National Instruments Denies Relationship with Rossi

New Energy Times ^ | 2/18/2012 | Steven B. Krivit

[Johnny B.]

Today, an author who is working on a book about Rossi contacted Julia Betts, the corporate communications and investor relations manager for National Instruments, to inquire about its relationship with Rossi.

According to e-mails the author received from Betts, National Instruments is not working with Rossi.

“Leonardo Corporation/Andrea Rossi is currently not a customer, partner or distributor of National Instruments,” Betts wrote.

The author sent Betts another e-mail asking about a variety of possible relationships her company might have with Rossi or his company.

“Per our previous [news release] from November,” Betts wrote, “we were only in discussions with the Leonardo Corporation regarding the use of National Instruments’ engineering tools. Currently, Leonardo Corporation/Andrea Rossi is not a customer of National Instruments.”

[Johnny B.]

Yet another Rossi lie exposed. Ever since the University of Bologna exposed Rossi's lie about them doing independent testing of his E-Cat, this was the only thing that appeared to give Rossi any credibility at all.

[Johnny B.]

Courtesy ping for the LENR/Cold Fusion ping list, and some people who posted in other recent Rossi articles.

[Johnny B.]

And a very special curtesy ping for Kevmo, because I’m sure he wouldn’t want to miss out on this exciting development.

[cripplecreek]

This guy will be facing charges again soon.

[count-your-change]

I believe it was clear some time ago that the only relationship Rossi had with NI was that they would provide advice on the use of their products, basically the kind of thing any company might do for a customer should Rossi ever be a customer.

The kind of instruments Rossi needs are not uncommon and besides he needs to have something to test. So far Big Blue is the only thing that has been offered as a finished product and it sets awaiting a quiet disposal.

[Johnny B.]

I believe it was clear some time ago that the only relationship Rossi had with NI was that they would provide advice on the use of their products, basically the kind of thing any company might do for a customer should Rossi ever be a customer.

That's a reasonable interpretation of NI's press release, but that's not what Rossi has been claiming.

Rossi has stated repeatedly in in depth that he was "working closely" with NI to design the controller for his E-Cat. He boasted about how much their engineering resources have helped in making the E-Cat production-ready.

In other words, Rossi was lying.

[dinodino]

How utterly shocking. </s>

[count-your-change]

Rossi’s statement about “working closely” is typical of someone blowing hot air, lying, in order to puff up their importance. By now the pattern should be obvious, having “discussions with” means “I sent an e-mail”, “close working relationship” means they answered it. “Partnership” means the item will be sent as soon as the check clears.

“He boasted about how much their engineering resources have helped in making the E-Cat production-ready”.

Yes...The engineering staff at Black and Decker have thrown their resources into building a device for me. Thanks guys! The coffee maker works fine, Wal-Mart and I have formed a business relationship as a result.

[Johnny B.]

Rossi’s statement about “working closely” is typical of someone blowing hot air, lying, in order to puff up their importance.

He has far more important goals than puffing up his importance.

He has claimed that he has sold "franchises" to all the countries of the world other than Japan and Russia. I'm not sure if he had a backup sucker when the $200,000 franchise for Australia fell through.

I strongly suspect that Rossi's lies about his "close working relationship" with NI, in light of his selling of franchisees, is enough to land him in court.

[Kevmo]

Well, thanks for posting this. Beat me to it.

• Here’s my standard ‘ignore’ post to Johnny B.
This will be my standard post to you that says you’re not worth trying to have reasonable discussion, also says “buzz off” & doesn’t leave crickets. You’ve proven you’re just here to harass; you have demonstrated that you are not here to discuss things on a level that Free Republic intended.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2832338/posts?page=51#51

[Johnny B.]

Here’s my standard ‘ignore’ post to Johnny B. ... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2832338/posts?page=51#51

Let's take a look at what Kevmo thinks is a "harassing" posting:

If Rossi had not sold his 1MW unit, for ~$2M and the whole thing was a facade, he would need cash and would jump at the chance for some cash.

And don't forget about all that money he saved by going back on his promise to have the University of Bologna test his gadget. That saved him a half-million right there.

***All of us know that Rossi claims the customer is choosing to remain anonymous.

I'm not talking about the "secret" customer from the October 28th demo, I'm talking about the customer Rossi said would come forward. LINK

Failing that, the name of any customer would be fine. Or anything at all that provided any independent confirmation that Rossi is not a complete fraud.

I think I’m about done with you on this thread, and if you continue to harrass I’ll be putting you on my permanent ‘ignore’ list.

Oh, goodie! Will I get a customized "I'm ignoring you" canned reply? Nothing makes you look more childish than your long list of "I'm ignoring you" replies.

So, my apparent crime was pointing out that Rossi reneged on his promise to allow the University of Bologna to do independent testing of his gadget, and pointing out that Rossi reneged on releasing the name of his 2nd customer and that Rossi had not named any customer (he still hasn't).

I guess Kevmo just can't handle the truth.

[count-your-change]

Act Three of this farce will begin soon.

