Posted on **08/15/2012 5:43:29 PM PDT** by **Kevmo **

Grand Unification Theory of Cold Fusion (and a few other things)

August 14, 2012

Ok, so here is my theory about cold fusion, which actually might answer questions about a few other things in nature. I am refining this continuously so please be patient and make comments if you would like! I am still adding references so I will not leave anyone out. This includes but is not limited to publications from Mr. Ed Storms, Mr. Celani, Mr. Hagelstein, Mr. Ahern and others. Please be patient as I have learned alot these past couple of years from everyone, especially the crew at Vortex, Jed, Terry, Axil Axil, David, etc. for keeping me interested in this subject. Also, the group at CMNS, especially Peter Gluck who is a wise soul.

Micro (Quantum) Singularities (Black Holes) and You

Stewart D. Simonson

cheme911@gmail.com

Copyright 2012 All rights reserved

8/6/2012 Rev 1 8/7/2012 Rev 2

8/8/2012 Rev 3

8/14/2012 Rev 4

8/15/2012 Rev 5

Dedicated in Memory of

Martin Fleischmann (29 March 1927 – 3 August 2012)

Eugene Mallove (June 9, 1947 – May 14, 2004)

Since Pons & Fleishmann identified anomalous heat effects in 1989 (at the time labeled “Cold Fusion”), determined scientists have studied the effect in earnest in order to discover the fundamental cause(s). Identifying the cause and optimizing the effect could possibly lead to a worldwide clean source of energy and help solve our climate change crisis. Published theories outlining the primary causes include, but are not limited to: Cold Fusion, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs), Hydrinos, Beta Decays and the production of Ultra Low Momentum Neutrons, Sonofusion, Crackfusion as well as others. It is generally believed that the effect is nuclear in nature due to the wide results produced by many independent laboratories and companies researching the subject. Some common traits seen in many of these reactions are as follows:

Low level anomalous, continuous heat emission(mW to kWatts claimed), sometimes lasting for days, weeks or months with moderate, little or no external stimulation

Various nuclear reaction products including , but not limited to Photons, UV light, Visible Light, X-Rays, Gamma Rays, Gravity waves, Tritium, Helium as well as condensed matter resulting from the

General sensitivity of the effect due to electromagnetic radiation including UV, Laser, electric arc discharge and or current as well as ultrasonic radiation.

“Heat after Death Effect” in which the reaction continues to carry on after external stimulation is removed, sometimes for days.

Effect seems to occur in cracks or voids within a lattice and also after high loading of a metallic lattice with hydrogen or deuterium.

Similar effects has been claimed within a noble gas excited by a plasma arc.

Similar effects have been studied as emanating from lightning strikes and ball lightning.

In general, the field suffers from a few too many theories to try and satisfy all of the above and I recognize that this is ANOTHER ONE. Up until now, most theories have considered these effects to be primarily based on nuclear Fusion related processes (cold or hot) and/or low energy nuclear reactions but are baffled by why these reactions are not emitting large quantities of deadly radiation.

This paper summarizes a NEW theory for this anomalous heat effect which utilizes one of the only other known nuclear processes to exist in the universe, the birth, existence and evaporation of singularities (also widely known in culture as “black holes”). Macro scale singularities are predicted to be at the center of our Milky Way galaxy and exist in many others galaxies within the universe. It is also believed that micro or quantum singularities may exist in the universe and may actually contain much of the “dark matter” hiding in the universe. Micro or quantum scale singularities are less known due to an incomplete theory of quantum gravity at Planck level scales. It is however believed that they do exist in nature and may actually account for a larger part of the overall mass within the universe contained within black holes. These quantum black holes might also explain the missing dark matter predicted within the universe. Singularities can be quantified using the same properties as atomic particles – mass, angular momentum and charge.

It is known that stars above a certain mass can collapse into a singularity at the end of their life. It is also recently known that black holes actually evaporate over time through the exchange of matter and ions at their surface or event horizon. As most things in nature, they prefer to be in equilibrium with their environment. The largest black holes exist in the coldest parts of space. The smallest black holes happen to be the hottest. Hawking predicted that in the vacuum of space, quantum particles and anti-particles will trigger evaporation at the surface of a black hole as one of the pairs are “trapped” by the black hole and the other is emitted as radiation. As the ions pass the event horizon the singularity in turn will radiate as a black body a spectrum of primarily low energy nuclear particles such as photons, quarks and gluons, etc. Much of this radiation will manifest itself as HEAT.

Why does this radiation emit itself primarily as low level radiation? Well to explain that you must understand that the pull of gravity at the surface of a black hole is enormous. Even a micro black hole has the effect of quantum gravity on its side. In order for radiation to escape a black hole’s event horizon it must overcome this gravity and in doing so it loses much of its energy. This is because the velocity of electromagnetic radiation is always emitted at the speed of light and therefore for this to hold constant there has to be a shift in wavelength at a given frequency. This is a good thing else we will all be irradiated from this radiation.

Recently, at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider, a concern was made public that the collider might create micro black holes from high energy particle collisions. This work was done by Chan and others and listed on reference at the bottom of this paper. It was worried that these black holes might in turn cause destruction through further collapse of matter or emission of high energy particle waves. Studies were done to show that based upon some assumptions of quantum gravities’ effects and additional dimensions of space and time at quantum scales that indeed the Collider imparts enough energy to create quantum black holes. It was estimated that a collision energy of between 1-8 TeV between particles could create black hole singularities but that they would evaporate within fractions of a second from the time created, causing no harm to the surroundings other than releasing some low level radiation, mostly as HEAT.

Penrose showed in 1974 that a black hole can be formed in classical high energy head-on collisions. In 1987 Hooft claimed graviton dominance and black hole formation at the Planck level, which has been further clarified. The production of black holes during particle collisions can be easily understood based upon the hoop conjecture suggested by Thorne in 1972. The hoop conjecture states that a black hole singularity forms if and only if a large amount of energy is packed into a small region that can be surrounded by a hoop with the Schwarzschild radius of the energy. Voids within a lattice can provide an idealistic environment for this phenomenon as a large amount of energy can be concentrated at the moment of particle collision. The voids also maximize the graviton potential based upon the radius of the void. In addition to voids, ions can be focused into a concentrated area using the flux from a magnetic coil.

