The Freedom of Knowledge, The Power of Thought ©
Letters to The Editor

David Sadler Has Some Questions on the Joe Cell
June 17, 2006

Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:16:56 -0700 [11:16:56 AM PDT]
To: Editor <E-mail>
Subject: Joe Cell

Dear Mr. Adachi:

My name is David Sadler. I'm a web author writing an article on the Joe Cell (JC). I came across your pages regarding the JC. You appeal strongly to open minds and argue strenuously that the JC will power automobile engines without a fuel assist. My colleague, Dave Powelson, is Cc: to this mail.

Please ref your article and its appended pages...
The Joe Energy Cell
By Ken Adachi ( (Copyright 1998-2005 Educate-Yourself and Ken Adachi. All rights reserved)

I have an open mind. I am willing to consider the possibility that these claims might be true. But I am not naïve. I need demonstrable proof by demonstration that these claims are true. In that regard, I have a few questions. Your answers are on the record and may be included in the article on the JC that is under research.

Joe Cell technology has been around now since the mid 1990s. Hundreds, if not thousands, of Joe Cells have been built and tested.

QUESTION 1a: Do you know of anyone, anywhere in the world who at this very moment has an automobile running exclusively on the fuel provided by a Joe Cell?

QUESTION 1b: Can you please supply their name and ask them to contact me?

QUESTION 2: Can you provide the email address for the UK engineer named Mike who wrote the letter urging caution due to potential explosive hazard? His letter and your response are here...

QUESTION 3: To your knowledge, has anyone, anywhere been injured from explosion while working on or using the Joe Cell?

QUESTION 4: Some speculate that close proximity to zero point energy devices is harmful to the human body. To your knowledge, is there any indication of a common deleterious effect amongst Joe Cell experimenters?

Thank you for your time.


David Sadler


Dear David,

If you want to be a politician, you need to learn how to approach people with a less demanding and haughty demeanor, otherwise, you're going to come up empty handed, as apparently was the case in 2002.

It's swell of you to notify me that my answers will be "on the record" and that I "may be included" in your article on the Joe Cell, a story which I broke in America EIGHT years ago, but somehow I don't feel the "need" to submit to your arrogant interrogation as much as you feel the "need" to have me provide you with "demonstrable proof".

Have a wonderful day.

Sincerely, Ken Adachi


Subject: RE: Joe Cell
From: "David Sadler" <>
Date: Mon, June 19, 2006 3:46 pm
To: "joe cell - Ken Adachi" <>
Cc: "Dave Powelson - default" <>

Dear Mr. Adachi,

Thank you for posting my questions to you on your site. You posted this email and your reply here...

David Sadler Has Some Questions on the Joe Cell

I notice you did not post my follow-up to your reply so I will when I post the Joe Cell article which is currently under research and construction.

Peter Stevens Joe Cell Claim Validation Update: As of today, 2006.06.19, Peter Stevens has yet to be able to prove his Joe Cell claims for the New
Energy Congress validation team currently on-site in Australia.

Good luck in your search for the 'truth.'


David Sadler

-----Original Message-----
From: David Sadler []
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 8:37 AM
To: <>

Dear Mr. Adachi,

Being called a politician is an insult and demonstrates a lack of understanding about the urgent need to reform our governments. This misunderstanding is shared by the majority of people, so your assumption in this regard is not uncommon.

I notified you that your answers would be on the record to be honest and fair to you. You find this 'haughty', 'arrogant' and 'demanding.'

I appreciate the fact that you 'broke' the story of the Joe Cell 'eight years ago,' in America no less. Of course, now with the Internet, stories are global. So my article on the Joe Cell will break globally.

The eight year time frame is all the more reason to be able to ask politely to be shown a working Joe Cell meeting the famous claims you include in your articles of so long ago. One would think that there would be millions of these devices around now, powering our cars. Where are they?

The most striking comparison is between your claims of eight years ago and the reality of today regarding the Joe Cell evangelists. I’m sure you are aware of Peter Stevens in OZ who has failed to demonstrate even one working Joe Cell at the same time that he is conference-calling the Joe Cell group in the Netherlands repeating for them these famous but fictitious claims. Now he must run off to Perth to a Joe Cell group to help them get their Joe Cells working.

