# What Was a "Hieronymous" Machine? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 5, 2009, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418 "2009-05-05T14:32:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/41 "2009-05-17T19:34:56Z")
I still don’t know what you use a Hieronymous machine for. OK, suppose it DOES detect “eloptic” radiation-does that mean that you can use one to prospect ofr gold? I read the patent description-it wasn’t clear (to me) jsut what you do with a HM, once you build it. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/42 "2009-05-17T20:09:54Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > This is a fascinating topic and I want to thank the OP for bringing it up. **Ralph,** I’ve got to say, I’ve given you some crap about your spelling in the past and whatnot, but honestly, you ask some of the most interesting questions in GQ. I quite agree, and I believe **Wendell Wagner** in the second post in this thread was unjust in his mild chastisement of the OP (“You know, you could have looked this up yourself.”) Most GQs could be googled and researched online, but that’s not the point. The point of asking the question here is to draw on the collective wisdom of the Dope, which will often bring forth the most arcane and surprising facts about almost anything under the sun. My thanks to the OP for bringing this up, this particular piece of Campbellana is new to me. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/43 "2009-05-17T20:19:36Z")
I believe that before anyone posts a question, they should make a reasonable effort to answer it themselves. What we’re learnng here on the SDMB is how to learn about things for ourselves. I would have no objection to someone saying “Well, I’ve looked this topic up in Wikipedia and I’ve Googled on it, but I don’t understand what it is. What can you tell me about it?” There are several longtime posters who _never_ check Wikipedia or Google or the IMDb before they ask a question. They seem to think that it’s beyond them (or an utter waste of their time, but not an utter waste of other posters’ time) to learn even the most basic ideas of research. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/44 "2009-05-17T23:03:22Z")
I found out what eloptic energy can do. It makes [Miracle Soap](http://www.musicaltop.com/ItemB0014TDE5E.aspx)! > [@](#): > > Ingredients: 1. Oxygenated Water (note 1) 2. Ash of Dedecyl Solution (Ash of Dedecyl Solution is a coconut oil fatty acid used to keep products from separating which is approved by the FDA for use in foods, soaps and cosmetics) 3. Calcium 4. Potassium 5. Magnesium 6. Dehydrabiethylamine (an emulsifier derived from coconuts) 7. Moisturizing Soap also includes Cold Pressed Avocado, Almond, Olive and Coconut Oils, and Vitamin E. (1) The oxygenated water detailed above is electrically engineered eloptic energized stabilized oxygenated water. Eloptic energy is electric energy and optic energy or light energy (source Tape of Doctor’s Round Table). Eloptic energy is a bioenergy discovered by the late Dr. T. Galen Hieronymus and his wife and coworker Dr. Sarah Hieronymus. The doctors which discovered this energy conducted extensive research on it and believe it to be the very life energy itself that which makes each of us alive. BTW, I’ve checked and can’t find any other mention of the insane claims for Hieronymus made on the site Xema linked to, like this one: > [@](#): > > The glue was adhering fine to the tape in laboratory trials, but when produced in trailer size loads was coming off the celluloid. Hieronymus was asked to use his patented Radionics device to analyze the problem. He discovered that trace elements of a solvent previously carried in the container trucks transporting the chemicals was contaminating the adhesive. It had not been detected by normal methods because the trace amounts causing the problem were below what any other methodology could detect. When the containers were changed, the glue stayed put on the tape! That must be some major conspiracy on the part of the world to hide that amazing feat so thoroughly. Nobody has mentioned this bit from RevSteve. > [@](#): > > We do know that time travel is possible. Test of Einsteins theories have proven it. Any one hear about the experiment in the fifties where an atomic clock was placed in New York, France and onboard a Boeing 707? All three clocks were set at the same time when the plane left New York. When it arrived in France, the French and New York clocks were in sync but the clock on the plane was slightly ahead (or behind, I can’t remember)of the other two. The time dilation effects pushed the plane slightly into the future, not by much but enough to prove Einstein right. This is cold hard physics not some questionable science like radionics. Absolutely wrong. This experiment proves that time moves differently in different reference frames. It has nothing to do with time travel, let alone proves it. If you can’t understand standard science you’ll be even less likely to be believed when you make claims about non-standard science. I also don’t understand why you seem to imply that you are the only person who builds “true” machines yet you expect others to do the research for you, although you don’t say anything about making the machines available to others. And just to dispose of one other claim, no inventor ever does “demonstrations for the patent offices.” The patent office doesn’t have the time to check on whether anything works or not. It just takes a claim and sees if it is novel and not perpetual motion. Many, many patents are for things that don’t and can’t work. ---