The collision energy can be maximized by heating the gas within a confined volume in addition to electrical stimulation made to the lattice or particles and in turn micro arcs or potential discharges are made across the voids and cracks within. In quantum models with large or highly warped extra dimensions, gravity becomes strong at a low scale in a TeV range so that one can conclude that a reactor that provides TeV level collision energies can produce black holes with TeV~1 sized event horizons. As I stated before, quantum singularities can also carry a charge. This charge can be exploited in order to maximize the ionization potential of the singularity. A negatively charged singularity would feed preferentially from positively charged particles and vice versa.

Nature seeks equilibrium. If singularities are formed they immediately seek thermodynamic and spatial equilibrium in their local environment. A singularity formed from the collapse of ionic matter within a void in a lattice will instantaneously evaporate particles and seek overall balance in their new environment. The singularity will evaporate down to a new level of stability based up its radius, angular momentum and charge. This evaporation will in turn generate further instabilities within the lattice which will need to settle down also. The singularity may also collapse some additional matter nearby or take in additional energy during this transition.

Based upon the background theory above and weighing heavily upon recent research of potential quantum black hole production at the CERN LHC I theorize the following:

A new source of energy can and has been realized based upon quantum singularities. The primary source of heat and radiation is NOT COLD FUSION nor is it fission or beta decay. The primary source of heat and radiation is Hawking Radiation from the evaporation of quantum singularities to a stable thermodynamic and spacial state in their environment. The effect can be triggered and maximized by adjustment of the following parameters:

Electrical stimulation of particles to create charged atomic ions. Gas molecules work best since they are easiest to ionize. Electrical stimulation can be performed by arcing through a gas at high enough voltage to create a plasma.

Compression of ionic particles using either an energized coil with a magnetic field or taking into advantage the voids of a lattice or structure whose void diameter is optimized based upon the hoop conjecture radius, which will decrease the energy required for collapse of the ionic matter into a singularity.

Electrical stimulation of the ions from high voltage spark discharge to create adequate energy to drive the particles beyond the point for particle collapse at the point of collision. Although studies at CERN estimated this to be approximately 1 TeV, it may be lower due to the effect of quantum gravity at those scales. Electrical stimulation can also be provided by an electrostatic fluidized bed of micro/nanoparticles suspended in a gas.

Assuming creation of a quantum singularity with charge, emissions and heat output should be instantaneous and can be maximized by providing it with oppositely charged particles for consumption. These particles, such as atomic gas particles can be provided by the same arc discharge that provides kinetic energy to the particles. The newly created singularity will instantaneously seek to find thermodynamic stability in its local environment.

Due to the fact that the singularities instantly seek thermodynamic and spatial equilibrium within their environment, in order to extract usable energy from them you must cycle the external power input. This will cause the singularities to either evaporate or condense matter around them in order to get to the new equilibrium point.

A nuclear emissions spectrum will be evaporated from the singularity as it decays to a more stable state. Based upon Hawking’s papers, much of this will be low energy particle emissions due to having to escape quantum gravity albeit at very highly localized temperatures and may provide very useful, high temperature HEAT and power for the world. It is conceived that the lifetime and size of the singularity’s event horizon may be controlled by the environment temperature, quantity and initial and final energy states of the collapsed singularities.

Any good theory should fit observation as well as make predictions. Below is a short summary to be further developed.

Ed Storms, well respected in the field for years predicts based upon observations the anomalous effect occurs in the cracks and voids of the lattice. Collapsed matter from hydrogen ion collapse would certainly occur in these locations due to concentrated energy charges and high energy collisions. Prof. Celani has witnessed the same effect.

Once collapsed matter singularities are formed they instantaneously seek thermodynamically stable states with their surroundings. Prof. Celani witnessed that once his metal lattice had been loaded with hydrogen and had previously shown anomalous heat generation he could shut the system down, transport it and it would immediately show further anomalous heat upon excitation without additional loading. The singularities remained within the lattice during transportation!

Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and radius like any other particle. It is also understood that when they evaporate they emit charged particles. This can have a direct effect on the conductivity of a metal.

Temperature Inversion. Dr. Brian Ahern mentioned temperature inversion within samples in the nanometer range. It is well understood that singularites can consume heat from their environment, temporarily cooling their surroundings. Eventually, they will evaporate that energy and entropy back to their surroundings through Hawking radiation.

Hawking Radiation should emit RELATIVELY low energy level radiation due to quantum gravity redshifting of the radiation as it escapes. This has been witnessed in most all anomalous heat events.

The amount of energy released can be great. This has been witnessed in the Intelligentry/Papp Engine as well as claimed by Rossi, DGT and Celani. Since Hawking Radiation obeys e=mc2, very high levels of energy may be released as the newly formed singularity seeks thermodynamic and spatial equilibrium within its environment. Some of this radiation may also be elementry atomic particles such as quarks and gluons.

Hawking radiation may create Fission and Fusion products within the near vicinity. Since this radiation covers a wide spectrum, it will bombard the local environment with low level, wide spectrum radiation which over time should transmute additional elements. The good new is that the quantum gravitational pull of the singularity will lessen radiation effects

Collapse of nearby matter by falling into the singularity may lead to additional elements being transmuted in the local vicinity. Any radiation emitted will be absorbed or redshifted by the local singularity.

The “heat after death” syndrome is caused by the ongoing evaporation over time of the singularities as they continue to seek a thermodynamically stable state in their immediate environment as well as emit Hawking black body radiation. This has been witnessed in many cold fusion situations. Since singularities emit charged particles they should aid in sustaining the birth, evolution and evaporation of more singularities in the vicinity.Number of extra dimensions of space-time at the quantum level since this will have a direct impact on the estimation of quantum gravity scales, number and size of singularities created and energy required, emissions spectrum and usable heat output.