Here is a prediction made in good faith and based upon the knowledge I have recently acquired of Joe Cells and the Joe Cell community of evangelists. Peter Stevens will fail in his Perth expedition to make even one Joe Cell work to the degree that it meets its famous claims. Furthermore, Peter Stevens will fail to get his own Joe Cell working that is under the scrutiny of the New Energy Congress field representatives at this very moment. Since you are so intimately involved in the Joe Cell subject, I will not presume you do not know of this validation attempt.

I was very taken with your rabid attack towards Mike, the UK engineer, who was concerned about the safety of persons experimenting with the Joe Cell who are producing perhaps large quantities of hydrogen, not understanding the explosive hazards involved. Your response to Mike and to me for asking very simple questions in a polite and honest manner demonstrate to a very negative attitude that I have witnessed among other Joe Cell evangelists.

I know that you know that the root of this negative attitude is the fact that no Joe Cell can be shown to meet its famous claims after over a decade of being in the public eye.

There are other, more important things to say about the state of ZPE, so I don't expect to spend much more time on the Joe Cell and its community of evangelists and marketers. One or two articles will suffice, but the attitude you have just expressed has been seen before when asking Joe Cell advocates simple questions in an honest and polite manner. That attitude is in greater supply in the Joe Cell community than Orgone, don't you think?


David Sadler


Subject: Re: Joe Cell: Ken Adachi
From: Ken Adachi <>
Date: Tue, July 4, 2006

Hello David,

I didn't respond to you earlier because I just got to read your e-mails today, July 3, 2006. About a month ago, I had to change over to a new, hidden e-mail address due to excessive spam filling up my alloted disc space at my server under the address. I don't have time to read e-mail everyday, but when I do get a chance, I have lately concentrated on mail that was coming in from the new hidden address as well as my secondary e-mail address that remains posted ( I was spending some time this morning deleting spam from the Editor address when I came across your reply. If you wish to reply in the future, it's better to send your e-mail to I'll spot it there sooner.

OK, let's review your comments.

1. (A) "Politician": A search of your web site's archive from 2002 revealed that you were running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives,

12th Congressional District Illinois (
David Sadler For Congress2002. (copied from your web page in September 2002)

Since you had already established your aspirations to be a politician in 2002, what is so derogatory about me saying " If you want to be a politician..."? If you find being called a politician an "insult", why on earth did you run for political office?

(B) What does the "urgent need to reform our governments" have to do with the subject matter we are talking about?

(C) You said: "This misunderstanding is shared by the majority of people," What misunderstanding are you referring to?

2. Your "on the record" remark is only part of your arrogance; it's hardly the sum of it. The tone of your questions, your choice of words, etc. all worked in concert to reveal a man who wanted ANSWERS and wanted them NOW! Thus, my apt allusion to your "demanding and haughty" posture. Judging from the tone of your questions, you would think that you saw yourself as the chair of a House Committee on Zero Point Energy and I was your subpoenaed witness, sitting there sweating bullets under your intense interrogation. It's an understatement to call you pretentious -and I'm being polite. .

3. Yes, I played an early role in breaking the Joe Cell story over the internet for North American readers and those readers in Europe, Asia, and South Africa who were able to find my web site, as my web site was only allowed to be listed with U.S. search engines. That's not to say that I take credit for being the first person to write about the Joe Cell, hardly, but the story was largely confined to Australian readers and those who were involved with the Australian SciAstro bulletin board (at the time). As far as your prediction that  your story on the Joe Cell "will break globally", I can only reply with those famous words of Ronnie Reagan, "There you go again!"

.4. Yes, your e-mail was civil and polite, but it was much more than that. You were "polite" in the way that a Los Angeles cop is "polite" by calling you "sir" while he smashes your head against the hood and slaps the cuffs on you and tells you to 'stop resisting arrest' after you had the audacity to ask him what probable cause he had for pulling you over when you were doing nothing illegal. You see that sort of "politeness" on the TV show "Cops" all the time. So yes, you were "polite" but you were also highly skeptical and DEMANDING, and that's the part that annoyed me the most. You spoke to me as if I was required to answer your questions, something akin to a prosecutor grilling a witness on the stand, and brother, that kind of 'questioning' doesn't fly with me. I'm not going to waste my time trying to satisfy a skeptic such as yourself. I couldn't care less whether you are convinced of the Joe Cell or not. Your arrogance is what did you in. Had you approached me with greater humility and a genuine interest in learning how this cell works, then I would have been far more accommodating.

