And please note
those with better calorimeters achieved much smaller results. indicating the original large results were errors?
That is complete bullshit. You made that up. You say things like that because you have never read the literature and you do not know the first thing about it.
If I am wrong . . . List three experiments with better calorimeters that achieved much smaller results. I can list 50 experiments with much worse calorimeters, or no calorimeters, that produced much worse results. Or no results. Have you thought about them?
Define your terms. "Large" in what sense? Signal to noise ratio? Absolute power? Power per square centimeter of surface area, or cubic centimeter of bulk? Or do you pick the most irrelevant and absurd metric: the ratio of output power to input power?
Explain the major parameters that control how "large" the heat is, by each of these metrics.
Bonus point:
Explain why some calorimeters, such as McKubre's, cannot be expected to produce such large results, all else being equal. The reasons were given by McKubre himself, and by Fleischmann, and explained by me. (Since you have not read any of these sources you wouldn't know.)