Thanks to Chapman for noticing that there are amended complaints and counterclaims in the court docket with new documents submitted yesterday, August 11 2016.
I have not downloaded or seen the files so far. But the list of documents can be seen here:
UPDATE: Someone sent me a file for a new exhibit (#26) which shows some photos that look like the interior of the Doral factory. Here’s a link: https://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Doral.pdf
Here are a couple of new points in the amended answer:
82. Indeed, when Murray eventually gained access to the Plant in February 2016 and
examined the Plant, the methodology being used to operate the Plant, and the methodology being
used to measure those operations, he immediately recognized that those methodologies were
fatally flawed. Some of the flaws that he was quickly able to identify are explained in Exhibit 5. Murray also recognized that the building in which the Plant was located had no method to
ventilate the heat that would be produced by the Plant were it producing the amount of steam
claimed by Rossi, Leonardo, and Penon such that persons would not have been able to work in
the building if the Rossi/Leonardo/Penon claims were true. This conflicted with the claims of
individuals who had been in the building when the Plant was operating, all of whom claimed the
temperature in the building was near or not much greater than the outside temperature.
Photographs of the building ceiling from the inside are attached hereto as Exhibit 26.
83. Leonardo, Rossi, JMP, Johnson, USQL, Fabiani, and John Doe also restricted
access to the JMP area at the Doral location, claiming that there was a secretive manufacturing
process being conducted there, when in fact it was simply recycling steam from the Plant and
sending it back to the Plant as water.
UPDATE#2: I asked Rossi today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics about the photos and allegations from Industrial Heat that if 1MW was produced by the E-Cat plant, it would have been too hot inside the factory for anyone to have worked. Rossi responded:
August 12, 2016 at 1:53 PM
1 The heat was used, not vented away from the Customer
2 There was a ventilation system, to exhaust when necessary the heat excess, that has not been taken in the photo.
Nevertheless I must confess that these amendments have remarkably improved the former countercomplaints, completing their cultural reach: before they were comic, now they are tragicomic.
Obviously we will respond in Court with due evidence.
When Rossi says “the heat was used”, it suggests that he means there was an endothermic manufacturing process, which some people have been discussing. From his response it sounds like that there were times when excess heat had to be vented out (apparently when the heat was not being used by the customer), but I don’t know what kind of ventilation system he is referring to here.