20 years ago applications were commonly sent back because the examiner discovered prior art. You then explained why the papers/patents weren’t really prior art, sent it back to them, and got your patent. Besides my 2 from this period there were quite a few from my group, plus our in-house patent attorney was lonely and liked to talk. From my experience with my last 2, you send in an application and get the patent. That also seems to be the case with others who have gotten them. I think the patent office is too busy to do anything more than kick it up the street as you said.
In any case, a patent for this machine isn’t nearly as convincing as a paper in a peer reviewed journal. And that isn’t as convincing as it being replicated by skeptics.
The frame dragging and geodetic effects were believed to be real even before the experiment, GP-B just proved it. Still, scientists labored with the belief that it was right. I for one am pleased that they did not have this kind of resistance to contend with. Are you suggesting that NASA, Stanford and LockHeed Martin do a 44 year study and spend $750,000,000 to prove that radionics works? Excellent idea, a bit costly but I’d rather see the money go to that than as bonuses to the executives that have made our economy so solvent.
No, they didn’t *believe *anything. They had data and experiments that suggested further avenues of experimentation. Everything tested in GP-B had well documented evidence behind it and observations that had confirmed related parts of the theory.
In other words, they were conducting science.
It’s possible to conduct science on Hieronymous Machines, but what has been conducted so far doesn’t support further investigation or suggest additional lines of research that haven’t already been disproven.
Oh, come on. If you’ve got a device that can remotely cure diseases, it’s easy to prove that it works. Until then, I’m not convinced time traveling, automatically-working-from-schematics, remotely-people-curing machines actually exist.
Oh yes they did. You may not have heard it from any scientists, but plenty did believe that frame dragging and the geodetic effect existed. There are scientists that would have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to deny Einstein. “Come on” sorry if you disagree but this is the case. You don’t even realize that you are acting in a superstitious manor here. No proof that it does not work yet you are quite biased against it without any investigation at all. All anybody has done is to say no no no but you offer no science to verify your claims. All I am saying is that it should be investigated by qualified people not the general public. The public can’t do a GP-B or any other relativity experiment, all they can do is say no and “just because”. This does not work for me, I like to know the investigated truth. I need no opinions. As of this time, no scientific body in the states has investigated it. How about a peer reviewed journal that conclusivly disproves radionics, any takers?
Einstein’s theories now have quite substantial experimental evidence. They seem to explain the world as we experience it, and have done the thing that really speaks well for a theory: predict findings that WILL be made.
You seem to keep avoiding one of the fundamental points in this whole discussion: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You keep asking for proof it doesn’t work, which is one of the classic gambits of those making outrageous claims. It is easy to test whether a machine can cure diseases remotely. I realize it might take some effort to get a medical researcher to take the time to investigate a machine that “cures remotely”, but put out your own findings (I mean someone, not necessarily you), and you’ll get someone who at least is intrigued or mad enough to try it himself.
You also haven’t addressed my points about the wild, loopy claims made for the machine’s abilities.
I also want to point out one of my fundamental theories of life: If no one has done something that’s not that hard to do, there’s almost always a good reason. You have to be saying that there’s a real possibility that this machine can cure disease remotely, but no one’s bothered to investigate it seriously, despite the worldwide good it might do, not to mention the (maybe more attractive) possibility of enormous fame, adulation of one’s peers, prestigious grants and professorship chairs, and probably a Nobel Prize.
Yeah, people tend to ignore those kinds of things…
But there are an infinite number of things which might be true, and only a finite number of scientists and research dollars. That means any scientist who is wondering what to investigate next will try to choose things that are likely to be interesting.
Experiments that are very unlikely to turn up anything interesting are very unlikely to be funded. And experiments on circuitry that works even if you just draw a picture of the circuitry sounds very unlikely to work. So unlikely that just about every scientist in the world is going to dismiss it.
But you say that it really does work, and all the scientists are wrong! But why do you think it works? You’ve seen it work? Then why can’t you demonstrate to skeptical people that it works? Why can’t you build more? Why can’t you figure out the reasons it sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t work?
