<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Joe Cell</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/</link>
	<description>Kicking ass in the name of science!</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:51:22 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Not Mars Bars</title>
		<link>http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/#comment-31286</link>
		<dc:creator>Not Mars Bars</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:53:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/#comment-31286</guid>
		<description>True, but they have been based observations from &lt;i&gt;repeatable&lt;/i&gt; experiments, and can subsequently be used to predict the outcome of future experiments (not to mention designing things that will work).
If, which has occurred numerous times in the past, outcomes do not match theory, the theory is revised and thus goes the scientific process.
By this I'm not attempting to categorically declare them adamant nor universal (as humans don't have all the answers), however the fact they can be proved on paper and can be demonstrated predictably in reality, would incline one to sway towards those over some crackpot's idea, who can do neither convincingly.
I've seen a video of David Blaine levitating on YouTube, it doesn't make it real...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>True, but they have been based observations from <i>repeatable</i> experiments, and can subsequently be used to predict the outcome of future experiments (not to mention designing things that will work).<br />
If, which has occurred numerous times in the past, outcomes do not match theory, the theory is revised and thus goes the scientific process.<br />
By this I&#8217;m not attempting to categorically declare them adamant nor universal (as humans don&#8217;t have all the answers), however the fact they can be proved on paper and can be demonstrated predictably in reality, would incline one to sway towards those over some crackpot&#8217;s idea, who can do neither convincingly.<br />
I&#8217;ve seen a video of David Blaine levitating on YouTube, it doesn&#8217;t make it real&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: S dot</title>
		<link>http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/#comment-30838</link>
		<dc:creator>S dot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:24:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/#comment-30838</guid>
		<description>I would just like to say that all these laws of physics and laws of thermodynamics, etc, are all laws that were devised many many years ago when humans were still much more ignorant than they are today. These laws you consider to be adamant and universal, may apply to most things, but not all. Man kind created these laws to better understand something which he really knew  nothing about. No more than we can control the workings of the universe, can we say that these laws we've put on paper are infallible.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would just like to say that all these laws of physics and laws of thermodynamics, etc, are all laws that were devised many many years ago when humans were still much more ignorant than they are today. These laws you consider to be adamant and universal, may apply to most things, but not all. Man kind created these laws to better understand something which he really knew  nothing about. No more than we can control the workings of the universe, can we say that these laws we&#8217;ve put on paper are infallible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: White Hawk</title>
		<link>http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/#comment-25451</link>
		<dc:creator>White Hawk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:57:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/#comment-25451</guid>
		<description>It beggars belief that anybody could read the pseudo-scientific witch-craftery related to this device, and not laugh heartily at what is patently a joke.  If just one note of the bull surrounding the Joe Cell was even close to sounding like science rather than a drunken teenager's attempt at writing a Star Trek* episode, I might not have both my feet planted firmly in the sceptic's court.

Putting aside the obvious scientific contradictions and otherwise completely unscientific poppycock, I have read claims to anti-gravity effects, spontaneous material duplication** from residual fuel to mango chunks, and of 'glowing' attributed by some dint of gross scientific misunderstanding to triboluminescence.

Even if we just focus on, for instance, the absolute crap about gas bubbles 'imploding' when ignited, we immediately hit a fundamental flaw in the writer's scientific knowledge - combustion, is an exo-thermic process.  Even if this mysterious gas possesses previously unobserved properties, it is ignoring the laws of physics in much the same way as a bucket might become lighter when filled.

Throwing in a bunch of pseudo-scientific terms (or making up a few of your own) doesn't make this any more convincing to anyone other than a small child who still thinks that light-bulbs and house matches work by magic.

It instills in me nothing but contempt for my fellow man that this is still touted web-wide as a feasible or plausible invention when every piece of literature I can find is littered with contradictions, unscientific bullsh*t, and impossible observations.  My opinion is bolstered by the barely legible protests of the individuals who support these claims with greater zeal than their local football team.  That the most vociferous 'believers' appear to most clearly demonstrate an utter lack of linguistic (let alone basic scientific) education is wholly as expected.

When this device gets around to being produced and demonstrated wholesale, cures world hunger, and facilitates instantaneous interstellar travel, I will eat my words.  Until then, I await the inevitable punchline.

That there is no obvious public beneficiary in this scam does not make it any less a (seemingly cynical) ploy to defraud the uneducated, so I don't expect the punchline to be particularly funny.

The last time I was this incredulous was when, having carefully explained the principles by which a helium balloon expands as it rises toward the upper atmosphere, I was asked 'how air knows to push against the sides'.  It was a questioned asked by a grown and otherwise well-educated adult, not a five year-old.

