This article was nominated for merging with Electrogravitics on 6 December 2023. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was no consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The article says "thermionic valves typically operate in this region". This is total bullshit--thermionic valves rely on vacuum, not ionized gas (the writer must have been thinking of switching tubes such as the thyratron. But the typical vacuum tubes--the common name for thermionic valves--depend on high vacuum and the emission thermal and electric electron emission. There's nothing in there to get ionized, and thus no discharge. ThVa 23:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been involved in this field of study since 1993, here's what we all need to do before we go making claims. We need to reduce the effect to a uniform standard of measurements. For example the one I use for my own experiments is the Newton per Watt. If I compare a Xenon Ion Propulsion System XIPS to a Lifter I can show that the Lifter has a significant advantage over the XIPS, likewise we can show that the "Ionocraft" is equal too or better than the Lifter in its performance using the Newton/Watt (N/W). As for the device not working in vacuum, well that's not true. It will work, but in a significantly reduced capacity when compared to a Lifter operating in air. However when you plot the thrust versus the power consumption the improvement in efficiency is stagering, it quickly approaches theoretical. The link below will show you some experiments we have done at a NASA facility, which showed a force effect in hard vacuum. http://youtube.com/user/hec031 (Grav01 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have personally conducted experiments at a University as an undergrad project with professor supervision that confirms that the ion-wind effect generates enough thrust to completely account for the lift produced. My article was refused publication however, because the editors of a physics publication found that the results would not be of much use or interest to its readers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.24.215 (talk • contribs) . (aka the vn.shawcable.net anon from Vancouver, BC)

This information is really more of a reference, as I can no longer retrieve the citations from archives. However I remember an experiment and calculations that showed that lifters generate about 99.5 percent of the observed thrust through Ionic means. However, .5 percent was unaccounted for; this experiment had a .2 percent margin of error, and was extremely conservative. Calculations show that Bifreild-Brown effect accounts for .2 percent of thrust.

Yes that’s a low number, Lifters are, and I can not repeat this enough, NOT Bifeild-Brown Thrusters! But the force does exist, and it does require more study.

I personally built a lifter in 1990 while in the USAF, on my personal time. The observed 'wind' was completely insufficient to explain the amount of thrust generated. A recent paper confirms my observation and demonstrates mathematically that it is impossible for the ion-wind effects to explain even a fraction of the observed thrust. Furthermore, NASA has recently obtained a patent for a 'propellantless' thruster using the same principle. JL Naudin has an excellent website with videos demonstrating that he has physically isolated each electrode from each other's atmosphere and still generated thrust, which would be impossible if it were an ion-wind effect.Mike Lorrey 19:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The "recent paper" (not, as far as I can tell, peer-reviewed, or in fact reviewed in any way the would remove spelling errors) linked above totally ignores the possibility of air entraiment by the ion wind, which is the standard explanation. It describes a single experiment, conducted in air, and claims that vacuum experiments are unnecessary (in reality, vacuum experiments show no force).

That patent is almost certainly speculative; it is almost certainly invalidated by prior art, since the original discoverers of the effect patented it (speculatively), and since there's been many articles published on the subject since.

The site has videos, but they show nothing of the sort described. --Andrew 19:51, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Andrew, but you aren't looking. I highly suggest you delve deeper into Naudin's "Lifter Project" pages. BTW: Speaking of spelling errors, the *entrainment* I observed was insufficient in my own experiments to explain the amount of thrust observed.

I completely agree with Andrew and I have looked at the Naudin pages and a lot of other pages and did the necessary calculations myself (as I was forced to, due to similiar discussions on de.wikipedia). --Pjacobi

Doesn't the Army Research Laboratory paper provide any sort of proof that the ionic wind is not the source? http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/arl_fac/index.html 71.55.16.180 (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from [1]: "A polarisable dielectric medium is required to get a thrust." This seems to say that the effect will not work in a vacuum. (Which is exactly what vacuum experiments demonstrate).

The site full of videos vaguely describes three experiments that involve a physical partition between the electrodes. Two of them are simply understood by electrostatic attraction (this is not mentioned on their pages, but is alluded to on the page of the third. The third is more interesting. It uses three light bulbs (calling them vaccum tubes; I have no idea what the internal pressure is, but normal light bulbs do not operate in a vacuum) as one electrode, and the usual sheet of metal as the other. The videos show motion when power is applied. No information is provided about current draw or force. One simple explanation is that the tubes themselves may be being raised to a high voltage and serving as electrodes. Without actual data, it's impossible to tell what's going on.

