Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

· Home
· Forum
· Special Sections
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 99 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here


Hot Links

American Antigravity

Chava Energy

Closeminded Science


Energy Science



Integrity Research Institute

Interstellar Technologies

JLN Labs


New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

The Orion Proj.




Science Hobbyist

Tom Bearden's Page

Unlimited electric energy


Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
Alternative Energy News
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
Magazine Sites
Distributed Energy
Electrifying Times
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine

Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 @ 17:05:02 EST by vlad

Science Steven Krivit writes: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, MARCH 22, 2004


LOS ANGELES, March 22, 2004 -- Coinciding with the U.S. Department of Energy's decision to re-open the case on cold fusion, investigators Steven Krivit and Nadine Winocur have released the most current work on the history and progress of the science.

"The Cold Fusion Report" is based on personal communication with more than 50 scientists from around the world, 28 of whom Krivit interviewed on camera at the 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion in Cambridge, Mass. As documented in the report, prominent U.S. scientists verify the efficacy of this controversial discovery.

The report follows confirmation by U.S. Department of Energy spokeswoman Jacqueline Johnson, as detailed in the "Upfront" section of the latest issue of New Scientist, that the department has committed to a second review of cold fusion. Another story, tentatively titled "DOE Warms to Cold Fusion," will be published in the April 1 Web edition of Physics Today, at www.physicstoday.org .

The U.S. Department of Energy discussed a re-evaluation of cold fusion on Nov. 6, 2003, when representatives from the Office of Science met with a team of established scientists who have studied cold fusion for 15 years. The scientists reported that cold fusion is real, with results that are robust, verifiable and repeatable.

This review is expected to evaluate the credibility of current claims and, assuming they are verified, decide whether government funding should be directed to cold fusion research.

Although recent experimental results are promising, their commercial viability remains unknown. Scientists hope that new research will provide an answer to whether cold fusion may become a future energy source.

The 53-page report includes quotes from such scientists as Dr. Melvin Miles, former senior electrochemist of the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division at China Lake, Calif., who, commenting on an eight-year series of U.S. Navy cold fusion experiments, concluded, "In our opinion, these [findings] provide compelling evidence that the [cold fusion effects] are real. This research area has the potential to provide the human race with a nearly unlimited new source of energy. It is possible that [cold fusion] will prove to be one of the most important scientific discoveries of this century."

It also cites a senior member of the technical staff at the U.S. government's Sandia National Laboratories, James Corey, who expressed at the September 2003 Energetic Materials Intelligence Symposium that "an overdue revolution in science will arrive, [and] the reputations of cold fusion scientists and those who revile them may be reversed."

Although 3,000 scientific papers have been written about cold fusion, progress is underreported in the scientific and popular media because of a rift between cold fusion researchers and the scientific establishment, which has refused in its journals to publish articles relating to cold fusion.

In a September 2003 article, science columnist Sharon Begley of the Wall Street Journal noted of this phenomenon, "the only thing pathological about cold fusion is the way the scientific establishment has treated it."

"The Cold Fusion Report" includes the following findings:

o More than 150 scientists worldwide, including 60 physicists, hold that cold fusion
is a verifiable, reproducible low-temperature nuclear reaction, free of harmful radiation
and nuclear waste.

o Evidence that the effect is reproducible and has been demonstrated
in many laboratories around the world, through a variety of methods.

o Citations from five scientific papers which report correlation between excess energy
and the nuclear by-product helium-4, a key finding which verifies the claims of low-
temperature nuclear reactions. Historically, critics of cold fusion erroneously
assumed that "cold fusion" should emit the same nuclear products as "hot fusion."
Later research demonstrated that the hunt for the "missing neutrons" was
misdirected and that the dominant product of cold fusion, instead, is helium-4.

"The Cold Fusion Report" also includes evidence of the veracity of cold fusion in several previously unreleased documents:

o A 1993 report to the Pentagon by former JASONS chairman Richard Garwin and by
chemistry professor Nathan Lewis of Caltech that supports the findings of "excess
heat," providing key evidence for the cold fusion effect. Four years earlier, Lewis
tried unsuccessfully to replicate the cold fusion effect and subsequently became one
of the most outspoken critics of cold fusion.

o A 1991 report by chemistry professor Alan Bard of the University of Texas,
a vocal critic of cold fusion who confirmed the presence of "excess heat"
in an independent laboratory experiment at SRI International.

o Two 1995 papers by scientists from Amoco Production Co. and Shell Research
reporting positive, unambiguous evidence from their own cold fusion experiments.