Nobody funded the Wright Brothers. They conducted their experiments on flying for their own amusement, out of the revenues of their bicycle shop. If you want to experiment with Hieronymous machines, go right ahead. Nobody is going to stop you. Except you don’t seem to be able to demonstrate a machine that actually works. Oh, you’ve seen one work, but you can’t make one work consistently.
Well, there you go. Either figure out a way to make it work, or don’t. But don’t insist that everyone else has to help you figure out a way to make it work, and don’t insist that everyone else is just being close-minded because they don’t believe it works. We don’t have to disprove radionics, any more than we have to disprove unicorns or the luminiferous aether. Our default position is that it doesn’t work. It’s up to you to show us that we’re wrong. The way you do that is by demonstrating that it works.
Heck, after all this I’m still not sure what your machines are supposed to do. Cure cancer? Travel in time?
To correct the misconception, after actually reading some of the links in this thread, these were written in conductive ink. And they weren’t symbolic schematics, but circuits.
Then we’re all set. RevSteve has already given the links to the original patent and to material from Bill Jensen.
All you have to do is draw the circuits with conductive ink and see if they match Jensen’s results.
You know have the means, motive, and opportunity to replicate the experiments, using nothing but conductive ink so you don’t even have to build anything. Just observe the dramatic results.
Oh no they didn’t. While they may have had personal thoughts and feelings about this (they are human) most scientists have little problem separating their person hopes from experimental data. And any scientist would give their left arm to be the person to present data that contradicts Relativity. They would be able to write their own ticket anywhere in academia.
So present some evidence. If you seriously believe that this works, show some real experimental data and people will pay attention. It’s been 60 years and no one has produced anything meaningful to support the claims. Let’s see this thing crawl before we worry about walking.
I have already denied most of the claims of the machine. I accept only the few that I have observed. Have I made that clear. I only accept the claims that I have observed. People seem to feel better when the machine is used to treat them. I believe the machine works by the phenomena of quantum entanglement. This is the only thing I have found which may explain it. A good article here by a philosopher, (an MD gave us the law of thermodynamics which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed)
http://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Quantum%20Nonlocality.htm
I have also stated that it may be some grand placebo effect. I am limited in what I can do. Only a few people with limited qualifications are doing any unfunded research. Most peer reviewed research has some degree of funding, I have pocket change. If anyone tells me that no scientist ever went out on a limb with a theory that was controversial and could not be proven immediately I must take issue with that. You just rarely hear of them until they have something concrete to present for peer review. To debunk something reqiuires more than opinions. as of this writing, I know of no peer reviewed research that disproves radionics. Not that anyone investigates a science with the intention of debunking it, but to prove or disprove theory.
I have tried eliminate the absurd claims and stay with what might be consistant with QM and entanglement, please re read my posts and you will see that this is true. At no time have I lied or tried to mislead anybody here with magic lamps and flying carpets. I have been calling for scientific inquiry but I have been scolded as though I was Yuri Geller, I have no spoons to offer this forum, only hopes that what may be a science that is useful to humanity may be properly investigated one day. The response is no, don’t investigate. This sounds more like book burning than skepticism to me. Anyway, this horse is dead, I have no further interest in flogging it. Peace be with you all
I’m sorry that you got that impression. However, if you read my posts, and I think the others’ too, you’ll see that the response has not been, “don’t investigate”. The response has been that with finite resources, claims of things like signals with no power source and the like are so unlikely to be replicable that it seems pretty much a waste of time.
Also, if these kinds of things are replicable, then why have these proponents never been able or taken the time to show these results in a controlled setting?
Hi there,
My time is usually pretty busy, but I did a google and found this discussion about the Hieronymus Machines. And my name was mentioned.
