If the contract with NI is the best available evidence that Rossi's kludge works, that's a pretty sad commentary. On the other hand, if NI conducted independent tests of it, that would be very interesting. However, nothing I read remotely suggests that.
It is interesting to me that Rossi once said as per Steven B. Krivit in “Poor Journalism by Wired U.K. on Rossi Story” …But according to Wired, which based its story on Fox News, which based its story on Sterling Allan, which based his story on Rossi’s statement, the customer is real and is the US Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR). All because one scientist from the Navy SPAWAR laboratory went to see for himself if there was any merit to Rossi’s claims and that Rossi says the customer’s name begins with an “N.” Wow… Some consistency may be emerging. The customer may be National Instruments instead of the Navy SPAWAR laboratory. More generally, I base my belief in the Rossi technology in a conceptual model I have developed over the last year based on dribs and drabs of information that Rossi has generously supplied via his flapping lips as well as information and perspectives from others both for and against. We are disadvantaged by the way Rossi wants to do things and this process of understanding has involved many twists and turns and some major backtracking. It has been complicated by the continual changes that Rossi has inflected on the E-Cat reactor. The model is not air tight and can be overturned by some major inconsistency. But it is not blind faith. This model points to some major technical problems that face the E-Cat in its current nascent state, but these problems are not fatal to a viable and valuable commercial product being developed at some point in the future. This model has become generally reliable and predictive in the direction that the E-Cat has taken. But* t*o develop this type of model, it is important to assume that the reaction is real and possible to some level. Lack of motivation and an open mind are major disadvantages for those who think Rossi is a fraud in developing their own model. Once this individualized belief system is in place, one can test current E-Cat events against consistency of ongoing E-Cat information as applied against their model. This model has become complex and is hard to communicate, and those who do not understand the underpinning of the E-Cat may think that the “faith” we believers possess is irrational. But it is a result of hard work that many Rossi deniers are unwilling to go through. On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Mary Yugo <[email protected]> wrote: > > The deal with Rossi sounds much more like an OEM contract, and they are >> very >> likely to have done some diligence on it. Just the risk of adverse PR >> (which they are already experiencing, >> I suspect) would require a reasonable return on the cost of the perceived >> risk. >> > > What due diligence do you think they did? And how do you know? And whose > word are we relying on about the need to label the panel with the maker's > logo? Yes, I read the peswiki.com statement that NI approved their > writeup. Maybe they didn't read it as carefully as they should have. > > Peswiki.com also endorses, promotes and tries to actually raise funds for > UFO stories, conspiracies, and free energy perpetual motion schemes that > can't possibly be anything other than rank scams. They (and Sterling Allan > and Hank Mills) are not usually a reliable source of information. > > If the contract with NI is the best available evidence that Rossi's kludge > works, that's a pretty sad commentary. On the other hand, if NI conducted > independent tests of it, that would be very interesting. However, nothing > I read remotely suggests that. > >
