Most people don't know much about con men and scams, unless they've been a victim themselves. In general, no one involved wants the scam to become public. The scammer obviously doesn't want to be identified, and the victim doesn't want the embarrassment of being publicly identified as a chump.
Here are a couple of links to other scams. One is over a century old, but the parallels to Rossi and his E-Cat are remarkable. The other is recent, and shows that even big companies can fall victim to scammers.
Again, I’ve not followed e-cat too closely, but my understanding is that Rossi licensed (i.e., turned over) his technology to a customer.
If that is correct, then, as I said, that is very different from what happened at the two links you provided. There the con men got people to invest in their *idea,* backed up with hoax demonstrations, etc., all the while continuing to control and promise the technology supposedly implementing the idea.
That’s very different from building your technology, demonstrating the technology (however much one wants to denigrate the elegance of the demonstration), and then, after giving a customer the independent opportunity to test the technology (however much one wants to claim they know better than the customer how the technology should have been tested and evaluated), licenses the technology to the customer for them to physically take back to their own place of business and put through its paces.
If a scam, wouldn’t the customer quickly discover that it could not replicate the results it thought it got in the official sales demonstration?
Would they never see the man behind the curtain if he were there?
So. Maybe since I’m new to the subject, I’m just asking the question why some seem to see a scam under every rock here. When, as far as I’m concerned, the hallmarks of a scam — at least one that might actually enrich the con-man for more than five minutes — are not exactly here.