Embrittlement. On-going Hawking radiation within a structure will gradually decay its integrity due to local heat effects as well as further collapse and transmutations of local atomic structures. This has been witnessed in Mr. Celani’s wire.

Ultra Low Momentum Neutrons (ULMNs): Due to the fact that any radiation escaping the locality of the singularity has undergone a shift in energy due to the effect of quantum gravity, one would expect any neutrons formed would carry reduced momentum.

“Volcanic” Eruption within metal lattices or other structures: Micro black hole singularities can give off heat as high as 5.6×1032 K so no problem there.

Explosions. Hawking evaporation of quantum mechanical singularities are thought to end with an explosion due to the instant and intense heat. Explosions have been witnessed in some labs and possibly in nature with lightning balls, etc. According to my theory, even if a singularity does not completely evaporate and based upon the instantaneous attempt by a singularity to reach new thermodynamic steady-state conditions after an upset, explosions are possible.

Direct study of the radiation spectrum and heat output of the quantum singularity heat engine will provide scientists with invaluable evidence for the following:

Clues to the hidden Dark Matter and Energy within the universe.

Clues to the source of energy within the Sun’s corona.

Ability to transform matter and energy as well as entirely new universes.

Realization that in nature, we may be surrounded by stable micro black holes that mimick their environment. For instance a quantum singularity might settle down to the same charge, radius and angular momentum as a proton or electron.

[1] N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B 429, 263 (1998) [arXiv:hep-

ph/9803315].

[2] N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 086004,

[3] I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B 436, 257 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9804398].

[4] L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9905221].

[5] W. D. Goldberger, M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4922-4925 (1999). [hep-ph/9907447].

[6] S. B. Giddings, S. Kachru, J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. D66, 106006 (2002). [hep-th/0105097].

[7] S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde and S. P. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. D 68, 046005 (2003) [hep-th/0301240]. [8] R. Penrose unpublished (1974)

[9] G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Lett. B 198, 61 (1987).

[10] K. S. Thorne, in Magic without Magic: John Archbald Wheeler, edited by J. Klauder Freeman, San

Francisco, 1972)

[11] T. Banks and W. Fischler, [hep-th/9906038].

[12] S. B. Giddings and S. D. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 65, 056010 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0106219]. [13] S. Dimopoulos and G. Landsberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 161602 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0106295]. [14] B. Koch, M. Bleicher and H. Stocker, arXiv:0807.3349 [hep-ph].

[15] S. B. Giddings and M. L. Mangano, Phys. Rev. D 78, 035009 (2008) [arXiv:0806.3381 [hep-ph]]. [16] P. C. Argyres, S. Dimopoulos, and a. J. March-Russell, Phys. Lett. B441 (1998) 96–104,

[17] J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D7 (1973) 2333–346.

[18] S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199-220 (1975). [19] S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D13 (1976) 191–197.

[20] R. Emparan, G. T. Horowitz and R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 499 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/0003118]. [21] D. Ida, K. y. Oda and S. C. Park, Phys. Rev. D 67, 064025 (2003) [Erratum-ibid. D 69, 049901 (2004)]

[arXiv:hep-th/0212108].

[22] D. Ida, K. y. Oda and S. C. Park, arXiv:hep-ph/0501210.

[23] D. Ida, K. y. Oda and S. C. Park, Phys. Rev. D 71, 124039 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0503052]. [24] D. Ida, K. y. Oda and S. C. Park, Phys. Rev. D 73, 124022 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0602188]. [25] C. M. Harris and P. Kanti, Phys. Lett. B 633, 106 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0503010].

[26] G. Duffy, C. Harris, P. Kanti, E. Winstanley, JHEP 0509, 049 (2005). [hep-th/0507274]. [27] M. Casals, P. Kanti and E. Winstanley, JHEP 0602, 051 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0511163]. [28] M. Casals, S. R. Dolan, P. Kanti and E. Winstanley, arXiv:hep-th/0608193.

[29] M. Casals, S. R. Dolan, P. Kanti, E. Winstanley, JHEP 0806, 071 (2008). [arXiv:0801.4910 [hep-th]]. [30] M. O. P. Sampaio, JHEP 1002, 042 (2010). [arXiv:0911.0688 [hep-th]].

[31] M. O. P. Sampaio, JHEP 0910, 008 (2009). [arXiv:0907.5107 [hep-th]].

[32] P. Kanti, N. Pappas, Phys. Rev. D82, 024039 (2010). [arXiv:1003.5125 [hep-th]].

[33] T. Kobayashi, M. Nozawa, Y. -i. Takamizu, Phys. Rev. D77, 044022 (2008). [arXiv:0711.1395 [hep-th]]. [34] M. Rogatko, A. Szyplowska, Phys. Rev. D79, 104005 (2009). [arXiv:0904.4544 [hep-th]].

[35] A. S. Cornell, W. Naylor and M. Sasaki, JHEP 0602, 012 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0510009].

[36] V. Cardoso, M. Cavaglia and L. Gualtieri, JHEP 0602, 021 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0512116].

[37] P. Kanti, H. Kodama, R. A. Konoplya, N. Pappas, A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D80, 084016 (2009). [arXiv:0906.3845 [hep-th]].

[38] D. C. Dai, G. Starkman, D. Stojkovic, C. Issever, E. Rizvi and J. Tseng, Phys. Rev. D 77, 076007

(2008) [arXiv:0711.3012 [hep-ph]].

[39] C. M. Harris, P. Richardson and B. R. Webber, JHEP 0308, 033 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0307305].

[40] J. A. Frost, J. R. Gaunt, M. O. P. Sampaio, M. Casals, S. R. Dolan, M. A. Parker and B. R. Webber, JHEP 0910, 014 (2009) [arXiv:0904.0979 [hep-ph]].

[41] M. Cavaglia, R. Godang, L. Cremaldi and D. Summers, Comput. Phys. Commun. 177, 506 (2007)

[arXiv:hep-ph/0609001].

