Some discussion about the moe-joe cell

[Moshe Daniel]

My reply to Alex Schiffer was as follows

Hi Alex,

It\’s great to hear from you too!!

<<<Hi Moshe,

Nice to see that you are still interested and that you monitor this group.

For the benefit of new members I would like to humbly clarify (in my opinion) two statements that you made.

There was only one basic type of Joe cell and it is based on the principles as laid out by Joe.
It involves a variety of concentric cylinders/tubes, has the ability to hold a liquid, has the ability to be electrically stimulated and has a device for the extraction of the resulting concentrated subtle energy.

The Moe cell is your version of a cell and has nothing to do with Joe or his cell.
As such the term \”Moe-Joe-cell\” can mislead some people into thinking that it is a variation of Joe\’s design and they may thus expect the same results. It is not and they will not.>>>

the idea that the Moe-Joe cell has nothing to do with Joe or his cell is untrue.

It has everything to do with Joe and his cell and is simply a different design, which uses the very same principles with a different, and I would add, more efficient,
geometric shape. It was inspired by the Joe cell and I kept everything in this technology the same as in the Joe cell, except for the shape, precisely because I wanted it to be the same technology, keeping all factors in the technology except the shape the same. One may say that changes things, and of course it does, but to say it has nothing to with Joe or his cell is like saying shredded carrots in a salad have nothing to do with chopped carrots in a salad.

It uses non-magnetic non-corrosive stainless steel, same as in Joe\’s cell.
It uses 4 layers (but could be more) of steel plates that are created to be one inside of the other, as in Joe\’s cell.
It holds water, or any fluid, by sealing it with some form of silicon gel or goop, as in Joe\’s cell.
It has the ability to be electrically stimulated by the inner sphere having an insulated electrode bringing one of the polarity (also negative, as in the joe cell)
to the inner sphere, and the outer sphere being supplied with the +ve electricity, with two neutral plates as also seen in the Joe cell.
It also has a device for the extraction of resulting concentrated subtle energy.

you can see the slice and exploded view of the moe-joe cell here – http://www.moe-joe-cell.com

then Alex also wrote in reply to my previous post <<<<… … Much stronger field than the joe cell, in my, and others\' >>

i responded:
there are many fields involved in the Joe cell technology.
The joe cell creates a field of subtle torsion field of energy which is a result of water being charged in a special process involving plates within plates along with neutral plates as well. the field is also the result of electromagnetic fields being used, and not only that, but the resultant energies, which are not completely understood in the current scientific model, are also specially creating a third sort of field by the fact that the inner \”female\” or \”negative\” plate is surrounded by the outer \”male\” field or \”positive\” plate.
This surrounding of fields creates a neutral center that may be what is referred to as the zero point field. It may be scalar. It may be a torsion field.
Whatever it is, it is beyond the physical confinements of the steel that surrounds it. The steel can contain it about as much as steel can physically contain electromagnetic fields in the physical parameters of its size and shape. ie it cannot.

I have felt this \”field\” effect emanating from both the joe cells i have worked on and achieved, in your model, the 3rd stage, and also in the moe-joe cells.
(some of my old shots of the joe cell – http://www.david-house-productions.com/House-of-David/alternative_energy/joe_cell.html#Joe_Pics)

in the moe-joe cells, it is much more powerful. it is because the process that is applied by surrounding the inner diamagnetic materials (water or bismuth) by electro-magnetic fields is much greater in the moe-joe cell since it is almost a perfect sphere – whereas the joe cell has big gaping \”holes\” in the ends of the piping where the \’surrounding\’ effect is impossible.

in 2008, i was charging some moe-joe cells in South Florida and was visited by what Ren calls the whoop whoop choppers.
the field is big also with the moe-joe cell.

the presumption that this more powerful creation of this zero point field or whatever we shall call it means that the moe-joe cell is more leaky is totally absurd.
You cannot \’contain\’ this subtle energy. It can only be channeled or directed.

Moshe

[Moshe Daniel]

Alex then responded –

Hi Moshe,

It is indeed interesting how the meaning of words vary from person to person.
Let me try again to express what I attempted to say in the last post.

<… It has everything to do with Joe and his cell and is simply a

<… different design, which uses the very same principles with a
<… different, and I would add, more efficient, geometric shape.
Yes, as you state above, \"it is a different design\".
My point regarding this was to inform newcomers to the group that it is not a design put out by Joe, and as you say it is indeed a different design, as such the term `Moe-Joe-cell\' is misleading.

It is the same as if I named a motor the `Ford-Mazda-motor\'.
Sure, they are both designed to do the same task, but they belong to different sources (manufactures) and their operation is completely different if the Mazda motor is a rotary.

This group is a Joe cell group and we know that the Joe cell style design has run cars for various periods of time for various individuals, without fuel.
Now please correct me if I am wrong but to the best of my knowledge nobody has put up their hand and stated that the Moe Cell has run a car without fuel.

