What Was a "Hieronymous" Machine?

[RevSteve]

Greetings all. I just found this interesting site and this thread. I would like to comment on this topic.

I build radionic machines and they are not bunk, they are based on quantum mechanical theory and they do work. First, forget about John Campbell, the machine is not named after Hieronymus Bosch and I have no confidence in a pen and ink machine. The devices are real circuits. They must be built properly or they do not work.

I can show you one of my machines on an oscilloscope generating a signal without power. No question the signal is much stronger with power. The unfortunate part is that these devices are so universally hated that very little development has been done since Thomas Galen Hieronymus died in 1988. As a result, the Hieronymus machine is not much more advanced than a crystal radio. There is so much misinformation, disinformation, ignorance and outlandish claims that it is hard to take the science of radionics seriously.

Web listings like “Typical Hieronymus detector” and others are misleading. There are many so called Hieronymus machines on the market, but only one builder, Bill Jensen builds an actual Hieronymus machine. I can assure you, the others are not Hieronymus machines. You can’t build one from the patent and no prismatic machines are available. Hieronymus built only ten of the prisim machines and stopped production due to non existant sales.

A Hieronymus machine appears to amplify the state of quantum entanglement between two subjects. They may be in proximity to each other ot they may be quite distant. Quantum entanglement is not effected by distance. A block diagram of a Hieronymus machine, also called an eloptic analyzer, reveals a logical signal path even though the circuit may seem less than logical. I can post photos of the scope trace with and without power.

Another part of the problem is that too many quacks who know very little or nothing at all become instant experts once they discover the machine. Cut and paste masters proliferate false information and end up making rediculous clams that have no basis in reality. Eloptic analyzers have had some success in treating some disorders but not all. To use one instead of seeing a doctor when illness strikes is to court disaster.

I now build the Hieronymus machines for Bill Jensen so mine are also actual eloptic analyzers. There are slick websites featuring machines built by people who “filled in the gaps” in their knowledge with their own theories. These machines are questionable at best. Another problem is the use of the stick plate to sense when the machine is tuned to an offending condition. I am unable to get a “stick response” and I have not met anyone who can, though my search for an “operator” has been very limited. I can report a moderate reduction in the severity of symptoms of Alzhiemers and Parkinsons diseases in one patient, relief from migraine headaches in another patient and reduction in the frequency of respiratory infections in myself and another individual.

These machines work but they are limited in what they can do. I would avoid like the plague, anyone speaks confidently about winning the lottery or healing any disease with an eloptic analyzer.

[Alex_Dubinsky]

@Lemur866

I’m not familiar with that one, unless it’s this system: Buttered Cat Array

HAHAHA That’s fn awesome!

Runner up #3: Communist China is technologically underdeveloped because they have no alphabet and therefore cannot use acronyms to communicate ideas at a faster rate.

[Alex_Dubinsky]

RevSteve, would you do the honor of answering the OP and telling us what the heck a hieronumous machine is?

[Wendell_Wagner]

Please also give a citation from a scientific journal that they work.

[RevSteve]

@Alex_Dubinsky

RevSteve, would you do the honor of answering the OP and telling us what the heck a hieronumous machine is?

A Hieronymus machine is one of many radionic devices that “appear” to work by some unknown phenomena. My speculation is that they operate by way of quantum entanglement. Many outrageous claims have been made by users of these machines but only a few have been verified. People I treat with these machines report feeling better. There is anecdotal evidence of the ability to change the weather, treat illness, find missing persons and objects and analyze mineral samples. Unfortunatly, in the US the feild is considered to be quackery in the extreme.

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. I do not know of any scientific journals that will substantiate the claims that I make here, but I will tell you that those who deny the machines abilities are just as uninformed as the ones who talk about paper machines and healing all diseases. The next thing you know they will tell you that they do your dishes and change your tires. there is even one fellow who claims it can be used for time travel with a his hyper dimensional resonator. I have serious doubts about this (to put it mildly).

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.

I live in Florida and in the Summer we tend to have pleasant weather systems like hurricanes and tornados. I have used radinics machines to send the storms away and they went away, did the machine do it? The storms did disipate but there is no way to prove that the Hieronymus machine did it, but I have enough anecdotal evidence to continue my research.

