Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • Thanks Para. Hadn't seen that comparison before. I'll have to agree, that does look pretty filthy. (See how easy that is Jed?)


    can, Rossi is referring to the materials he allegedly put (injected) into the JMP pipes for heat treatment.

  • Wait! There's more: (236-39, PDF page 12) Barry West Deposition (Answering)


    17 Q. Did anyone ever tell that you they saw rust


    18 on either of those pipes?


    19 A. My experience with separating some of the


    20 pipes and moving the one pipe down, I mean, they had


    21 rust and stuff in them. You can see it, but it was


    22 obvious in the sight glasses on the big Frankies,


    23 because in the very beginning, they stayed rusty. We


    24 actually had to remove those and clean them and stuff,


    25 because it got so bad, you couldn't see the water

    (page 142)

    1 level, where the water level was actually in the unit


    2 in the reactor.


    3 Q. Let me stop right there. We're only


    4 focusing on the condensate pipes now, the going and


    5 coming, those two pipes, not the ones that are in the


    6 big Frankies. Do you recognize there's a difference?


    7 A. I recognize the difference, but you got to


    8 realize that the source of what was in those two pipes


    9 originated from in the big Frankies' units.


    10 Q. You think some of the rust from the big


    11 Frankies could have gone through into --


    12 A. Oh, absolutely, yeah, you know it did.


    13 Q. Did you see it happen or --


    14 A. Well, the leaks shown, showed that the


    15 stuff was -- now, once again, I don't know where it


    16 went to on the other side. You know, if you make the


    17 assumption that the water that was over there was


    18 clean, whatever that equipment was, it could have been,


    19 you know, part of the culprit as well. So I don't


    20 know.


    21 Q. Do you recall seeing rust on the return


    22 pipe?


    23 A. Yes, that's the condensate return.


    24 Q. Right. When did you see that?


    25 A. We moved it. We had level issues in that


    Page 143


    1 one condensate tank that were used. That level


    2 needed -- we had to make adjustments to that, because


    3 they would get too full, and the pumps that removed


    4 that material and sent them up to the units when Andrea


    5 finally got his system dialed in there on what rates to


    6 pump the material at to keep things balanced, and we


    7 lost a lot too, you know, so we had this big tank up


    8 there with a valve in there or a little foot pedal and


    9 a float that would try to maintain that level.


    10 Sometimes when you turn things up really high and


    11 things really got to cooking hot, we would have issues.


    12 We would have problems.


    13 Q. Let's keep focusing on the rust in the


    14 pipes.


    15 So you said you saw the rust in the pipe


    16 when you disassembled the return condensation pipes,


    17 right?


    18 A. Right, to move it, yeah.


    19 Q. Did you ever tell Dr. Rossi hey --


    20 MR. FALCONE: Let him finish his


    21 question before you answer.


    22 MR. CHAIKEN: Thank you.


    23 Q. Did you ever tell Dr. Rossi hey, we have an


    24 issue. There's rust in this pipe?


    25 A. No.


    (Page 144)


    1 Q. Did you ever tell Fulvio?


    2 A. Yeah.


    3 Q. And what was his response?


    4 A. It's coming from the big Frankies. It's


    5 coming from inside the units. It was an issue we had


    6 to deal with. They had a trap. They had a trap set


    7 there, but I don't know that they ever serviced it or


    8 worked on it. And once again, I don't know what the


    9 plumbing team did, you know, I mean, I wasn't, you


    10 know, responsible.


    11 Q. Where was that trap that you're talking


    12 about?


    13 A. I want to say it was right there before


    14 where the line dumped in, or maybe they uninstalled it.


    15 Maybe they removed that. I know there was a trap sent.


    16 It seemed like T. Barker sent a trap down there. Maybe


    17 it never got installed or the plumbing guys removed it.


    18 It seemed like maybe it was there, and then when Andrea


    19 had the plumbing team made the changes and stuff that


    20 got removed or something, you know, but, you know, the


    21 rust was prevalent inside those units, and that's where


    22 most of it -- because all that piping was new. I mean,


    23 that piping that they installed was new piping.


    24 Q. The condensate piping?


    25 A. And the steam lines, you know, at no


    Page 145


    1 pressure. That stuff was new, new materials.


    2 Q. Did you ever have a conversation with T.


    3 Barker Dameron about the rust in the pipes?


    4 A. Oh, yeah.


    5 Q. And what was his comment on that?


    6 A. Well, it's just Andrea is going to handle


    7 it. Andrea is going to make these choices.


    8 Q. Do you know if T. Barker ever raised that


    9 issue with Dr. Rossi?


    10 A. No, I don't know. I'm sure maybe he might


    11 have, but, you know, once again, once the unit got down


    12 to Florida, Andrea, Andrea had hold of the wheel, and


    13 he was steering the thing where he thought it needed to


    14 go.


