You have not found any errors. You have no experience.
As often you are agreeing with me - while sounding as though you contradict me. It is annoying.
My point is that my experience has taught me that the real world surprises us. that no matter how certain we are, we can be wrong. Especially in the area of interpreting experimental data when there are apparent anomalies.
Your reply: "you have not found any errors".
That is my point!
I know Jed that you set great store by the experience of scientists. McKubre as an example, whole work is to my (inexperienced) eyes excellent) who have a lot of experience.
You think that because they cannot find reasons for calorimetry errors there can be none such.
Specifically - and you of all people should agree to this:
- Those who are very experienced are therefore more likely to make implicit assumptions that have always worked in the past but may in fact not be true in the future
- Those who are less experienced - are less experienced
Neither is in a great position to identify new phenomena that are unexpected. That applies to sub-LENR calorimetry issues just as much as LENR.
My more general point is that new phenomena always seem magical until they are understood - at which point they seem obvious.
LENR evidence is a collection of phenomena which seem magical (of varying replicability).
Don't reply that nuclear reactions are not magical - that would be true for ones well understood - LENR reactions (especially type 1) have large effects and mechanism no way predictively (or any other way) understood. Type 2 a bit better - they have a possible class of vague mechanisms - but they are not clearly backed by the LENR evidence which seldom finds the expected high energy products.