If you did your own experiments, post the data somewhere and we can discuss it. --Andrew 21:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

See: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/ComnErr.html#ELECTROSTATIC%20ANTIGRAVITY --Pjacobi 23:15, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

From your cited paper's conclusions: "But What If ?...There are, however, still some unresolved issues. Specifically, during the Talley tests (referenced above), anomalous forces were observed during the on/off transients -- anomalies that were never resolved. "Mike Lorrey 13:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reading the newly available material, I agree w/ Mike Lorrey. There is more at play than just ionic wind. [ https://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.0810.pdf ] Mk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.97.168 (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

          -(May 3, 2006)-

In experiments I performed myself, the following web page has photos and video of a "tubular lifter" I built which clearly shows aluminum tubes, freely hanging on wooden struts, resting on the wooden struts with the HV power supply off, but when power is supplied, the tubes LIFT UPWARD toward the high voltage wire. This ship lifts. If ion wind is the cause for lifting this ship upwards, why are the tubes lifted upwards rather than pushed down by the ion wind coming off the upper wire? Here's the link: http://www.skidmore.edu/academics/music/aholland/ScienceExperiments.html (see the tubular lifter photos and video) Also: JLNaudin's website clearly shows this technology working while immersed in oil. If there are any ions at all being generated in that oil (seems unlikely becuase Tesla used oil as an insulator in his large capacitors) I don't think there would be enough ion "wind" within the oil to move the lifter, yet, it moves while submerged in oil. Explain that, Ion wind proponents. Ion Wind clearly is not the primary lifting factor. Those who say that lifters do not work in vacuum have not actually tried it (read the book by Sigma Rho which includes a letter from TT Brown clearly indicating the effect still works in vacuum and was done in at least three different labs) or have not used enough voltage. TT Brown clearly indicates that his high voltage power supply was variable between 100KV-250Kv. Nobody's working at that level yet, though recently some of us have acquired 100Kv power supplies and are working on lifters in vacuum experiments. The problem is that HV in vaccum generates Xrays (which they don't do in air) and it becomes costly to provide high vaccum and protect against Xrays, but this is only a matter of time. Do the research and you'll see Brown clearly indicated the effect not only works in vacuum but also varies according to some "unknown universal constant" which he initially attributed to astronomical cycles". [Anthony Holland, Skidmore College]

And I suppose you tried the tubular one upside down, too? — Omegatron 23:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, see EHD Thruster Collection: Horizontal Plane Foil for an experiment apparently disproving this. Can we find published evidence of this? - (Elliot_009 14:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm quite surprised at the lack of attention solid-dielectric thrusters are recieving, and also at the ignorance of some people that don't realize that the lifter is a capacitor with an air-dielectric. I belive the reason for the vacuum experiments showing poor results is a sad attempt to discredit the lifter as a reliable means of propulsion. I really wish someone would perform some solid-dielectric tests in vacuum (mind you, the NASA tests resulted in a power supply problem, not a thruster malfunction), and if another person finds such tests, would you post a link on the wiki page? This is only my opinion, if you can discredit or support me, do so.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.165.175 (talk • contribs) (aka the bchsia.telus.net anon; geolocated in Vancouver, BC; see also the vn.shawcable.net anon)

I think the vacuum experiments are trying to rule out the possibility of using a lifter as a source of propulsion in space. In air, it's an interesting but highly power-intensive way to move air, akin to fans, propellers, and magnetohydrodynamic drives. If it actually works in space, it could be useful as a form of spacecraft propulsion. Every known mechanism by which it could operate in space, though, makes it pretty unsatisfactory as a propulsion method.

If the solid-dielectric phenomenon you allude to is the same phenomenon, and you can point us to some reliable information about it, I'm sure somebody would work it into the article.

Incidentally, complaining about people's ignorance (even if they are ignorant) is not usually a good way to get positive attention for your ideas. --Andrew 06:38, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Let's not forget that NASA has filed and GOT some patents for using the Biefeld-Brown effect for thrusters. So this could be an indication that the Biefeld-Brown Effect can be effictively used as thrusters in deep space. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.58.253.131 (talk • contribs) . (aka the kuleuven.ac.be anon in Leuven, Belgium)

Can you list some? NASA clearly states that the BB effect is nothing more than standard EHD in this paper.