We only have limited information from Joe on how to achieve this feat and we will not get any closer to the truth by complicating the issue by introducing your cell under the same heading.
The Joe cell is the Joe cell and the Moe cell is the Moe cell, they are not the same even if you use the same base materials. A stove, refrigerator and washing machine use the same base materials but they are world apart in functionality.

You state that the Moe cell is \"more efficient\". Now as said if it has not run a car without fuel what do you claim the efficiency for? I would dearly love to learn what your cell is \"efficient\" for?

We both know that the spherical cell is indeed more `efficient\' than a Joe cell, but only if constructed and used correctly. I have told you and the group and even quoted the recommendations of the original spherical cell designers, you have chosen to ignore their advice and you have truly ended up with a cell of your own design, a Moe cell.
As said, I am very interested to hear where you get your \"more efficient\" than the Joe cell from, as we could indeed be wasting our time with the Joe cell.

<… … I kept everything in this technology the same as in the Joe

<… cell, except for the shape, precisely because I wanted it to be
<… the same technology,…
By technology I presume you mean the science of running a car on a cell and without the use of fuel?
Your cell is not the same technology as the Joe cell, it is quite different. I do not want to write twenty pages repeating the same information that I have in my manual and notes, if interested you can read them for yourself. The tuning of the spheres is completely different to the Joe cell, the accumulation is different, the vortex formation is different, the water flow is different, the collection is different the discharge is different, and on and on.
It short it is radically different to the Joe cell and to call it a Moe-Joe cell is a misuse of terms and could definitely mislead some people and thus my post.

For you interest I suggest that you go to http://www.orgone.org, then to orgone accumulators and then finally to thermal images paper.
There you will see the thermal gradients of the `shooter\' which is the same as the transfer tube effect on the Joe cell and that is not present (to the best of my knowledge) on the Moe cell.

<… . One may say that changes things, and of course it does,
I am glad that at least you can see the point of my correction for they are indeed different.

<… but to say it has nothing to with Joe or his cell is like saying
<… shredded carrots in a salad have nothing to do with chopped
<… carrots in a salad.
Forgive me but you still miss the point, the Joe cell is designed and tuned to run with water, the original spherical cell is designed and tuned to run without water. Only you know what your cell is tuned and designed to run on.
The important point is that the salad (the car running without fuel) has been proven to run on shredded carrots, for days actually, and there is no proof (to the best of my knowledge) that it can run on chopped ones, badly chopped at that.

<… … you can see the slice and exploded view of the moe-joe cell

<… here –
<… http://www.moe-joe-cell.com
Thank you, however as said the operational principles are completely different.

Again as said, if you can provide the proof that it is more efficient than a Joe cell for running a car without fuel then you really should tell the world about it so that we can stop wasting our time with the Joe cell.

<… … .there are many fields involved in the Joe cell technology.
Yes, I am sure that most people are aware of the many subtle field and their potential uses.
As you know this group is focused on running a car on the cell and thus we are interested in the fields that can achieve this.

<… This surrounding of fields creates a neutral center …. Whatever

<… it is, it is beyond the physical confinements of the steel that
<… surrounds it.
By your theory of cell operation the Joe cell could not have a field going out the transfer tube (the shooter) as there is nothing that could contain and concentrate the subtle field and surely the neutral center is the most difficult point to extract this energy from?

However the shooter works (as shown in the thermal images), the transfer tube also works on the Joe cell and the energy that a cell design can hold, concentrate and direct this field the better the cell.
In contrast you claim that your cell that has a large surrounding field (thus leakage) is superior for car work. I humbly disagree.

You seem to have missed the principle of centrifugal and centripetal vortexial rotation; Walter Russell is a good read on the subject. Needles to say this vortexial rotation is just about smothered in the design of the spherical cell due to the variation of rotational orbit diameters. However if you had duplicated the original spherical cell you will find that if works superbly using the very old principle of the super-formed nucleus. This enhanced stirring action (without water) has a greater effect on the subtle aetheric particles and does indeed greatly exceed the Joe cell design. However as you have decided to fill the Moe cell with water you are not experiencing this effect and I doubt very much your claim that your Moe cell is superior for car use, as compared to a conventional Joe cell.

<… … in the moe-joe cells, it is much more powerful. it is because

<… the process that is applied by surrounding the inner
<… diamagnetic materials (water or bismuth) by electro-magnetic
<… fields is much greater in the moe-joe cell since it is almost a
<… perfect sphere – whereas the joe cell has big gaping \"holes\" in
<… the ends of the piping where the \'surrounding\' effect is
<… impossible.
What is \"much more powerful\", how do you measure it and is it \"much more powerful\" for car use, as that is what this group is all about.
May I also humbly suggest that your theory of how the Joe cell works, i.e. \"gaping holes\", etc. is
a bit thin, for these \"holes\" and the rest of the Joe cell construction is precisely what we need for our vortexial action. Of course if the Joe cell was tapered it would work better still, just look at any vortexial tornado during a storm to get the full effect.

