This is my second batch of answers to questions asked by contributors to this thread. Each answer starts with the contributor's pseudonym, followed by his question, followed by ":--", then my response starting on a new line following a blank line. Responses start following the last entry in my previous list.

sheeny: I'm struggling to understand how the mechanism described for Hawking Radiation results in the black hole evaporating. What are the assumptions that underpin Hawking Radiation?

Your understanding is of the mechanism of Hawking radiation is essentially correct aside from the reservation concerning quantum field theory stated in my response to jwswitzer's question in my previous contribution to this thread. Hawking radiation should appear outside the black hole whether annihilation occured inside or outside the event horizon. If it occurred inside the event horizon, collision of the escaping particle with other particles would constitute the Hawking radiation. If it occurred outside the event horizon, the annihilateion energy itself would constitute the Hawking radiation To date, Hawking radiation has not been observed.

damian1727: As I understand it it does not matter which partical goes in and which escapes....the energy for the ''free'' partical has to come from somplace and that place is the black hole ...so it slowly evaporates. [Answering llatpog] the virtual partical pair come into existance just outside the event horizon one falls in one escapes.....virtual particals are popping into existance everywhere its just near the black hole one steals existance...?... glad someone knows it all:--

Correct, He complimented me by saying, "This guy seems to have it down pat." I can say the same for him.and then some! I doubt that anyone knows it all,

NHR+: I just heard Fraser say that if you go fast enough you'll turn into a black hole. Is that really so? I remember reading somewhere before, that speed does NOT really increase the mass of a moving body. Momentum and kinetic energy, yes, but NOT the mass. And that the whole concept of "relativistic mass" is just confusing and not really needed.:--

Everything Fraser is quoted as having said is totally untrue. The following statements are true:
No matter how fast you go, you will NOT turn into a black hole. Your mass WILL become infinite as seen by stationary observers as your speed approaches the speed of light. As seen by them, you will be moving very close to the speed of light, and your speed as seen by them will change negligibly whether you use energy trying to accelerate or to slow down. The concept of mass in special relativity is indeed confusing, bugt that does not eliminate need for it.

If the links you cited support the above quoted statements, their contents, too, are nonsense. There are lot's of people whose favorite pasttimes seem to be trying to debunk Einstein. So far, Einstein's relativities, both special and general, have stood up under the most rigorous testing. Your response to llatpog regarding appearance of particles outside the event horizon is correct.

llatpog: In most analogies of a black hole, people think of it as a larger vortex bringing things into it. However, that would mean that gravity is working as a vector. If a particle is popped into existance by a black hole...what is it created from? if gravity of a black hole is strong enough to hold light back...wouldn't the particle that escpaped need to go faster then the speed of light in order to do so? If it does not, wouldn't it feed the Black Hole?

The cited analogs are nonsense. Black holes are spherical, not circular, the fact that a nonrotating black hole would be a rarity notwithstanding. Black holes are black because they do not emit any sort of radiation whatever other than Hawking radiation, which has yet to be observed. Particles do not "pop" into existence from black holes. Only Hawking radiation is thought to be able to appear to come out of a black hole. Particles never emerge from black holes. The only way for a particle to appear emerging from a black hole is for the observer to see a particle appear just outside the event horizon and not notice that an antipartice appeared there at the same time.

neilzero: llatpog may be right that most of the escaped virtual particles would be recaptured by a super massive black hole. This may be one of the reasons these produce very litle Hawkings radiation and micro black holes (if there are any) produce huge amounts of Hawkings radiation. Micro black holes would rarely succeed in capturing anything because they are so tiny.:--

llatpog IS right on all counts,

4tune8chance: If it were possible to divide a black hole in half,...:--

It's hard to say what would happen. Theory does not cover that possibility.

Vanamonde: as I understand it, the energy for Hawking's radiation ultimately comes from the mass of the black hole. That is why it is thought that a smaller black hole would shrink and finally explode as it no longer has enough mass to accelerate stuff to C.:--

A small black hole does not accelerate anything to the speed of light., It is only via Hawking radiation that a smaller black hole is expected to finally explode.