In spite of decades of speculation about possible new physical principles being responsible for the thrust produced by ACTs and lifters, we find no evidence to support such a conclusion. On the contrary, we find that their operation is fully explained by a very simple theory that uses only electrostatic forces and the transfer of momentum by multiple collisions.

— Omegatron 01:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did not fully read the paper. Beyond the abstract it is clearly noted in that paper that device 2 (the one with the solid dielectric between the capacitor plates) in wired configuration A did jump 1/8th of a rotation in a vacuum when a voltage of 44 kV was applied. At the same time a large arc was seen (they do not say where the arc went to from one can assume the positive capacitor plate). They attributed the movement to ejection of particles because of the arc. However, anyone who has seen a tesla coil operate has seen arcs and knows that the arcs aren't the ejection of material from the coil. The experimenters should have encased the capacitor device in a dielectric resin to eliminate arcing. Then they could have seen if the device still jumped when the voltage was turned on.

Mark McCandlish's claims on how the ARV "flux liner" works could potentially be consistent with the observations in this NASA experiment. McCandlish claims that a large primary and multiple secondary tesla coils create the voltage (A.C.) which is then funneled through a vacuum tube containing mercury (mercury arc rectifiers turn A.C. to D.C.) which is then applied to the capacitor plates. Tesla coils create pulsed voltages, on/off, on/off, on/off. So the D.C. current would be pulsed on/off, on/off, on/off.

It is entirely possible that McCandlish's details on how the supposed ARV "flux liner" works are fully consistent with the results of the NASA experiment you mentioned. 24.250.10.227 (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's not a great idea to insult people if you want positive attention, but I thought it would motivate someone to find it themselves. Jean-Louis Naudin has some replications of the NASA experiments if you'd like to see the solid-dielectric capacitors. Don't forget, transdimesional's lifter is an air-dielectric capacitor, and it's not exactly a phenomenon how it works. Check it out http://jlnlabs.imars.com/lifters/asymcap.htm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.165.175 (talk • contribs) (aka the bchsia.telus.net anon; geolocated in Vancouver, BC; see also the vn.shawcable.net anon)

No, we've had more than our share of insulting crackpots here already; being rude will just get you flagged as another one and more-or-less ignored. I've looked at that site before; in fact we link to it. Nothing I've seen there convincingly conflicts with the conventional ion wind hypothesis, although the site author clearly thinks these things will work in a vacuum. --Andrew 02:44, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

An "air dielectric" implies that the air is insulating. Because of the high voltage, the air will break down around the sharp electrode and become conducting, and charged particles will drift through the neutral air in between, which means it's not a capacitor anymore. - Omegatron 03:44, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily so. If there is no spark, the air still works as an insulator. The air as a dielectric only breaks down when there are charges passing through. When a spark occurs between the corona wire and the foil, the lifter will fall. So the lifter only lifts when he is behaving as a capacitor. (JCarril)

I can't find much on the wiki about ion wind in general. I deleted ion wind, which just redirected here. I'm specifically curious about those "ionic air cleaner" things, which should have an article, but I can't find one. Also, has anyone used ionic wind as a silent fan replacement? - Omegatron 03:44, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oh here we go. Air ioniser

And ion wind is now a real article. — Omegatron 01:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The biefeld-brown effect and electro hydrodynamics are two different effects. One of the outside links which links to www.blazelabs.com links you to their lifters page, which goes on to explain how lifters cannot work inside a vacuum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endos127 (talk • contribs) (apparently a single purpose account)

• The Hunt for Zero Point Inside the Classified World of Antigravity Technology
• Winterhaven
• Xerxes

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.131.67 (talk • contribs) (aka the gsp.bellsouth.net anon near Greenville, SC)

I just wanted to support the action taken by the moderator in protecting the page. I am the guy who added the ionic patent numbers, and uploaded the original Hagen image. Lifters / Biefield-Brown is an ionic effect that was extensively researched in the 1960s by major American aerospace companies. They were apparently unable to figure out a way to get useful thrust from the apparatus, and interest lapsed. I uploaded the Hagen image, because contributors seemed unable to grasp the simple fact that 'Lifters' were invented in the 1960s, and all JLN labs did was re-create 40 year old patent documented research. Timharwoodx 15:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the same Tim Harwood who is freeenergynews.com/Directory/Electromagnetic/index.html said to be involved with "new energy" schemes? For others: the cited website is freeenergynews.com Free Energy News, which promotes over-unity devices and which is apparently registered to the creator of peswiki.com Pure Energy Systems Wiki. ---CH 10:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two anons have recently made unexplained deletions:

1. 81.249.163.111 (talk · contribs) aka the abo.wanadoo.fr anon; apparently geolocated near Paris
2. 172.186.245.233 (talk · contribs) aka the ipt.aol.com anon; apparently geolocated in the United Kingdom.