[Kevmo]

• Here’s my standard ‘ignore’ post to Johnny B.
This will be my standard post to you that says you’re not worth trying to have reasonable discussion, also says “buzz off” & doesn’t leave crickets. You’ve proven you’re just here to harass; you have demonstrated that you are not here to discuss things on a level that Free Republic intended.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2832338/posts?page=51#51

[Johnny B.]

This will be my standard post to you that says you’re not worth trying to have reasonable discussion

Your problem is that you define "reasonable discussion" as gushing uncontrollably about Rossi must be legitimate, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

[Johnny B.]

Here's a humorous aside from the end of the article:

A week ago, Rob Duncan, vice chancellor for research and a professor of physics at the University of Missouri, announced to a general audience at the university’s Saturday Science series that he intended to purchase two of Rossi E-Cats, according to the Columbia Tribune.

Today, the author contacted Duncan by e-mail and asked him about his purchase plans.

“I took a closer look at this,” Duncan wrote, “and we have decided not to pursue an E-Cat purchase at this time, but we will be very interested to track how this progresses.”

[PapaBear3625]

Rossi will continue to be controversial here until either:

A) some widely-known and respected company comes out and says "We've been using Rossi's E-cat for weeks now at our independent facility and have confirmed that it generates large amounts of net output energy", or

B) Rossi folds.

We are now in the fourth month since Rossi's secretive customer allegedly accepted delivery of the 1 MW unit, with no real independent news.

[exDemMom]

Gee, why am I not at all surprised?

I have a close business relationship with Olympus corporation. We entered into intense negotiations, and they came and demonstrated a microscrope, which illustrates just how close that partnership is.

Nevermind that I didn’t buy the microscope...

[Kevmo]

Yup. In the meantime I'll repeat that I'm not necessarily a Rossi fan, I'm a LENR fan. And also as usual, I like what Jed Rothwell has to say about Krivit. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg63446.html Re: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership Jed Rothwell Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:26:09 -0800 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: When I was still one of the NET BoD directors I asked Krivit whether he was > actually pursuing the role of an advocate rather than that of an > independent investigative reporter. This was related to the fact that I > noticed he was spending a great deal of time promoting the so-called merits > of the Widom-Larsen theory out on his NET website. > Krivit has done important work, and he has done a lot of good for the field. Both Steven and I have worked with Krivit, and benefited from the experience. So I do not wish to turn this thread into a "bash Steve Krivit" extravaganza. But I would like to add one thing. >From my perspective, it is pathetic that Krivit is advocating a theory. I do not think he has the expertise to evaluate cold fusion theory. I am sure that I do not have that expertise. I am not ashamed to admit that because Mizuno and many other chemists have told me they cannot make head or tail of theory, and they skip the theory sessions at conferences. If they don't have a clue what Hagelstein is talking about, it is cinch I don't. I get the impression I have a somewhat stronger background in physics and biology than Krivit does. But I am sure that you gave me an oral exam on these theories and asked me to explain some paragraphs from the W-L theory papers, I would have slightest idea what they mean. Here's the thing: I am pretty sure that Krivit would not have the slightest idea either. He can parrot some of the claims in the papers but that is far from understanding what it means, or being able to argue the merits of the theory compared to Hagelstein's theory or some other. For example: Imagine asking Krivit to explicate this: "Generally it can be considered that all effective mass calculations about the charges (electrons and holes) in solids are based on the corresponding electron band structures ignoring the rule given in [1, 2]. However, recently some authors [3, 4] have considered the impact of interaction of external electro-magnetic field with electrons in solids on the electron effective mass, and they have found that increase of this mass can be expected." Imagine asking him: Can you explain what an "effective mass calculation of charges" is? What rule is ignored? How can a magnetic field increase the effective mass of an electron, and what does this mean? Why is this "expected"? I wouldn't have a clue! I can barely make out the claim, and I can't imagine how a magnetic field can increase mass in any sense, virtual or real. Ask him what Eq. 1 means, and what the terms "r is the radius-vector of the electron, E(q) is electron energy in the quasi-elementary cell" mean and I am sure he would be lost at sea. There is a paper by Krivit that says: "Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen propose that, in condensed matter, local breakdown of the Born–Oppenheimer approximation occurs in homogeneous, many-body, collectively oscillating patches of protons, deuterons, or tritons found on surfaces of fully loaded metallic hydrides; Born–Oppenheimer breakdown enables a degree of electromagnetic coupling of surface proton/ deuteron/triton oscillations with those of nearby surface plasmon polariton (SPP) electrons. Such coupling between collective oscillations creates local nuclear-strength electric fields in the vicinity of the patches." http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrivitSanewlookat.pdf That is impressive but I suspect it is was written by his co-author Marwan. Anyway, I could crib a similar description of many theory papers without actually knowing what I was saying. I have often edited such papers and occasionally translated them. Naturally, I warn the authors that I may mess things up since I do not understand the content in any depth. There are many secretaries in university departments who edit and rewrite papers without knowing in detail what the papers really mean. Needless to say, there are hoards of nitwits out there editing Wikipedia and making trouble elsewhere who do know the first thing about cold fusion yet who pontificate about it endlessly with great assurance. Krivit is not the only one who does this. But someone is paying him 50 grand to do it . . . Back in the 1980s I read several computer science papers written by "management consultants" that were cribbed. That is to say, the authors knew how to string together impressive sounding jargon describing what was then state-of-the-art programming techniques and the latest microcomputer hardware. It sounded good, like an article in Byte magazine. But I knew a more about computers than these people did, and I could tell they were faking it. I recall in particular a report from McKinsey & Co. in which the authors confused EPROM firmware with operating system object code and application object code. As Dirty Harry said, a man should know his limitations. - Jed