    • Official Post

    Can,


    You have rightfully earned status, and respect here. I see you are raising your hand in the back of the school room, hoping the teacher calls on you to state your opinion on all this? :) Honestly, I would love to hear your take. I promise, no matter what you say, my opinion of you will stay the same, and I won't hammer you as I have with IHFB lately.

  • No, I said that I bet he wouldn't state half of what he said in the report under oath.

    He is under oath. That is a court document, signed by Smith, the same as a deposition. He will be in deep trouble if it is revealed to be false. He will lose his engineering license.

  • He focused on the BFs only, and assumed that each BF had only six pumps, and thus arrived at his total number of pumps from that.

    He did not assume anything. He was there. He saw them, and took photos. There are only 6 pumps. Do you think he doesn't know a pump when he sees it? Do you think he cannot count to six?

    • Official Post

    I know some don't like this connection being mentioned, but given that Rossi is directly financial linked to USQL, it does make it even more questionable (at least as far as appearances go) for USQL to have made financial contributions that either benefited Levi or at least supported his work (the donation to fund "pinball thesis" research @ UNIBO) .


    Guest,


    Very nice catch. Every time I see these links made, it brings to mind a comment by an Italian prosecutor, that Rossi was the leader of an Italian criminal gang. Not serious crime mind you, but white collar stuff...if you call gold running white collar. :)


    So I have always wondered what became of his gang? Alan never let me go there to the extent I wanted, unfortunately.

  • Abd has kindly brought to my attention that I had failed to upload 236-47, which he has provided from his case files, and that I accidentally mislabeled 238-16 as 236-16. Those of you reading all of the files might or might not have seen these.

  • I'm not sure if each of the "Rossi Depositions" are the same.


    For example, in 236-15 pacer page 6 he's talking about the Verification test, which had four "Big Frankies" on the roof of the container.

    I found the photos at http://ecat.org/tag/hot-cat/


    Blue Container with 4 big frankies on top being moved to Ferrara

    004.jpg


    Acceptance test ... I believe with Darden and Vaughn.


    007.jpg

  • Pretty cool show. It really evokes thoughts in the viewer of, "who would go to all this trouble if it wasn't real?" Sure did for me. Eventually after you realize the full extent of the lies, the answer to that question is quite simply, "AR." IMO, that is his MO that he has used repeatedly, because it is so powerful.


    "Who would go through all the trouble of building these huge 'refinery' towers if it didn't work?"

    "Who would build this big elaborate looking thermoelectric device if it didn't work?"
    "Who would build this 1 MW plant with all its apparent complication if it didn't work?"

    "Who would sue IH for $267M if it didn't work?"


    The answer is: AR.


    It is not necessary to consider these factors if you want to stick to empirical data. There is no credible or repeatable evidence of Pxs anywhere near the levels he claims. The better the measurements the lower the Pxs (or it is null with excellent instrumentation). But I suppose there is a certain magic touch that goes along with using a stethoscope on the reactor. :)

  • Docs. 239 – 244, with some exhibits, now on the docket. See the note on the exhibits for doc. 242 and let me know if there are any you would like me to obtain, which I will be happy to do. (Note that the file sizes are provided in the screenshots.)

  • No he isn't. An expert's report is inadmissible at trial. It is hearsay.

    If it is inadmissible then why have Rossi's lawyers filed a motion to declare it inadmissible? They want to "strike and exclude it." Why would they need to do that if you are correct and it cannot be admitted in the first place? See Document 235.


    For that matter, why did I.H. pay Smith, as listed in the report? What would be the point of paying for material you cannot use in court?


    What you say makes no sense. You are digging another hole, like your Google photo hole:


    That's not the data of the photo.

    Okay, Google says it is the date, but they could be lying.

    They may be mistaken.

    It doesn't have the day, so it isn't really the date . . .


    On and on and on you go, more and more irrational and removed from reality . . .

  • I think IHFB is right on expert reports.


    Here's RAMBUS arguing the point : https://www.ftc.gov/sites/defa…/030429rambriefadmiss.pdf


    They're apparently used in discovery, but can't be used in a trial : https://www.ftc.gov/sites/defa…respbriefadmissexpert.pdf

    Quote

    Expert Reports are "merely discovery materials" and are presumptively
    inadmissible. Blue Cross and Blue Shield United of Wisconsin v. Marshfield Clinic 152 F.3d
    588, 595 (7th Cir. 1998).


  • More rust photos (from doc. 235-10):






    Here's what is reported to be a water filter:




    Not exactly sure how these things work and what the white stuff is, but the housing is clean from the outside at any rate:



  • @Jed


    You must distinguish between expert testimony and opinions in a report/disclosure. It appears that you do not appreciate this difference. It is the testimony that Rossi is attempting to exclude. At trial, the report itself is not admissible. The opinions of the experts will come through in their testimony.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.