**Author:** ![Alex\_Dubinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dbc845/32.png) [@Alex\_Dubinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_Dubinsky)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/45 "2009-05-17T23:42:40Z")
And Exapno comes in trying to turn this into the kind of dick thread he’d like it to be. Try something different, Exapno. P.S. Time travel into the future is obviously possible. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/46 "2009-05-17T23:54:40Z")
If by “the kind of dick thread he’d like it to be”, you mean “a GQ thread that addresses factual information and tries to find the truth of it”, then I say we could use a lot more “dick threads” like that. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/47 "2009-05-18T00:21:23Z")
> [@Alex\_Dubinsky](#): > > And Exapno comes in trying to turn this into the kind of dick thread he’d like it to be. > > Try something different, Exapno. > > P.S. Time travel into the future is obviously possible. Let’s not make it personal. No warning issued. Gfactor General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/48 "2009-05-18T08:34:18Z")
> [@Alex\_Dubinsky](#): > > And Exapno comes in trying to turn this into the kind of dick thread he’d like it to be. What kind of thread would you like? One where we just listen to **RevSteve** and uncritically accept what he says? That isn’t how progress is made and, more importantly, it just isn’t very interesting. I think it’s a pretty widely-held opinion that sermons tend towards the boring. ---
**Author:** ![Alex\_Dubinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dbc845/32.png) [@Alex\_Dubinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_Dubinsky)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/49 "2009-05-18T09:08:31Z")
Yes, not interesting. Much more fun to round up the gang for the usual 'keptic lynchin. :rolleyes: That’s not boring or repetitive at all. I for one would rather stay polite and civil. For a change. Especially after seeing **RevSteve** do such a good job of it. Plus, maybe, eventually, the OP will be answered. ---
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/50 "2009-05-18T12:05:47Z")
To pick up one more of **RevSteve** ’s points: > [@RevSteve](#): > > … > In the UK however radionics is much more widely accepted. Radinocs is a respected science in England, though it must also have it’s skeptics. > … Not as far as I know! Can we have some evidence of this? ---
**Author:** ![SCSimmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e495f1/32.png) [@SCSimmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SCSimmons)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/51 "2009-05-18T13:26:54Z")
> [@RevSteve](#): > > Mainstream science can ignore a technology to death if they choose to. Scientific American declared the Wright brothers flight to be a hoax. Oh, so _that’s_ why heavier-than-air flight technology never got developed in the United States! Because SciAm ‘ignored it to death’. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/52 "2009-05-18T13:55:27Z")
Right. Let’s keep to non-skeptical responses, like this one. > [@](#): > > Ok, that is a pretty plausible idea. A machine that works that no one can tell how. Sort of like those circuits designed by computer genetic algorithms. > > But what are examples of such machines and what do they do and what do they consist of? So we have a material-analyzing machine that uses a few coils and capacitors (the original patent) that supposedly worked to one extent or another. Has there been modern reconstructions of it and analysis? What are other examples? > > And if we can’t tell how they work, how were they _designed_? There is a [Radionics Association of the UK](http://www.radionic.co.uk/). Of course, there is also a [British Homeopathic Association](http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/), because homeopathy is also much much accepted in the UK than in the US. So definitely we should take our cues from them. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/53 "2009-05-18T14:31:04Z")
> [@RevSteve](#): > > Radinocs is a respected science in England, though it must also have it’s skeptics. . That just isn’t true, it’s no more respected here in the UK than the other crackbrain pseudosciences. ---
**Author:** ![Cardinal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cardinal/32/4000_2.png) [@Cardinal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cardinal)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/54 "2009-05-18T14:40:43Z")
RevSteve, if you are convinced your machine works, you could post the schematics for others to build their own machines. If you don’t want to release that information, there must be a physics or engineering professor locally that would be very interested to see your machine work as you claim. That professor has professor friends he/she would be very willing to call, given a convincing demonstration. I bet within a few degrees of separation, someone knows a staff member at a major publication, which would be more than happy to publish an article on this topic. If it actually works. Heck, I’d be blown away to see this output signal you mention, the one that happens without a power input. This is of course all predicated on your willingness to do more than post about it on a relatively obscure internet message board. