> The fact that it remained hot is all the proof you need.
I don't get it. If there was no nuclear reaction and all of the energy came from thermal storage, then in deed the device will stay "hot" for a long time. However if all the heat came from a nuclear reaction, I'd expect it to cool down very fast once the reaction has been stopped. Are you implying that this particular kind of reaction exhibits the exact behavior as thermal storage when shut down? (i.e. cooling off at a very slow rate due to some continuing reaction despite H2 being shut down and whatever it supposedly takes to stop fusion). Since the details of the reaction are unknown - wouldn't that be an argument in favor of storage rather than against?