I have tried to detect the eloptic signal a number of times with zero results. The electronic output of the machine can be measured on the scope, but it is believed that the eloptic signal rides piggyback on the electronic signal but is as yet undetectable.

[Derleth]

@RevSteve

I build radionic machines and they are not bunk, they are based on quantum mechanical theory

What in specific? What equations govern their use? (Feel free to cite papers published in journals.)

They must be built properly or they do not work.

Can they be built by anyone or can only certain people get them to work?

A Hieronymus machine appears to amplify the state of quantum entanglement between two subjects.

This certainly seems like it would make it into journals. Please cite a paper or two supporting this claim.

I can report a moderate reduction in the severity of symptoms of Alzhiemers and Parkinsons diseases in one patient, relief from migraine headaches in another patient and reduction in the frequency of respiratory infections in myself and another individual.

Now this cannot have escaped the notice of the world! It’s a Nobel prize in the making and untold fortunes in speaking fees alone! Please share more details in published journals regarding these Earth-shattering medical discoveries!

[Kobal2]

Oooh, this is going to be some high quality crackerjack.Thread bookmarked. This may well be the small pebble that’ll trigger the monumental event that is the making of a new Time Cube. I wanna be able to tell my kids I was there.

[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/

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.

[Lumpy]

RevSteve, you probably won’t find another internet community that would like to see some radical new discovery in physics more than the Dopers. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The best example I can think of is the new physics that was discovered beginning in the late nineteenth century. Things like cathode rays, x-rays and radioactivity. One reads about how these discoveries were regarded at the time and the impression one takes away is that respected scientists were flabbergasted. Invisible rays that could go through solid matter? A substance (radium) that could emit enough energy every week to vaporize itself, with no measurable diminutation of output? Experiments that seemed to suggest that matter itself wasn’t solid? The discoveries seemed almost literally like magic, things that contradicted every expectation of how the physical universe was expected to behave.

But the thing is, that amazing as these discoveries were, they still responded to the scientific paradigm. They could be reproduced, they were consistant, experimental trials established boundaries of their properties, leading to suggestions of further experiments and gradually a theoretical framework emerged to accomodate them. And it was an uneven process. There were dead-end detours like “N-rays”, there was tons of quackery regarding radioactivity. But what was real met the experimental and logical tests of reality. Nuclear physics is the very example of how a seemingly magical, edifice-destroying discovery could be brought within human understanding.

Any radical discovery or claim has to meet and pass the same stringent standards. As the Missouri state motto says, “Show Me”.

[Wendell_Wagner]

Would someone please give a citation for the month and page of the article in Scientific American in 1905 in which they claimed that the Wright brothers flight was a hoax (and could you quote from it also)? I found several mentions of such an article on the web, but that doesn’t constitute a citation. I want to know the exact article and I’d like you to quote from it.

Even if it’s true that Scientific American thought that the flight was a hoax, so what? This is the standard “they all laughed at Christopher Columbus” argument (which, incidentally, isn’t even true, since in fact nobody laughed at Columbus). Yes, occasionally authorities have for a while thought that some important innovators were nuts. Far more often they have correctly concluded that many crazy people were nuts. The real innovators eventually persuaded people that they were correct. Furthermore, Scientific American was perhaps just being cautious, since there was a lot of hoax journalism at the time.

All you have to do is set up a demonstration to show people that your machine works. If you don’t, why should we believe you? There are thousands of people out there who have apparently absurd scientific claims. Why should we believe you and not any of them? Certainly not all of the claims can be true. Those thousands of people claiming that their alternative science is the correct one have theories that are wildly inconsistent with each other. Why should we believe that you, among all those believers in alternative science theories, are the only one to have come up with a correct theory?

[dropzone]

@Wendell_Wagner

As you can see, it was a fairly absurd idea that for certain sorts of machines, you didn’t have to build the machine itself. You could just draw a diagram of the machine on paper and that would do the job of the machine as well as making it out of the components (vacuum tubes or whatever) that it was built of.