Part 1 of "The Cold Fusion Report" examines factors that led the scientific community to a premature rejection of the validity of cold fusion and explains why developments in cold fusion have gone virtually unreported. It reviews studies revealing that the early experiments conducted by prominent laboratories that were presumed to have debunked cold fusion were in fact seriously flawed.

Part 2 of the report discusses the current status of cold fusion research. It reviews advances over the past 15 years and identifies the major unanswered questions. The report concludes with a glimpse of possible future applications for cold fusion technology.

"The Cold Fusion Report" was reviewed for technical accuracy by two physicists with decades of experience in conventional fusion, one of whom has studied cold fusion, as well. The other, a skeptical plasma physicist who works for a major U.S. fusion research center, described the report as "correct, readable, even and unbiased, suitable for reaching physicists and educated people."

Steven Krivit
Nadine Winocur
(310) 721-5919 (Cell)
(310) 470-8189 (Office)



Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

Related Links
· More about Science
· News by vlad

Most read story about Science:
100 miles on 4 ounces of water?

Article Rating
Average Score: 3.63
Votes: 11

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Very Good


 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

"NEW REPORT ESTABLISHES CASE FOR COLD FUSION" | Login/Create an Account | 32 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

by vlad on Monday, March 22, 2004 @ 20:28:39 EST
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
See also the New Energy Foundation's press release (by Eugene Mallove from Infinite Energy Magazine): http://www.infinite-energy.com/resources/pressreleasedoe.html

and Tom Bearden's comments (from his recent updated correspondence section: http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/032104a.htm)

Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 3:16 PM
Subject: RE: U.S. DoE Will Review 15-Years of "Cold Fusion" Excess Heat and Nuclear Evidence


That is indeed excellent news! Let us hope they do an honest review (which seems likely this time). If they do, then I believe cold fusion will indeed be recognized and finally "put on the accepted scientific mat".

If so, then much of that success will be due to the sustained efforts and perseverance of one Gene Mallove!

Also, I know you are much into thermodynamics forefront areas, and with very good reason. As you probably are aware, there are already known and recognized areas in forefront thermodynamics that violate the second law of thermodynamics. Violations occur, e.g., in sharp gradients, and not much is known about that, either experimentally or theoretically [Kondepudi and Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics, Wiley, 1999, p. 459 lists several such recognized second-law violating conditions and areas].

In other thermodynamics forefront research, violations of the second law can and do occur, e.g., from statistical transient fluctuations alone. Modern thermodynamics is largely based on statistical mechanics, and there are no statistics as such without statistical fluctuations also. Accordingly, there are very rigorous thermodynamic transient fluctuation theorems available these days for calculating some of the effects of such fluctuations. One of the best such theorems is given by Evans and Searles; see D. J. Evans and D. J. Searles, "Equilibrium microstates which generate second law violating steady states," Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 50, 1994, p. 1645-1648. That paper advances the transient fluctuation theorem which predicts appreciable and measurable violations of the second law of thermodynamics for small systems over short time scales. The theorem relates the relative probability of delivering negative versus positive work to an experimental vessel. The theorem applies to systems in a constant-temperature environment and initially at equilibrium. This theorem has also been fairly widely applied to other areas and found to hold and be very useful.

A generalized form of the transient fluctuation theorem applies when one manipulates a system so as to change its free energy. See Blau, Phys. Today, Sep. 2002, p. 20 for a cogent lay summary. For the full technical exposition, see Gavin E. Crooks, "Entropy production fluctuation theorem and the nonequilibrium work relation for free energy differences," Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 60, 1999, p. 2721-2726.

In a fluctuation-induced violation of the second law, the reactions involved in the statistics can and do run backwards in a certain size region and for a certain length of time due to the delivery of negative work in the region rather than positive work. Or, more succinctly, this occurs in a temporary condition where the production of negative entropy (due to the production of negative work rather than positive work) occurs rather than the usual production of positive entropy.

Chemically, this negative entropy region and its duration can be a surprisingly large effect and it can last for a surprising length of time. E.g., in a remarkable set of experiments, it has been experimentally proven that such "reactions running backwards" negative entropy fluctuations occur at up to cubic micron level and for up to two seconds or so. See G. M. Wang, E. M. Sevick, Emil Mittag, Debra J. Searles, and Denis J. Evans, "Experimental Demonstration of Violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for Small Systems and Short Time Scales," Phys. Rev. Lett., 89(5), 29 July 2002, 050601. The researchers experimentally demonstrated the integrated transient fluctuation theorem, which predicts appreciable and measurable violations of the second law of thermodynamics for small systems over short time scales. Entropy consumption is experimentally shown to occur over colloidal length and time scales, for up to two seconds and at micron size scales.