[42] G. L. Landsberg, arXiv:hep-ph/0211043.

[43] P. Kanti, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19, 4899-4951 (2004). [hep-ph/0402168].

[44] S. B. Giddings, AIP Conf. Proc. 957, 69 (2007) [arXiv:0709.1107 [hep-ph]]. [45] S. C. Park, AIP Conf. Proc. 1078, 162-167 (2009). [arXiv:0809.2571 [hep-ph]]. [46] P. Kanti, Lect. Notes Phys. 769, 387-423 (2009). [arXiv:0802.2218 [hep-th]].

[47] L. A. Anchordoqui, J. L. Feng, H. Goldberg, and A. D. Shapere, Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 104025, [48] J. Bertrand, C. R. Acad. Sci. 77: 849-853.

[49] K. Nakamura et al. (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G 37, 075021 (2010) and 2011 partial update for the 2012 edition.

[50] D. J. Kapner, T. S. Cook, E. G. Adelberger, J. H. Gundlach, B. R. Heckel, C. D. Hoyle, H. E. Swanson,

Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 021101 (2007). [hep-ph/0611184].

[51] E. G. Adelberger, B. R. Heckel, S. A. Hoedl, C. D. Hoyle, D. J. Kapner, A. Upadhye, Phys. Rev. Lett.

98, 131104 (2007). [hep-ph/0611223].

[52] C. Hanhart, D. R. Phillips, S. Reddy, M. J. Savage, Nucl. Phys. B595, 335-359 (2001). [nucl- th/0007016].

[53] C. Hanhart, J. A. Pons, D. R. Phillips, S. Reddy, Phys. Lett. B509, 1-9 (2001). [astro-ph/0102063].

[54] S. Hannestad, G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 051301 (2001). [arXiv:hep-ph/0103201 [hep-ph]]. [55] S. Hannestad, G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 071301 (2002). [hep-ph/0110067].

[56] A. Selberg, Theory of Numbers, edited by A. L. Whiteman, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. 8, 1 (1965). [57] G. Mostow, Publ. Math. IHES 34, 53 (1968); Stong Rigidity of Locally Symmetric Spaces, Ann. Math.

Stud- ies Series, No. 78 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1973).

[58] W. P. Thurston, Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 6, 357 (1982); Three Dimensional Geometry and Topology, Vol. 1, edited by S. Levy (Prince- ton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1997); see also http://www.msri.org/publications/books/gt3m.

[59] W. Luo, Z. Rudnick, and P. Sarnak, Geom. Funct. Anal. 5 (1995) 387.

[60] N. J. Cornish and N. G. Turok,

Class. Quant. Grav. 15, 2699 (1998) [arXiv:gr-qc/9802066]. [61] N. J. Cornish and D. N. Spergel, [arXiv: math/9906017].

[62] D. Orlando, S. C. Park, JHEP 1008, 006 (2010). [arXiv:1006.1901 [hep-th]].

[63] Y. Kim, S. C. Park, Phys. Rev. D83, 066009 (2011). [arXiv:1010.6021 [hep-ph]].

[64] G. W. Gibbons, D. Ida, and T. Shiromizu, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 148 (2003) 284–290, [65] G. W. Gibbons, D. Ida, and T. Shiromizu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 041101,

[66] G. W. Gibbons, D. Ida, and T. Shiromizu, Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 044010, [67] M. Rogatko, Class. Quant. Grav. 19 (2002) L151,

[68] M. Rogatko, Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 084025,

[69] Y. Morisawa and D. Ida, Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 124005, [70] F. R. Tangherlini, Nuovo Cim. 27, 636-651 (1963).

[71] A. Ishibashi, H. Kodama, Prog. Theor. Phys. 110, 901-919 (2003). [hep-th/0305185]. [72] H. Kodama, A. Ishibashi, Prog. Theor. Phys. 110, 701-722 (2003). [hep-th/0305147]. [73] R. C. Myers and M. J. Perry, Annals Phys. 172, 304 (1986).

[74] R. Emparan, R. C. Myers, JHEP 0309, 025 (2003). [arXiv:hep-th/0308056 [hep-th]]. [75] M. Shibata, H. Yoshino, Phys. Rev. D81, 104035 (2010). [arXiv:1004.4970 [gr-qc]]. [76] R. Gregory, R. Laflamme, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2837-2840 (1993). [hep-th/9301052]. [77] R. Gregory, R. Laflamme, Nucl. Phys. B428, 399-434 (1994). [hep-th/9404071].

[78] T. Harmark, V. Niarchos, N. A. Obers, Class. Quant. Grav. 24, R1-R90 (2007). [hep-th/0701022]. [79] V. Cardoso, O. J. C. Dias, Phys. Rev. D70, 084011 (2004). [hep-th/0405006].

[80] R. Emparan, H. S. Reall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 101101 (2002). [hep-th/0110260]. [81] R. Emparan, JHEP 0403, 064 (2004). [hep-th/0402149].

[82] H. Yoshino, T. Shiromizu, Phys. Rev. D76, 084021 (2007). [arXiv:0707.0076 [gr-qc]]. [83] H. Elvang, P. Figueras, JHEP 0705, 050 (2007). [hep-th/0701035].

[84] H. Iguchi, T. Mishima, Phys. Rev. D75, 064018 (2007). [hep-th/0701043].

[85] H. Elvang, M. J. Rodriguez, JHEP 0804, 045 (2008). [arXiv:0712.2425 [hep-th]].

[86] C. A. R. Herdeiro, C. Rebelo, M. Zilhao, M. S. Costa, JHEP 0807, 009 (2008). [arXiv:0805.1206 [hep-th]].

[87] R. Emparan, H. S. Reall, Living Rev. Rel. 11, 6 (2008). [arXiv:0801.3471 [hep-th]].

[88] S. Tomizawa, H. Ishihara, [arXiv:1104.1468 [hep-th]]. [89] T. Dray, G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B253, 173 (1985).

