(word processor parameters LM=8, RM=75, TM=2, BM=2) Taken from KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501 Sponsored by Vangard Sciences PO BOX 1031 Mesquite, TX 75150 There are ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS on duplicating, publishing or distributing the files on KeelyNet except where noted! October 30, 1993 NEWMAN6.ASC -------------------------------------------------------------------- This file shared with KeelyNet courtesy of George W. Dahlberg P.E.. -------------------------------------------------------------------- From "Worlds whithin Worlds" The Story of Nuclear Energy Volume 1 By Isaac Azimov 1972 Pg. 47 The Law of Conservation of Energy "We have gone as far as we conveinently can in considering the intertwining strands of the atom and of electricity. It is to me to turn to the third strand - energy. To physicists the concept of "work" is that of exerting a force on a body and making it move through some distance. To lift a weight against the pull of gravity is work. To drive a nail into wood against the friction of its fibers is work. Anything capable of performing work is said to possess "energy" from Greek words meaning "work within"..... The forms of energy are so many and so various that scientists were eager to find some rule that covered them all and would therefore serve as a unifying bond. It did not seem impossible that such a rule might exist, since one had been found in connection with matter that appeared in even greater variety than energy did. All matter, whatever its form and shape, possessed mass, and in the 1770s, the French chemist Antoine Laurent Lavoisier (1743- 1794) discovered that the quantity of mass was constant. If a system of matter were isolated and made to undergo complicated chemical reactions, everything about it might change, but not its mass. A solid might turn into a gas, a single substance might change into two or three different substances, but whatever happened, the total mass at the end was exactly the same (as nearly as chemists could tell) as at the beginning. None was either created or destroyed, however, the nature of the matter might change. This was called the "law of conservation of mass". Naturally, it would occur to scientists to wonder if a similar law might hold for energy. The answer wasn't easy to get. It wasn't as simple to measure the quantity of energy as it was to measure the quantity of mass. Nor was it simple to pen up a quantity of energy and keep it from escaping or from gaining additional quantity from outside, as it was in the case of mass. Begining in 1840, however, the English physicist James Prescott Joule (1818-1889) began a series of experiments in which he made use of every form of energy he could think of. In each case he turned it into heat and allowed the heat to raise the temperature of a given quantity of water. He used the rise in Page 1 temperature as a measure of energy. By 1847 he was convinced that any form of energy could be turned into fixed and predictable amounts of heat; that a certain amount of work was equivalent to a certain amount of heat. In that same year, the German physicist Herman Ludwig Ferdinand von Helmholtz (1821-1894) advanced the general notion that a fixed amount of energy in one form was equal to the same amount of energy in any other form. Energy might change its form over and over, but not change its amount. None could either be destroyed or created. This is the "law of conservation of energy"." ________________________________________________________________ Its interesting how a "rule" which might exist became a "LAW" of the conservation of mass, and a conviction and a "general notion" became the "LAW" of conservation of energy. The scientists of the 1700s and 1800s had crude instruments compared to our present day. They did well for the time but our present day scientists still quote the "LAWS", perhaps because it's easier than thinking. GWD _________________________________________________________________ Page 56 "The sun's mass was known and its rate of energy production was known. Suppose the sun's mass were a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen and it were burning at a rate sufficient to produce the energy at the rate it was giving it off. If that were so, all the hydrogen and oxygen in its mass would be consumed in 1500 years. No chemical reaction in the sun could account for its having given us heat and light since the days of the pyramids, let alone since the days of the dinosaurs...... In 1854 Helmholtz came up with something better. He suggested that the sun was contracting. Its outermost layers were falling inward and the energy of this fall was converted to heat and light. Whats more, this energy would be obtained without any change in the mass of the sun whatever. Helmholtz calculated that the sun's contraction over the 6000 years of recorded history would have reduced its diameter only 560 miles - a change that would not have been noticeable to the unaided eye. Since the development of the telescope, two and a half centuries earlier, the decrease in diameter would have been only 23 miles and that was not measurable by the best techniques of Helmholtz's day. Working backward, however, it seemed that 25 million years ago, the sun must have been so large as to fill the earth's orbit. Clearly the earth could not then have existed. In that case, the maximum age of the earth was only 25 million years. Geoligists and biologists found themselves disturbed with this....... Yet there seemed absolutely no way of accounting for the sun's energy supply. Either the law of conservation of energy was wrong (which seemed unlikely), or the painfully collected evidence of geologists and biologists was wrong (which seemed unlikely), or there was some source of energy greater than any known in the 19th century, whose existence had somehow escaped mankind (which also seemed unlikely). Yet one of those unlikely alternatives would have to be true. And then in 1896 came the discovery of radioactivity.............. Page 2 Pg. 72 The German physicist Alfred Heinrich Bucherer reported in 1908 that speeding electrons did gain mass just the amount predicted by Einstein's theory......... Pg. 73 The energy equivalent of 1 gram of mass.... would keep a 100 watt light bulb burning for 35,000 years. It is this vast difference between the tiny quantity of mass and the huge amount of energy to which it is equivalent that obscured the relationship over the years. When a chemical reaction liberates energy, the mass of the materials undergoing the reaction decreases slightly - but very slightly....... No instrument known to the chemists of the 19th century could have detected so tiny a loss of mass in such a large total. No wonder, then that from Lavoisier on, scientists thought that the law of conservation of mass held exactly...... It was no longer quite accurate to talk about the conservation of mass after 1905 (.....). Instead, it is more proper to speak of the conservation of energy, and to remember that mass was one form of energy and a very concentrated form........ When a uranium atom broke down through a series of steps to a lead atom, it produced a million times as much energy as that same atom would release if it were involved in even the most violent of chemical changes........" ________________________________________________________________ Newmans Energy Machine In one of the forms of the energy machine of Joseph Westley Newman, 55 miles of heavy copper conductor are wound in a huge inductance coil. There are several naturally occuring isotopes of copper. Given a high frequency burst of high voltage electricity into this inductor, is it that inconceivable that an isotopic low (on the atomic scale) energy release takes place, or heaven forbid, some actual total conversion of some of the copper atoms. After having seen his machines working in close proximity at a Senate Subcommittee meeting in Washington DC several years ago, I find it hard to believe that they don't "work" due to violation of the above "laws" of conservation of mass or energy. Compliments of George W. Dahlberg P.E. -------------------------------------------------------------------- If you have comments or other information relating to such topics as this paper covers, please upload to KeelyNet or send to the Vangard Sciences address as listed on the first page. Thank you for your consideration, interest and support. Jerry W. Decker.........Ron Barker...........Chuck Henderson Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet -------------------------------------------------------------------- If we can be of service, you may contact Jerry at (214) 324-8741 or Ron at (214) 242-9346 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 3