It is the essence of engineering. The engineer imagines it, puts it on paper, and tosses it over the wall to manufacturing. If he’s worth his salt (and lucky) it goes together and works.

I don’t know how many problems I have solved by figuring out how it SHOULD work. And once the problem is solved there is no need to make a physical machine, but if somebody upstairs lacks imagination and wants a working machine, well, that’s a hardware problem.

[dropzone]

@Wendell_Wagner

Would someone please give a citation for the month and page of the article in Scientific American in 1905 in which they claimed that the Wright brothers flight was a hoax (and could you quote from it also)?

Ask and ye shall receive, in full:

@SciAm

The Wright Aeroplane and its Fabled Performance

A Parisian automobile paper recently published a letter from the Wright brothers to Capt. Ferber of the French army, in which statements are made that certainly need some public substantiation from the Wright brothers. In the letter in question it is alleged that on September 26, the Wright motor-driven aeroplane covered a distance of 17.961 kilometers in 18 minutes and 9 seconds, and that its further progress was stopped by lack of gasoline. On September 29 a distance of 19.57 kilometers was covered in 19 minutes and 55 seconds, the gasoline supply again having been exhausted. On September 30 the machine traveled 16 kilometers in 17 minutes and 15 seconds; this time a hot bearing prevented further remarkable progress. Then came some eye-opening records. Here they are:

* October 3: 24.535 kilometers in 25 minutes and 5 seconds. (Cause of Stoppage, hot bearing.)
* October 4: 33.456 kilometers in 33 minutes and 17 seconds. (Cause of stoppage, hot bearing.)
* October 5: 38.956 kilometers in 33 minutes and 3 seconds. (Cause of stoppage, exhaustion of gasoline supply.) 

It seems that these alleged experiments were made at Dayton, Ohio, a fairly large town, and that the newspapers of the United States, alert as they are, allowed these sensational performances to escape their notice. When it is considered that Langley never even successfully launched his man-carrying machine, that Langley’s experimental model never flew more than a mile, and that Wright’s mysterious aeroplane covered a reputed distance of 38 kilometers at the rate of one kilometer a minute, we have the right to exact further information before we place reliance on these French reports. Unfortunately, the Wright brothers are hardly disposed to publish any substantiation or to make public experiments, for reasons best known to themselves.[emphasis added] If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face–even if he has to scale a fifteen-story sky-scraper to do so-- would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago? Why particularly, as it is further alleged, should the Wrights desire to sell their invention to the French government for a “million” francs. Surely their own is the first to which they would be likely to apply.

We certainly want more light on the subject.

[ivn1188]

In other words: cite?

[RevSteve]

I admit this is a questionable “science” at best. Results are not always duplicatable as with X rays, microwaves and any number of proven scientific principles. I believe that a serious scientific investigation should be performed by people more quailfied than me. The patents were awarded when Hieronymus was able to demonstrate that his theory and machines worked. After that, very little research has been done. The issue of radionics will keep popping up every few years. Why not do an investigation so the truth can be determined once and for all and take radionics out of the realm of “I just don’t believe it” as so many scientists have relegated it to. This is the only way that radionics will go away for good. And if it can be proven in a scientific manor that it actually works this would be of such monumental importance to humanity that new understandings of so many things would come. I am not suggesting that anyone here try to do this. Research on this level should be done by a major university or government agency. To leave it in the realm of quackery when there might be something there is a great disservice humanity. As of this date, no conclusive test of radionics has been done in the US. Outside of the demonstrations for the patent offices, there is nothing, absolutly nothing but opinion and speculation on both sides of the argument.

[dropzone]

@ivn1188

In other words: cite?

Well, Scientific American believed Whitehead had flown and disappointed Langley didn’t. The Wrights were trying to protect their patent–this was the glory period of patents and lawsuits regarding them–so they were secretive until 1905. Lots of people were making shit up regarding flight, so, though the independent confirmations of the Wrights’ flights in France shoulda shut them up, the SA didn’t need to climb out too far on a limb to question them.

[dropzone]

@RevSteve

I admit this is a questionable “science” at best.

I don’t spend too much time in this forum, but I will follow the responses to this.

