Unifiedgravity - New player

    • Official Post

    Unified Gravity is a new player for me, maybe our readers have more information about their work?



    Webpage
    Patentsapplication


    Unified Gravity Proton-Lithium Fusion Reaction Chamber


    Clean Fusion Energy




    Experiment History


    UGC Personnel

  • When and where can I invest?


    I have read the Lipinski's patent application. Your review, David, is excellent. With a bit of web searching I had some idea of the personnel, but now I am even more impressed.


    As a long time science and math guy, I don't see much readable maths in physics these days. But Unified Gravity's vector calculus level discussion is brief and easy to read and appears to make credible case. Assuming their theory, data and observations are correct, we may have a new model or at the very least their work, if valid, would constitute strongly confirming evidence for a huge hole in modern physics. That could have been guessed many times before, as most here at the LENR Forum already know. This is a remarkable, sustained and self confident effort by a "real" physicist, his son who seems to be a technical whiz and they have very well-qualified administrative personnel. Their open discussion of the history of their efforts is refreshing compared to other current LENR "heroes".

  • Hi David,Thanks for discovering this company and their activity in LENR. I neither heard about MEE theory, and so I read every document with attention. I read also their new Patent which sounds great.I do not understand how all this wonderful work can stay so silent! It may be as important as Einstein work in the past!I am not sufficiently equipped with mathematics (I have a master of sciences in electronics, but I worked mainly as a manager !) to be able to check the validity of this work. But the fact of explaining everything by the action of fields (gravity and electromagnetism) is exactly the way I see the world. For me, the matter does not exist really. We just believe in it because we feel the electromagnetism effects (visible light, and resistance to contact due to the repulsion between atoms). In fact, from quarks to atoms, everything is purely energetic agitations of a field (electromagnetic, or gravity). Then, with the equivalence mass-energy, this end-up in masses. But speaking of particles each time there is an energetic event is misleading. Because of that, the famous Coulomb barrier seems to prevent the fusion except by hard collision. But in seeing them as a field perturbation, it is easier to imagine many schemes to reorganize them. I like very much the explanation of the Coulomb attraction by the gravity action onto the pseudo photons exchanged between charged particles. This is the way Feynmann describes the exchange. Again, why scientists do not go further!Definitely, I believe that they are right, and that their reactor should work!This is good news !

  • Since this is so important technically, and is also the source instigating my beryllium safety warning, I will "bring it to the top" and at least update my personal explanation of possible causes for the some of the divergent thinking about beryllium in lithium reactors.


    Here is the link to the updated WIPO patent application:
    http://unifiedgravity.com/reso…014189799-PAMPH-330-2.pdf


    It is an excellent source of new ideas, reviews some old ideas. It has very detailed description of the technical implementations and very detailed measurements of many parameters including the various particle fluxes and the heat generated. The detail in the application together with available online documentation from very reliable sources for isotopic data on beryllium and its isotopes gave rise to the discordance that motivated my "Safety Warning" series here at the LENR Forum. The question of Be 7 in lithium reactors is not necessarily answered but the safest presumption is that indeed beryllium is present, until proven otherwise. All should please attend to the very great detail in the Unified Gravity Corp WiPO patent application which initiated this thread. It will surprise and perhaps pleasantly shock at least some who read, as others including jaylachance here have indicated.


    I believe the resolution of the disparity between the patent applicants' claimed or described actions of Be 7 ("splits to alphas much like Be 8") and the widely reported for Be 7 "half life of 53.218 days, decaying by internal electron capture"), may have resulted from the fact that the natural and signature free decay of Be 7 to Li 7 is very difficult to detect with current instrumentation, combined with the fact that its decay product is Li 7, the majority isotope of natural lithium and parent of Be 8 in the UGC disclosure. The discrimination of Be 7 from Li 7 apparently must presently be done with classical qualitative and quantitative analysis-- not a mean feat today nor one that is easy to undertake even if all the instrumentation available is only of the "highest" current technology.


    For example one such modern technique is Neutron Activation Analysis "NAA", a very precise detection tool that might normally be used in similar situations but which is becoming more scarce due in part to the requirement of an intense neutron source (typically a nuclear reactor at least to supply higher energy neutrons-- epithermal and above). Further, and in this specific case, even if NAA were available, the immediate product in NAA of neutrons on Be 7 is Be 8 which decay is reported in at least one reliable source as 7 X 10^ minus 17 seconds, and in several sources the decay is into two alphas of MeV energy as mentioned before. Normally the neutron activation gives rise to characteristic gammas which are read by specific instrumentation for their flux (quantity) and energy (identity) signatures. Surely the alphas could also be similarly characterized, but that is not the expected output for the vast majority of NAA, so a modified detection setup would have to be put in place to characterize such alpha flux and energy signatures.


