# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![nisgore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8e8cbc/32.png) [@nisgore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nisgore)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/161 "2014-01-28T02:56:39Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > In reading some Campbell-written 1950’s Sci Fi, reference is made to a “hieronymous” machine. What did this thing actually d? has anyone ever built one?😕 The machine is named after T. Galen Hieronymus, a genius and self proclaimed tinkerer… NOT Hieronymus Bosche… who was an artist. I built one. It actually works. It is not science fiction, however it operates beyond the boundaries of known science and physics. It is used primarily as a healing device. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/162 "2014-01-28T03:03:18Z")
> [@nisgore](#): > > The machine is named after T. Galen Hieronymus, a genius and self proclaimed tinkerer… NOT Hieronymus Bosche… who was an artist. I built one. It actually works. It is not science fiction, **however it operates beyond the boundaries of known science and physics**. It is used primarily as a healing device. Bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![skdo23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@skdo23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/skdo23)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/163 "2014-01-28T03:19:27Z")
> [@nisgore](#): > > …it operates beyond the boundaries of known science and physics. Just like zombies. ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/164 "2014-01-28T03:32:52Z")
zombie or no It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature. ---
**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:** [January 28, 2014, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/165 "2014-01-28T04:19:16Z")
> [@nisgore](#): > > The machine is named after T. Galen Hieronymus, a genius and self proclaimed tinkerer… You built a Hieronymus machine but didn’t even read the thread all the way until post #7? ---
**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:** [January 28, 2014, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/166 "2014-01-28T04:31:04Z")
Jensen is now selling Hieronymus Machines on ebay. [This is not a joke.](http://www.ebay.com/itm/Complete-Hieronymus-Machine-dataDVD-psychic-Radionics-/140948405368?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20d12dfc78) 25 of the 30 he made have been sold. This is a joke, but the joke’s on us. If you don’t want to read through this long zombie, HowStuffWorks has a four-minute video called [What is eloptic energy?](http://science.howstuffworks.com/52348-what-is-eloptic-energy-video.htm) that gives some of the basics. It’s as utterly worthless as a History Channel documentary on Ancient Aliens from all other perspectives. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/167 "2014-01-28T04:44:13Z")
Sad, but not surprising. The same old stuff keeps coming around again. I’m sure we’ll be seeing the Dean Drive again…and again…and again. (And the Bates method of eyesight improvement, and…) ---
**Author:** ![JoseB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/joseb/32/1530_2.png) [@JoseB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoseB)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2017, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/168 "2017-04-20T14:12:46Z")
> [@RevSteve](#): > > I am sorry but I have no journals to present. The inventor is long dead as is his widow. A posthumous Nobel prize would be presented to his family I guess. I am, speaking from my own research. Bill Jensen has all the material on Hieronymus, though it is largely uninteligable (not Bill’s fault). Scientific journals are most important as is peer review but there is nothing available. This science is in a state of limbo in the US and it is unlikely to ever emerge from this limbo. Mainstream science can ignore a technology to death if they choose to. Scientific American declared the Wright brothers flight to be a hoax. If we can accept the patent office as a credible source of scientific information, then his 1949 patent, number 2482773 should be considered. This, and all other US patents can be downloaded freely at [http://www.pat2pdf.org/](http://www.pat2pdf.org/) > > _**To obtain his patent, TG Hieronymus was required to produce a prototype (something rarely done) and they demanded that the theory be demonstrated. Hieronymus did both**_. The original eloptic patent machine (The Atomic Analyzer, a vacuum tube device) was able to noninvasively detect and identify minerals from unidentified samples to the satisfaction of the US, British and Canadian patent offices. There is nothing inside a modern Hieronymus machine that can account for the job that it does. Three transistors a few coils some variable capacitors a beaker and a plexiglass plate. Aside from the patents, there is as far as I know nothing in the way of peer reviewed journals most unfortunatly. > > As an inventor myself, I was unable to let this severe limitation to hinder my investigation. Something is happening with these machines and it may be some grand placebo effect. If it is, it is a very good one, one good enough to fool 3M company when they had a problem in the early days of sticky tape, a problem which Galen