The thing that bothers me about THH's attitude was his statement that he expects this is an error. "Expect" is the wrong word. I fear this is an error.
Here, I have to share THH's view. Expect, fear, whatever, these results are hard to believe. I fervently hope they're right - that would be far more interesting than if they are wrong. But if they are wrong, I suppose the error that was made or whatever explanation there is, will be pretty interesting too, unlike the Rossi and associate fiascos.
What I have would have done differently would have been to use the calorimetry method of GSVIT as well as the air method. In fact, if I could only do one experiment, it would have been with the liquid cooled cell. It just seems tighter. And two different methods would have been better plus you could run calorimetry on the more powerful reactor if you could fit a GSVIT type coolant jacket around it.
GSVIT again: https://gsvit.wordpress.com/20…te-calorimetria-a-flusso/ (use Google translate)
But it always comes back to this: calibration returns valid results within excellent tolerances. And far as I know, nobody found faults with it yet. If only it can be verified properly, it is exactly what much maligned skeptics like me have been asking for all along engendering hostility from the true believers for it. I am amused that it can be all summed up with:
ETA: About Jed's computer errors, I was just watching the first moon landing again and I was reminded it almost didn't happen because of a "1202" overflow error in the guidance computer which kept repeating and returning all the way to the surface.