[90] G. F. Giudice, R. Rattazzi, J. D. Wells, Nucl. Phys. B630, 293-325 (2002). [hep-ph/0112161]. [91] D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni, G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B197, 81 (1987).

[92] D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni, G. Veneziano, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A3, 1615-1661 (1988). [93] D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni, G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B216, 41 (1989).

[94] D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni, G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B347, 550-580 (1990). [95] D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni, G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B403, 707-724 (1993). [96] T. Damour and G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B568 (2000) 93–119,

[97] S. B. Giddings, R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. D81, 025002 (2010). [arXiv:0908.0004 [hep-th]].

[98] S. B. Giddings, M. Schmidt-Sommerfeld, J. R. Andersen, Phys. Rev. D82, 104022 (2010). [arXiv:1005.5408 [hep-th]].

[99] W. J. Stirling, E. Vryonidou, J. D. Wells, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1642 (2011). [arXiv:1102.3844 [hep-ph]].

[100] H. Okawa, K. -i. Nakao, M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D83, 121501 (2011). [arXiv:1105.3331 [gr-qc]]. [101] H. Okawa, Personal communication

[102] P. C. Aichelburg, R. U. Sexl, Gen. Rel. Grav. 2, 303-312 (1971).

[103] V. Ferrari, P. Pendenza, G. Veneziano, Gen. Rel. Grav. 20, 1185-1191 (1988).

[104] N. Kaloper, J. Terning, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D17, 665-672 (2008). [arXiv:0705.0408 [hep-th]].

[105] D. M. Eardley and S. B. Giddings, Phys. Rev. D 66, 044011 (2002) [arXiv:gr-qc/0201034].

[106] H. Yoshino and Y. Nambu, Phys. Rev. D 67, 024009 (2003) [arXiv:gr-qc/0209003].

[107] H. Yoshino and V. S. Rychkov, Phys. Rev. D 71, 104028 (2005) [Erratum-ibid. D 77, 089905 (2008)] [arXiv:hep-th/0503171].

[108] D. Ida, K. -i. Nakao, Phys. Rev. D66, 064026 (2002). [gr-qc/0204082].

[109] C. -m. Yoo, H. Ishihara, M. Kimura, S. Tanzawa, Phys. Rev. D81, 024020 (2010). [arXiv:0906.0689 [gr-qc]].

[110] S. C. Park and H. S. Song, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 43, 30 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0111069].

[111] P. D. D’Eath, P. N. Payne, Phys. Rev. D46, 658-674 (1992). [112] P. D. D’Eath, P. N. Payne, Phys. Rev. D46, 675-693 (1992). [113] P. D. D’Eath, P. N. Payne, Phys. Rev. D46, 694-701 (1992).

[114] C. Herdeiro, M. O. P. Sampaio, C. Rebelo, JHEP 1107, 121 (2011). [arXiv:1105.2298 [hep-th]]. [115] E. Sorkin, Phys. Rev. D81, 084062 (2010). [arXiv:0911.2011 [gr-qc]].

[116] M. Shibata, H. Yoshino, Phys. Rev. D81, 021501 (2010). [arXiv:0912.3606 [gr-qc]].

[117] M. Zilhao, H. Witek, U. Sperhake, V. Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, C. Herdeiro, A. Nerozzi, Phys. Rev. D81,

084052 (2010). [arXiv:1001.2302 [gr-qc]].

[118] L. Lehner, F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 101102 (2010). [arXiv:1006.5960 [hep-th]]. [119] H. Yoshino, T. Shiromizu, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 084020,

[120] U. Sperhake, V. Cardoso, F. Pretorius, E. Berti, J. A. Gonzalez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 161101 (2008). [arXiv:0806.1738 [gr-qc]].

[121] M. Shibata, H. Okawa, T. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. D78, 101501 (2008). [arXiv:0810.4735 [gr-qc]].

[122] U. Sperhake, V. Cardoso, F. Pretorius, E. Berti, T. Hinderer, N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 131102 (2009). [arXiv:0907.1252 [gr-qc]].

[123] H. Witek, M. Zilhao, L. Gualtieri, V. Cardoso, C. Herdeiro, A. Nerozzi, U. Sperhake, Phys. Rev. D82,

104014 (2010). [arXiv:1006.3081 [gr-qc]].

[124] M. Shibata, H. Yoshino, Phys. Rev. D81, 104035 (2010). [arXiv:1004.4970 [gr-qc]]. [125] G. T. Horowitz, J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. D55, 6189-6197 (1997). [hep-th/9612146].

[126] S. Cullen, M. Perelstein, M. E. Peskin, Phys. Rev. D62, 055012 (2000). [hep-ph/0001166]. [127] S. Dimopoulos, R. Emparan, Phys. Lett. B526, 393-398 (2002). [hep-ph/0108060].

[128] K. -y. Oda, N. Okada, Phys. Rev. D66, 095005 (2002). [hep-ph/0111298].

[129] L. A. Anchordoqui, H. Goldberg, D. Lust, S. Nawata, S. Stieberger, T. R. Taylor, Nucl. Phys. B821,

181-196 (2009). [arXiv:0904.3547 [hep-ph]].

[130] G. C. Nayak, JHEP 1101, 039 (2011). [arXiv:0904.3560 [hep-ph]].

[131] G. Dvali, S. Folkerts, C. Germani, Phys. Rev. D84, 024039 (2011). [arXiv:1006.0984 [hep-th]].

[132] A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C63, 189-285 (2009). [arXiv:0901.0002 [hep-ph]].

[133] H. L. Lai, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, Z. Li, P. M. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 82,

074024 (2010) [arXiv:1007.2241 [hep-ph]].

[134] N. Arkani-Hamed, M. Schmaltz, Phys. Rev. D61, 033005 (2000). [arXiv:hep-ph/9903417 [hep-ph]]. [135] E. A. Mirabelli, M. Schmaltz, Phys. Rev. D61, 113011 (2000). [hep-ph/9912265].

[136] S. C. Park, J. Shu, Phys. Rev. D79, 091702 (2009). [arXiv:0901.0720 [hep-ph]].

