You made that up. There are no "known bugs" in any major experiment by Fleischmann, McKubre, Miles or anyone else. You claim you found errors, but when I and others point out your mistakes, you do a vanishing act. You refuse to address the points listed by the authors. Let me repeat the points from the Fleischmann boil off tests that you have never addressed, even though you claim you found problems in it:
1. A heat balance of zero in several different calibrations.
No surprise. In the F&P method, the calibrations are done to calculate the global heat transfer coefficient k, so the heat balance should be zero by definition in ALL the different calibrations.
2. All of the salts left in the cell.
FWIK, this issue was addressed only in the response to Morrison (1), where Fleischmann wrote that they recovered about the 95% of the residual lithium deuteroxide in their earlier work. But, for these early works, F&P also wrote in one of their first article (2) that they "adopted a policy of discontinuing the experiments (or, at least, of reducing the current density) when the boiling point is reached." So they didn't check the inventory of the salt left in the cell after the boiling tests described in their "major paper" presented in 1992 at ICCF3 (3).
3. Boiling with no input power, much longer and hotter than in the calibrations.
Not true (4).
4. Boiling with Pd-D2O only, and not with Pt, H2O or a resistance heater. …
Hansen reported that F&P reached boiling conditions with Pt cathode, as shown in Figure 1 and seg. of the paper he presented at ICCF2 (5).
This behavior was implicitly confirmed by the experiments carried out by Lonchampt, as reported by Biberian in the paper he presented in 2007 (6): "We measured (see table 1) at boiling temperature excess heat up to 29 %, in qualitative agreement with Fleischmann and Pons. However, the magnitude of the excess heat that we measured was less important than what they observed. Their analysis of the boiling off in two periods, assuming that the vast majority of the excess heat was produced at the end of the experiment was difficult to evaluate. The experiments in Li2SO4 are surprising since they seem to show that the palladium is active, and that even platinum is active."
Evidently, they apparently got excess heat at boiling condition also using Pt cathodes.
... How can the choice of metal or water affect cause the "droplet" theory to work? How can the source of heat do this?
Biberian was surprised that a Pt cathode could be as active as Pd one. A far less surprising conclusion is that neither Pt, nor Pd are active, and that the apparent excess heat resulted from a wrong way of calculating the output heat, that erroneously neglects the droplets entrained in the gas stream.
5. Melted plastic when the calibration leaves the plastic underwater.
Plastic has a low melting point. In the final stage of the boiling off of the electrolyte, the residual water is in form of foam, which has a much lower heat transfer coefficient.
Anyway, if that phenomenon was to be deemed so important, it would have to be adequately documented with many detailed photographs of the damaged component.
6. Excess heat a week before the boiling, and for up to a day after it. Why did it stop for 10 minutes only?
7. Boiling on the cathode only.
Obviously! The cathode surface is much less than the anode one, so the specific current is much higher at cathode surface.
Furthermore, the cathode surface is vertical, so that the upper part is in contact with a warmer coolant and in the final boiling stage can easily reach and exceed the boiling temperature. On the contrary the thin and long wire that constitutes the anode is essentially horizontal and is easily cooled by the surrounding water.
8. Droplets so small they cannot be detected, yet so large they produce a gigantic error, making 30 W look like 150 W.
This is nothing but the gigantic error that has been committed throughout the entire CF/LENR story, from F&P experiments to Ecat tests.
In boiling conditions, an apparent excess heat of 5 times the input power means that the mass of water leaving the cell as liquid droplets is 5 times the mass of water that leaves the cell as gas (or dry vapor). Considering that the specific volume of dry steam is about 1650 times the specific volume of liquid, it is sufficient that the volume of droplets is 1/330 of the volume of the gas stream. It is not so easy to be detected by eye.
9. Impossible physical theories that violate 18th and 19th century laws of physics, yet -- by some miracle -- produce exactly the same results as conventional theories, so that there is no test that can distinguish which is right, and no way to falsify the new theories. The conventional theories prove there is excess heat; the impossible theories rely on things like droplets too small to measure that leave no physical, measurable trace, yet magically remove most of the water. This is pathological science.
Pathological is to ignore the warnings on the calculations of output heat at boiling conditions that have been raised even at ICCFs by CF people:
Extra care must be taken during phase changes
Apparent Excess Heat vs. Dryness of Steam
Only 5% of the volume fraction being condensed water will cause one to BELIEVE that you have a 6x gain in power!
18th and 19th century stuff!