Curbina - energy density same as modern fission plant? That is an irrelevant metric if the active sample is very small and the apparent excess heat comes from somewhere else. In general it is unhelpful, what we need is:
lower bound on excess power integrated over experiment is energy >> possible from chemical means given overall experimental constituents.
I will look at papers but please note:
Anything with pulses cannot be safe without careful checking, because pulses can create anomalous dc readings in TCs. If the apparent excess power is well after the pulses (how long depends on the TC measurement system time constant) it is OK.
Anything with TCs and H or D needs to be checked for whether the H or D could contaminate the TCs and lead to anomalous readings (there are good ways to check it, calibration before and after, but was it done?
Lots of other things - need to see the papers.
Does anyone see the contradiction here?
On the one hand many experiments are claimed definite
On the other hand none will do for a reference experiment to convince the real skeptics.
PS If this is really replicable and good have you tried arguing for it as reference experiment? it is all the google guys have been asking for.
You always “circle back” to insist on obvious potential sources of error that imply researchers are clueless about basic experimental methodology. I have yet to see you reading the 2020 paper about D flow through PdAg and make any specific comment about what they report instead of listing all the potential errors they could have made.