Hieronymus solved with an eloptic analyzer. (_ **Emphasis added** _ to the quote above by myself) Sorry for resurrecting this zombie, but I stumbled upon this thread and I had to comment on the point emphasized above. I am a patent examiner for the E.P.O. (European Patent Office) and I can say, categorically and with first-hand knowledge, that _ **no patent office in the world requires the inventor to present a prototype of his invention** _. That is true nowadays, and was true in the 1940s (which is when those patentes were presented to the USPTO). The USPTO was the **only** patent office in the world that used to ask for patent models from the inventor. It enforced this requirement from the year of its creation (1790) till the year 1880. From that point on, patent models were not legally required. There were still some inventors which voluntarily presented them; some people did that up to the turn of the century. But, by 1940, that practice had died down completely. The USPTO would NOT have required Hyeronimus to present any kind of patent model or prototype, and would NOT have required him to show that his invention worked. Patent examiners only look at the following things: (1) Is the invention new? (2) Is the invention inventive? (3) Does the invention have industrial applicability? If the answer to all these questions is “yes”, you can have your patent. In our day-to-day job, we do not check whether something “works” or not. We used to straight-up disregard perpetual motion stuff in the past, but now we just take it in and deal with it, because it was actually costing more in manpower and money to do the administrative processing and paperwork to reject those applications out of hand than to just take them in and search them. Besides, when we take them in, the inventor has to pay the search and examination fees, which are not exactly pocket change. One interesting consequence of this policy is that, now, we have a bunch of material in our databases that allows us, very often, to reject new “perpetuum mobile” applications by pointing out that they are not new: There is a previously-filed thing that destroys their novelty 😃 (and, of course, the inventor has paid the search fee for that result). So, TL;DR: The fact that something has been patented does NOT mean that it works, and in the US it has not meant that since 1880. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2017, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/169 "2017-04-20T15:02:31Z")
> [@JoseB](#): > > (_ **Emphasis added** _ to the quote above by myself) > > Sorry for resurrecting this zombie, but I stumbled upon this thread and I had to comment on the point emphasized above. > > I am a patent examiner for the E.P.O. (European Patent Office) and I can say, categorically and with first-hand knowledge, that _ **no patent office in the world requires the inventor to present a prototype of his invention** _. That is true nowadays, and was true in the 1940s (which is when those patentes were presented to the USPTO). > > The USPTO was the **only** patent office in the world that used to ask for patent models from the inventor. It enforced this requirement from the year of its creation (1790) till the year 1880. From that point on, patent models were not legally required. There were still some inventors which voluntarily presented them; some people did that up to the turn of the century. But, by 1940, that practice had died down completely. > > The USPTO would NOT have required Hyeronimus to present any kind of patent model or prototype, and would NOT have required him to show that his invention worked. > > Patent examiners only look at the following things: (1) Is the invention new? (2) Is the invention inventive? (3) Does the invention have industrial applicability? If the answer to all these questions is “yes”, you can have your patent. In our day-to-day job, we do not check whether something “works” or not. > > We used to straight-up disregard perpetual motion stuff in the past, but now we just take it in and deal with it, because it was actually costing more in manpower and money to do the administrative processing and paperwork to reject those applications out of hand than to just take them in and search them. > > Besides, when we take them in, the inventor has to pay the search and examination fees, which are not exactly pocket change. One interesting consequence of this policy is that, now, we have a bunch of material in our databases that allows us, very often, to reject new “perpetuum mobile” applications by pointing out that they are not new: There is a previously-filed thing that destroys their novelty 😃 (and, of course, the inventor has paid the search fee for that result). > > So, TL;DR: The fact that something has been patented does NOT mean that it works, and in the US it has not meant that since 1880. One of the neat things about the Science Library at Stevens Institute of Technology – at least back in the 1970s, when I visited – was that it was filled with these patent models that inventors sent in. How Stevens ended up with them, I don’t know, but they were fascinating. I researched the US Patent on using a laser pointer to play with your cat – I got the Patent “Wrapper” and read through the whole damned thing (US Patent **05443036** “Method of exercising a cat”) You wouldn’t think you could get a patent for something this ridiculous. After all, the concept had even been _published_ before they submitted it. In fact, the patent _was_ rejected the first time they submitted it. But the applicants kept rewriting their application until they had technically circumvented all the objections. Patent lawyers I spoke with told me that it would never stand up to a legal challenge. It didn’t matter – the patentees never paid their patent fees after the initial grant, so it lapsed. I tried to contact them to ask why they did it, but they never answered me. The point is, nobody tested it for workability or, beyond the original literature search, originality. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2017, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/170 "2017-04-20T15:20:13Z")
