Experimenter's guide to the Joe cell/capitolo dodicesimo



Experimenter's guide to the Joe cell

Libro originale in INGLESE | Libro in Italiano (PDF, 5MB, 91Pagg) | (ODT 0.2MB)
Prefazione · 00. Introduttorio 01. Capitolo primo · 02. Capito secondo · 03. Capito terzo · 04. Capito quarto
05. Capito quinto · 06. Capito sesto · 07. Capito settimo · 08. Capito ottavo · 09. Capito nono
10. Capito decimo · 11. Capito undicesimo · 12. Capito dodicesimo · Glossario · Bibliografia ·

Il Gruppo di lavoro ORIGINALE sulla cella di JOE, fondato nel 2001 dove trovare altri sperimentatori.

Capitolo 12 Contributi dei lettori

“the love that you hold back is the pain that you carry” READER'S CONTRIBUTIONS


From Joe via Brett: " The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. " Ecclesiastes 10:2 (TLB)


Joe has said that everyone has his or her own "polarization" (Y Factor). Some of these polarizations are:

  • North Pole - forward (good for getting cells working)
  • South Pole - reversed (good for getting cells working)
  • North Pole - reversed (not good for getting cells working)
  • South Pole - forward (not good for getting cells working)

Now you may be getting concerned that you are one of the "polarizations" that are "not good for getting cells working", and therefore will be or have been unable to get your Joe Cell to go beyond stage 1. The purpose of this chapter is to describe one process of how to temporally resolve this "polarization" situation.

Overview and Equipment

This process is similar to showering, bathing or sleeping - only in that it is not permanent! Therefore as often as you need to work on your Joe Cell to get it beyond Stage 1, you may need to follow this process. There is minimal equipment required, only the following: 1 x compass or analogue watch/clock 1 x 12 V battery, fully charged with clean terminals 1 x chair (non magnetic) 1 x four sided table (non magnetic)


As with working with the Joe Cell, ensure that you hands are clean. The steps for this simple process are:

  • Step 1 Use the compass or watch to determine the direction of North.
  • Step 2 Align the sides of the table to each of the cardinal compass directions.
  • Step 3 Place the chair on the North side of the table so that when you are sitting in it you are looking South over the table.
  • Step 4 Place the battery on the table with the + (positive) terminal to the West and the - (negative) terminal to the East.
  • Step 5 Sit in the chair facing the table.
  • Step 6 Lick your Thumb, Index and Middle fingers of your right hand.
  • Step 7 With your right hand reach across your body and using the digits moistened with your saliva grip the - (negative) terminal.
  • Step 8 Keep your left arm in your lap or by your left side and wait in that position for 30 seconds.
  • Step 9 Lick your Thumb, Index and Middle fingers of your left hand.
  • Step 10 With your left hand reach across your body under your right arm, without touching it or your clothes and using the digits moistened with your saliva grip the + (positive) terminal.
  • Step 11 If you feel any "buzzing" in your fingers or thumbs, then with one digit at a time, break contact with the terminal (ie lift it off but leave the rest in contact) and circle/move/rotate it in an anticlockwise direction seven times, then put it back on the terminal. Repeat this process as many times as necessary for each digit until you feel no "buzzing".
  • Step 12 Once all "buzzing" has been eliminated then maintain your grip for at least five minutes, but no more than seven minutes. Ensure that you keep an air gap between your arms during the whole time.
  • Step 13 Release your grip of the + (positive) terminal and move your left hand back across your body under your right arm, without touching it or your clothes to the position it was in at Step 8.
  • Step 14 Release your grip of the - (negative) terminal and move your right hand back across your body.

Your should now be temporally "polarized" in a form that is "good for getting cells working" and be ready to work on getting your Joe Cell beyond stage 1.

From Bruce:

The following is a report from Bruce, an avid and long standing experimenter from Adelaide ( Aust. ). Bruce has spent years researching Orgone and the Joe cell. I thank you Bruce for sharing with us your many experiments. RESULTS USING SMALL CONES AND DE-IONISED WATER ( April 1997 ) The following experiments were done using small cones, de-ionised water in a glass container and a D.C. power supply capable of 48 Volts at 20 Amps.