Websites devoted to the promotion of T. T. Brown, the Bielfeld-Brown effect, etc., include sites in Pegram, TN, Santa Monica, CA, Holland, Paris, and Blaze Labs which is registered in Malta (the webhost is apparently geolocated in London), but there are many others. ---CH 09:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They just keep going, and going, and going... They look to all be from AOL addresses. Did you check any of the others? They're all removing exactly the same thing, so they are probably the same person. Are dynamic IPs reliably geolocatable? — Omegatron 17:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't notice, CH, this has been going on since early April, in both Biefeld–Brown effect and Lifter (ionic propulsion device). — Omegatron 17:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't, oddly enough, but I just added that article to the WikiProject Pseudoscience watchlist. As I just wrote in Talk:Lifter (ionic propulsion device), the ipt.aol.com proxy anon has recently used the IPs (AOL proxys) to edit both articles:

1. 172.186.205.240 (talk · contribs)
2. 172.187.237.249 (talk · contribs) (apparently a proxy)
3. 172.206.151.63 (talk · contribs)
4. 172.210.140.244 (talk · contribs)
5. 172.211.53.10 (talk · contribs)
6. 172.211.245.151 (talk · contribs)
7. 172.211.251.8 (talk · contribs)

among others.

The abo.wanadoo.fr anon may well be associated with the link to the cranky website futura-sciences.com, which is registered to an individual who also appears to reside near Paris.---CH 18:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only a crank could make the exact same edits dozens of times without getting the hint.

What kind of proxies are those? If they're open proxies, can't we block them permanently? — Omegatron 20:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I think the place to inquire would be Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. ---CH 01:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just asked User:Freakofnurture to run a proxy check for us. I think he can immediately ban that range of IPs if he concludes that it does indeed represent an open proxy. ---CH 01:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you're the one who said "definitely a proxy". — Omegatron 01:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of software running at a site I don't control. A proxy check consists, as I understand it, of a more controlled scan to assess the security or lack of security of a machine which is suspected to have been compromised. ---CH 01:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One reason why I have some confidence that something underhanded is going on here is that the geolocations give characteristically bizarre results. This is obviously one user in one place, not located all over the globe. ---CH 01:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freakofnuture replied that the IPs in question do not represent an open proxy. Rather, he says, this is an ordinary AOL user with a prosaic dynamic IP (i.e. each of his login sessions will usually be associated with a distinct IP address, which at other times might be temporarily assigned to someone else entirely). He says the range includes millions of addresses, so a block is essentially impossible. I understand that this is a long standing problem with AOL users who make questionable edits (or even flagrant vandalism) of the WP. I think the only viable solution is to continue what we've been doing anyway. I agree that geolocations might be all but useless in this case, but in general, geolocations even of dynamic IPs can certainly be useful and valid.---CH 03:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I thought. We'll just have to keep sprotecting until they get tired of this game, I guess. Someone else needs to help revert, though; I'm breaking 3RR, even though it would most likely be considered vandalism. — Omegatron 15:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This anon has apparently also edited John Hutchison and probably can be identified the bchsia.telus.net anon; both seem to be geolocated near Vancouver, BC. The shawcable.net anon can probably be identified with User:Starski (as in Starsky and Hutch). This person seems to have described himself as a personal friend of John Hutchison, and as the "webmaster" of the website hutchisoneffect.biz, which is registered in Vancouver to John Hutchison.---CH 02:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following sentence: "— this belief is perpetuated in the construction of pointy lightning rods historically (though rounded or spherical topped rods are better than the pointed rods)" This is a side issue. Design of lightning rods is not relevant to current topic. "Belief" is anappropriate to topic. Whether pointed or round lightning rods more effectively protect buildings is currently being researched: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s816484.htm. Jedwards05 2006.06.08