[Kevmo]

Formatting is all messed up.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg63446.html




Re: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership
Jed Rothwell Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:26:09 -0800
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

When I was still one of the NET BoD directors I asked Krivit whether he was
> actually pursuing the role of an advocate rather than that of an
> independent investigative reporter. This was related to the fact that I
> noticed he was spending a great deal of time promoting the so-called merits
> of the Widom-Larsen theory out on his NET website.
>

Krivit has done important work, and he has done a lot of good for the
field. Both Steven and I have worked with Krivit, and benefited from the
experience. So I do not wish to turn this thread into a "bash Steve Krivit"
extravaganza. But I would like to add one thing.

>From my perspective, it is pathetic that Krivit is advocating a theory. I
do not think he has the expertise to evaluate cold fusion theory. I am sure
that I do not have that expertise. I am not ashamed to admit that
because Mizuno and many other chemists have told me they cannot make head
or tail of theory, and they skip the theory sessions at conferences. If
they don't have a clue what Hagelstein is talking about, it is cinch I
don't.

I get the impression I have a somewhat stronger background in physics and
biology than Krivit does. But I am sure that you gave me an oral exam on
these theories and asked me to explain some paragraphs from the W-L theory
papers, I would have slightest idea what they mean. Here's the thing: I am
pretty sure that Krivit would not have the slightest idea either. He can
parrot some of the claims in the papers but that is far from understanding
what it means, or being able to argue the merits of the theory compared to
Hagelstein's theory or some other. For example:

Imagine asking Krivit to explicate this:

"Generally it can be considered that all effective mass calculations about
the charges (electrons and holes) in solids are based on the
corresponding electron band structures ignoring the rule given in [1,
2]. However, recently some authors [3, 4] have considered the impact of
interaction of external electro-magnetic field with
electrons in solids on the electron effective mass, and they have found
that increase of this mass can be expected."

Imagine asking him: Can you explain what an "effective mass calculation of
charges" is? What rule is ignored? How can a magnetic field increase the
effective mass of an electron, and what does this mean? Why is this
"expected"?

I wouldn't have a clue! I can barely make out the claim, and I can't
imagine how a magnetic field can increase mass in any sense, virtual or
real.

Ask him what Eq. 1 means, and what the terms "r is the radius-vector of the
electron, E(q) is electron energy in the quasi-elementary cell" mean and I
am sure he would be lost at sea.


There is a paper by Krivit that says:

"Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen propose that, in condensed
matter, local breakdown of the Born–Oppenheimer approximation occurs in
homogeneous, many-body, collectively oscillating
patches of protons, deuterons, or tritons found on surfaces of
fully loaded metallic hydrides; Born–Oppenheimer breakdown
enables a degree of electromagnetic coupling of surface proton/
deuteron/triton oscillations with those of nearby surface plasmon
polariton (SPP) electrons. Such coupling between collective
oscillations creates local nuclear-strength electric fields in the
vicinity of the patches."

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrivitSanewlookat.pdf

That is impressive but I suspect it is was written by his co-author Marwan.
Anyway, I could crib a similar description of many theory papers without
actually knowing what I was saying. I have often edited such papers
and occasionally translated them. Naturally, I warn the authors that I may
mess things up since I do not understand the content in any depth. There
are many secretaries in university departments who edit and rewrite papers
without knowing in detail what the papers really mean.

Needless to say, there are hoards of nitwits out there editing Wikipedia
and making trouble elsewhere who do know the first thing about cold fusion
yet who pontificate about it endlessly with great assurance. Krivit is not
the only one who does this. But someone is paying him 50 grand to do it . .
.

Back in the 1980s I read several computer science papers written by
"management consultants" that were cribbed. That is to say, the authors
knew how to string together impressive sounding jargon describing what was
then state-of-the-art programming techniques and the latest microcomputer
hardware. It sounded good, like an article in Byte magazine. But I knew a
more about computers than these people did, and I could tell they were
faking it. I recall in particular a report from McKinsey & Co. in which the
authors confused EPROM firmware with operating system object code and
application object code.

As Dirty Harry said, a man should know his limitations.

- Jed

[Vinnie]

Cold Fusion, the scam that refuses to die.

Anyone heard about the electrolysis injection for cars lately?