See: Biberian, J.P., ed. *J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci.* Vol. *20*. 2016.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondenseds.pdf Comment by me: The first paper, by Guffey, is depressing. It appears to show that Letts is wrong about the dual laser experiments. Many papers report failed replications, meaning no heat. This paper is worse. It reports a similar calorimeter that not only failed to produce real it, it produced artifacts that looked like real heat at a substantially high level, up to around 100 mW. When a replication attempt fails to produce heat, you might suspect the materials or techniques are at fault. When it produces what looks like heat, but the author shows is actually an artifact, that calls into question the original claim. - Jed
