatures of 1500 degrees is a legitimate challenge to measurement, considering that other nuclear technology currently under development operates at millions of degrees and can be measure with much better guarantees of precision, despite also having to deal with deadly radiation and neutron emissions. But no, instead of using fully trusted energy measurement procedures, which would work perfectly fine with a 2300 watt nominal heat generator at 1500 degrees (1.5MWh seems like a lot, but it's only 2300 watts over 32 days, roughly the amount of energy it would take to run two decent microwaves for that period of time), they simulate and estimate based on temperature sensors and IR cameras. And even ignoring their questionable measurement procedures, 2300 watts of fraud would be trivial to inject into a system like that with a handful of magnetrons and a waveguide... like how a microwave works. If I, a computer scientist with a reasonably modest level of physics and chemistry education (from 14+ years ago) can think of several methods by which to trivially defraud observers (via measurement methodology, or by injecting external power remotely), and that their testing methodology seems purpose-designed to defraud, it makes me ask two simple questions: 1. If this is a fraud, in what world did they believe that this turd sandwich would actually be believed? 2. If this is not a fraud, why wouldn't they have used an industry standard measuring methodology instead of throwing all of this other measuring bullshit into their paper, citing the proprietary nature of the measurement devices, while simultaneously claiming precision. Don't get me wrong; I think it would be awesome if this were real. But if I wanted to make claims and defraud observers, I'm not sure I could design a better setup for fraud.