Still, it is somewhat apples and oranges to dismiss the NI report because of the author's gullibility regarding other energy production claims. Either Rossi has a business relationship with NI or he does not. And either the author received information on that relationship or not. It's not a matter if him blindly trusting in someone's claims. He said he was on a conference call with Rossi himself when he got the information, and then other confirmatory emails are cited at the end of the article.
So either a skeptic needs to widen their circle of skepticism from Rossi to this fellow (who is not merely gullible but dishonest as well if the confirmatory email is an invention of his), or the author has simply reported something accurately. What to make of that report, assuming it's true, is food for thought and why I posted this article.
He said he was on a conference call with Rossi himself when he got the information, and then other confirmatory emails are cited at the end of the article.Given his obvious gullibility, I wouldn't trust him to verify any aspect of this.
Did he contact National Instruments? Or did he accept Rossi's word that the person on the other end of the phone was, in fact, a representative? Did he get emails directly from NI? Or did Rossi forward him something that looked like an email from NI?
Maybe this business relationship is real. When (if) we see NI make a public statement (i.e. a press release actually released to the press, or a notice on their web site) then it will be clear that this is true.
But just because Stirling Alan says that Rossi says that it's real doesn't make it real.