The link works. Unfortunately, I won’t be the one performing the experiment (I live in an apartment that would be very difficult to use to set this thing up).
By the way, thank you for all of the insight you’re adding to the discussion. Any chance that you can post Dr. Kuehne’s response?
How can the machines truly be said to work, if it’s really difficult to reliably demonstrate that they work?
This sounds like a problem. As far as I know, dowsing has never been found to stand up to empirical testing.
I’ll go to the next one because again, as far as I know, homoeopathy has never been found to stand up to empirical testing.
I read the description there and I can’t see anything that looks like it can be objectively measured. Will any of these energies, radiations and charges mentioned in the article be measurable with conventional instruments that detect electromagnetic radiation, radioactive particles, electrical charges or subatomic particle properties?
How is any of this stuff measurably different from magic or hokum? How can the existence of the energies/radiations/charges you’re describing be objectively known, without first assuming that any of them even exist?
Or to put it another way - you treat someone with your machine and it comes to pass that they get better, but it turns out they also consulted a man with a magic healing stick and a woman who claims to be able to heal people by licking them. How do we determine that it’s your machine that did the healing, and not one of the other claimants?
Someone wanted to see the physicist’s response, so here it is:
Dear Dr. Jensen,
thank you for your message and your interest.
I expect that every light source emits both conventional (electric) photons and magnetic photons. However, the magnetic photons are about one million times harder to create, to shield, and to absorb than conventional photons of the same frequency.
Previous searches for the magnetic photon (by Alipasha Vaziri and Roderic Lakes) have used a laser as light source, an aluminium foil as absorber and a photo diode or a photomultiplier tube as detector.
It will be helpful to repeat these experiments. However, the aluminium foil (absorber) should be replaced by an insulator (several sheets of cardboard or black paper, for example).
Definite proof for the existence of magnetic photon rays will be their temporal behaviour. The signal should have an annual and a diurnal period. The signal should be twice as strong in December as in June.
Some information about the experiments and the temporal behaviour:
[physics/0403026] Possible Observation of a Second Kind of Light - Magnetic Photon Rays also:[hep-ph/9708394] A Model of Magnetic Monopoles
Best regards,
Rainer Kühne
Hi There,
A fellow just had some comments about the experimenting. It would seem that the healing be attempted on a person “in a black box” so to speak, so as not to be influenced by anything else.
But I really think the plants in the dark is a better place to start experimenting, as its working with a much less complex system. Then work up to more difficult things like if the plant thing worked, introduce materials in a broken wire to see if they are conductors or insulators. Also see if they can hop from broken wire to wire through different optics and what rules of refraction, reflection, etc they follow. Does this seem more plausible to you? A growing plant is more easily observed than a dowsing result.
It seems that most people are not really going to do an experiment. Hieronymus had this dark plants experiment out for 30+ years and only 2 of them did it, and duplicated the results, but noone else was really interested. Especially not anyone officially scientific. I have sent out about 2000 copies of the research and machines, and only 3 people attempted to make the machine. Its just too much work for people. I am very motivated in Hieronymus, yet even I have not done the dark plants thing. Just too busy organizing the notes, and making machines for Other people to test out. Its all bare bones, as you can tell from my website. Recently I’m getting help.
Sincerely,
Bill Jensen
I don’t know. I hope you don’t take offence at this, but each time I read one of your posts, I feel like I’m witnessing half a conversation - as if you’re perhaps assuming that I already know what you’re thinking.
Here’s a concrete example of what I’m talking about:
Introduce what materials in a broken wire?
Why will their conductivity (or otherwise) be abnormal or significant?
See if what can hop from broken wire to wire through different optics?
Apart from that, the earlier post where you mentioned plants and wires (post #109) seemed to be saying it was a really complex setup - now you’re saying it’s simple, but nowhere have you clearly described or defined anything. I don’t feel like I’m getting any closer to even understanding what your claims are.