I build replicas of some of the machines of Dr. Hieronymus (He built over 10 types). It’s just a hobby. I posted step by step plans on the web on how to make the most popular Medical Analyzer machine, with NO details hidden or obscured. I have heard of a few people who have built it from the plans, but most people are just curious, and like to read about it. Its hard to become motivated and actually build something that seems like quackery anyway. Perfectly understandable. Maybe I should rent them out to people who will actually do some objective experiments. The feedback would be good. Its a matter of limited finances.
About 8 years ago I became interested in this machine. I saw the patent on it (cool story), and decided to search everywhere to get more information on it, because it was totally unbelievable. Why was there a patent on it? Did it ever work? And why?
I was able to purchase 12 boxes of research notes written by Dr. Thomas Galen Hieronymus, and some of his original machines, and lots of other stuff / materials, all languishing abandonned in a Georgia warehouse, left by his widow after he died. It was a real stroke of luck, and I promised the interested warehouse owners that I would give out the information to the world, so they could find out for themselves what it was all about. Then they agreed to sell them to me.
Its taken me about 5 years to figure out what Hieronymus was trying to do, his methods, assumptions, and findings of this wierd, hard-to-detect energy he discovered. (could this be Magnetic Photon Rays?) The papers were pretty disorganized, and I had to synthesize data from printouts, sketches, written scraps of papers, audio tapes, photographs, etc, etc. My first step was to publish this raw material (I used Ebay, at a reasonable price) first as 1 CD, then 3 CDs, and now an almost full data DVD. I rarely ever get feedback from people who get the materials, maybe 100 people with 2000 sales. Then of the people who read the plans (say 10,000) on my website, only 3 built it and told me about it.
I can discuss it with this forum, I have a bookmark to it and instant notification, if people are still interested in it. I just finished my research, development, drawings, schematics, prototype testing, for a critical machine Hieronymus built called the Anapathic machine. When I make back my research costs, I’ll post all the construction plans on it. This is basically a break even hobby. Open to questions. But please be courteous, as I will be. I am a bit of a recluse, and its a stretch to be here in the first place.
Sincerely,
Bill Jensen
Kirkland, Washington, USA
My website: Google: “Hieronymus Machine Plans” and I am on the top I think.
please give the patent numbers.
Hi there,
Thank you for your inquiry…
The patent can be downloaded off my website:
www.wdjensen123.com/hieronymus/HieronymusPatent.pdf
Patent number 2482773
ca 1949
My website home:
www.wdjensen123.com/hieronymus/Plans.htm
Any other questions or interests?
Sincerely,
Bill Jensen
Actually, it’s better than that. It doesn’t do everything.
Remember those UFO photos that were popular a couple of years back - the ones that showed ring/crown-shaped whitish objects hovering over trees and mountains - they were accompanied by an allegedly leaked secret document that claimed they operated on principles that were symbol-driven and that the machine would assemble itself just from the right description.
A fun idea, for sure.
Fair enough. I’m one of those three people that Bill Jensen mentioned that actually built a Hieronymus Machine according to his published plans and reported it to him.
As far the operational mechanics of the Machine go, you can look on Bill Jensen’s website where he’s posted a basic user’s manual.
To be very specific, the Hieronymus Machine is designed to detect and to generate what Hieronymus dubbed “eloptic emanations”. According to Hieronymus, these emanations are generated by all matter, living or not, and each type of matter has its own unique quality of emanation. Therefore, it is possible to receive and analyze eloptic emanations as a means of detecting the presence of specific materials in a sample of material placed in the machine.
That’s the “pure science” behind it. The applied science (i.e. “what does it do?”) covers a lot of uses, and many of the claims are admittedly pretty far out.
In agricultural applications, an Analyzer can be used to determine the presence of chemical imbalances in a farmer’s field, even at amounts that are undetectable by other means, but still sufficient to affect the health of crops planted there.