[137] C. Csaki, J. Heinonen, J. Hubisz, S. C. Park, J. Shu, JHEP 1101, 089 (2011). [arXiv:1007.0025 [hep-ph]].

[138] D. -C. Dai, G. D. Starkman, D. Stojkovic, Phys. Rev. D73, 104037 (2006). [hep-ph/0605085].

[139] F. C. Adams, G. L. Kane, M. Mbonye, M. J. Perry, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A16, 2399-2410 (2001). [hep-ph/0009154].

[140] T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Lett. B647, 43-48 (2007). [hep-ph/0611224].

[141] H. Yoshino and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 74, 044003 (2006) [gr-qc/0605131]. [142] D. M. Gingrich, JHEP 0702, 098 (2007). [hep-ph/0612105].

[143] H. Yoshino, A. Zelnikov, V. P. Frolov, Phys. Rev. D75, 124005 (2007). [gr-qc/0703127]. [144] P. Kanti and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 104019,

[145] C. M. Harris and P. Kanti, JHEP 10 (2003) 014,

[146] E. Newman, R. Penrose, J. Math. Phys. 3, 566-578 (1962).

[147] R. Penrose and W. Rindler, Spinors and space-time, vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

(UK), 1984.

[148] S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J. 185 (1973) 635–647. [149] S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J. 185 (1973) 649–674. [150] S. A. Teukolsky,Astrophys. J. 193 (1974) 443–461. [151] D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D13 (1976) 198–206.

[152] D. N. Page,Phys. Rev. D14 (1976) 3260–3273.

[153] P. P. Fiziev, Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 135001 (2010). [arXiv:0908.4234 [gr-qc]].

[154] J. N. Goldberg, A. J. MacFarlane, E. T. Newman, F. Rohrlich, E. C. G. Sudarshan, J. Math. Phys.

8, 2155 (1967).

[155] D. A. Leahy, W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D19, 3509-3515 (1979). [156] E. W. Leaver, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A402, 285-298 (1985). [157] E. Seidel, Class. Quant. Grav. 6 (1989) 1057.

[158] M. Casals, S. R. Dolan, P. Kanti, E. Winstanley, Phys. Lett. B680, 365-370 (2009). [arXiv:0907.1511 [hep-th]].

[159] D. Stojkovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 011603 (2005). [hep-ph/0409124].

[160] K. m. Cheung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 221602 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0110163].

[161] V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 697, 434 (2011) [arXiv:1012.3375 [hep-ex]]. [162] The CMS collaborations, CMS-PAS-EXO-11-071, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1369209

[163] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, P. Z. Skands, JHEP 0605, 026 (2006). [hep-ph/0603175].

[164] J. Alwall, P. Demin, S. de Visscher, R. Frederix, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, T. Plehn, D. L. Rainwater

et al., JHEP 0709, 028 (2007). [arXiv:0706.2334 [hep-ph]].

[165] S. Agostinelli et al. [ GEANT4 Collaboration ], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506, 250-303 (2003). [166] S. C. Park, Phys. Lett. B701, 587-590 (2011). [arXiv:1104.5129 [hep-ph]].

[167] V. P. Frolov, D. Stojkovic, Phys. Rev. D66, 084002 (2002). [hep-th/0206046].

[168] V. P. Frolov and D. Stojkovic, Phys. Rev. Lett 89 (2002) 151302,

[169] V. P. Frolov, D. V. Fursaev, and D. Stojkovic,JHEP 06 (2004) 057,

[170] V. P. Frolov, D. V. Fursaev, and D. Stojkovic, Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004) 3483–3498, [171] V. Cardoso, E. Berti, and M. Cavaglia, Class. Quant. Grav. 22 (2005) L61–R84,

[172] G. T. Horowitz and J. M. Maldacena, JHEP 0402, 008 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0310281]. [173] S. B. Giddings, arXiv:1108.2015 [hep-th].

[174] E. Greenwood and D. Stojkovic, JHEP 0806, 042 (2008) [arXiv:0802.4087 [gr-qc]]. [175] S. B. Giddings and M. Lippert, Phys. Rev. D 69, 124019 (2004) [hep-th/0402073]. [176] D. Gottesman and J. Preskill, JHEP 0403, 026 (2004) [hep-th/0311269].

[177] P. Meade and L. Randall, JHEP 0805, 003 (2008) [arXiv:0708.3017 [hep-ph]].

[178] L. A. Anchordoqui, J. L. Feng, H. Goldberg and A. D. Shapere, Phys. Lett. B 594, 363 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0311365].

[179] D. Stojkovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 011603 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0409124].

[180] D. C. Dai, G. D. Starkman and D. Stojkovic, Phys. Rev. D 73, 104037 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0605085]. [181] V. P. Frolov, D. Kubiznak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 011101 (2007). [gr-qc/0605058].

[182] V. P. Frolov, D. Kubiznak, Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 154005 (2008). [arXiv:0802.0322 [hep-th]].

[183] E. Berti, V. Cardoso, A. O. Starinets, Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 163001 (2009). [arXiv:0905.2975 [gr-qc]]. [184] E. Berti, V. Cardoso, J. P. S. Lemos, Phys. Rev. D70, 124006 (2004). [gr-qc/0408099].

[185] W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky, Nature 238 (1972) 211.

[186] V. Cardoso, O. J. C. Dias, J. P. S. Lemos, S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D70, 044039 (2004). [hep- th/0404096].

[187] J. G. Rosa, JHEP 1006, 015 (2010). [arXiv:0912.1780 [hep-th]].

[188] R. A. Konoplya, A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D82, 084003 (2010). [arXiv:1004.3772 [hep-th]].

[189] P. Nicolini, E. Winstanley, [arXiv:1108.4419 [hep-ph]].

[190] V. Cardoso et. al., [arXiv:1201.5118[hep-th]].