Note that a cubic micron of water contains something on the order of 30 billion ions and molecules. "Backwards-running reactions consuming entropy and producing negative entropy for up to two seconds can and do occur at such size scale.

The great "objection" to cold fusion by the orthodox community has primarily been based on normal nuclear chemistry with positive entropy production. In that case, so long as the reactions do not themselves "run backward", the normal Coulomb barrier (mutual repulsion) effectively prevents two H+ ions (two free protons) moving toward each other from approaching so closely kinetically that they would collide, so that each would penetrate to the strong force region of the other. Instead, the Coulomb barrier either stops the momenta and reverses them (for exact heads-on approach), or deviates the particles aside from each other for oblique approach. If the two ions cannot penetrate each within the strong force region of the other, there can be no formation of a quasi-nucleus of the expected fusion product, and thus no resulting excitation decay to that fusion product.

The only conventional way to overcome this ordinary "Coulomb barrier" blockage of fusion at low temperature is to go ahead and use high temperature and the resulting very high ion momentum necessary for some ions to penetrate and overcome the normal Coulomb barrier between themselves and their approaching ions, headed at each other and thus colliding. In short, some collision and formation of the necessary "quasi-nuclei" is achieved by brute force temperature and momenta, for some of the ions on mutual collision courses.

Now consider a "reaction reversal zone" up to a cubic micron in size, where indeed the reactions do run backwards negentropically (due to the production of negative work) for up to two seconds. When reactions are reversed, then the law of attraction of charges can also be reversed. In this special zone, momentarily, now the "reversed Coulomb law" is that like charges attract and unlike charges repel -- for up to two seconds and in zones up to a cubic micron in volume. So up to a few dozen billion ions and molecules can be involved in reversals of the coulomb barrier into a coulomb attractor.

Interestingly, the difference between a proton and a neutron is merely the orientation of a single quark. Consequently, theorists need to look into the implications at the quark level when two protons are in such a "negative entropy region" with reactions reversed. In that case, the Coulomb barrier is now reversed between the two protons! It is now the "Coulomb attractor" rather than the "Coulomb barrier". It seems the two protons could now certainly attract each other so closely that each does indeed penetrate to the strong force "deep" region of the other (if things were normal). Further, instead of the "deviation aside" of nominal close misses, the reversed Coulomb barrier can convert a near miss into a collision "hit".

It may also be that the strong force of each particle is also momentarily reduced, depending on the extent of reversal action on the gluon forces and on the orientation of the quarks. At any rate, it appears that a "quasi-nucleus" of two H+ ions can form, with the probably "flipping" of one quark in one proton to turn that proton into a neutron, lowering the excitation. That would be the formation of a quasi-nucleus of deuterium. Then as the transient thermodynamic fluctuation reverses in sign and things move back toward equilibrium, the strong force would again resume its strength (much stronger than the now emerging Coulomb repulsion between the two protons). The notion is that the quasi-nucleus of deuterium would just "tighten" into a normal deuterium nucleus, or just a D+ ion.

At least this notion of a reversal of the Coulomb barrier and a reversal of the law of attraction and repulsion of charges, precisely fits the known fact that negative entropy, reversed reaction zones do occur and have been experimentally demonstrated by thermodynamicists completely independently of cold fusion experiments. This then lends yet one more powerful argument that cold fusion can and does occur under the proper circumstances, and those circumstances may necessarily include the proven "reversal of reactions" that occur in such thermodynamic reversal zones that experimentally violate the second law of thermodynamics by producing negative work, negentropy, and reversal of the Coulomb barrier into a Coulomb attractor.

In our book, Energy from the Vacuum, Cheniere Press, 2002 we also listed candidate "reversed reactions" that would well occur in such fluctuation zones, and that would yield the experimentally observed alpha particles, tritium, etc. in the experiments. These suggested "reversed reactions" are based on the temporary "reversal" of the law of attraction and repulsion of charges, occurring in one of the thermodynamic reversal zones that have been experimentally demonstrated by thermodynamicists. As is well known, the occurrence of such excess deuterium, tritium, and alpha particles is icommon to a great many of the successful cold fusion experiments conducted in multiple laboratories by many researchers, in multiple nations of the world.

Anyway, let us fervently hope that the DoE gives a very rigorous and very fair review and appraisal of the cold fusion situation. And let us hope they also take into account the very important and pertinent transient fluctuation thermodynamics work and its production of significant "reversal zones", as shown by researchers such as Evans, Searles, Rondoni, Wang, et al.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

Cold Fusion (Score: 1)
by kurt9 on Monday, March 22, 2004 @ 20:45:37 EST
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.metatechnica.com
It has been clear to me for some time that the "cold fusion" effect is real. What is not clear is whether it is scalable such that commercial power can be generated. It is possible that cold fusion could be like the Farnsworth fusor in that it unquestionably works, but is inherently incapable of scaling up to produce useful power.

