NI Corroborates Rossi Statements

There has been some concern recently in e-Cat Nation regarding the news that Leonardo Corp is no longer working with National Instruments and is not currently a customer of that company.  Some in fact have been quite crestfallen over this news, as National Instruments has been one of the few well-known companies or institutions that has been willing (or been allowed) to admit an association with Rossi.  Others of course have been quite elated, using this news as proof positive that Rossi is a fraud and that he has been lying about or misrepresenting his relationship with National Instruments all along.  Admittedly, I have been disappointed by the recent news myself.  However, I had a sense that there was more to this story than was perhaps apparent and, as usual, that sense was correct.

In order to get more clarity on the matter, I contacted Julia Betts, Corporate Communications and Investor Relations Manager for National Instruments, regarding NI’s relationship with Leonardo Corp.  She in fact was very friendly and helpful, and did in fact provide a very important clarification that many of us missed and others perhaps intentionally obscured.

While Ms. Betts reiterated once again that Leonardo Corp was not currently a customer of National Instruments, there have been ongoing discussions between the two parties.  Discussion is the key word here.  Many, including myself, have taken this to mean there have been merely some preliminary discussions regarding a business relationship between the two parties.  After my conversation with Ms. Betts, it would seem that the word “discussion” as used in this context has a meaning with somewhat more depth, with that meaning being ongoing technical collaboration between the parties.  This collaboration has been at the level that Rossi has frequently alluded to in his comments on JONP and, specifically, to comments he made earlier this week.  Over the past several months he has frequently stated that he was working with National Instruments on E-Cat development.  I specifically asked Ms. Betts if these statements were exaggerations or outright lies on Mr. Rossi’s part and she informed me that THEY WERE NOT, and that indeed Mr. Rossi has been portraying Leonardo Corp’s work with National Instruments accurately. She e-mailed me this link specifically as an accurate accounting of the relationship that has existed between the two parties.  It of course is Rossi’s accounting that he posted on his blog earlier this week, as it appeared in article on Independent eCat News (it would appear that Ms. Betts is aware as anyone who has followed this story how bloody difficult it is to read JONP).

I did also ask Ms. Betts about NI’s official position on the whole field of LENR, to which she reiterated the sentiments expressed in previously released statements, namely that LENR is intriguing and has potential.  I find that view a breath of fresh air in comparison to two decades old (and continuing) calls of fraud and “junk science.”  I think it represents an evolution of thought about the technology from even a couple of months ago when official statements from National Instruments seemed to be somewhat more equivocal.  One could surmise that after working with the technology for even a couple of months they have seen the stated potential and feel comfortable enough to publicly include it in the technologies with which they feel their systems are appropriate.  Again, here is an official statement released by National Instruments recently and forwarded to me again today by Ms. Betts:

“NI platforms can be used for LENR applications, particularly the National Instruments Reconfigurable I/O (RIO) platform that is based on FPGA (field programmable gate array) technology for the control and monitoring needs. The FPGAs are programmable integrated circuits that offer true parallelism, high-speed analysis of data and a high level of reliability needed for control and monitoring applications. We do think the field of LENR is an intriguing research area that has potential to impact the energy crisis that is facing the world. NI believes in providing the right tools and platforms to enable engineers and scientists to focus on innovation and solving the grand engineering challenges such as energy from fusion, cancer therapy in the field of medicine and smart grids for better urban infrastructure, to name a few. National Instruments is working with Universities and Research Centers around the world to empower researchers and scientists who are working on magnetic confined fusion, inertial confined fusion and Low Energy Nuclear Reaction.”

No other company of this size and pedigree has ever made anything close to such a statement in support of LENR.  Bravo NI.  It is regrettable that any collaboration between NI and Leonardo Corp has ended, but at least now other researchers know they have a supporter in the corporate world.  I think that this can be seen as a huge step in terms of respectability for the technology, regardless of the setback it MAY APPEAR to be for Andrea Rossi and Leonardo, Corp.

In view of NI’s openness to LENR, I did inform Ms. Bettis, that soon on this site I will post an article and details regarding an LANR (lattice-assisted nuclear reaction) patent that has been translated into English and made available to this site by its author.  The patent was originally granted in Belgium in the 1990s but has since lapsed.  The author has requested that I publish that information here as he wishes it to be shared and widely disseminated.  I hope that all readers, laymen, scientists and those from the corporate world will find the patent of interest and I hope it will foster a better understanding of the cold fusion phenomenon.   The patent includes quite an interesting theory on LANR (the authors preferred term) and I think it will be of interest to many.

As a closing note, I would just like to add that although National instruments is the first to come out in public support of this technology, I know that that there are many more watching this unfolding saga.  Note, I said KNOW.  I am not making unfounded assumptions here.  There are Individuals from some very well-known entities, business and government, who make almost daily visits to this site.  They sometimes visit in small groups and view the same article, as if they were simultaneously studying the information contained therein.  I am not mentioning this to violate confidences, that is not my intent.  I only mention it to let the others visiting from similar entities that they are not alone in sharing in an interest in this technology.   As Tom Baccei has encouraged all readers to do as part of PLAN X, I would specifically encourage corporate and government entities to be active in pursuing cold fusion/LENR.  Some no doubt wish it would just go away, but to others it provides an incredible opportunity.  Now is not the time to be passive.  To do so will mean that you will be beaten to the punch by either those who oppose it or those who wish to beat you to the market with their version.  Now is the time for boldness, not caution.


Update:  Julia Betts of National Instruments contacted me this morning and asked that I make two clarifications to this article.  While Ms. Betts and National Instruments are overall satisfied with the tone and accuracy of this piece, there are some things they would like clarified to avoid any misunderstanding.