Hello there,
I guess I better explain a little better what I am talking about. I’m doing this at work so I don’t want to take too much time.
If plants can grow from something flowing from a sunlight exposed plate on your roof, down a copper insulated wire, into a plate in the top of a lightless box, plant seedlings inside, soil below, metered water each day, metal below soil in bottom of box, and that wired to earth ground, that’s the experiment. I hope my linked pdf came out OK in my post above, it describes in detail the setup “Growing plants in the dark” with a drawing on how to hook it up. Were you able to see it? It’s buried up there somewhere, so I assumed it was readable as a clickable link. Or I can email it to interested people.
Well, whatever is in the wires flowing down is not sunshine or photon rays, yet the plants are growing green. I propose to introduce different materials like metals, brown bakelite, plexiglas, semiconductors, etc etc to see the properties of conduction of this invisible energy. Does it follow a set of rules unlike any other form of energy? Does that make sense? Then you can tell if its electricity, EM wave??? or whatever, maybe something New! Its all for fun anyway, no need to get worked up. If its Eloptic Energy, as defined by Hieronymus, his rules of conduction and insulation will follow, and not the typical ones for electrical currents, ie brown bakelite will be a conductor, not black, etc, etc. Not enough time now to tell you the list, but if interested…
OK, now ask me some more questions and I’ll try to clarify it. I get home in 2 hours, and have more time.
Sincerely,
Bill Jensen
This sounds like an interesting experiment - and I’m willing to build and test it, as long as the components are all inexpensive and don’t require any kind of special (i.e. metaphysical) treatment.
Dear Mangetout (is that “eat all” in French?)
I hope you were able to see that pdf I was talking about. I think way faster than I type, and I mumble a lot faster than I think.
I would be really happy to see you do the experiment. My email is wdjensen123@hotmail.com and I have more info on it, but I have to dig it out, and some on a DVD (audios) that I would need to mail you.
Maybe I’ll find some time to do it too.
I leave work here in 15 minutes.
Sincerely,
Bill Jensen
Before you start doing experiments to discover the *properties *of this invisible energy, you should really do some to determine if the device is having any effect on the plants at all.
[ul]
[li]Set up one box that’s hooked up to your device.[/li][li]Set up another identical box that isn’t connected to anything.[/li][li]Put identical plants in each.[/li][li]Monitor them for a month to see what happens.[/li][li]Make sure you follow the same pattern of care for each. Measure how much water they get with a measuring cup. Keep each box open the same amount of time each day.[/li][li]And be sure to use some objective measurement to compare them. For example, measure growth with a ruler. Don’t rely on your subjective judgment about how healthy they are.[/li][/ul]
I did experiments like this when I was in elementary school for the annual school science fair. One year I compared the effects of different types of fertilizer on plant growth. Another year I did the same experiment comparing the effects of different types of soil. It’s not hard to do, and would go a long way toward making the case that your machines aren’t just wishful thinking.
I hope that all of the above experiments are in fact employed, and I certainly hope whoever does them follows the above type of procedure!
He’s always been a little coy on the subject. Sometimes, he’ll let us assume that it’s the French; then one day he’ll post about how some perfectly innocuous (and sometimes delicious) food makes him shudder with dread, and I start thinking it’s “Man, get out.” after all.
If it needs too much explaining, it might be more complex than I can be bothered to try. I’ll take a look at your other links first.
Also - I think it’s important to ask this; suppose we set up an experiment with three sets of plants:
[ul]
[li]One set in boxes with plates above them wired to plates in sunlight and plates below them wired to ground.[/li][li]One set in boxes with plates above them wired to ground and plates below them wired to plates in sunlight[/li][li]One set in boxes with plates above and below wired to nothing.[/li][/ul]
And all three sets of plants get spindly and chlorotic, then die, what will that demonstrate? Will you accept that as evidence that the claimed phenomenon does not exist?
Hi There,
If all the plants die, as expected by conventional science, then this line of research has no merit. Maybe I can help by supplying the wooden boxes with the foiuls inside and terminals, and wire of heavy copper gauge with appropriate insulation. Plates are hard to send cheaply.