  • Test 1: Monday 28/04/97. De-ionised water with no additives - Current = 0.5 A, very few bubbles, no precipitation.
  • Test 2: Monday 28/04/97.(10.00 AM) Added 2 teaspoons full of Vita Health powder containing Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium and Sodium salts. Current began at 2.5A and slowly rose to 3 A with more bubbles than Test 1 but all hydrogen (yellow flame, etc)
  • Test 3: Monday 28/04/97.(16.15 PM) Bubbles had remained on cones from the morning's experiment. Turned power on and current = 4 A with lots of hydrogen bubbles. Water became warm after 15 mins. and white deposits were floating on top.


  • Test 1: Tuesday 29/04/97. Began with fresh water and added 2 teaspoons of Epsom Salts (magnesium sulphate) Current began at 11 A and climbed to 16 A. Turned off and diluted mixture by half.
  • Test 2: Wednesday 30/04/97. Current draw began at 8A on switch on, then climbed to 13 A. Producing lots of gas - very large bubbles on the surface (lots of surface tension) and lots of very fine bubbles in the water itself. Very little deposits floating on the water with what was there being white in colour. Both explosive and implosive gas when lit.
  • Test 3: Thursday 01/05/97. Left 24 hours and turned on again. Drew 10 A current and produced both implosive and explosive gasses. Lots of brown gunk floating on the surface. (scooped off)
  • Test 4: Friday 02/05/97. Turned on and current draw was 7 A which then rose to 11.5 A. Mainly implosive gas with lots of brown gunk floating on the surface. (scooped off)


  • Test 1: Friday 02/05/97. Started with fresh water and added 0.25 teaspoon of caustic soda. (potassium hydroxide) Current was 13 A with pure white bubbles with lots of clumping together (high surface tension) on the surface, a vapour appearing above that and lots of very small bubbles causing the water to look white about in the top half of the glass container. When lit, bubbles were definitely hydrogen. Deposits on top of the water were mainly white with a faint tinge of brown. There was not enough to warrant scraping off.
  • Test 2: Friday 02/05/97. Diluted mixture by half, current now 8 A, still producing lots of hydrogen gas. Very loud when lit. Deposits on top of the water were mainly white with a faint tinge of brown, but still not enough to warrant scraping off.
  • Test 3: Saturday 03/05/97. Current had dropped slightly to 6 A with gas exploding very loud, much louder than the previous day. Bubbles were very white with a small amount of white deposits floating on the water.
  • Test 4: Sunday 04/05/97. Current had dropped again to 5.5 A with the gas definitely hydrogen when lit producing a very loud explosion but with yellow flame. Reversed the polarity on the cones and immediately there was a great mass of bubbles which collected together in a clump. (lots of surface tension) Put the supply back the right way and the clumping effect remained. When lit, gas was definitely implosive. No visible flame, water splashed out of the container and my ears were ringing. No deposits on water.
  • Test 5: Tuesday 06/05/97. Current now down to 4 A but still lots of bubbles. Very loud when lit but back to hydrogen. Did the reverse polarity and back again trick and gas became implosive again. No deposits on water.
  • Test 6: Wednesday 07/05/97. Current stabilised at 4 A. Gas when lit extra loud, first hydrogen and then implosive without any power supply fiddling. No deposits on water.
  • Test 7: Thursday 08/05/97. Current still at 4 A with very loud implosive gas straight off. Bubbles appear really white. No deposits on water.
  • Test 8: Friday 09/05/97. Same as Test 6.