In biological applications, an Analyzer is used to detect the presence of poisons or other pathologies in a plant or animal (human or otherwise) before they reach a threshold of being detectable by other means. For example, let’s say an analyzer shows eloptic emanation’s “rates” (so-called) indicating the presence of disease micro-organisms in the blood. The other function of a Hieronymus Machine is to counteract the undesirable effects caused by the presence of certain materials, including micro-organisms, abnormal tissues, or other pathologies. The idea is that some kinds of eloptic emanations can be canceled out by applying a matching emanation “rate” to the target, in a manner analogous to phase cancellation in wave theory.
Eloptic emanations come not only from specific materials, but also from living organs. Hence, a apple tree’s roots, a chicken’s gizzard, or a human’s spleen have specific eloptic “signatures”. If I perform a scan of the apple tree and the reading for the roots comes up low, it indicates the roots are unhealthy. I can then use the same machine to transmit eloptic energy back to the tree to help encourage the roots to heal.
Here’s what really makes skeptics skeptical: eloptic emanations are linked non-locally to anything that has been part of a larger sample of material. So a hair or leaf sample carries the specific eloptic energy “signature” of the source. This forms a non-local link from the sample to the source, therefore the sample can be used to send eloptic emanations back to the source at a distance.
The problem of producing replicable experiments with eloptic emanations is that they are extremely subtle, so much so that only a human nervous system is sensitive enough to affected by them. Hieronymus Machines are psionic in nature, i.e. a human mind and nervous system is a required system component for the machine to operate. It cannot be operated automatically and “objectively.” Furthermore, not just any human nervous system will do, it is a specialized talent. To use a somewhat imperfect analogy, just because most people can hear music, not everyone has perfect pitch, the ability to identify specific musical notes just by hearing them without any reference. But this doesn’t mean that the phenomenon of perfect pitch is impossible just because very few people can replicate it, and the replication is not always 100% reliable.
Bill has references on his site to experiments performed by Hieronymus to demonstrate that his machines actually worked as intended, but due to the imperfect nature of the human element that’s part of the system, replication of results under strict protocols required for mainstream science is difficult. Statistical analysis may reveal successful operations by a given user than fall outside of the range of random probability, but that would not likely be acceptable enough evidence to skeptics.
Hieronymus claimed to have used his machines to transmit eloptic emanations set to the rates for pesticides (determined by first analyzing the pesticide itself) to kill crop pests at a distance. So here’s the problem for proving it works by experimental observation: say someone does this process, treats the field from a distance and subsequently most of the pests die off a week later. Now, every scientist will tell you that correlation is not causality. Since the “action-at-a-distance” of eloptic machines can’t be explained by physics, will a skeptic accept the result as proof? Probably not. It could simply be coincidence, after all. And since treating a field for pests is never perfect, there’s no guarantee the process will work every time. Even pesticides don’t always get repeatable results. But skeptics aren’t skeptical about pesticides because there is a physical mechanism to explain how poisons kill pests.
And sadly, there are a lot of outrageous claims floating out there in the internet (outrageous claims on the internet? Really? Say it ain’t so!) and this has tended to overshadow anything being done by more serious researchers such as Bill and myself.
And of course, the never ending sniping between skeptics and believers so often degenerates to “you’re a gullible idiot”, “oh, yeah, you’re a smug, sarcastic ass” that very little respect is encouraged, and thus very few real exchanges of useful information can take place.
Wait, what you just wrote is provable science as opposed to “outrageous claims floating out there in the internet”?
You, sir, are a gullible idiot. And I don’t care if I get warned. It must be said.
Wow, that’s harsh. You seem pretty offended, maybe you should challenge me to a duel or something?
Anyway, where exactly did I say it was provable science? I think I said it was extremely difficult to prove, and expressed some opinions as to why I think that is.
What I did was answer the specific question, “what are your machines supposed to do?” (italics mine)The answer to the question may indeed be considered outrageous by you, but I was thinking of the wilder stuff about time travel, talking to the dead, winning lotteries, etc.
I haven’t said anything about my own personal beliefs, which are at this point inconclusive, and in any case are irrelevant to answering the specific question being asked.