[191] Seong Chan Park, arXiv:1203.4683v1 [hep-ph]

To: **dangerdoc; citizen; Liberty1970; Red Badger; Wonder Warthog; PA Engineer; glock rocks; free_life; ..**

2
posted on **08/15/2012 5:44:48 PM PDT**
by Kevmo
( FRINAGOPWIASS: Free Republic Is Not A GOP Website. It's A Socon Site.)

To: **Kevmo**

Cutting to the chase do you see this leading to economically exploitable sources of energy in the near term?

To: **AU72**

Cutting to the chase do you see this leading to economically exploitable sources of energy in the near term?

***No. I see it as a long term solution. But it will be highly disruptive technology, like the automobile and personal computer combined.

4
posted on **08/15/2012 5:56:55 PM PDT**
by Kevmo
( FRINAGOPWIASS: Free Republic Is Not A GOP Website. It's A Socon Site.)

To: **AU72**

Jed Rothwell has a good perspective on this over at Vortex-L

[Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex- href=”mailto:l@eskimo.com”>l@eskimo.com/msg68416.html

Jed Rothwell

Sun, 05 Aug 2012 17:24:14 -0700

The most recent Gibbs article is here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/08/04/the-state-of-the-cold-fusion-market/

I find this annoying. He writes:

“So, is cold fusion real? Well, from the thousands of experiments performed

over the last few decades it seems that there are various reactions that

output more energy than is put into them but whether these effects can be

scaled up into devices that output a significant amount of energy and

operate reliably still isn’t clear.”

This response does not answer the question! Gibbs asks “Is cold fusion

real” and then — instead of answering that — he talks about “whether

these efforts can be scaled up.” “Real” and “scalable” are two different

things. No one disputes that muon catalyzed fusion is real, but it cannot

be scaled up. Tokama plasma fusion is real but it cannot be scaled *down*.

This is sloppy. Ask a question and then answer it. Do not answer another

question.

The answer is: Yes, cold fusion is real, because it has been replicated in

hundreds of major laboratories, and these replications have been published

in carefully vetted, top-of-the-line peer reviewed journals. That is the

definition of “real” in experimental science. There is no other criterion

for being real. Whether it is scaled up or commercialized has no bearing on

that question. To answer this, Gibbs should cite the journals.

If you are asking: “can cold fusion be scaled up?” the answer is: “we don’t

know yet. It seems Rossi has scaled up but there is no independent proof

yet.”

- Jed

5
posted on **08/15/2012 6:07:05 PM PDT**
by Kevmo
( FRINAGOPWIASS: Free Republic Is Not A GOP Website. It's A Socon Site.)

To: **All**

The author is an active member on Vortex-L

Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus

Chemical Engineer Wed, 15 Aug 2012 03:03:36 -0700

I was hoping they would embrace my theory and observations but I guess it

is a little too early for that. If everyone could get on the same page

this fledgling industry can generate some serious revenue and transform the

World!

My theory explains the following observations:

Ed Storms, well respected in the field for years predicts based upon

observations the anomalous effect occurs in the cracks and voids of the

lattice. Collapsed matter from hydrogen ion collapse would certainly occur

in these locations due to concentrated energy charges, hoop effect and

collisions. Prof. Celani has witnessed the same effect.

Once collapsed matter singularities are formed they instantaneously seek

thermodynamically stable states with their surroundings. Prof. Celani

witnessed that once his metal lattice had been loaded with hydrogen and had

previously shown anomalous heat generation he could shut the system down,

transport it and it would immediately show further anomalous heat upon

excitation without additional loading. The singularities remained within

the lattice during transportation to Austin.

Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well

understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and radius

like any other particle. It is also understood that when they evaporate

they emit charged particles. This can have a direct effect on the

conductivity of a metal.

Temperature Inversion. Dr. Brian Ahern mentioned temperature inversion

within samples in the nanometer range. It is well understood that

singularites can consume heat from their environment, temporarily cooling

their surroundings. Eventually, they will evaporate that energy and entropy

back to their surroundings through Hawking radiation.

Hawking Radiation should emit RELATIVELY low energy level radiation due to

quantum gravity redshifting of the radiation as it escapes. This has been

witnessed in most all anomalous heat events.

The amount of energy released can be great. This has been witnessed in the

Intelligentry/Papp Engine as well as claimed by Rossi, DGT and Celani.

Since Hawking Radiation obeys e=mc2, very high levels of energy may be

released as the newly formed singularity seeks thermodynamic and spatial

equilibrium within its environment. Some of this radiation may also be

elementry atomic particles such as quarks and gluons.

Hawking radiation may create Fission and Fusion products within the near

vicinity. Since this radiation covers a wide spectrum, it will bombard the

local environment with low level, wide spectrum radiation which over time

should transmute additional elements. The good new is that the quantum

gravitational pull of the singularity will lessen the radiations energy.

Collapse of nearby matter by falling into the singularity may lead to

additional elements being transmuted in the local vicinity. The radiation

energy from that will also be redshifted to weaker energy emissions.

The “heat after death” syndrome is caused by the ongoing evaporation over

time of the singularities as they continue to seek a thermodynamically

stable state in their immediate environment as well as emit Hawking black

body radiation. This has been witnessed in many cold fusion situations.

Since singularities emit charged particles they should aid in sustaining

the birth, evolution and evaporation of more singularities in the vicinity.

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:

> After watching -with some interruptions due to local conditions-

> the Theory Panel at ICCF-17, my first reaction was to go to the Merriam

> Webster dictionary and to search for the best antinomy of Consensus.

> It is Dissensus. Perhaps reading the text will be more encouraging.

> Peter

>

> --

Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus

Chemical Engineer Wed, 15 Aug 2012 03:03:36 -0700

I was hoping they would embrace my theory and observations but I guess it

is a little too early for that. If everyone could get on the same page

this fledgling industry can generate some serious revenue and transform the

World!

My theory explains the following observations:

Ed Storms, well respected in the field for years predicts based upon

observations the anomalous effect occurs in the cracks and voids of the

lattice. Collapsed matter from hydrogen ion collapse would certainly occur

in these locations due to concentrated energy charges, hoop effect and

collisions. Prof. Celani has witnessed the same effect.