From what we have been told by Joe, the things to look for in charging the water are: Bubbles that have lots of surface tension so that they gather together in clumps around the centre tube Bubbles that are implosive (no yellow flame and very loud) Bubbles that are very white Bubbles remain on the surface of the cones after the unit is switched off Magnetism evident around the keg Lots of gunk coming to the surface while the unit is running Water rotates anti-clockwise when charged The KAL 5 VITA HEALTH powder was the least productive of the materials tested, I think not worth pursuing. The MAGNESIUM SULPHATE was the only material which enabled the bubbles to remain on the cones after the unit was switched off, however the gas coming off was no where near as explosive/implosive as the POTASSIUM HYDROXIDE. The KOH gave very little deposits on the water's surface but it did give extremely powerful "bangs" when lit. It was interesting to note a lot of action occurring under the surface with lots of small bubbles which travelled down from the surface, mixed with bubbles coming up from the bottom and went back up to the surface. This sort of effect was also mentioned by Joe. The other interesting observation was that the current reduced from 8A down to 4A even though no material was removed from the container. MARK 1 JOE CELL TESTS ( JUNE 1997 ) First test done with a perspex outer tube instead of the 4" stainless steel one. Charged water (as good as we can charge it) was put in the cell on the car and the current was found to be 165mA. Test drive to Goolwa gave fuel economy of 58MPG, while the return trip to home averaged 52MPG. The next day cracks were found in the perspex and the unit was drawing air so I removed it. The fuel economy stayed at over 50MPG for the next two days (lots of city driving) and then returned to "normal" for winter running of 46MPG. The unit was then repaired and reinstalled but a backfire destroyed it before any more tests were undertaken. I then rebuilt the unit with a stainless steel outer tube (4 inch) as per the Mark 1 drawing, and reinstalled it in the car. This time I could not get the water in the keg set-up to "charge" properly and was not happy with it. However I still put it in the car and found the current to be 50mA this time. This was accounted for by the fact that I was now using the outer tube as the positive and so this meant there was an additional neutral plate inside the unit. I could not get any effect at all on the running of the vehicle with this set-up. On removing the water from the unit after three weeks, it was full of brown deposits, similar to what you get on top of the water during the keg treatment. I washed the unit out and refilled it with de-ionised water with caustic soda added to it until a current of 5A at 12V was obtained. I refitted the unit to the car and started it. The vacuum gauge on the unit followed the manifold vacuum for about one minute and then went to zero, indicating a positive pressure in the cell. The engine began to run on three cylinders and copious quantities of steam began coming out of the exhaust. Thinking that I had overfilled the container, I syphoned the liquid off until it was about two thirds of the height of the container. I repeated the test with the same results. I drove to Tailem Bend and back to Murray Bridge where I attempted to demonstrate this effect to Roger. However, this time there was no pressure evident by the vacuum gauge reading and the car kept running, although it sounded like it was running rich as if the choke was out. After a couple of minutes the engine went back onto three cylinders and during this whole process there was lots of steam out the exhaust. The next day I rechecked the water level (not a lot of change) and tested the current. To my surprise the current had increased to 10A. I topped up the water so it covered the tubes in the cell and rechecked the current draw which was now 12A. I installed a tap in the delivery line and retested the unit. If pressure is allowed to build up in the unit and the tap cracked open slowly, the engine revs will increase for 15 seconds or so and then die back to normal. If the tap is opened any more, the engine begins to run rough and steam comes out the exhaust. From what Joe has said on all this, and which these experiments seem to verify, is that as soon as anything is added to the water, you have electrolysis and thus it does not produce enough gas to run a vehicle. I am not sure why there is the excess of steam out of the exhaust when the tap is wide open. If there was an air leak in the cell, this could cause excess water to be drawn into the engine, however I can build up gas pressure in the cell by having the delivery tap off and the pressure remains constant on the gauge, indicating that the cell does have an airtight seal.. I have now removed this unit off the car - end of MARK 1 tests! JOE CELL TESTS The following is a summary of unusual effects that I obtained from a very early design Joe Cell. I reported these effects at the February ASTRO meeting but decided to submit this article to the newsletter for those who were not at the meeting. The cell was first built in 1993 using 2", 2.5",3"& 3.5" tubes, made from flat 316 stainless and rolled into tubes. These were then tack welded at three points. The only alteration from the original design is that a small SS cone was fitted above the tubes to direct the energy into the 0.5" aluminium delivery pipe on top of the unit. SUNDAY 31/01/99: The unit was filled with water charged by P & U and fitted to the car in the passenger compartment. The aluminium delivery pipe goes through the firewall and connects to the manifold initially via a brass fitting. The fitting was "blind" so no actual vacuum was present on the cell. THURSDAY 4/02/99: There was no effect so I changed the brass fitting and made an aluminium one. I also drilled this out so that manifold vacuum was present on the cell this time. On starting the car it ran slightly rough as excess water was sucked out of the cell and into the engine, then it ran smoothly. I drove approximately 0.5 Km when the engine revs would not come down below 2000. I drove back to the garage and switched the engine off when it "ran on", momentarily stopped and then ran in reverse up to about 2000 revs while I stood and watched it. It only ran for about 5 seconds and stopped. I switched it on again and once again the revs would not go below 2000. This time when I turned off the ignition, it stopped OK. I rechecked the work I had done and made sure there were no air leaks into the manifold which could be giving me this effect. I found nothing, reassembled everything and started the engine again. Once again, 2000 revs. I disconnected the aluminium delivery tube from the manifold and plugged the rubber hose from the manifold but the engine still would not run under 2000. Having made an appointment with an accountant and booked the car in for a wheel alignment, I now began to get into panic mode. I then physically removed the cell from the car, started the engine and the found the revs had dropped to just over 1000. By screwing in the idle mixture adjustment screw I could get it to idle at about 800. The idle revs seem to be a bit variable and continually ranged from 600 to 1000 and back again. The cell was off for two days as I needed the car reliable but I found that the effects stayed (e.g. Idle speed varying) I found I could disconnect the anti-dieseling solenoid and the engine would still idle, although at lower revs (about 500) and roughly. (normally this instantly kills the engine) SATURDAY 6/02/99: I reinstalled the cell and connected it up the same as before but did not find any difference. I have played with the timing at various times during testing and found that on petrol I can go in excess of 50 degrees advance with no appreciable difference in engine running. I normally run 7 degrees advance for best performance/economy but can experience pinging problems. The timing was set at 10 degrees advance since the cell was originally fitted and I could almost stall the car in third gear, put my foot down and the engine would pull with no pinging. I did one test where I drove the car with 20 degrees advance and it ran OK, no pinging, just a slight dead spot at low revs. SUNDAY 7/02/99: It appeared that the cell had died and that the car although behaving similarly to the previous day was losing the effects of the cell. The engine now stalled when