THHuxleynew , all what you prove again and again with your comments is that you have a blind belief in the impossibility if LENR being real.
You simply don't accept the possibility. No matter how careful or sloppy the calorimetry may be. You just simply assume it's wrong because "it can't be right". No matter the kind of calorimetry, be it the gold standard of Seebeck, or be it Isoperibolic, custom made, or even a sufficiently well designed thermometry, any energy balance method that would be reasonable enough for any other conventional kind of experiment, if it's about an anomaly that departs from what you believe to be possible, you will never even entertain the possibility of it being real, because "it must be an artifact".
We here have the privilege of having the chance of exchanging views with Storms , who has been researching this for 34 years now. He has thought of every single way these results could be apparent only, and verified those ways and found not to be the case. He has also seen the effect and is currently capable of reproducing it at will.
He has attained this stage by meticulous study. Perhaps what has taught him more than anything else are the failures: The often overlooked (by You) fact that the failed experiments with the exact methodology of the positive ones is the best proof of the phenomena is real, because the only thing that changes in these cases is the activity of the metal sample. If you accept the null result to be real in these experiments with an inactive sample, you have also to accept the positive results in the same setup with an active sample. And this is perhaps the strongest proof of all that the phenomena happens in the NAEs and not anywhere else.