From "Worlds within Worlds" The Story of Nuclear Energy

                (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!

                                   May 15, 1992

                                   CONSENRG.ASC
       --------------------------------------------------------------------
            This file shared with KeelyNet courtesy of George Dahlberg.
       --------------------------------------------------------------------

              From "Worlds within 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 conveniently 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

                                      Page 1





       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
       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"."
       ________________________________________________________________

            It is 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


                                      Page 2





       orbit.  Clearly  the earth could not then have existed.  In  that
       case, the maximum age of the earth was only 25 million years.

            Geologists  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 existance 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..............
       --------------------------------------------------------------------

       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........"
       ________________________________________________________________

            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.

                                      Page 3





       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.
       --------------------------------------------------------------------
       Vangard Note...

          This low  level  fissioning  reminds  me of some work done in the
          late 19th century by the famous chemist Gustave LeBon.  Also, for
          those familiar  with  Joseph  Cater's  Awesome  Life  Force,  the
          concept of  the  "soft  electron" also might play  a  part  in  a
          release of  energy  on  very  low  and  natural atomic fissioning
          levels.

          The work of German researcher Joanna  Budwig with lipid films and
          how proper  "care  and  feeding" of these films  to  provide  for
          optimum oxidation  of cells has led to a device called a Biotron.
          This device is basically a very  bright  light source (about 1000
          Watts) which is passed through a series of reflective zig-zags in
          order to change the structure of the high intensity  photons.  It
          is akin  to smoothing the surface of the photons which makes them
          much easier to absorb by the  body  when  the  body  has  been so
          conditioned as to be optimally capable of absorbing  these "soft"
          photons.  Note  here to all you Reich researchers and the concept
          of Orgone, I am sure you can see the correlation.

          As to LeBon, he used a device called  a spinthariscope.  This was
          essentially a  translucent  panel  coated  with  a  zinc  sulfide
          phosphor.  When  exposed  to low level alpha radiations generated
          from various experiments, he found  fissioning  activity  at much
          lower levels than what today's researchers would  consider  to be
          atomic fission.

          As an  example  of  a fascinating experiment, LeBon took a beaker
          that had held mercury.  When  the  beaker  was  washed  out  with
          distilled water  and that same water was poured  on  an  aluminum
          plate, the  PLATE  BECAME  VERY  HOT and stayed that way for some
          time.

          The point  with  all  this  is   that   there   are   methods  to
          catalytically release energy, yet not generally  considered to be
          of a  sufficiently  high  energy  level  to be useful.  This is a
          grave mistake  on the part of  many  chemical  experimenters  and
          opens up hosts of possibilities for those of us  with  more  open
          minds.
       --------------------------------------------------------------------

         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 4