the anti-dieseling solenoid was disconnected but would still run at 10 degrees advance with no pinging. I also found that during the day I had to make the idle mixture slightly richer to obtain a smooth idle. One thing I had noticed (since Thursday) was that the engine was extremely hard to start when left overnight. It acted as if flooded and would only start by leaving the accelerator pedal flat while cranking over. Once started however, the engine idled smoothly straight away and would start at the first flick of the key for the rest of the day. MONDAY 8/02/99: The car was once again difficult to start first off, but then idled smoothly straight away once again. I disconnected the cell and plugged the rubber hose from the manifold and the engine appears to be almost back to normal with a smooth idle of 800. TUESDAY 9/02/99: Car totally back to normal, started OK this morning, ran normally and engine stops immediately when anti-dieseling solenoid is deactivated. I removed the cell from the car and applied 24 volts to it from two car batteries in series. There was some bubbling but nothing appeared out of the top of the unit. I emptied the water into a glass bottle and the water was quite brown. This settled to the bottom of the bottle during the day. I washed the cell out with normal rain water, emptied it and filled it with more charged water from the original batch. I then applied 24 volts to the cell and immediately water and bubbles flowed out the top and over the edge of the cell. I lit these (hydrogen) and then masses of pure white bubbles came out which I lit. (very loud implosive - good stuff!) I then turned off the power and reinstalled the unit in the car. This all occurred within 1-2 minutes as I did not want to gunk up the cell by leaving the power on too long. I decided to repeat the circumstances of the original test i.e. no vacuum to the cell initially, so I machined up an aluminium plug which I then fitted into the aluminium fitting on the manifold. (This plug is a tight fit in the hose) I started the car and drove it for about 5Km. All appeared normal at this stage. The cell is still fitted to the car at this time (9th March) but there has not been any further effects. I have also not had the time to make any adjustments or changes. In conclusion, the most interesting aspect of this event was that the engine revs did not reduce until the cell was physically removed from the vehicle and the effects as described above reduced over a few days. It is my opinion that this demonstrates proof that we are dealing with an energy, not a gas or some chemical reaction as some believe. What is this energy? My bet is that it is orgone, but who knows for sure until someone comes up with a repeatable working unit that can be tested. JOE CELL UPDATE ( May 10th 1999 ) Since my last report, the cell has been sitting in the car connected by the aluminium pipe and rubber hose to the manifold. The hose has an aluminium plug fitted to it so that there is no actual vacuum present on the cell. During this period, the car has been acting rather strangely in that the fuel mixture runs rich for several days at a time, increasing the idle revs to about 1,000rpm and necessitating a carburettor adjustment to lean it off again. During this "rich" period I also noticed a drop in engine water temperature. After a few days, the reverse happens and the car begins to stall every time the vehicle tries to idle. Readjusting the mixture once again brings the engine back to normal running. These effects led me to believe that the cell was actually cutting in and out although at a reduced effect than I had experienced before. Overall I have been unable to get the car to run "normally" since the cell caused it to run at 2000 revs several months ago. Also fuel economy has worsened to about 40mpg. After reading some of the Internet newsgroups and hearing about some experiments in Melbourne, I decided to try placing a circular magnet under the cell. Andrew happened to ring me up on an unrelated matter while I was contemplating this so we discussed the idea and he offered me some suggestions. These were North pole facing upwards towards the cell, trying brass or gyprock (diamagnetic) between the magnet and cell and surrounding the cell with gyprock to eliminate the effects of outside fields. Initially I took the cell out of the car and fed 24Volts into it. Immediately there were masses of the small white bubbles that we have come to know flowing over the top of the cell and down the side. When lit there were extremely potent implosions with one attempt ending in water shooting out of the exit tube and hitting the roof of the shed. I then experimented with the magnet and other compounds as mentioned above but did not notice any difference at all. I then fitted the unit back in the car and left the circular magnet under the cell just to see if anything would happen. After two weeks……..nothing happened at all! After two weeks and one day, the engine began running roughly (in the Barossa Valley at the time) and by the time we arrived home, it was running VERY roughly. After investigation, I found a head gasket with a piece missing between cylinders 2 and 3. The engine machinist who faced the head commented that this occurrence is usually caused by the engine pinging over a period of time. I have experienced some pinging in the engine but nothing severe enough to cause this. Then I remembered that the car has not run properly since the 2000 rpm episode, during which time I experimented with some rather radical timing changes (up to 20 degrees advance) in an effort to get the engine to run on the cell itself with no petrol. I am now assuming that as the engine has not been running correctly since then that this may have been when the damage started, having now slowly progressed to a burnout of the gasket. As I am working in Adelaide at the moment and I need the vehicle to be reliable to travel the 450Kms per week, I have decided to suspend any further testing with the cell on the car for a while. THE JOE CELL SAGA CONTINUES ( September 1999 ) Wednesday 1/9/99: I fitted a cell given to me to try on my car. This cell is different to any others I have tried before in that the centre electrode (negative) is made of a 2 inch carbon rod while the outer stainless steel tube (positive) is 4 inches in diameter. There are no neutral tubes in this cell and the whole thing sits inside a container of plastic sewer pipe. The bottom is flat and the top cone is made of aluminium. This cell was given to me charged with water. Monday 6/9/99: Nothing much happened until today when I began the daily 100km round trip associated with getting to work and back. After long down hill runs, on hitting the accelerator, large quantities of oil smoke belched from the exhaust. Also when the engine was restarted after stopping somewhere, the same thing occurred. This is very symptomatic of worn valve stem oil seals of which the engine was suffering to a minor degree, but the problem was now tenfold! Tuesday 7/9/99: This smoky situation continued today and was getting worse to the point where sitting at traffic lights idling, I was disappearing in a smoke screen. Definitely defectable material. Wednesday 8/9/99: When I arrived home I removed the cell, and discharged the engine of any residual charge by sparking the positive battery volts on to the block with a piece of wire. (I did this discharge process as from previous experience I have found that any effects from the cell seem to last about three days) Thursday 9/9/99: The car was back to normal with almost no smoke again. Monday 27/9/99: Even though the cell had not been in the car for 19 days, the engine began to smoke again. Tuesday 28/9/99: I left it until the Tuesday night, by which time it was really bad, then discharged the block again. Once again the next morning, no smoke. It appears that the charge had slowly built up again in the engine, even though the cell had not been near it. This effect is a bit like shorting out a large capacitor which will over time slowly regain some of it's former charge. My next step is to replace the valve stem oil seals and fit the cell again to see whether there is smoke or no smoke! If there is no smoke then it would appear that if the engine has an oil sealing "weakness" then it could be amplified by the cell. If it still smokes then this would agree with Joe's 1993 reckoning that a plastic outer container on a cell "will cause the motor to pollute".