    I will continue to investigate other analytic methods and report here any that might "make it easy" to discriminate and quantify Be 7 in a Li 7 context.


    Longview

  • Will look at this further also in light of our LENR test results & EM inputs from TRIACs! Just may be part of what we are seeing in energy release in GS3 & other tests.

  • Will look at this further also in light of our LENR test results & EM inputs from TRIACs! Just may be part of what we are seeing in energy release in GS3 & other tests.

  • Hi David,Thanks for discovering this company and their activity in LENR. I neither heard about MEE theory, and so I read every document with attention. I read also their new Patent which sounds great.I do not understand how all this wonderful work can stay so silent! It may be as important as Einstein work in the past!I am not sufficiently equipped with mathematics (I have a master of sciences in electronics, but I worked mainly as a manager !) to be able to check the validity of this work. But the fact of explaining everything by the action of fields (gravity and electromagnetism) is exactly the way I see the world. For me, the matter does not exist really. We just believe in it because we feel the electromagnetism effects (visible light, and resistance to contact due to the repulsion between atoms). In fact, from quarks to atoms, everything is purely energetic agitations of a field (electromagnetic, or gravity). Then, with the equivalence mass-energy, this end-up in masses. But speaking of particles each time there is an energetic event is misleading. Because of that, the famous Coulomb barrier seems to prevent the fusion except by hard collision. But in seeing them as a field perturbation, it is easier to imagine many schemes to reorganize them. I like very much the explanation of the Coulomb attraction by the gravity action onto the pseudo photons exchanged between charged particles. This is the way Feynmann describes the exchange. Again, why scientists do not go further!Definitely, I believe that they are right, and that their reactor should work!This is good news !


    This is indeed a great find & well worth looking at all the patent details, kept me up till 4 AM last night & I was not tired my mind was so inspired by this answer to questions on Li 6th & 7ths path to clean low energy nuclear process & now it is clear to me. I passed up Uinifiedgravity's Face Book page thinking it was merely another milli watt generation effort, but boy was I wrong. Should have read patent application long ago. It answered many of my haunting questions?

  • Just to bring this original (for me) reference forward so others will have a chance to look for themselves. Thanks again, David.


    Longview


    Will be just greatest patent application ever of that I am now sure. Up till 4 AM last night looking over massive details pertinent to their filing. Gave Rossi a heads up as it covers his LI nuclear processes just a little outside Unifiedgravities test data, but maybe close enough. Explains our TRIAC power source results in a fashion. Godes got back to me on his EM frequency drive & does not believe PID of power source is workable, but he has been working 16 hour days, at least 6 days a week & hasn't been able to see LENR forum, MFMP tests, etc like we have witnessed. I know we can work out power control as Rossi has with (ssm) LENR, no less! Power control need more digital over-site than general fuzzy logic or manual PID can provide to improve performance & protection of fuel element of that I am sure since following brilliant test of me356, Denis Vasilenko & Alan Goldwater & Brian Albiston's recent runs & nice historic records in FB pages & spread sheets.

  • Will be just greatest patent application ever of that I am now sure. Up till 4 AM last night looking over massive details pertinent to their filing. Gave Rossi a heads up as it covers his LI nuclear processes just a little outside Unifiedgravities test data, but maybe close enough. Explains our TRIAC power source results in a fashion. Godes got back to me on his EM frequency drive & does not believe PID of power source is workable, but he has been working 16 hour days, at least 6 days a week & hasn't been able to see LENR forum, MFMP tests, etc like we have witnessed. I know we can work out power control as Rossi has with (ssm) LENR, no less! Power control need more digital over-site than general fuzzy logic or manual PID can provide to improve performance & protection of fuel element of that I am sure since following brilliant test of me356, Denis Vasilenko & Alan Goldwater & Brian Albiston's recent runs & nice historic records in FB pages & spread sheets.


    Thanks, and thanks for your enthusiasm Jarovnak, it helps me to overcome the despair induced by reading Thomas Clarke's "armchair critique from nowhere". And of course thanks to Forum Founder David for originally posting this very informative document.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.