<… … the presumption that this more powerful creation of this zero

<… point field or whatever we shall call it means that the moe-joe
<… cell is more leaky is totally absurd.
Please read what I write, you said that your cell had a greater external field as compared to a Joe cell not me. I said tha a large surrounding field is indeed a sign of `leakage\' and not something that one should strive for, at least not in car work.

<… You cannot \'contain\' this subtle energy. It can only by channeled
<… or directed.
Exactly, we want to channel and direct the `field\' to do our bidding and not to go and be wasted in a large surrounding field around the cell.

Again as said and I will repeat;

Some of the functions of the Joe cell is to capture the surrounding subtle energy fields,
concentrate and store these fields and finally to direct this accumulation via a transfer tube
to the area of interest.

From the above it should be clear that we want to minimize the field around the cell and not the other way around, the less the field `leakage\' the better the cell.

As you can see from the above I have in no way stated that anybody or anything can fully contain the subtle energies, but that we can only concentrate and direct.

As you may know our skin is the container that allows us to partially retain our internal subtle fields as it is of benefit to sit on animal furs (tiger skin is very good) to prevent some of this leakage or `earthing\'.
Needles to say the wrapping of the Joe cell with organic material partially insulates the cell when used for car work and so prevent a little more of the leakage that you see as beneficial.

Kind regards,

Alex.

[Moshe Daniel]

Then I replied in turn –

Hi Alex,

As always, you are the master of words, quoting scientific sources, and politely dismissing that which you deem unworthy of cellery.

I appreciate your point of view, and I have to say that I still mostly do not agree…
I should not have used carrots in my metaphor, but cellery – prepared in a different form, as it is, in the end, still cellery.

I would say, at this point, that the moe-joe cell remains untested and unproven in terms of its ability to achieve fuel-less operation.

myself and others have had fuel mileage improvement so that IS a CAR operation, but as you have said, no one has yet achieved fuel-less operation with the moe-joe cell. Does that totally exclude it from the joe cell forum? or from cellery?
In all fairness, it would be necessary to have the secrets to do so before stating it is not an off-shoot of the joe cell, or that it has no potential to function within the same technology.

so Alex, why don\’t you share the secrets of fuel-less operation with me so that I can put it to the test?

I don\’t have Joe\’s knowledge of how to achieve fuel-less operation. In all truth, the best test of this would be to have Joe try out a moe-joe cell or someone who is capable of achieving consistent fuel-less operation.
despite all of your eloquence and polite and lofty dismissal of the moe-joe cell, you seem to have some sort of antipathy
towards it which to me does not seem to add up on a strictly scientific basis.

I think it is really splitting hairs to insist on not calling it a moe-joe cell when I am clearly not only calling it a JOE cell.
is this not a discussion group for this technology?
Are we so successful and consistent as to be in a position to cast out of the group attempts at improving the design?
you will say that this is strictly a joe cell group and the moe-joe cell doesn\’t belong. I didn\’t really come back here to discuss the moe-joe cell.
i was asked by a few members that i have known well in the past through this group about how the moe-joe cell is doing.
in chimes Alex, dismissing the moe-joe cell as having nothing to do with the joe cell.

If there was consistent success with the joe cell, then that is fine. but what if its present design is flawed, and that is why people have inconsistent results with it?
or that it can be improved?

I said more efficient based on my experience with how the joe cell and the moe-joe cell feel energetically to be around. I did not mean in terms of running cars in a fuel-less fashion. that remains untested.
so on that, you are most correct indeed.
I can only go with what I have been able to experience with the joe cell. getting to stage 3 with the moe-joe cell was easier for me than the joe cell.
People who have charged the cell have noted the difference too. It can also hold a big residual voltage.
I have results here from one experimenter in Quebec, Canada – (note jour is french for day)
http://www.moe-joe-working.com/Moe-Joe-Cell/moe_joe_cell_testimonies.html#Residual

also, the moe-joe cell is smaller and can fit in tighter spots in the engine compartment. that surely is an improvement, albeit a small one? 😉
it is very easy to assemble, and I have attempted to demonstrate that a full kit can be purchased with all necessary spacers for less (time and money) than the joe cell.

you yourself, despite all your knowledge and terminology, are still splashing around in the same pool as you were years ago, is that not so?
you speak as an expert who has equally not achieved consistent fuel-less operation. So what are you really trying to defend here, on this group?
A status quo of continual failure?
An expertise of mediocrity?

this whole field is shrouded in mystery, lies, deception, withholding information.
those who have achieved some success, as short lived as it was, with the joe cell, like Bill Williams and Ren from Down Under, were threatened.

We have to be more inclusive, more experimental and less dismissive.

And when I say WE, I mean humanity.

sincerely,
Moshe

[Moshe Daniel]

this discussion between Alex and I is really continued here –
http://www.nutopia.cc/forum/moe-joe-cell/66-about-moe-joe-cell-for-healing-and-consciousness#68

And led to some interesting continuing revelation about the joe cell and the moe-joe cell.