    • The next contributions from Bruce are slightly off topic , but are relevant as a charging method for the water of a Joe cell...**


The following is a brief description of an orgone accumulator that was built by lots of other people and myself as a combined project back in 1991. Firstly for those who have not heard of orgone, it is the energy that gives pyramids their interesting properties of keeping food fresh and sharpening razor blades, etc. There is a lot of information in books by Wilhelm Reich and others on orgone, so go search your library if you want more information. The basic design of the accumulator that we built came from a book called "The Awesome Life Force" by Joseph Cater. This unit consisted of 6mm plastic sheet cut to size to make a box of the following dimensions: 300mm X 300mm X 450mm. The four sides and the bottom were glued together and the top was left separate so that it was removable. The box was then covered with 40 layers of kitchen type aluminium foil, alternately with 40 layers of newspaper. (Two thicknesses of newspaper were used for each layer) If you are planning to build one of these, we found the easiest way of making the layers was to cut the six sets (top, bottom and four sides) of paper and aluminium, glue them together in their sets and then glue them to the plastic box. The whole device was then wrapped up with packaging tape to give it a bit of protection, with the lid being wrapped up separately. The fact that the layers on each face of the box was not continuous did not seem to affect the operation of the accumulator. Four experiments were tried in the box, which were carried out during summer (temperature was in the 30's):

