Science is just plain hard, long winded and complex at times. And they use long words. That's how it is.
Unified Gravity Corp: New Website, Open for "serious" replications
-
-
Having a glib web site which says nothing and no documentation except an extremely long patent app is at best uninformative for most visitors.
Based on your thorough research? (Sample size: 1)
-
I am fairly certain they are not seeking investors at the street level. Some day, perhaps with an IPO we'll see the usual "forward looking statements" as they "go public". They are likely still quite a ways from that, and don't need the retail investing public.... yet.
I agree it would be good to have a quick summary of the best of their results, and for the unified gravity idea perhaps a simplified visually-aided explanation. One weakness of the unified gravity idea is that the prediction for a low energy "window" does not (to me) seem to really correspond to the observed range of proton energies giving high Q results. I am sure their attempt to explain that could, if successful, be widely appreciated.
-
The Minari/Lipinski arrangement looks like rather complex, but very clean and safe setup, because it's not prone to cumulation of reactants and thermal runaways. One of possible technological arrangements could utilize ball mill. Lipinski fusion generates stream of alpha particles which enable to convert the portion of cold fusion energy directly into an electricity. It's well possible, that both Quark-X reactor of A. Rossi, both Me356 experiments are derived from this arrangement, because the thinner the lithium film is, the wider is the temperature range of cold fusion reaction and the lower is the energy of ion required. If we realize, that E-Cat/Me356/Parkhomov did use lithium soaked at the surface of metal, then the high-temperature systems could work without vacuum or even corona in thermal regime only for some time. The thermal collisions of metal lattice could composed of heavy metal could concentrate and ionize the hydrogen (spillover catalyst) and to provide activation energy by collisions of heavy atoms instead of impacts of lightweight ions. Nickel whiskers forming at high temperatures could also provide narrow cavities, which would catalyze the reaction running inside their central dislocations. Under such a situation the usage of high voltage corona would be overshot, which leads into escapement of neutrons, as Rossi and Me356 noted.
-
Can MFMP or Bob please give an update on a planned trip to Unified Gravity?
Thanks!
-
IMO the Unified Gravity Corp. could/should sell some kit or testbed device for replications together with supporting services and warranty of its function. The plain waiting for replication is futile: if the physicists didn't do it already, they will not indeed do it twenty years after the initial LENR hype.
-
Zephir_AWT Selling low volumes of custom-built kit is a very time and capital consuming business - in fact a full time occupation in some cases (not mine). But even I find it a big drain on lab-time.
-
Nobody says, it must be cheap and easy-peasy - but construction of such a devices without know-how and infrastructure is even more demanding. Which is also why no-one invests into it. Lipinski's should also lift their patent for sucessfull replicators: nobody would want to invest into (research of) technology, which is protected from its very beginning and it doesn't promise good usage. In essence, what they want and expect is a cheap promotion of their technology by successful replicators - but what they actually offer them for it? They should establish public web site with all construction details and know-how required for replication.
-
Zephir_AWT it is catch 22. Nobody would invest in non-proven and non-protected tech, on the other hand, what is the interest for replicators?
That is where government-own r&d should step in and chase alternative tech. In US it should be DOE which should set aside 20-30 mils per year to burn on claims like lenr. Sort of energy skunk works.
This presidential cycle it is not possible but it might be in the future.
Why can't it be legislated that say 5 percent of government research spending MUST be burned on some alterantive ideas.
-
Lipinski's should also lift their patent for sucessfull replicators: nobody would want to invest into (research of) technology, which is protected from its very beginning and it doesn't promise good usage.
They are cautiously inviting replication. The Lipinski's history includes Hubert's creation of the code for cc:mail which was purchased by Lotus Development which itself ultimately was purchased by IBM. The huge level of detailed disclosure from their WIPO patent application show very good knowledge of USPTO and the legal matrix of US patent litigation. I am fairly certain that they are financially much stronger and self-sufficient by comparison with many LENR / AHE present day pioneers. If by "lift their patent" you mean increase the level of disclosure, fine. If you mean that they should hand over patent rights to replicators..... that would be crazy.
-
According to the patent disclosed they were getting a COP near a 1000, is that correct? If so, I don't see how Rossi can compete with a device with such a COP and direct DC electric production, much similar to LPP Fusion, just with a significantly lower output power, but then again for home use or to have such a device in a car, then 15 kW is more than enough.