All faith I have left in the human race is rapidly fading.
_____

* This is an unfair comparison, as at least a fraction of the sci-fi babble in Star Trek is grounded in plausible theory.

** Even assuming that any old 'crud' could be replicated, or that the cell might possibly replicate complex carbon-based molecules from nothing more than thin air, are we to accept that complex proteins, acids, and cellular structures can be 'incidentally' replicated inside this gizmo?  What of the A-Bomb levels of energy that would be required to 'create' matter?  Apparently, the water is unconsumed, so this is derived from zero-point energy I presume??  There's a cure for global warming for you - replicate one mango, freeze an entire continent to near absolute zero!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It beggars belief that anybody could read the pseudo-scientific witch-craftery related to this device, and not laugh heartily at what is patently a joke.  If just one note of the bull surrounding the Joe Cell was even close to sounding like science rather than a drunken teenager&#8217;s attempt at writing a Star Trek* episode, I might not have both my feet planted firmly in the sceptic&#8217;s court.</p>
<p>Putting aside the obvious scientific contradictions and otherwise completely unscientific poppycock, I have read claims to anti-gravity effects, spontaneous material duplication** from residual fuel to mango chunks, and of &#8216;glowing&#8217; attributed by some dint of gross scientific misunderstanding to triboluminescence.</p>
<p>Even if we just focus on, for instance, the absolute crap about gas bubbles &#8216;imploding&#8217; when ignited, we immediately hit a fundamental flaw in the writer&#8217;s scientific knowledge - combustion, is an exo-thermic process.  Even if this mysterious gas possesses previously unobserved properties, it is ignoring the laws of physics in much the same way as a bucket might become lighter when filled.</p>
<p>Throwing in a bunch of pseudo-scientific terms (or making up a few of your own) doesn&#8217;t make this any more convincing to anyone other than a small child who still thinks that light-bulbs and house matches work by magic.</p>
<p>It instills in me nothing but contempt for my fellow man that this is still touted web-wide as a feasible or plausible invention when every piece of literature I can find is littered with contradictions, unscientific bullsh*t, and impossible observations.  My opinion is bolstered by the barely legible protests of the individuals who support these claims with greater zeal than their local football team.  That the most vociferous &#8216;believers&#8217; appear to most clearly demonstrate an utter lack of linguistic (let alone basic scientific) education is wholly as expected.</p>
<p>When this device gets around to being produced and demonstrated wholesale, cures world hunger, and facilitates instantaneous interstellar travel, I will eat my words.  Until then, I await the inevitable punchline.</p>
<p>That there is no obvious public beneficiary in this scam does not make it any less a (seemingly cynical) ploy to defraud the uneducated, so I don&#8217;t expect the punchline to be particularly funny.</p>
<p>The last time I was this incredulous was when, having carefully explained the principles by which a helium balloon expands as it rises toward the upper atmosphere, I was asked &#8216;how air knows to push against the sides&#8217;.  It was a questioned asked by a grown and otherwise well-educated adult, not a five year-old.</p>
<p>All faith I have left in the human race is rapidly fading.<br />
_____</p>
<p>* This is an unfair comparison, as at least a fraction of the sci-fi babble in Star Trek is grounded in plausible theory.</p>
<p>** Even assuming that any old &#8216;crud&#8217; could be replicated, or that the cell might possibly replicate complex carbon-based molecules from nothing more than thin air, are we to accept that complex proteins, acids, and cellular structures can be &#8216;incidentally&#8217; replicated inside this gizmo?  What of the A-Bomb levels of energy that would be required to &#8216;create&#8217; matter?  Apparently, the water is unconsumed, so this is derived from zero-point energy I presume??  There&#8217;s a cure for global warming for you - replicate one mango, freeze an entire continent to near absolute zero!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joshua</title>
		<link>http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/#comment-15010</link>
		<dc:creator>Joshua</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:48:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/#comment-15010</guid>
		<description>I will not defend or decry yet.  I will be experimenting for myself very soon and will report my findings here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I will not defend or decry yet.  I will be experimenting for myself very soon and will report my findings here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Davin</title>
		<link>http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/#comment-13923</link>
		<dc:creator>Davin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2008 22:40:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/#comment-13923</guid>
		<description>Has anyone here defending the idea of a working Joe Cell seen a working Joe Cell?  The idea has been around quite a while now and supposedly is easy to make.

You can't blame the government for there being no working examples in your neighborhood. Grainy youtube videos don't count - there are also videos of two guys dueling with light sabers.

