The Joe Cell
November 21st, 2006
Imagine, if you will, a machine that gave out more than you put in. A car that did 1000 miles on a gallon of fuel - or better yet, on no fuel at all. In fact, imagine a car that made fuel, the more you drove it. Imagine no more, for I give you… The Joe Cell.
Hamish Robertson claims to have developed an “over-unity machine” - something that gives out more energy than is put in. In doing so, he joins a lengthy list of people that have claimed to have created a perpetual motion machine, all of whom, to date, were liars. Hamish’s design is a group of nested cylinders filled with water, through which a charge is put. Other than shorting out your power supply, I can’t really see what this will achieve. On the other hand:
A static charge is induced, establishing opposing electric fields at the cathode and anode. …When a relatively small charge feedback loop begins and progressively more and more electrons are pulled through the water and off surrounding molecules toward the electric field of the anode.
Ah yes, that well-known property of negative ions, that they are attracted to other negative ions. That must be why… um… oh, god, that’s just so utterly fucking stupid I can’t even joke.
Well anyway, Hamish was passed the plans for the Joe Cell from a friend who got them from a friend, whose grandad saw them in use on tanks in the Second World War (no, really, that’s what the site says). By the way, there’s also this stunning piece of evidence, an image by rogue physicist and New Age father Walter Russell:
See how it resembles the Joe Cell? Is that not proof enough?
Originally, I was going to write to our friend Hamish. But honestly, a child could tell you that filling buckets with water and putting electricity through them isn’t a good idea. I’m not even sure how you’re supposed to connect the Joe Cell to you car, or even what it produces. Electricity? Gas? Coffee?
Buried at the bottom of the page, we have a small disclaimer from Hamish. He says:
They are prone to dying for no apparant reason
Ah. Hmm. Yes. That will explain why his machine will never work when the cameras are rolling. I think it’s safe to say that we’ll still be queueing at the pumps for a few decades yet. And when we stop, it certainly won’t be for the Joe Cell.
Entry Filed under: The Inventions
|
|
|
|
16 Comments Add your own
1. Bert the Bear | November 21st, 2006 at 4:20 pm
How do I stop the comments box automatically filling in ‘Bert the Bear’? Who is ‘Bert the Bear’ anyway??
2. Phil | November 21st, 2006 at 4:27 pm
So when was this Hamish’s idea? There is a reason its called a Joe Cell…. JOE INVENTED IT, not this Hamish character. and Yes, the Joe Cell has some interesting attributes, but I don’t think it is going to save us from the oil problem. Stanley Meyers tried similar approaches to get over unity hydrogen production, but most believe he failed. He was convicted in court when his invention failed to work as he promised and was forced to pay back $50,000 to investors. Amongst his patents, much of which is gobbledy gook, he uses high frequency harmonic pulses of DC to break the hydrogen-oxygen bonds, and then adding lasers also increases efficiency. but then went into researching a device that doesn’t make hydrogen at all , but splits the water as it enters the combustion chamber of a motor where it is blasted with a plasma spark and runs an engine that way. Unfortunately Stanley was very paranoid so always left out the important bits in the patents, so now no one can repeat what he claim to do and it is thus possible to assume that he indeed was a fraud, like most of these hydrogen people seem to be.
:o) Phil
3. Frank | November 21st, 2006 at 7:23 pm
I said Hamish developed it, and explicitly noted that the plans had been passed to him. It’s regardless, this is still the stupidest invention I’ve ever seen. There’s absolutely no way this could hold, or even generate, a charge. I’d be more than willing to explain it in less entertaining, point-by-point detail if you desire. Just email me.
4. Thomas | March 26th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Frankly, the Joecell is quite something. New-agers sees a proof of mysterious theories like Orgone and Aether. Quantum scientist, used to see weird stuff, see evidence of their strange science. Pragmatic newtonians believers are sceptics as usual. And what about me? I intend to build one. Why? Because it requires not much equipement, it involve a low investement and above all, I DON’T WANT TO BELIEVE, I WANT TO KNOW!
5. Frank the SciencePunk | March 27th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Well done Thomas, as the Royal Soc say, nullius in verba - “on the word of no-one”. Please keep us up to date on your progress, and be sure to let us know what it actually does.
6. pilfer | July 5th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
truth be told there is some science behind this idea, so far as generating electricity goes, you do get more electricity out than you put in, but thats due to lord kelvins electrostatic effects caused by the movement of the polar water molecules. heres an example of a very very very very simple machine you can build that will generate electricity using this principle… its (shockingly) called lord kelvins electrostatic generator, and this example is from the physics department of the university of maryland. not from a new age hippie i smell like patchuli website. http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/services/demos/demosj2/j2-02.htm
7. Frank the SciencePunk | July 6th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
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.
8. ozzy | August 10th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
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.
9. Frank the SciencePunk | August 10th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Just once, I wish the cranks would offer solid evidence instead of ad hom attacks.
10. skip | September 1st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
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
11. haze | March 10th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
still waiting
12. Davin | April 12th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
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.
13. Joshua | April 25th, 2008 at 12:48 am
I will not defend or decry yet. I will be experimenting for myself very soon and will report my findings here.
14. White Hawk | August 18th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
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!
15. S dot | September 26th, 2008 at 7:24 am
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.
16. Not Mars Bars | September 29th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
True, but they have been based observations from repeatable 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…
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed