Until a thorough review and detailed description of the real science is published in a quality, peer-reviewed journal, then it should be considered pseudoscience. The whole matter of 'orgone energy' is decidely pseudoscientific to say the least, and has some seriously shaky philosophical undertones - pretty atypical of good science.
Even if these cells do somehow magically harness this "unmeasurable" energy by processes unknown to the entirety of humankind, until it is reported in a more robust and meaningful way, then you'd be a fool to believe any of it. Some of the articles on Joe cells (that are linked to above and available on the web) contain copious amounts of pure nonsense that don't really explain anything. Also, no mention is made of the energy costs to actually start the process, or to set the system up in the first place. I'd hazard a guess that if these things do anything at all, then they are merely acting as some sort of capacitor or battery, that requires a massive input of energy to begin with - a far cry from actual 'energy production'.
why are they still discussing about it, since they're not making out money off it? What about all the people who claim to having successfully made a Joe Cell...
I'm sure it's quite easy to make one - whether it actually does what people say it can do, however, is extremely doubtful. I guess people are still talking about it because people always enjoy a good story. But although the fabled 'Joe X' claims not to have profitted from it, you can bet your bottom dollar that some people are trying to. I'd also hazard a guess that a major reason that people have not thus far made any money out of making/selling Joe cells is quite simple.... they don't work.
----
Take a look at this Q&A with a Joe Cell 'expert'... I personally think that this guy's response to the engineer's points is arrogant and extremely obtuse - so the 'evidence' of the cell working, aswell as the entire process at large (the origins, manipulations, properties etc. of Orgone Energy) is all contained within a 5 hour video recording of an aussie bloke called Joe working in his workshop?
Nice... One way to test whether or not the engineer is right or not would be a simple experiment to collect the gases and the brown scum, and do a few simple tests to find out what they are. Basic experiments (such as mass spectrometry and atomic absorption spectrometry) would tell you very quickly what the by-products are... but there is no mention that this has even been attempted. Infact, his own article says this about the 'gases':-
Three Gases
Joe's cell is capable of producing three different types of "gas", depending on the "alignment" (Joe's term) of the cell.
1. Hydrogen gas comes off the cell as very small bubbles and will produce a yellow flame when lit by a match. Igniting the hydrogen bubbles with a match will produce a moderate crack or snap, similar to the sound of a cap gun.
2. After adjusting the alignment, Joe produces a second type of gas (name unknown. )
3. The third type of gas (again, name unknown) produces the largest energetic discharge of all.
So where is the Hydrogen coming from if not the water? And why on Earth does he not know what the other two gases are... He seems to be distinguishing them on the basis of the sound they make when 'Joe' holds a match to them (a very clever idea when you're producing pure hydrogen in unknown quantities....) I find it highly ironic that the author of most of this junk calls skeptics 'intellectually lazy' and 'arrogant' (see quote below) but then goes on to offer nothing but armchair pseudoscience in return...
Skepticism
Some people react with immediate disbelief when first confronted with information about the Joe Cell. Such individuals find skepticism a comfortable refuge. It's easy to be a skeptic. ...these individuals are too often intellectually lazy, hopelessly self satisfied and arrogant.
How intellectually lazy do you have to be to not carry out the basic tests to even distinguish what these by-products they are producing are? If they can't even be bothered to do that, then what do you think the chances are of them discovering and understanding the
real processes behind their amazing technology? The answer to the engineers question is a prime example of how a pseudoscientist responds to a rational argument - complete avoidance of the details. He basically tells the bloke to watch the video, and then shut up. He also mentions the 'three gases', although he has already established (in his own words) that he doesn't know what two of them are! Pure genius...
SHIRAKAWA Akira
, "you have to find out yourself what cannot be explained by normal logic".
There are some things that can be explained by normal logic too, however - like "spending any cash on this is a bad idea" and "is it really smart trying to build an electrolysis tank capable of generating pure hydrogen gas in my garage?"
)
