Yep...Mark Heyward. When I talked to him, he said that it didn't really work as good as he thought it would have...and he ended up just running the motor to get it heated up. I'll see if I can get some more details from him on why he didn't like the"heat it up with coolant" method he used....
I think with that setup, it's not representative because you're just equilibrating temp of the head with the coolant temp vs. actually running the engine you'd have very high temps (much higher that coolant temp) on the head's combustion chamber surface, with active heat removal via coolant.
So running the engine, you'd have a decent temp gradient of high (>> than 100C) at the combustion chamber and exhaust port surfaces down to around 100-ish C in the coolant chambers. Probably hot spots in the coolant chamber surfaces > 100C too, since 100C is just the average coolant temp. Plus I believe coolant temp is measured at the thermostat after the radiator, correct?
Without hitting actual running temps at the combustion chamber and exhaust port surfaces, the head would not thermally expand in the same manner by flowing 100C coolant on the bench as it would if you were actually running the engine in the car with 100C coolant temps. Especially going WOT.
One would think some heat is probably better than nothing, but maybe he felt that there just isn't enough thermal expansion by running hot coolant on the bench to yield an effect worth the time and effort vs. just running the car and tearing it back down to re-torque it. After thinking this through a little more, I think that's my position on this (probably not worth the effort of running 100C water on the bench).