I attended a particle-beam conference in '97, where there were many physicists, material scientists, and ex-fusion people. The ones that I had the balls to ask what they thought of "cold fusion" told me that it is a real phenomenon, but they thought it could not be made into a useful source of energy.

It also seems to me that for "cold fusion" to be practical, a gas-phase version of it has to be developed. Also, if electricity can be generated directly (not using heat exchanger and turbine), that would be useful as well.

The "sono-fusion" appears to be real as well.

What is clear is that we really do not know everything there is about fusion and nuclear processes, in general. This suggests that even if cold fusion turns out not to be useful, that research into it may contribute to other possible conditions that fusion may occur and that, in turn, will lead to commercial fusion power. The tokamak approach has no chance of working.

  • Re: Cold Fusion by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 @ 05:59:14 EST
    • Hot Fusion by kurt9 on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 @ 07:19:01 EST

by Anonymous on Monday, March 22, 2004 @ 21:48:02 EST
May I throw the first rotten tomato at "Dr" Bob Park ?? ;-)


by ElectroDynaCat on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 @ 07:15:19 EST
(User Info | Send a Message)
This phenomenon has been known about since the 1920's when the first experimenters started exposing clean metal surfaces to high temperature gases. Strut (Lord Rayleigh), Langmuir and others, experimenting with the newly developed high vacuum pumps all have written extensively about anomalous energy being produced when platinum, palladium, silver,zinc,copper and gold foils to electrically excited gases like hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen. These experiments point directly to whats happenning in cold fusion.
What has been lacking is the element of repeatabilty, or at least a plausible explanation as to why there has never been a reliable standard of energy production for these systems.
The range of disciplines involved in researching the answers may limit the number of experts that could investigate the process. The knowledge of chemistry, nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, crystallography,and metallurgy needed to resolve the problem may be too broad for the narrowly developed specialties that researchers have confined themselves to studying. They can't "think outside the box" of their own discipline sufficiently to formulate a hypothesis. When you have been receiving grants for your entire career to study one type of particle decay, your ability to shift gears for something as bizarre as LENR or FE/OU may be seriously hampered.
An explanation of whats happening in LENR may be quite simple, once the proper range of disciplines apply to study it. What is not so simple is trying to find the minds with the range of knowledge to seen the problem as a whole entity.

by SteveKrivit on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 @ 18:50:31 EST
(User Info | Send a Message)
Dear ZPE's, I present for your entertainment and horror, the bizzare mind of:

DR. ROBERT PARK, Director of Public Information and unofficial spokesperson of the American Physical Society, in a telephone interview with investigator Steven Krivit on 12 Nov, 2003, 7:30 a.m. PST

SK: "I heard they had a conference in Boston recently"

RP: "They have one each year. This sort of dwindling band of true believers each year they get together and talk about the wonderful progress that's been made and none of the rest of us can ever see that."

SK: Which papers do you know about?

RP: "Well, let me give you the experts, Steve Koonin at Caltech, and he has a colleague in the chemistry department Nathan Lewis"

SK: "But you yourself, are there any particular papers you can recommend...perhaps showing claims of neutrons or helium? Any papers that you're familiar with?"

RP: "Golly I haven't gone through that in so long. I don't know offhand what to recommend."

SK: "What do you think about the Tokamak?"

RP: "It turned out to be much harder than we thought, but they make steady progress. Its not spectacular progress, but the joke is it's the energy source of the future and it always will be, because they're constantly giving you an estimate of how many years before we have controlled fusion reactors in business and it doesn't happen."

SK: "In a newsgroup somebody accused you that you wouldn't even read a single cold fusion paper."

RP: "Oh no, I read them till I was sick of them. There's a lot of paranoia in that group and I don't know how to account for it."