Once collapsed matter singularities are formed they instantaneously seek

thermodynamically stable states with their surroundings. Prof. Celani

witnessed that once his metal lattice had been loaded with hydrogen and had

previously shown anomalous heat generation he could shut the system down,

transport it and it would immediately show further anomalous heat upon

excitation without additional loading. The singularities remained within

the lattice during transportation to Austin.

Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well

understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and radius

like any other particle. It is also understood that when they evaporate

they emit charged particles. This can have a direct effect on the

conductivity of a metal.

Temperature Inversion. Dr. Brian Ahern mentioned temperature inversion

within samples in the nanometer range. It is well understood that

singularites can consume heat from their environment, temporarily cooling

their surroundings. Eventually, they will evaporate that energy and entropy

back to their surroundings through Hawking radiation.

Hawking Radiation should emit RELATIVELY low energy level radiation due to

quantum gravity redshifting of the radiation as it escapes. This has been

witnessed in most all anomalous heat events.

The amount of energy released can be great. This has been witnessed in the

Intelligentry/Papp Engine as well as claimed by Rossi, DGT and Celani.

Since Hawking Radiation obeys e=mc2, very high levels of energy may be

released as the newly formed singularity seeks thermodynamic and spatial

equilibrium within its environment. Some of this radiation may also be

elementry atomic particles such as quarks and gluons.

Hawking radiation may create Fission and Fusion products within the near

vicinity. Since this radiation covers a wide spectrum, it will bombard the

local environment with low level, wide spectrum radiation which over time

should transmute additional elements. The good new is that the quantum

gravitational pull of the singularity will lessen the radiations energy.

Collapse of nearby matter by falling into the singularity may lead to

additional elements being transmuted in the local vicinity. The radiation

energy from that will also be redshifted to weaker energy emissions.

The “heat after death” syndrome is caused by the ongoing evaporation over

time of the singularities as they continue to seek a thermodynamically

stable state in their immediate environment as well as emit Hawking black

body radiation. This has been witnessed in many cold fusion situations.

Since singularities emit charged particles they should aid in sustaining

the birth, evolution and evaporation of more singularities in the vicinity.

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:

> After watching -with some interruptions due to local conditions-

> the Theory Panel at ICCF-17, my first reaction was to go to the Merriam

> Webster dictionary and to search for the best antinomy of Consensus.

> It is Dissensus. Perhaps reading the text will be more encouraging.

> Peter

>

> --

6
posted on **08/15/2012 6:24:33 PM PDT**
by Kevmo
( FRINAGOPWIASS: Free Republic Is Not A GOP Website. It's A Socon Site.)

To: **All**

Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus

Chemical Engineer Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:39:21 -0700

No, I am not making it up and it was not a dream

A *charged black hole* is a black

hole that

possesses electric charge .

Since the electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged

mass is dramatically greater than the gravitational attraction (by about 40

orders of magnitude), it is not expected that black holes with a

significant electric charge will be formed in nature.

A charged black hole is one of three possible types of black holes that

could exist in the theory of gravitation called general

relativity.

Black holes can be characterized by three (and only

three)

quantities, its

- mass *M* (called a Schwarzschild

black hole if it

has no angular momentum and no electric charge),

- angular momentum

*J* (called

a Kerr black hole if it

has no charge), and

- electric charge

*Q* (charged

black hole or Reissner-Nordström black

hole

if

the angular momentum is zero or a Kerr-Newman black

hole if

it has both angular momentum and electric charge).

A special, mathematically-oriented article describes the Reissner-Nordström

metric for a

charged, non-rotating black hole.

The solutions of Einstein's field

equation for

the gravitational field of

an electrically charged point mass (with zero angular momentum) in empty

space was obtained in 1918 by Hans

Reissner

andGunnar Nordström ,

not long after Karl

Schwarzschild found

the Schwarzschild metric as

a solution for a point mass without electric charge and angular momentum.

7
posted on **08/15/2012 6:26:41 PM PDT**
by Kevmo
( FRINAGOPWIASS: Free Republic Is Not A GOP Website. It's A Socon Site.)

To: **AU72**

theorize, calculate, engineer, optimize, produce, restart ...that’s all we’ve typically done with new things...

8
posted on **08/15/2012 6:43:26 PM PDT**
by reed13k
(For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.)

To: **Kevmo**

It’s my wish that before I die that I can see the middle east despots that won the geological lottery for the last 200 years be consigned back to selling just camels, rugs and dates.

To: **Kevmo**

They all seem to have the need to frigging genuflect before the Climate Change Crisis god.

To: **Kevmo**

Now that is a quite elegant solution to what might be causing this phenomenon.

The posited mechanism of compressing the ionized plasma by use of a magnetic field is interesting to me, since there is a correlary in the plasma universe model theories. They propose that electrical currents flowing through galactic plasma filaments should compress those filaments due to the z-pinch, and that this effect can compress the plasma enough to result in star formation. So, a very similar mechanism for compressing the matter past a gravitational point of no return, just on a different scale.

To: **Kevmo**

Physics and marijuana do not mix well.

12
posted on **08/15/2012 8:42:18 PM PDT**
by Blado
(Democrats - the party of juvenile unresolved daddy issue rage.)

To: **AU72**

We have enough fossil fuel resources to do that.

OTOH, loading hydrogen into palladium (cold fusion) is a parlor trick that's been around since the 1920's. At best it produces a few watts of heat after a loading process that takes hours or days. And even those results aren't scientifically verified. I wouldn't count on it putting any despots out of business.

13
posted on **08/16/2012 11:05:18 AM PDT**
by Moonman62
(The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)

To: **Moonman62**

Your reference to the 1920s is, of course, to the initial observation that immense amounts of hydrogen could be loaded into palladium ~ and some of it ended up going a tad further ~ thereby suggesting to George Gamow the 'tunneling' effect, right?

Or are you referring to some other 'Parlor trick' ~ bwahahahahahaha!~ lucky these guys didn't all end up glowing green in the dark

**Disclaimer:**
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson