Read more closely. At one point they "did" cross check the camera with a direct sensor (thermocouple) measurement. The thermal camera is simply the fastest and easiest way to get a overall profile of the whole reactor without needing a mass of spaghetti hooked up to a zillion thermocouples.
I repeat, the whole emissivity issue is a giant red herring, and your "dirty window" scenario is simply bogus.
I have to admit you have a very active imagination at thinking up possible reasons thing might be wrong. Unfortunately, all of those reasons have already been discussed, debated, and disproved by prior tests or analysis, of which you are simply ignorant.
"Yesterday when I read the PDF I noted another anomaly with the control test. In addition to it not being painted (if I read that right) They did not even put the end caps on it!"
The pictures of the reactor I saw had endcaps, and at least one writeup describes not only the endcaps, but how they were joined to the reactor.
"But I can say without much reservation that what they did will not be nearly enough to satisfy many people..maybe a few dreamers..."
And I can say without reservation that you haven't done enough homework..the vast majority of your objections have already been addressed in other experimental and/or theoretical papers on these and other tests done on Rossi's reactors.
And, of course, there are some people who will NEVER be satisfied, no matter what amount or kind of data is presented....that's why they are called "pathological skeptics" (which handle, please note, I am NOT applying to you....or at least not yet).
The caps for the inner cylinder and the reactive charge were both not in or on the dummy.
Read it your self...
“I repeat, the whole emissivity issue is a giant red herring, and your “dirty window” scenario is simply bogus.”
No it is not...It’s your reading comprehension skill or something, because in the report they go to great lengths showing how they adjust the camera to match emissivity. They waste a thousand words, with graphs and crap. Not even part of the test because none of it has anything to do with the test, it’s all about the camera settings....(why I like thermocouples) I figure they are just trying to say that their camera operating abilities are just peachy....But it did not impress me and should have been in the footnotes of the report, not the main body so these people, these seven experts, cannot have been professionals for very long.
In the first test when the thing melted down, they did not use paint. They noted uneven heating characteristics and they noted the shadows of the coils that could be seen in the image. I saw a number of things in the image that they did not mention, but it was just one picture of a failed test.
The next two tests had paint....all muddy on the details..Can’t see them anymore....want to, but can’t.
It is what it is...I took note of it, I wrote that note here and now you know about it so believe what you care to.