As I have mentioned, few outside of Planet Rossi think that the January 14, 2011 demonstration was a useful test, because of the failure to confirm various important aspects of the calorimetry, the lack of control experiments, and the lack of independence.
The demonstration held on January 14, 2011, was not a useful test for demonstrating the performances of the Ecat, but it can be a very useful test for verifying the credibility of the testers of the Ecat.
The credibility of the testers is the first prerequisite of a test. Usually, it is taken for granted by their title and by their being a member of a prominent Institute, as argued by JR in many of his comments (Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”), for instance: "This tells us that various professors at the university have been involved for some time, and they designed and implemented the calorimetry. I do not think there is any way Rossi could "fool" these people. I think that would be physically impossible."
This is common sense, but did Rossi needed to fool them?
Yes, it was an historic event, but it was not the first demonstration, merely the first public one.
The earlier demonstrations don't count, they were private facts. The January 14, 2011 demo, on the contrary, signs the beginning of the LENR+ phase of the CF/LENR saga. It's a mediatic event, as the March 23, 1989, press conference. Its target was not primarily the scientific community, but the public opinion. An article issued in October 2012 on Popular Science (a magazine translated into over 30 languages and distributed to at least 45 countries, with more than one million readers worldwide), begins with a big "ON JANUARY 14, 2011 ...". (see http://pesn.com/2012/10/16/960…-Box--by_Popular-Science/).
This event has been the changing point for the LENR field, as recently recalled by Rossi himself: "Before the event of January 2011, when we introduced our E-Cat prototype together with Prof Focardi of the University of Bologna, the LENR people was confined in a village of zombies and the LENR were globally considered less than zero. No one was financing any serious R&D in the field. After my work LENR got a tremendous momentum that initiated serious R&D by concerns like Volvo, Elforsk, Mitsubishi, NASA, MIT etc etc etc. in all the world, obtaining the attention of the highest echelons of the DOE and the DOD in the United States of America, …" (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=144#comment-1209814)
So, let's see in what this event consisted.
What is given here does not at all establish what Ascoli45 claimed. He has a photo showing what appears to be a high temperature probe, inserted into the E-Cat but not plugged in to a meter. It does not show the HP474AC dual function probe (temperature and humidity). That is his evidence that the Delta Ohm meter and that probe were not used. A photo that does not show it.
The photo you refer is not mine, its source is indicated in the above jpeg: "B – Detail of photo140111rossifocardi1652b.jpg from http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…naca-test-fusione_14.html (Daniele Passerini)". Therefore it is not a "my" evidence, it is an evidence given by the photo 1652b (ie the second photo (b) taken at 16:52) shown in the cited post on 22passi, which contains many other photos showing the same probe.
I do not know where I got the impression, but I had the idea that Galantini needed to remove one probe and put in another to do the "steam quality" test. Maybe there is a description of something like that somewhere. But this is obvious: that the probe is not shown in one photo does not demonstrate that it was not used!
OK, it's a possible explanation, even if it would be quite weird. Anyway, let's see if your hypothesis is plausible.
Look at this other old jpeg (http://i.imgur.com/hQdNIim.jpg)
This is the English translation of the scripts:
Test of 14 January 2011 - The probe with the yellow wire was always there?
From freeze frame at 1:32 of the movie 2/3 on YouTube
At 16:52 - The outlet temperature is close to the maximum.
At the top of the e-cat, which according to the report dr. Levi was supposed to be the probe for relative humidity Delta Ohm HP474AC, stands instead a probe with yellow wire which can only measure the temperature.
At 17:09 - Sole photo in which we see the probe, always the same, connected to an instrument. The instrument is supported by dr. Galantini?
At 18: 14 - The test is over. The probe with the yellow wire is gone, all other instruments are still there. Has it been taken away by dr. Galantini?
Photos by Daniele Passerini, taken from
The 3 arrowed red curves connect the 3 photos to the corresponding time points on the PC diagram, which shows the 3 temperature curves monitored during the demo. The upper one refers to the fluid temperature at the outlet. You can see that the duration of the boiling period is about 20 minutes (the half of what reported by Levi), and the second photo has been taken just in the middle of this period. Its image (horizontally flipped with respect to the reality) comes from one of the monitors placed in the large saloon, from where the invited people followed what was happening in the lab. In that moment (at 17:09) the probe with the yellow wire was plugged into its portable instrument, hold by a person, presumabily Galantini. This portable instrument couldn't have been a Delta Ohm HD37AB1347, because no one of its probes has a bipolar plug like the one you can see at the end of the yellow wire (http://www.otm.sg/blogs/post/F…ment-probes/#.V6CFYmOP9co).
So, the Delta Ohm HP474AC probe and the correspondent portable instrument HD37AB1347, cited in the Levi's report were not there, and their presence has been invented by someone. The major problem is that this incongruence has not been detected and denounced by Levi, nor by anyone of his many colleagues involved in the Ecat project.
Against this claim by Ascoli45 we have statements from two scientists, and while I have serious problems about their competence in certain ways, they are scientists and we will not suspect that they will lie.
These claims are not mine. I don't make claims, I only suggest to look at documents available on internet. I don't ask anybody to trust me. People should normally trust the professors and the other scientists which are paid by public Institutes to search, tell and defend the scientific truth, and who are not expected to lie, for any reason. But in this case, you have to chose to believe the statements from the scientists OR your own eyes, NOT me.