Please, be very, very careful about trying to 'read between the lines' when it comes to UL. When they say they have no opinion, that's just what it means: no opinion. Do not infer that they approve, disapprove, or anything else.
A similar issue comes up when folks try to infer quality from the presence of a UL lable. Some completely useless kludge has passed the appropriate UL safety standards, without being able to perform the intended function at all. (A certain 'surge suppressor' that you slipped over the prongs of a plug comes to mind).
We've seen a number of instances where private parties attempted to corrupt the code-writing process for their own private gain. At least two such cases have made it to the US Supreme court. With that in mind, perhaps we can understand UL's refusal to endorse any proprietary technology.
Likewise, how you 'test' something is always a concern. Let me arrange the test, and you can be sure my product will shine. Absent a 'standard test,' just what do test results really mean? That is why I pointed out that the UL lable only inferred that the product was evaluated to standard tests, and not any sort of validation as to the 'special' features of the devices.
For all I know, it's a marvelous invention. I remember the furious debates over new technology in the past .... GFCI's, power factor correction, even over the "Ufer." (Heck, my co-workers continue to debate the effectiveness of the Ufer!) I also remember some 'great advances' that fizzled ('Streamer Emission' lightning receptors, anyone?)