Until you witness one first hand where you can measure what is being put in and coming out - try to maintain some healthy skepticism.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Has anyone here defending the idea of a working Joe Cell seen a working Joe Cell?  The idea has been around quite a while now and supposedly is easy to make.</p>
<p>You can&#8217;t blame the government for there being no working examples in your neighborhood. Grainy youtube videos don&#8217;t count - there are also videos of two guys dueling with light sabers.</p>
<p>Until you witness one first hand where you can measure what is being put in and coming out - try to maintain some healthy skepticism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: haze</title>
		<link>http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/#comment-11931</link>
		<dc:creator>haze</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:30:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/#comment-11931</guid>
		<description>still waiting</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>still waiting</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: skip</title>
		<link>http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/#comment-2292</link>
		<dc:creator>skip</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Sep 2007 12:35:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/#comment-2292</guid>
		<description>well i'm glad to have found an up to date blog on this topic. I'm not a scio-techie so i wont baffle any of you with bullshit. Coupla months ago i saw some vids on this off the net, and it sparked my interest so much so i took the trip upto hippie land to see for myself. the person i saw was a Peter Stevenson personally he knows about 80 percent and bullshits the rest-for the proof is in the pudding. He really had no real proof. Sure he had a couple cells working on a bench but you would think he would have a working model in a car. No such luck. Howeva towards the end of my trip I did meet the famous "JOE". The man sure does have a prescence. Now i am pretty skeptical about all this especially after meeting Peter, and i would love to write Joe off as a nutter. But this man did show me some very interesting things so i kinda had to give him some validation. As i said earlier with the pudding and proof, this guy had the pudding. I'm at a loss at how he knows so much seeing his background is a diesel mechanic i think his combined a few peoples theories. He did show the video of the drag car running on this stuff and i will tell you that blew me away and it was filmed in front of 500-1000 people. This video is not on the net i searched. Anyway long story short Peter is a bit of a Blowhard and as much as it pains me to say Joe is definitely is onto something. I have the stainless and am building a few cells, and seeing these things first hand have a fair bit of confidence that it will work. Anyway to all the skeptics out there i still have half a foot on your side of the line. But it sure doesn't hurt to try.
keep you guys posted if you want.
cheers</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>well i&#8217;m glad to have found an up to date blog on this topic. I&#8217;m not a scio-techie so i wont baffle any of you with bullshit. Coupla months ago i saw some vids on this off the net, and it sparked my interest so much so i took the trip upto hippie land to see for myself. the person i saw was a Peter Stevenson personally he knows about 80 percent and bullshits the rest-for the proof is in the pudding. He really had no real proof. Sure he had a couple cells working on a bench but you would think he would have a working model in a car. No such luck. Howeva towards the end of my trip I did meet the famous &#8220;JOE&#8221;. The man sure does have a prescence. Now i am pretty skeptical about all this especially after meeting Peter, and i would love to write Joe off as a nutter. But this man did show me some very interesting things so i kinda had to give him some validation. As i said earlier with the pudding and proof, this guy had the pudding. I&#8217;m at a loss at how he knows so much seeing his background is a diesel mechanic i think his combined a few peoples theories. He did show the video of the drag car running on this stuff and i will tell you that blew me away and it was filmed in front of 500-1000 people. This video is not on the net i searched. Anyway long story short Peter is a bit of a Blowhard and as much as it pains me to say Joe is definitely is onto something. I have the stainless and am building a few cells, and seeing these things first hand have a fair bit of confidence that it will work. Anyway to all the skeptics out there i still have half a foot on your side of the line. But it sure doesn&#8217;t hurt to try.<br />
keep you guys posted if you want.<br />
cheers</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank the SciencePunk</title>
		<link>http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/#comment-2089</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank the SciencePunk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:08:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/#comment-2089</guid>
		<description>Just once, I wish the cranks would offer solid evidence instead of &lt;i&gt;ad hom&lt;/i&gt; attacks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just once, I wish the cranks would offer solid evidence instead of <i>ad hom</i> attacks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ozzy</title>
		<link>http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/#comment-2088</link>
		<dc:creator>ozzy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:24:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/#comment-2088</guid>
		<description>ur so far off the pace.  ur oneway  brain wouldnt be able to fathem if the joe cell was explained to u so i wont even try. ur a typical brainwashed american.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ur so far off the pace.  ur oneway  brain wouldnt be able to fathem if the joe cell was explained to u so i wont even try. ur a typical brainwashed american.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank the SciencePunk</title>
		<link>http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/#comment-1633</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank the SciencePunk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:44:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/2006/11/the-joe-cell/#comment-1633</guid>
		<description>The electrostatic generator is a nice example of an unusual way to generate electricity, but I can't fathom how the joe cell pictured could operate in this way.  And you're right, it still wouldn't give infinite energy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The electrostatic generator is a nice example of an unusual way to generate electricity, but I can&#8217;t fathom how the joe cell pictured could operate in this way.  And you&#8217;re right, it still wouldn&#8217;t give infinite energy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
