If you will actually look at the reports, you will see that what you want has indeed been done. Apparently, you have bought into the FUD arguments that have been circulated/circulating. The arguments brought forth about those demonstrations are BS from one end to the other. ONE legitimate criticism was made, and that was about the "wet vs.dry" steam notion from the first two demos. That was verfied as "not happening" in the third demo, which was run so as not to generate steam. And, in actual fact, the third demo was un-necessary, as the criticism about the methodology used to measure "steam quality" in the first two demos was also wrong.
But the data is there.
"So, to answer you question a bit more directly, no, I don't want to root about looking for the hidden information that should have been published up front.
You don't have to "root about". I've told you where the reports are available. In abbreviated form in the "News" section, and in full in the "Library" section of LENR-CANR.ORG.
What you have described is not useful. The experiment produces low grade (waste) heat as the output so the issue is confused when steam is included with the output as well as water. You want a mass of water with a starting temperature and an ending temperature and a volume. Forget steam, it’s too hard to measure. If your process requires producing steam, capture the output energy in the mass of water described earlier, measure, and get back to me when you have actual numbers. The whole setup is designed to generate confusion when simplicity is easily achieved. That is not how science proceeds.
And you keep asking me to look at the raw data and sort through it and do the calculations that should properly be done by those in a position to profit. I find this remarkable. You might think on this a bit.