So, summarizing this zombie thread–T. Galen Hieronymus invented a woo magnet? ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2017, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/171 "2017-04-20T15:37:23Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > One of the neat things about the Science Library at Stevens Institute of Technology – at least back in the 1970s, when I visited – was that it was filled with these patent models that inventors sent in. … > > The point is, nobody tested it for workability or, beyond the original literature search, originality. _Science in Context_ Volume 6, Issue 1 April 1993, pp. 17-24 [“Einstein at the Patent Office: Exile, Salvation, or Tactical Retreat?”](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/science-in-context/article/einstein-at-the-patent-office-exile-salvation-or-tactical-retreat/A37C39F3CE102A09294FDA4F4A2EBE28) Robert Schulmann (a1) DOI: [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889700001289Published](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889700001289Published) online: 01 September 2008 The Argument Soon after finishing his studies in 1900, Einstein makes a tactical retreat to the Patent Office in Bern where he develops a plan for returning to the academic fold. He is assisted in this by a central figure in the Zurich establishment, Alfred Kleiner, who grooms him for the return. More generally, I argue that Einstein’s role in the emergence of theoretical physics as a discipline results from the interaction of two developments, one external and institutional, the other internal and personal. Certain institutional constraints influence Einstein’s early academic career by providing a professional opportunity to which he can adjust his career plans. The existence of this professional context for Einstein’s early work in physics plays a role in encouraging him to pursue the speculative work in physics that became his distinctive hallmark. The other side of the coin is that Einstein’s personal legitimation as professor of theoretical physics in 1909 also confers legitimacy on his speculative research, which in turn infuses the term “theoretical physics” with new meaning. The key factor uniting Einstein’s personal development with institutional opportunities is the special relationship that he enjoys with Kleiner, who serves as the focus of interactions between the external and internal developments described in the paper. [reformatted for clarity] Cited for no particular reason but 1. because I thought it would be fun to see what was on-line on his professional work at the time 2. so everyone reading it can be impressed that Cambridge University Press is woke to the oppressive length-normalitive discourse in which “Abstract” has been used for so long. ETA: Still not sure why “theoretical physics” was different that that thing without the quotes before the Patent Office, but any CounterArguments are for a different thread which I’m not interested in at the moment… ---
**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:** [April 20, 2017, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/172 "2017-04-20T15:51:47Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Jensen is now selling Hieronymus Machines on ebay. [This is not a joke.](http://www.ebay.com/itm/Complete-Hieronymus-Machine-dataDVD-psychic-Radionics-/140948405368?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20d12dfc78) > > 25 of the 30 he made have been sold. This is a joke, but the joke’s on us. Jensen sold 45 machines before the sale expired. With 45 machines out in the wild for three years, wouldn’t you have thought that the world would be blessed with reports of miraculous cures and all the other benefits of elopic energy since then? I haven’t seen a single miracle reported. However, Andy Wright at Popular Mechanics actually tracked down some of the people that posted in this thread and asked for demonstrations. You can read the amazing results in [Spooky Action at a Distance: The Strange Science of Radionics](http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a17984/spooky-action-at-a-distance/). ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2017, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/173 "2017-04-20T17:05:53Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > … > If you don’t want to read through this long zombie, HowStuffWorks has a four-minute video called [What is **eloptic** energy?](http://science.howstuffworks.com/52348-what-is-eloptic-energy-video.htm) that gives some of the basics. It’s as utterly worthless as a History Channel documentary on Ancient Aliens from all other perspectives. > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Jensen sold 45 machines before the sale expired. With 45 machines out in the wild for three years, wouldn’t you have thought that the world would be blessed with reports of miraculous cures and all the other benefits of \*\*elopic \*\*energy since then? > … Bolding mine. I’ve found your problem here. The machine works on eloptic energy. And here you’re seeking miracle cures from elopic energy. No wonder you can’t find them; you’re looking in the wrong place. Fix your spelling and miracles will be revealed. 😃 ---
**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:** [April 20, 2017, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/174 "2017-04-20T17:53:46Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Bolding mine. > > I’ve found your problem here. The machine works on eloptic energy. And here you’re seeking miracle cures from elopic energy. No wonder you can’t find them; you’re looking in the wrong place. > > Fix your spelling and miracles will be revealed. 😃 Oh noes! I misspelled a made-up word. Whatever will that do to my credibility? I must hie myself to my fainting couch. P.S. If you want the story from the horse’s … mouth,[The Story of Eloptic Energy - The Autobiography of an Advanced Scientist by Dr. T. Galen Hieronymus](https://www.amazon.com//gp/offer-listing/B002ZDQ47I/sr=/qid=/?condition=used&tag=bookfinder-test-a-20) is for sale on Amazon. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2017, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/175 "2017-04-20T18:18:14Z")
I hope you took that in the spirit it was offered. A silly throwaway comment about a silly topic. I was riffing on the idea that it would be typical of a nutbag like Hieronymus to insist it won’t work if it’s misspelled: “You’ve gotta believe, bro!”, etc. If that came off sideways I apologize. I think I’ll pass on the autobiography. Looks fully worth the $80 for a “Used-Good” paperback though. The wiki on eloptics was already oozing enough insanity from its seams for me. In the last couple of days I’ve tried reading some the geyser pyramid guy and the PHI guy as referenced in page 3 here [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=823779&page=3](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=823779&page=3) . My quota for crazy is plumb used up for the week. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2017, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/176 "2017-04-20T18:25:29Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > And here you’re seeking miracle cures from elopic energy. Isn’t elopic energy the force that propels a young woman down a ladder in the middle of the night? ---
**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:** [April 20, 2017, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/177 "2017-04-20T18:29:15Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > I hope you took that in the spirit it was offered. A silly throwaway comment about a silly topic. I was riffing on the idea that it would be typical of a nutbag like Hieronymus to insist it won’t work if it’s misspelled: “You’ve gotta believe, bro!”, etc. If that came off sideways I apologize. No need. I got it and hoped I was responding in kind. I did the same for TriPolor’s epic post above. I thought it was a masterpiece and I’m saying it explicitly now to give him all credit. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2017, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/178 "2017-04-20T19:09:13Z")
All good. I’m spending too much time here and eventually that leads to me trying too hard to shoehorn in a comment that ends up coming off badly. You’re right; **Trinopus** ’ opus was a magnum. Bravo **Trinopus**. The twist ending totally came at me from nowhere. Or is that nowhen? ---
**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:** [April 20, 2017, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/179 "2017-04-20T21:38:13Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > No need. I got it and hoped I was responding in kind. > > I did the same for TriPolor’s epic post above. I thought it was a masterpiece and I’m saying it explicitly now to give him all credit. > [@LSLGuy](#): > > All good. I’m spending too much time here and eventually that leads to me trying too hard to shoehorn in a comment that ends up coming off badly. > > You’re right; **Trinopus** ’ opus was a magnum. Bravo **Trinopus**. The twist ending totally came at me from nowhere. Or is that nowhen? Your spelling is as bad as mine. That’s Trinopus spelled TriPolar. (I just washed my fingers and now I can’t do a thing with them.) ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2017, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418/180 "2017-04-20T21:56:06Z")
> [@JoseB](#): > > I am a patent examiner for the E.P.O. (European Patent Office) and I can say, categorically and with first-hand knowledge, that _ **no patent office in the world requires the inventor to present a prototype of his invention** _. I thought the U.S. Patent Office still officially required anyone trying to patent a perpetual motion machine to produce a working model. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-a-hieronymous-machine/495418.md?page=10)