Ah, here is the link to the Bologna physicist's tests: https://e-catworld.com/2021/12/08/25994/

When you say "measuring black body radiation", are you referring to the test published less than ONE month ago? THAT is the University of Bologna physicist's, linked above. I recall they used voltmeters, because the output was electrical, not thermal. Are you sure you're up-to-date?

Additionally, here is Hagelstein's MIT course on LENR (he, a mathematician, professor there, applied to physics, with a pedigree like many others in the field): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiNDqaFPO4A&t=9s

Hagelstein's "Lossy-Spin Boson Model" is one of the competing hypotheses. I am suspicious of Rossi's *interpretation* of his own device, and your mention of Mills is a "strawman argument"; you include an incredulous case, as if it were my own. You ignore those who have published reputable and repeatable work - Holmlid's work on Rydberg states, for example. That is a demonstration of you "arguing in bad faith". And, you can only claim to be addressing the *substance* when you point to pitfalls in experimental design as you have done here - "Applying that spike energy to a full spectrum..." Aside from that one, I'm waiting for real arguments.

Finally, you seem to think that I benefit by fooling people? I explicitly and repeatedly plea: DO NOT BUY ANY OF THEM! Rossi is marketing his product to *industrialists,* who are able to travel to his lab and test the product privately. You are NOT the target market. Your opinion of the matter doesn't change the outcome. (And, given the rate of pre-orders Rossi claims, we won't have to wait too long before folks can test for themselves... though, Rossi has made delays before, so I am dubious of any *stated* timeline.) In contrast, look at the researchers who have shared their work - Mizuno, Celani, Focardi, Piantelli, and others. THEIR work is what gives me confidence, not Mill's Hydrino nonsense. Can you find errors in their publications? That would be addressing the *substance* of their work.

A claim that "anything weird is automatically a hoax" is fallacious, because that rationale can be applied to anything which is *difficult* to replicate and new. Like saying "too good to be true," it's a cliche, not an argument. Instead, can you find errors in their work?