Unified Gravity Corp: New Website, Open for "serious" replications

  • 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: 3710D72nA

  • 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: 3710D72nA


    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.


    Quote

    How 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...