Note to Bill Jensen: write to them the conductors, semiconductors, insulators of Eloptic Energy as determined by Hieronymus. We are trying to see if this Eloptic radiation exists in normal sunlight, and its properties.
Controls are good, perhaps you might see one in the pdf “Growing Plants in the Dark” I think so.
I better say something before I forget: This plant experiment does not require any special Hieronymus nmachine, eloptic amplifier, or special skills by the experimenter. If I do it too, and get some sort of result, then I might make some kits for other people to wire up. That seems to make things more approachable to people who don’t know where to start. From data from my sales so far. I would not charge too much for these second wave experiments.
The materials are say 16 gauge solid copper wire vinyl insulated, wood (any type) cubic boxes with top lid raised a bit for air to enter. Aluminum foil on inside top and on the bottom (wrapped up the sides for retention of water and soil) and screw terminations on outside of box. A specific type of sprouts like Hieronymus used that go up quickly in dark, but can turn green and healthy in just a little of normal sunlight (This energy is not very strong).
Note to Bill: propose the variables of the experiment and materials / plants to use, and geometry based on the articles of Hieronymus and info on the audio tapes.
Oh, the article pdf is enough info to do it, the info on the tapes just says that you can’t lay the sunlight plates on the ground. On the roof, or insulated from ground is good. I guess if you don’t have a basement, you can do it in wood boxes in light baffled cardboard boxes. Ceramic insualtors best. No need to send you my DVD, that’s basically all the new info I need beyond the pdf given. But I’ll give you one if you want by snail mail.
What am I talking about right now, I don’t remember… Ask questions…
Sincerely,
Bill Jensen
I can’t possibly do better explaining it than this article in New Scientist magazine:
Sinisterniik: Your experimental suggestions are much appreciated.
So far as the plant experiment goes, it did occur to me to have more than one plant sample and try different treatments on each, keeping it to a single parameter (except for the control.)
As far as the “blind detection” kind of experiment goes, there’s an issue with the placement of the machine’s sample well - it’s right in the front panel of the box itself. There’s no way to put a wall between me and the sample well. There’s no way to isolate the sample well from the rest of the machine - the layout of the components is an operational part of the design. It’s hard to block the view of it if it’s right in front of my face. Both Hieronymus and Mattioda, who have written extensive operation manuals, advised not to operate the machine with your eyes closed. (In fact, they both also warn against visualizing, praying, “trancing”, or exerting any mental effort to use “ESP” to influence the target - that ESP, whether it exists or not, has nothing to do with it. Keep the mind clear and simply focus on the action of running the machine.)
Possibly there’s a way to rig the sample vials so that I can’t see what’s in them, or if there’s nothing in them. The operational protocols call for transparent glass pyrex test tubes or reagent vials, and absolutely nothing can be in the well except the glass container and the sample (otherwise the reading is contaminated), so you can’t use opaque vials or wrap paper tape around them or such.
Let me see… if the vial is capped and placed in the well while it’s not in my sight, maybe I can’t tell if it’s got anything in it or not once it’s in place. I’ll have to look at the sight angles and figure it out if that would work. I think it would.
I’d also want to do it in stages, if there’s a lot of runs as you suggest. Another thing the inventors suggest is not to operate the machine when you’re depressed, angry, or having a bad day. This makes sense if a component of the machine is the operator’s brain and nervous system (i.e. a bio-electrical detection circuit.) As I’m discovering, it’s a lot like playing music - sometimes you’re hot and sometimes you’re not.
It’s not something I’m going to be able to do for a few weeks at least, maybe while I’m on vacation this summer I might be able to try it. (I actually have a life.) If I do I’ll post a report to this thread - it’s been around for over a year already so I suppose it’s not going to be deleted for a while.
