Talk-Polywell.org

Right, but its the ratio of:

(energy out - energy in)/(max possible chemical energy released)

that matters.

All the LENR experiments heat a sample at which point high output power is produced for a while, this then tails off.

You need to disentangle:
Over-measurements due to calorimetry errors (this deals with the long "continuous excess" tail and reduced the peak).

Energy out from chemical reactions.

Of course, it is probably just coincidence that LENR experiments follow the heat release profile expected from chemical reactions. But it is difficult to check what precisely is going on chemically: especially if you have loads of H2 or D2.

Tom

There is one more big reason to not publish. No serious journal want it.
Only type PES want it. If they real is right no one can see it, if they are wrong, no corrections will be made.

Do you have evidence for this? Serious journals have published Miley's way out stuff on experimental evidence for ultra-dense deuterium!

But even if that were a problem it does not matter. A good paper, of publishable quality, published online would be enough.

PS - here is how I would publish a good LENR excess heat paper. In into I would mention Ni/H or Pt/D or whatever it was systems, noting that there was some possible indication of excess heat. I would reference the US LENR review for this, not the flakey LENR papers. I would note that understanding why these systems sometimes exhibited unusually high excess heat was worthwhile, and need not be related to nuclear reactions.

I would then say that the aim is to take the most replicable of these experiments and develop an experimental methodology for the most accurate measurement of reaction enthalpy.

The body of the paper would be doing this, being very careful to quantify error sources, identify systematic errors, develop controls.

The conclusions would be quantifying the excess heat and comparing this with upper bound chemical heat production (that is quite difficult - so maybe leave it for future work).