Display MoreWhile I do not doubt the accuracy of your calorimeter as tested, such a tiny power, as a fraction of a presumably significant input power, requires the assumption that the response is very close indeed to its calibration run response. It is difficult to test all possible condition changes. So it can be quite difficult to get that certainty unless the calorimeter has a high thermal mass that would allow enough near isothermal surfaces to make changes in conditions impossible. Of course perhaps it has that.
So I cannot agree with your statement that COP has no meaning, when compared with other variables, for science, since whether the excess heat is certain and beyond any possible chemical effects (which again would require long runs at a ~5mW output power unless the reactor volume was tiny) is a scientific matter. NASA's belief at high levels would I am sure change with a replicable, as your experiment is, and certain - as it might be but you have as yet given little indication of this, quoting as certain an excess power 5mw that seems very challenging indeed to make certain.
I am not being a tiresome skeptic saying this, because if what you say is in fact correct any remaining questions about possible experimental errors could be ruled out and your experiment would become what the LENR field badly needs. So I'd think it might be in your interest to prove this.
THH
THH, I have proven that my calorimeter design is as good as I say it is. The fact that you do know about these studies means nothing. But, this never stopped you from speculating.
As for the idea of COP, this has no relationship to basic science because the value is determined by the experimental design and not by the nuclear process. I can create an apparatus that can give any value of COP that I want because I use direct reaction with the gas, not electrolysis. Nevertheless, increasing the magnitude of sustained power is a major challenge. People need to focus on how this can be done, not on some arbitrary COP that is clearly not big enough to be useful.
The quoted ±5 mW is only the uncertainty. The samples ALWAYS make far more power than this. Why would you assume I'm claiming only the smallest possible amount of measured power?