Hello there,
Here is a list of some materials and whether they are conductors or insulators of Hieronymus’ Eloptic Energy. He believed that this is the energy flowing in the wires in the “Grow Plants in the Dark” experiment. That experiment does not need any special machines, no source of electrical power, no special experimenter requirements. Note that wood is a special material, and may be a necessary material for the light boxes in the plants experiment.
Eloptic Current Conductors: all metals, brown bakelite, natural black rubber
Eloptic wave conductors: glass of many types but not leaded, air, paper, magnetic field lines (may not be a conductor but a deflector), sunlight, strong long-tube fluorescent lighting.
Eloptic semiconductors: wood which has a short memory (storage) capacity
Eloptic Insulators: black bakelite (McMaster Carr Garolite Grade XX paper reinforced is great), thin polypropylene baggies, black enamel varnish, vinyl tape and wire insulation.
Eloptic Energy storage: wood (1-5 minutes before it dies out), water, sugar, milk, vodka (those 4 store nearly indefinitely if kept from sunlight and magnetic fields)
Eloptic Amplifiers: chemical types (I never tried them), vacuum tubes like 9001, transistor like CK722, N-FET transistors like 2N5670.
Sincerely,
Bill Jensen
If you’re able to do a double-blind test, a way to do it would be to have the person preparing the samples use leaves from some unrelated plant for the control samples. If the plants you put in the boxes are pea plants, some pea leaves from any nearby vegetable patch should serve in the role of control without letting the operator know they were doing a control test.
Good Lord! The CK722 transistor was originally made by Raytheon…in 1953!!
I’d look at something a bit more modern!
The protocol would have to be slightly different due to how the machine is operated.
It’s not something that’s “hooked up” to its target and left running on a continuous basis. Typically the treatments are done in sessions of less than one hour each. In fact, leaving the machine on and transmitting to a target for too long can supposedly be detrimental. It’s kind of like thinking, if my doctor says taking two antibiotics a day is good, then taking SIX per day must be better! No, too much can be bad also. Or comparing to a fertilizer is more appropriate - not enough fertilizer doesn’t have the beneficial effect, too much can “burn” the plant’s roots. The result in both cases is a dead plant.
So we have another parameter that has to be accounted for: what is the exact treatment duration that yields positive effects? I’d have to start somewhere, let’s say one treatment procedure per day. But if that comes up negative, then it would be prudent to try two per day, or one every other day, before concluding that it is ineffective overall. Otherwise, it’s like testing an antibiotic by giving the subject one dose, which of course doesn’t eliminate the disease, and then concluding that antibiotics don’t work. Or giving them massive doses which cause bad side effects and concluding that antibiotics are too dangerous to use.
So you can see that a proper testing of this would have to be a major experimental undertaking, similar to the kind of protocols that drug companies use when testing new drugs. They have groups of test subjects that receive different dosages of the drug to determine what works the best with the least side effects. Drug companies pay large amounts of money to run these kinds of tests, because the possible return on the investment warrants it. OTOH, the cost of one Hieronymus Machine ($500-1000) is less than what many new drugs cost for a single month’s supply! And one machine can treat dozens of people. This is conceivably part of the answer to the question of why the medical companies are not interested in proving Hieronymus’s theories - even if it works, there’s no profit in it! In fact, especially if it works, as it would cut into their obscenely lucrative drug business (not to mention cutting into agribusiness’s obscene profits on fertilizers and pesticides.) Not to be a conspiracy freak or anything, but I’m just sayin’…
Yes, it’s an obsolete part, but back in the 1950s is when Dr. Hieronymus was designing the circuits.
The radio geeks at my local electronics shop in Berkeley (it’s a dying breed, the old-school, mom-and-pop electronics shop, with shelves full of old components and the smell of copper and phenolic resin in the air) suggested the 2N1305 germanium PNP as a currently available replacement. I think it’s the germanium that’s desirable. There are audiophiles out there that still like those old germanium transistors, so much so that people sell old CK722s on eBay for anywhere from 30 to 100 bucks.