The article reads nicely, presents information in a way that can be understood, specifies the effect as a "phoenonema" without attempting to get into its scientific validity, acceptance, or "theory". The first part of the article, anyway, that I read looks good and makes sense and Mr. Lightening Rod is vandalizing instead of making the effort necessary to present any additional evidence of such an effect not happening under similar physical setup. That's what I think. Terryeo 22:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ipt.aol.com anon ( America Online; these machines appear to be mostly geolocated in Reston, VA but of course the anon probably is not geolocated there) has used the following IPs to vandalize this article and Lifter (ionic propulsion device):

1. 172.186.245.233 (talk · contribs)
2. 172.185.107.198 (talk · contribs)
3. 172.211.245.151 (talk · contribs)
4. 172.184.215.107 (talk · contribs)
5. 172.159.249.65 (talk · contribs)
6. 172.206.151.63 (talk · contribs)
7. 172.211.251.8 (talk · contribs)
8. 172.186.205.240 (talk · contribs)
9. 172.187.237.249 (talk · contribs)
10. 172.187.60.8 (talk · contribs)
11. 172.159.221.6 (talk · contribs)
12. 172.211.53.10 (talk · contribs)
13. 172.210.140.244 (talk · contribs)

See Talk:John Hutchison, where a Vancouver, BC anon who apparenlty is a good friend of Hutchison writes "I can get a bot to revert these posts and switch ips, by the time im finished you will be upgrading your software hick."

The abo.wanadoo.fr anon near Paris has used the following IPs: 81.249.163.111 (talk · contribs) This individual appears to be someone else. ---CH 01:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was alleged the US B-2 Spirit bomber uses this method of propulsion when in stealth mode. The thurst produced by the four conventional turbojets borrowed from the F/A-18 fighter jet design is not enough to make the big bomber fly when the upper and lower pair of extra "cat-ear" air intakes are closed for a stealth run. This could be mentioned in the article. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References, please. `'Míkka>t 21:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These lines have had a citation request on them for two months now. Given that this section has undue weight in this article, I have removed them. If someone can cite them and show how they are so critical to the understanding of the Biefeld-Brown effect that they are worth the undue weight issue, they could be reintroduced: Some people think that the Tesla coil might be related to this effect.^[who?] In fact, when Tesla came to the USA he was supposedly carrying plans for a "flying machine".^{[citation needed]} The only common factor between a Tesla coil and the Biefeld–Brown effect is that, in both of them, high voltage plays a vital role. High field gradients between electrode plates, can be produced by an AC circuit powered by Tesla coils. Locke9k (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping by during an unrelated web crawl but I had to comment:- "Eisenhower National Security Council member Colonel Philip J. Corso wrote that top scientists who first analyzed an alien craft downed near Roswell, NM first suspected that it had something to do with the Biefeld–Brown effect or a Tesla energy flow." from the article. Are we taking as fact that there was an alien craft downed at Roswell?!? That is what this sentence implies to me. Judging from this discussion page any edits provoke massive debate so I'm not willing to get involved but....Really? - Grible (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is just speculation (total OR), but I have worked out a theory about the Roswell craft that may fit with this. It traces an idea from Tesla, in the mid 30's (through the US secret service) to the Germans, and then in 1945 (as part of project Paperclip) back to America. The description of the strange foil the craft was made of fits with tungsten foil - and to me this suggests an LTA, a 'hot air' balloon but filled with a hot plasma inside instead of normal hot air. It would make sense for it to also use ionic propulsion. The device would heat the plasma via some kind of high voltage system, and was designed to operate as the last stage antenna in a machine called a 'radio gun' situated on the ground. Teslas device was talked about quite publicly and was theoretically the most lethal weapon ever invented - (as described able to wipe out whole cities or able to knock whole fleets of planes out of the sky), but it never worked (obviously). In essence the Roswell device was a foo fighter - but the only 'aliens' involved were Nazi's. Lucien86 (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this rubbish about French Science Shows because by it's own admission, there were mystery eyewitnesses. That's like saying "some people say...".

