No, it's not a valid option. Entrainment has nothing to do with the "foam issue", as I have already explained to you (4).
This what your reference (4) says :
"I specified in the first quotation what I admit I was wrong. It was only about the amount of the liquid entrainment, i.e. that it cannot explain the 100% of the excess heat claimed by F&P in their 1992 paper.Up to here, the withdrawal part of my comments. But … But, as said in the first comment, it happened that a much simpler and even more mundane explanation arose from a better analysis of the available documentation, and this alternative explanation is much worse for the authors of the 1992 paper and for the subsequent developments on the CF/LENR research based on their claims. I don't repeat here this alternative explanation, which is based on video evidences and the "foam issue", which are still alive arguments. So I'm sorry, but apart from the specific claims of JR that I quoted in the second comment, I still consider wrong all the other objections to the alternative interpretation that I proposed starting from October 31. Of course, I'm open to correct or even reconsider this last interpretation on the basis of well-founded and documented objections. I'm not here to defy the other members of the forum, I asked since the beginning their collaboration, even by means of criticisms to my hypothesis. I hope that all together we can find the truth about the 1992 experiment.
The first step in finding a viable solution is to discard the fake ones."
That made no sense to me, other than you were desperate to keep the foam issue alive, after first admitting you made an error.