People who think inside the box-as you do-are a dime a dozen. Skeptics accomplish nothing of merit in discovering new truths. Quite the opposite, they always function as OBSTACLES and barriers to the public's understanding of new discoveries. Anyone who can read the English language can plainly see the skepticism and arrogance in your first e-mail, and CERTAINLY in your second e-mail.

It's clear from your second e-mail that your intention is to write an article DEBUNKING the Joe Cell, and not expound on it. I was not aware of Peter Stevens of OZ until you mentioned his name. I've been rather preoccupied with other matters beyond free energy research in the past few years. What Peter Stevens can or cannot demonstrate with the Joe Cell is immaterial to what Joe "X" himself demonstrated on the 5 + hours of video tape that I allude to in my article. Have you ever watched and studied the original Joe Cell videos? No? How about the Barry Hilton and Alex Schiffer books on the Joe Cell? No? How about the articles in Nexus magazine? No again?

Sterling Allan published an article recently (linked on my Current News page) about Bill Williams, a successful Joe Cell builder, who was threatened by thugs on two occasions for talking about how he got the cell to work on a Joe Cell chat forum. That sort of thing also happened to Joe "X"  himself, the same year that his videos and the Barry Hilton book came out. Thugs destroyed Joe's shop, took all of his equipment, and threatened him and his family. They told him to never work on the Joe Cell again. Do you suppose thugs would have threatened Joe "X" or Bill Williams if the cell didn't work as described?

You characterize my response to Mike of the U.K. as a "rabid attack". Are you nuts?

I told Mike up front that I realized that he was sincere, but that his "concern" was wholly misplaced because he did NOT understand what I was describing in the Joe Cell article. He had his 'Establishment Science, 40 Years of Engineering, Physics Background ' blinders on and securely locked in place. And so he launches into a long dissertation about the dangers inherent in ELECTROLYSIS and how I need to yank the article because I'm "endangering" lives due to the explosion possibilities. In the hands of a dummy, sure, nearly anything can be dangerous, and even explosive, like the gas stove in your kitchen. However, the Joe Cell is NOT an example of water electrolysis. And it annoys me to have to repeat something that I already made clear in the article. Mike did not read what I had written, but rather, he read what his pre-conditioned mind WANTED to see. He dismissed the ether physics out of hand, and was just left with water and the application of a car battery, ergo- ELECTROLYSIS.

The Joe Cell is not the best choice for a water fuel device on a car because there are too many variables that will interfere with the cell's performance, including the spiritual 'advancement', shall we say, of the cell builder-or anyone who even comes near an operating Joe cell. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't experiment with it and see what you can accomplish. I've known a number of people who have tried to do everything right and spared no expense, but could not get the cell to seed-even a little. On the other hand, I know of other people, with the poorest of materials and funding, who got the cell to take over 100%. Most people who do have some success, get the cell to boost power and mileage, but usually can't get the cell to take over 100%.  It's a mixed bag. I've never revealed names because of what happened to Joe "X" and Bill Williams. I have no idea of the true identity of anyone who contacts me by e-mail, so naturally I'm not going to betray someone's confidence by revealing his name to some Joe Blow who sends  me an e-mail pumping me for names. If a guy like Bill Williams wants to go public and share his info, fine, I'm all for it. But he made the decision. It's not my place to do that.

Ken Adachi .  

Reader Comments

Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006
From: Australia
To: Editor <E-mail>
Subject: Joe Cell Information Please


After a fairly thorough browse of the internet, I have not been able to find some detailed instructions on building a Joe Cell for experimentation / power my internal combustion vehicle. Can you provide some plans, I am very interested in trying this, and have always had a feeling there was way to get clean enery to save the world. Free energy could save the world in so many ways.

If you are bought up a certain way to believe certain things then you will think a certain way. It is YOU who needs to be the 'bigger man' here and not bite peoples heads off, but give them something to think about instead. For their way of thinking they are coming to a logical conclusion and are certainly not trying to piss you off. No need to be scathing of skeptics man.

Regards, Nick.


Hi Nick,

Well, it's not quite that simple, but I understand your point and will give it greater consideration. It is better to react as you suggest, but I'm hard pressed to be magnanimous in the face of an arrogant individual who's plainly interested in provocation. I need to be more tolerant, all the same. Thanks for reminding me

Sincerely, Ken


 © Copyright 2006  All Rights Reserved.

Free Newsletter

Email Address:

Join the Educate-Yourself Discussion Forum

All information posted on this web site is the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer of your choice for medical care and advice.