Completeley unverified. We could fill this whole article with unsubstantiated witness accounts.Russel Anderson (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in the "electrogravity" section, the paragraph "In 2003, at the American space institute of NASA, Hector Luis Serrano (President of Gravitec Inc.) investigated the forces onto an asymmetrical capacitor inside a vacuum. He observed electrogravity forces inside a vacuum chamber at 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr of vacuum pressure with a 45kV potential. Due to confidential reasons the results and video weren't released until four years later, in 2007.[1]"

makes no sense. Nobody uses "torr" anymore, "confidential reasons" isn't a reference, and the citation number just vaguly points in the direction of the Biefeld-Brown website. No specific article or anything. I will remove that as soon as i can find something meaningful to replace it with. Russel Anderson (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: i removed the aforementioned passage today. Gravitec are in no way associated with NASA, this comment is very misleading, and Gravitec is just another free-energy nutjob website. NOT even a remoteley academic reference.Russell Anderson (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty rich coming from you, "Beamship Captain". How are your little lifters coming along? Do you still believe that we are being visited from beings from the Pleiades?88.69.232.70 (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also funny that Russell dismisses use of the "torr" unit, while he uses it in his little "equations" over on youtube. How is John Searle these days? Still rinsing money from gullible fools? 88.69.232.70 (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current lead section doesn't tell what the effect actually is about. Added a template. --J. Sketter (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note recent publication of original reports of the experiments done in 1955-58 in Paris between Societe National de Construction Aeronautique du Sud-Ouest (SNCASO, later Sud-Aviation) and Thomas Townsend Brown. http://projetmontgolfier.info —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceandarts (talk • contribs) 18:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

are we going to have a serious discussion about this or are the skeptics going to keep deleting everything and assuming this is an ion wind effect? let me know when your ready to talk... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.180.68 (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note on 'Electrogravity' All mass/energy feels the effects of gravity. A sufficiently dense photon field would produce gravity effects. The energy density would have to be determined to state that there is negligible effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.140.155 (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the Schlieren video on youtube.com and I am convinced that the Brown effect is not an ionic phenomenon. There are plenty of high vacuum test there as well, and the movement is not impeded in the least. The effect works, I believe, by using Tesla's longitudinal dielectric waves. 67.206.183.145 (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An electro-gravitational craft according to E. Suchard's theory is based on charge separation and is NOT the usual Biefeld-Brown ion-craft because a pico-farad capacitor, of any shape under 50000 volts, is not capable of maintaining enough charges to manifest measurable results of real electro-gravity in vacuum. The predicted effect depends on the electric field divergence and therefore on charge densities and on their integration but not directly on the electric field as in conventional iono-crafts. Equation (7) in Suchard's paper has a divergence component, that according to a possible interpretation (6.4), offers a way to achieve electro-gravity. A small correction is, however, that the coefficient of this term should be 2 and not 1 as it is in equation (7), also Einstein tensor should be with lower indices. The resulting postulated gravitational field resembles an electric dipole and offers elevation on the expense of the trajectories of far bodies of mass quite the same way ebb and tide take energy from the moon's trajectory. According to that assumption, the divergence term coincides with electric charges and therefore can explain the Dark Matter effect by a negligible excess of intra-galactic positive charges. The ordinary conservation law (8) is then replaced with a more general law (25) in the same paper “Upper Time Limit, Its Gradient Curvature, and Matter”.^[1] Suchard's paper complements a previous research from 1982 by Sam Vaknin on a Chronon field amendment to Dirac's equation ^[2][3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eytan il (talk • contribs) 00:02, 26 February 2014

Aware of what? Electrohydrodynamics? Anti-gravity? This got rm'ed in my cleanup, anybody got a reference? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