EDIT: Sorry, their COP is significantly higher: 3710
-
According to the patent disclosed they were getting a COP near a 1000, is that correct? If so, I don't see how Rossi can compete with a device with such a COP and direct DC electric production, much similar to LPP Fusion, just with a significantly lower output power, but then again for home use or to have such a device in a car, then 15 kW is more than enough.
EDIT: Sorry, their COP is significantly higher: 3710
Promethian,
Only difference is that UGC is begging for mainstream science to come in and independently verify, while Rossi is doing everything he can do to avoid that.
-
Quote
Only difference is that UGC is begging for mainstream science to come in and independently verify, while Rossi is doing everything he can do to avoid that.
Are they really? How hard would it be to pay a modest fee and have it tested by an independent and professional test lab? Or to give a good enough demo to interest the big entrepreneurs and companies? Or to interest Sandia labs, for example? And of course, a device which claims a high COP and high power (kW's) electrical output should run indefinitely without any input at all, right? You know, like without car batteries, large hidden spaces inside, connections to the mains, and the usual obvious tells that free energy scams always have.
-
Quote
The huge level of detailed disclosure from their WIPO patent application show very good knowledge of USPTO and the legal matrix of US patent litigation.
IMO they're well aware, that their arrangement as published isn't suitable for industrial scale (the deuterium ions clog the surface of lithium soon). And their publications describe the whole process well even without patents.
QuoteHow hard would it be to pay a modest fee and have it tested by an independent and professional test lab?
They already did it - or not? ("we were able to reproduce positive results in labs at the University of Louisiana, Lafayette and the University of North Texas with further experiments at our Morgan Hill laboratory")
-
IMO they're well aware, that their arrangement as published isn't suitable for industrial scale. And their publications describe the whole process well.
I don't think their reaction scales well. They're limited by the surface are and output energy of Li-7 in fusion settings with hydrogen, which I think is significantly less than other LENR setups. Anyway, like I said, a COP or almost 4k along with direct energy production is sufficient for most individual needs.
-
Are they really? How hard would it be to pay a modest fee and have it tested by an independent and professional test lab? Or to give a good enough demo to interest the big entrepreneurs and companies? Or to interest Sandia labs, for example? And of course, a device which claims a high COP and high power (kW's) electrical output should run indefinitely without any input at all, right? You know, like without car batteries, large hidden spaces inside, connections to the mains, and the usual obvious tells that free energy scams always have.
Well, that is what UGC says. For all I know, they are claiming that, and anyone from mainstream that calls to take them up on their offer, they hang up on. Been there, done that with Rossi, so not going there again with UGC.
They either make it on the merits of their technology, with readily verifiable proof, or they will not have ShaneD. here on LF to defend them.
-
Quote
They already did it - or not? ("we were able to reproduce positive results in labs at the University of Louisiana, Lafayette and the University of North Texas with further experiments at our Morgan Hill laborator
Yes, well Steorn was tested by "seven universities" and "it worked every time" and Rossi's non-existent thermoelectric device was tested at the Univ of NH except that nobody there ever wrote about it that can be found and of course, not to forget that Rossi promised testing at both UniBo and Univ of Upsalla. It's a standard tactic of con men to cite all the university tests they got. You usually find out later that the tests were done by themselves in leased space at said universities or never happened at all or, as could be the case with BLP, there were indeed tests done by a university but it is impossible to tell if they were the appropriate tests, what exactly was tested, and what the results really mean. There's a million ways to con potential investors. I am not saying this is one but it certainly could be and it is starting to walk like a duck. No clear cut quacking sounds yet but I expect some. Based, at a minimum, on the time worn principle that if it looks too good to be true, it probably isn't true.
-
Can MFMP or Bob please give an update on a planned trip to Unified Gravity?
Thanks!
What Bob was referring to didn't actually turn into a plan. It was a hope that if I was going to attend the Nov 14th evening MIT Hagelstein chat I would be in the area...
Didn't happen for me, sorry.
I hope that Bob get's a chance to connect with them
Looking at their reactor tho, my impression was that replicating such would require huge resources...
-
Looking at their reactor tho, my impression was that replicating such would require huge resources...
Yes, that's an issue that only large scale manufacturers can address. I hope it works out for anyone interested in replication attempts.
-
They seem to have updated their website with no mention of 3rd party testing anymore. They also describe their device as operating on LENR based mechanism. They also don't offer the patent anymore along with the Lipinski paper on instantaneous gravity.