Chukanov was part of the Cold fusion research team at University of Utah (Score: 1)
by vlad on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 @ 20:18:22 EST
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
In the free_energy yahoo group Dr. Kiril Chukanov writes: Eric and "People",

Cold fusion is possible in principle - there are no physical laws and principles against it. Like wireless transfer of electrical energy from one place to another. However, both " in principle possible" methods don't work in reality. About 12 years ago several scientists, including me and my wife Angelina, restarted the Cold fusion research in University of Utah Our team used the labs and equipment of former National Cold Fusion Institute. We had an exelent mesurement equipmen(pricise neutron detectors with computer display, chemical lab for determination of helium and tritium, material science lab,etc.). We had a very good investment from two brothers-multimillionaires(from Texas) and many other small investors. I was a leading scientist in gas loading cold fusion technology. We investigated many technologies of cold fusion and many materials like palladium, porous nicel, many metal alloys. We were able to heat the metal samples to red color and to cool them to very low temperatures - close to absolute zero. Because of pending patents we avoided any publications. The most important effect of cold fusion reaction is the presence of neutrons and secondary byproducts like hellium, tritium,etc. After more than one year hard work we NEVER DETECTED ANY PRESENCE OF NEUTRONS ABOVE THE BACKGROUND NEUTRON RADIATION AND ANY OTHER BYPRODUCTS. Our investors were very disapointed and stoped the project. I continued the cold fusion research in my company "General Energy, International". After spending one more year and about $ 300,000 - nothing positive! Steve Jonhs, one of founders of Cold Fusion, couple times told me: "Cold Fusion is not real". Cold Fusion is not real in fact.
What is real is Quantum Energy- energy withot fuel, very high quality energy( electrons and photons may have energy of very energetic cosmic rays) Infortunatelly, we are in America, where everything is money, leading (and non-leading) American scientists are so limited and haughty, everything is propaganda. Because of these facts USA(my country) will miss the possibility and advatages to be first in harnessing of this colossal source of energy.
Best regards, Dr. Kiril Chukanov.

No link at DoE (Score: 1)
by Rob (rob@zpenergy.com) on Thursday, March 25, 2004 @ 04:41:07 EST
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
There is no link to this information at DoE, neither is there any hit when searching for "cold fusion". Does anyone have a pointer to it ? Or is this misinformation ??

by vlad on Thursday, March 25, 2004 @ 18:52:58 EST
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Steven Krivit writes: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - MARCH 25, 2004



LOS ANGELES, March 25, 2004 -- Investigators Steven Krivit and Nadine Winocur have released the most current work on the history and progress of the science. "The 2004 Cold Fusion Report," the outcome of a four-year investigation, establishes the veracity of cold fusion.

.................the main text is essentialy the same as the original press release [ZPEnergy]

"The 2004 Cold Fusion Report" has garnered the following praise:

"This is very interesting for me, in part because of my continuing interest in neglected science, and in part because I knew Fleischmann & Pons. Several things in the report were new to me and look very promising indeed."
- Dr. Henry H. Bauer, Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Scientific Exploration

"This is a fine report. It is a work well done, the old-fashioned way, with hard work.
I hope the world reads it -- it is well-written and powerful.
I hope the world acts on it -- it is clear, concise and concrete."
- Dr. Michael Staker, materials scientist and research engineer, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Grounds

"'The 2004 Cold Fusion Report' has brought a wide variety of interesting and complex material together. It should be helpful for someone trying to understand what the arguing has been about."
- Dr. Michael Melich, senior research professor at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School and former branch head of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory

Pullquotes and art are available on request. For a copy of "The 2004 Cold Fusion Report," e-mail your request with full contact information to New Energy Times at press@newenergytimes.com .

Steven Krivit
Nadine Winocur
(310) 721-5919 (Cell)
(310) 470-8189 (Office)

Cold Fusion Heating Up ... (Score: 1)
by vlad on Saturday, March 27, 2004 @ 13:39:15 EST
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Sterling D. Allan writes: The following story from PESN is scheduled for release at PRWeb tomorrow. Your donations can help increase its exposure among the news services. Just $30 will most likely put it on their home page for the day, and it will appear at Google News and Yahoo News.

This story reflects a major breakthrough. Yet thus far, according to Google News, since March 22 when the story first broke, only four mainstream news organizations worldwide have covered it: NY Times, SL Tribune, India Times, and International Herald Tribune (France). This is one of those times when we can really help catalyze things along.

To contribute: http://tinyurl.com/2xmas
(We got lucky on the randomly assigned tinyurl! It is rare to get words with actual meaning, and every letter/number holds meaning in that 5-character code.)
[GreaterThings is one of the birthing organizations of PES.]


Here's the story:
or try: http://tinyurl.com/yvd3e

The story was first picked up by Google News from ZPEnergy on March 22 [Vlad]
Here is the PRWeb link to the story:

Umm, on April 1? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Monday, March 29, 2004 @ 06:19:07 EST
Dammit, I was getting all excited about this report, and then I realized it was set to be posted on April 1.

Someone has a great sense of humor, but I don't I guess. I wanted a real report on Cold Fusion!!!

I wonder if Winocur will write about us (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Thursday, April 01, 2004 @ 17:42:20 EST
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com
In an article about this cult of impossible energy.


All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.