  1. NI generally concurs with the characterization of their relationship with Leonardo Corp as portrayed by Andrea Rossi, and as outlined by his statements made recently and linked to above. However, they cannot vouch for EVERY statement he has made regarding their relationship in the last couple of months as it is difficult to be aware of everything he has said.

  2. The discussions and technical collaboration that NI engaged in with Leonardo Corp included NI making preliminary suggestions on platforms that could be used for the control system.  These types of discussions are part of standard practice in order to assess and accurately meet a customers needs.


For the latest news and updates see Headlines/Chatterings.


e-mail Admin
Short URL for this page:
This entry was posted in Articles, News and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to NI Corroborates Rossi Statements

  1. Admin says:

    I moved your post to the comment section of the most recent article for better visibility.


  2. Pingback: Technological Research & Development | Pearltrees

  3. Pingback: Rossi Confirms E-Cat Distribution Start In Up to 18 Months

  4. Anony Mole says:

    Ben, wouldn’t it be educational to locate the team who put the following document together and get their latest version? Or their latest opinions on the topic? I only just found this document and realize that it contains material that is material to this materializing maelstrom. I bet a sleuth of your talents might be able to perform such gumshoeing.

    • Ben says:

      The information to which you refer and link to is interesting indeed. It was obtained thru the Freedom of Information Act, as were the NASA slides and several other reports. In general, I don’t care much for the reporting on the pages of the New Energy Times these days but, give credit where credit is due, someone over there certainly knows how to scare up a government report. This site could use such an expert on FOIA. Do you care to volunteer Anony? Anyone? Bueller?

  5. Pingback: E-cat: Rossi non è più proprietario dell’azienda | FiascoJob Blog

  6. Pingback: E-cat: Rossi non è più proprietario dell’azienda | Informare per Resistere

  7. Rockyspoon says:

    So does this fly in the face of Krivit maintaining there is NO relationship between Rossi and NI?

    Just wondering.

  8. GreenWin says:

    Nicely done Ben. Thanks for your work on this. Yeah, there will always be those like Curious who don’t WANT to get it.

  9. Sandy says:

    Ben: I wonder if the implosion of the hydrogen gas bubbles generated by the Patterson Power Cell are what powered the nuclear fusion and transmutation that occurred in the cell. See “The LeClair Effect explains excess heat and transmutation observed in electrolytic cells (Pons, Fleischmann & others)” .

    And see

  10. Jeff C. says:

    As an R&D engineer for the past 10 years , I’ve used NI products.
    Current NI products are used in the development of other products. I would never spec a piece of NI gear into a final product. I would use the information gathered through use of the NI product to create custom circuitry for the final product.

    • Ben says:

      Thank you for your input Jeff. That gives the whole affair a better context. Perhaps that is precisely what AR and Leonardo Corp have done. I have seen similar sentiments expressed elsewhere as well.

  11. Pingback: NI Corroborates Rossi Statements | e-Cat Site

  12. Brad Lowe says:

    As far as reading JNOP goes, there is a searchable database here:

    It is automated, so sometimes question and answer links are not always updated..

  13. Anony Mole says:

    Bravo Ben! Keep up the sleuthing.

    You realize that Ms. Betts’ comments cannot really be considered support of LENR. National Inst. is in the business of supplying lab instrumentation and measurement equipment and any lab, with money, must be considered worthy to them. The LENR fervor may soon provide a boon to their sales. Nat.Inst. was never going to be the instrument supply company to Rossi, or DGT or anyone, that’s not their business. Although their modular embedded systems and FPGA products look like they might be repackaged for retail product metering installation – they’re not really. If Nat.Inst. is capable of producing OEM level, retail end user oriented metering units, that’s news to me. Any OEM instrumentation used in a LENR generator will be custom built for monitoring and end-user interaction. Something more like this would be appropriate:

    So, Rossi’s disassociation from Nat.Inst. is not really a hiccup. How much test and lab instrumentation can you really use?

    The follow on where you allude to knowing that those of power, lurking in the shadows, are following these prognostications is intriguing. I can’t wait until you flesh out that little teaser a bit more…

    • Ben says:

      I would not consider Ms. Betts’ comments or the official statements from NI as a rousing endorsement that LENR is coming to a Home Depot near you soon. But, as she and the statement indicate, they do say the technology has potential and feel their tools are appropriate for implementation in LENR systems. Those statements, as well as the fact that LENR is mentioned in the same space as other, much more established technologies, does indicate at least a tacit support.

  14. Roger Bird says:

    Good article

  15. psi says:

    Excellent article, and congratulations on doing the work of real journalism by following up on this story. You are now reaping the benefits of having one of the most widely reprinted articles recent articles in the online LENR community of websites (of which, as you know, there are quite a few!).

  16. Methusela says:

    Interesting; I suspected as much due to his past history.

  17. Stephen T. says:

    Thanks for an outstanding article. I look forward to reading about the patent info from the 90’s.

  18. CuriousChris says:

    Rather than paraphrase could you please provide the text of the actual conversations. I assume they were in email form

    • Ben says:

      No, they were not in e-mail form. I clearly state this article was based on phone conversation. An e-mail was simply provided as a reference. National Instruments has expressed satisfaction with this article. They did want to make some things clear and it is their right to want to avoid misunderstanding. Although it seems most readers got the gist of the matter the first time around, there are always people like you Curious that just don’t get it.

  19. Francesco says:

    This is great news and great Article. Thank you Admin.

Comments are closed.