These are sources of fraud not error.
No. All except 4) could be the result of simple incompetence.
1) the big blue box that draws power from the wall and supplies it to the e-cat is a controller. The purpose of a temperature controller is to deliver and modulate a well regulated amount of electricity to the heater. If the energy delivered to the heater different from what is reported then the explanation is fraud.
As already noted several times, they did not monitor actual power usage. A faulty or miscalibrated power supply, could easily supply a different amount of power from that expected.
2)In the 18 hour test there was no vaporization. The flow rate was set by the municipal water supply.
No it wasn't. The flow rate out of a tap is set by your own personal plumbing system. If your pipes are clogged with limescale, for example, you will get much less flow out your taps than someone without such clogging. And if you connect a hose to the tap and then connect something else to that, the flow will be very much affected by factors such as the aperture of the hose. Squeeze the hose flat and the flow will drop to zero. This should be trivially obvious to anyone who has ever used a tap or seen a hose, so I really find it difficult to believe that you don't understand it.
3)In the 18 hour test there is no way that the municipal water supply could vary by accident to the degree required to significantly affect the result.
Probably not. That would be why I explicitly stated that it would not be enough to explain the results on its own, and just that it was an obvious additional source of error that there is no excuse for any competent experimenter not to have eliminated.
4)In the 18 hour test the energy output is too high to be explained by a battery.
I notice you don't comment on the possibility of having an additional heater hidden inside the apparatus. Interesting.
Your analysis of inadvertent error possibilities suffers because of the magnitudes of excess energy.
No it doesn't. As explained many times now, the flow through a pipe, especially a flexible one, can easily drop to zero. That means you could explain apparent power anywhere up to infinite just from that factor alone. Until they do a test where they measure the actual water flow and actual power production, all their claims are utterly meaningless.
Enough evidence of fraud is required to be considered proof of fraud.
Why are you talking about proof in response to my pointing out that proof is irrelevant? Perhaps you've forgotten where you are. This is an internet forum, not a court of law or a peer reviewed journal. No proof of anything is required, ever. What is required is evidence, and people here will all come to their own conclusions based on whether they consider that evidence convincing enough for their own personal tastes. So far, the evidence presented for Rossi's claims has not been enough to convince a single person who didn't already believe that he has discovered cold fusion, but has convinced plenty of people who had never heard of him before that he's probably a fraud.