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/55 "2009-05-18T15:13:47Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > So the _Scientific American_ wasn’t insisting that the Wright brothers flight was a hoax; rather, they were asking them why they didn’t do their flights in a more public manner so that everyone could see them. Notice that the brothers had released so little information about their flights that the _Scientific American_ didn’t even know what city they had taken place in. They were assuming that they were in Dayton, Ohio (where the brothers lived) since they hadn’t said anything about the location of the flight. Quite correctly, the _Scientific American_ concluded that if the flight had taken place in Dayton, rather than in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina where it actually happened, many people should have seen it. So this is not an example of a “they all laughed at Christopher Columbus” situation. This is an example of an “if you get all mysterious about your new invention or discovery, you ought to expect that people will be skeptical” situation. You’re thinking of the wrong flights. The Wrights’ development flights in Dayton in 1904 are the subject of the article; the flights at Kitty Hawk were nearly a year earlier. The skepticism is not for the flights themselves, but their length and distance, which were simply unbelievable based on previous flights. ---
**Author:** ![Alex\_Dubinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dbc845/32.png) [@Alex\_Dubinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_Dubinsky)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/56 "2009-05-18T19:41:54Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Right. Let’s keep to non-skeptical responses, like this one. See, that’s the problem. You equate skepticism with derision and assholeness. Do you detect in my post that I believe some outlandish claim? Is a machine that detects solvents outlandish? Is a machine that works by some non-obvious mechanism outlandish? No, but that won’t bother you. I was spot on about you. Skeptics 4 eva! Fuckin ho’s and smackin po’s. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/57 "2009-05-18T21:19:19Z")
> [@Alex\_Dubinsky](#): > > See, that’s the problem. You equate skepticism with derision and assholeness. > > Do you detect in my post that I believe some outlandish claim? Is a machine that detects solvents outlandish? Is a machine that works by some non-obvious mechanism outlandish? No, but that won’t bother you. I was spot on about you. Skeptics 4 eva! Fuckin ho’s and smackin po’s. **Moderator Warning** Given that **Gfactor** has already cautioned you to refrain from making this personal, I am making this a formal warning. Tone down your language, or refrain posting in this thread. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/58 "2009-05-18T21:57:23Z")
> [@Alex\_Dubinsky](#): > > Skeptics 4 eva! Fuckin ho’s and smackin po’s. “They see me thinkin’ They hatin’ On the website they see I’m a skeptic.” (What does “smackin po’s” mean? Assaulting police officers? That’s not gangsta, that’s suicidal.) ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/59 "2009-05-19T01:06:35Z")
Nametag writes: \> You’re thinking of the wrong flights. The Wrights’ development flights in Dayton \> in 1904 are the subject of the article; the flights at Kitty Hawk were nearly a \> year earlier. The skepticism is not for the flights themselves, but their length \> and distance, which were simply unbelievable based on previous flights. If that’s true, it’s an even clearer debunking of the story that the _Scientific American_ thought that the Wright brothers’ first flight was a hoax. The editors, if what you say is the case, has no trouble believing that the flights in 1903 in Kitty Hawk were real. They only had trouble with the much greater distances that they achieved in 1904. Furthermore, certainly the people at _Scientific American_ would have no problem with the general idea of powered flight. A number of inventors were working on it at the time. Various of those inventors had come more or less close to achieving it. Some people still claim that certain other inventors ought rightly to be crediting with the invention of the airplane. It just wasn’t true that the scientific community in 1903 laughed at the idea of powered flight. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/60 "2009-05-19T02:06:40Z")
> [@Chez\_Guevara](#): > > The machine is of course named for artist Hieronymus Bosch, who Felipe de Guevara (no relation) described as “the inventor of monsters and chimeras”, a chimera being an impossible and wacky fantasy. Tell this to a person with two different colored eyes. Then duck. Chimeras do exist, both naturally (same species), and artificial (same or different species). The entire business plan of my last employer involved the creation of chimeric mice which we designed and churned out on a regular basis. Granted, there’s no griffins and centaurs out there yet, but we have glow in the dark fish 🙂 > [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > I believe that before anyone posts a question, they should make a reasonable effort to answer it themselves. I believe that people who object to the existence or topic of a thread should not participate. Seriously though, plenty of interesting threads get started this way, and the poster might not be the only one with the question so I personally don’t have any objection to it. If the person really would be helped by just a simple wikipedia search they would do it as it’d take less time then waiting for an answer here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418.md?page=4)