Jed's view on calorimetry errors:
Apparently you are conflating two separate conditions: high input power, and low anomalous excess heat.
High input power makes almost no difference to the calorimetry. It does not interfere in the measurements. It is easy to measure. Indeed, it is the easiest physical force to measure.
Low excess heat is difficult to measure. The error margin is large.
300 W input, 330 W output, 30 W excess is very easy to measure. The 300 W of input power produce very little noise. The 10:1 ratio makes no different to the measurements.
1 W input, 3 W output, 2 W excess would be difficult to measure with this instrument. The low input power does not help. The ratio of 1:3 does not help.
I have a lot of actual data showing this is the case.
I calculated it from the spreadsheet, and posted a graph showing the source of my calculation. The noise is about 0.1 deg C which translates into 2 W. Take it or leave it. But you are evading the issue. "People more generally" means nothing. The top tier of cold fusion papers covers this in great detail. Despite that, you and Shanahan claim that every single study in this field is invalid. You have no reason. You point to Mizuno to show that Storms and McKubre are wrong. That's pathological skepticism.
This thread. Consider what we know about the R19 Mizuno calorimeter and results. How can we work out an error bound for those results? Is is 2W as Jed thinks?
Why bother? Anyone getting smaller excess heat indications needs to know whether those are definitely excess heat, or whether they could be something else. Convincing others is also easier with a complete error bound analysis (commonly done in experimental work). Use R19 as an example of how to do this.