[Derleth]

@RevSteve

I admit this is a questionable “science” at best.

Yes. It is indeed. We are in full agreement on this point.

I believe that a serious scientific investigation should be performed by people more quailfied than me.

No. It should be done by as many people as possible working independently, so there is no chance of an unconscious bias spreading among them. You claim to be able to build working models, so it is up to you to post full and complete instructions that anyone with the right tools and skillset can follow to replicate your results.

The patents were awarded when Hieronymus was able to demonstrate that his theory and machines worked.

I would love to know the details of those demonstrations. See, I have a deep and abiding confidence in the ability of humans to trick themselves without meaning to. The story of Blondlot’s n-rays is a perfect example of this. Without meaning to, Blondlot, a reasonably respected researcher trying to polarize the brand-new x-rays, fooled himself, and got others to fool themselves, that they were seeing radiation that we now know does not exist:

Blondlot claimed that N-rays exhibit impossible properties and yet are emitted by all substances except green wood and certain treated metals. In 1903, Blondlot claimed he had generated N-rays using a hot wire inside an iron tube. The rays were detected by a calcium sulfide thread that glowed slightly in the dark when the rays were refracted through a 60-degree angle prism of aluminum. According to Blondlot, a narrow stream of N-rays was refracted through the prism and produced a spectrum on a field. The N-rays were reported to be invisible, except when viewed as they hit the treated thread. Blondlot moved the thread across the gap where the N-rays were thought to come through and when the thread was illuminated it was said to be due to N-rays.

Blondlot was a smart man and he never meant to deceive anyone. However, the complexity of the human mind, in particular its desire to see patterns when none exist, mean we are a very poor and fallible lot when it comes to experimentation. The only hope is independent replication.

After that, very little research has been done.

This I simply cannot understand. It is the very linchpin of my skepticism about this whole affair. Natural curiosity alone ought to have lead to a massive amount of independent replication and verification every single time this alleged technology gets mentioned, especially in mass-market science fiction pulps. In short, Campbell alone should have propelled Hieronymus machines into the mainstream, especially if they can, as you say, mitigate migraines, Alzheimers, Parkinson’s, and respiratory infections. The very idea such a technology could be buried, if it was effective, is more difficult to swallow than the claims surrounding the technology.

The issue of radionics will keep popping up every few years. Why not do an investigation so the truth can be determined once and for all and take radionics out of the realm of “I just don’t believe it” as so many scientists have relegated it to.

If you can build these machines, the ball is very much in your court.

This is the only way that radionics will go away for good. And if it can be proven in a scientific manor that it actually works this would be of such monumental importance to humanity that new understandings of so many things would come.

Precisely. Which is why you should attempt to gain popularity for your designs as soon as possible.

I am not suggesting that anyone here try to do this.

Why?

Research on this level should be done by a major university or government agency.

The Wright brothers didn’t ask anyone’s permission.

To leave it in the realm of quackery when there might be something there is a great disservice humanity.

Widespread demonstrations will move it out of the realm of quackery!

As of this date, no conclusive test of radionics has been done in the US. Outside of the demonstrations for the patent offices, there is nothing, absolutly nothing but opinion and speculation on both sides of the argument.

All speculation is not created equal. In science, as in statistics, there is a null hypothesis which, by Occam’s Razor, is favored in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In this case, as in all others, the null hypothesis is that the claimed technology is a bust. This means demonstrations, and lots of them, are needed to unseat the null hypothesis by rendering it absurd in the face of the physical evidence to the contrary.

[Scissorjack]

@Lumpy

Sounds like it might have been the inspiration for an old Justice League of America villain, Doctor Destiny. At first he created a device that could alter reality. Later while in prison, he discovered that he could dream about building such a device, and his dream construct would work just as well as a real one.

[Geek] Later retconned by Neil Gaiman in his Sandman series that Dee/Destiny had actually nicked the dreamstone of Morpheus while the latter was imprisoned, and tricked it out so that he could manipulate raw dreams in order to reshape reality. [/Geek]

[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.

[Alex_Dubinsky]

@RevSteve

A Hieronymus machine is one of many radionic devices that “appear” to work by some unknown phenomena.

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?