  • 1. An open glass of milk was placed in the box with a control glass placed in a normal cardboard box next to the accumulator.
  • 2. A sealed jar of milk was placed in the box.
  • 3. A stainless steel knife was placed in a jar of water in the box.
  • 4. Temperature readings were taken inside and outside the box.

The results were as follows:

  • 1. The milk inside the box was still normal (liquid, smelled fresh) after seven days (end of test), while the control sample was spoiled (lumpy and rancid) after one day.
  • 2. The sealed jar turned into yoghurt. (normal yoghurt consistency and smelled fresh)
  • 3. The stainless steel knife became slightly magnetic and a piece of steel was attracted to it when held close to the knife. The effect was very slight and only lasted about five minutes after removal from the jar of water in the box.
  • 4. There was no appreciable difference in temperature that we could measure inside or outside the box.

None of the test samples were tasted due to concerns of DOR (Deadly Orgone Radiation), and it has been suggested that for foodstuffs, copper foil should be used and not aluminium for this reason. It was also suggested that an internal combustion engine could be run on this energy by passing the air through this accumulator before it went into the engine. We did have an attempt at this but did not have any success. However I feel that this could have worked if the box had been left on the engine for a longer period of time and if we had played around with the engine timing. Maybe we will get back to it one day?


Having taken an interest in the effects of magnets and vortexes etc. on water, I decided last summer to take a different approach to a common problem of blocked drippers in a watering system that we have on our fruit trees. The water initially comes from two dams that we have on our property. This water is pumped up to a header dam and is gravity fed via a common pipe to a point where it is split into two feeds, one for each orchard. Having done some previous experiments with orgone generators, I decided to make one and put it on one of the above water feeds so that one half of the orchard was watered with this water and the other half had no treatment. The only constant in the process was that I did know that in previous summers the number of blockages in the drippers was pretty much the same in both orchards. The orgone generator was constructed from 40 layers of aluminium foil, separated by 40 layers of newspaper wound around the 42mm polypipe. Some people have expressed concerns that for anything food related, copper should be used and not aluminium, however as it was only a short term arrangement and the water was not being directly ingested, I decided to give it a go. As far as I can tell there has not been any harmful side effects from this experiment. Now, for the results! Over the tested watering period, there were 14 hours of watering. The first two hours showed a reduction of 50% of blockages but during the third hour the number of blockages rose to equal those that had occurred in the unaltered half of the system. From then on the number of blockages dropped dramatically, (does this scenario sound familiar?) with the final result showing a 52% less blockage rate for the orgone treated side. This test was done over a short time frame and with a small number of drippers (78) so the results have to be taken with that in mind, however the results for me were quite significant, giving me a lot less work to do. The other interesting aspect of this experiment was that I did several diggings in similar soil types after watering and found that in each case the water in the treated side had soaked to approximately twice the depth of the water in the untreated side. These results are similar to reports I have read of the effects of placing magnets around waterpipes, both in the reduction of dripper blockages and the effect of soaking into the ground quicker. How the two methods tie in together I am not sure, but it is interesting!