....if that is true then this article is a candidate for deletion, Wikipedia is not a dictionary that has articles at alternate names for the same subject. I can see a reason for an article here (WTF is the Biefeld–Brown effect?!?!), but most of the description does not belong here, it belongs at electrohydrodynamics or related articles. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brown never acknowledged that the thrust he measured might be due to plasma discharge or electrohydrodynamics. Even modern researchers still claim that reactionless thrust can be produced by high-voltage electrical fields, see Douglas Torr, among others. Although Brown may have been mistaken, this article is about his influential claims, independent of the actual effect of electrohydrodynamics. Despite the statement in the lede, it is not the same thing. Aldebaran66 (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is all the reliable sourcing I can see says electrohydrodynamics and Biefeld–Brown effect are exactly the same thing. So you need to provide reliable sourcing to the contrary (I know that can be hard since this stuff can go way down the rabbit hole ;)),. Short of RS the requirement in Wikipedia is to delete (We may think we know something but you got to prove it). Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for obvious reasons. If Brown made a mistake then we describe his mistake. The section "Effect analysis" describes electrohydrodynamics, so does not belong here, and "analysis" is a bad title, if it is that then it should be deleted per WP:OR. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about the science of electrohydrodynamics, it is about the psuedo-science the Biefeld-Brown effect. It makes it difficult, because the Biefeld-Brown effect is not real, the observations attributable to the effect are actually explained by EHD. The article would be remiss if it suggested that the BB effect was real ... thus the explanation of how EHD explains the observed effect, which is perhaps too lengthy. But just because the BB effect is psuedoscience does not mean it is not a notable subject for an article. It was, after all, the focus of government research in the 50s and 60s and still is the focus of a lot of fringe theorists. If anything, this article needs to be merged with Electrogravitics, not electrohydrodynamics. Puddytang (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, merge the other way may work. The common thread I am seeing is EHD material should be moved out to EHD. This article should describe the history and usage of BB. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have a consensus at least between the two of us! :) I believe I can merge BBE to EG for the time being, since Electrogravitics is clearly just the study of the Biefend Brown Effect. Then, if it seems that taking out or moving some of the EHD stuff seems warranted, it can still be moved. (Because I think these two articles need to be merged regardless of whether anything needs to be merged to EHD). Puddytang (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Puddytang (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing this page be merged with Electrogravitics. My proposed edit, found here: User:Puddytang/Electrogravitics, would incorporate some of the stuff from this article into the Electrogravitics article. Puddytang (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the Unilateral merger since it goes against guidelines. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 19:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)) flat out merger, electrohydrodynamics (EHD) does not belong at either article, it has its own article. I see some usefulness for a "Biefeld–Brown effect" article but could be swayed to merge it. Need more RS to show if Electrogravitics or Biefeld–Brown effect are the common name for this stuff. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I merged Biefeld-brown effect and Electrogravitics. I never suggested EHD should merged, you were the one who suggested that! Secondly, there is no policy requiring discussion of a merge. Thirdly, you are probably right that Biefeld-Brown effect is the more appropriate name. Also, if you use the "what links here" tool, you can catch re-directs, as of now, some Biefeld-Brown links are still re-directed to Electrogravitics. Puddytang (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested EHD material be moved out to EHD, not Electrogravitics. If you place a merger tag it seems to be a week to 30 day process, 30 days recommended (see: Wikipedia:Merging). The claims for Electrogravitics differ from Biefeld-brown effect re:"invented by Nikola Tesla". Can I cite Reliable sources? bwahahahahahah!!!!!..... sorry, that was directed at the field in general. I think we can cite what (who are these people?) say for a general description but we can't claim one is the other. The RS cuts both ways. I would suggest two articles for now with better description. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I haven't done a huge amount of research into it; I was taking the article's word for it that Electrogravitics is another name for Biefeld Brown Effect, and Somewhere along the way Brown came up with the name Biefeld–Brown effect, named after his former teacher, to describe electrogravitics. But, even if there is some distinction which I am not seeing, as of now, the two articles cover almost the exact same subject matter, with the exception of the EHD explanation of the effect. If someone wants to come along in the future and re-create an Electrogravitics article that explores that field in depth, they would be free to do so. But as of now, I don't see the value of having two almost identical articles on the same topic under different names. Puddytang (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging material concerning Thomas Townsend Browns and his theory into Electrogravitics and moving the entire section "Effect analysis" to Electrohydrodynamics as a sub in the section in Electrohydrodynamics#Electrokinesis.

Biefeld–Brown effect is claimed to be electrogravity, or it is a miss-identification of Electrohydrodynamics. Electrogravitics is the main topic per [2]/[3] and I can't pull an N-Gram[4] on "Biefeld–Brown effect". If this looks like a good idea I'd suggested a week from post of notice re:"there has been no discussion or is unanimous consent" and execute the merge. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The elecrohydrodynamics article is fine, moving junk from this article into electrohydrodynamics would be detrimental to that article. It is an article about the scientific field of study, and should not be overly burdened by a discussion of the psuedo-science of elecrogravitics. As for Thomas Townsend Brown, I believe TT Brown is sufficiently notable outside of this theory to merit his own article. For example, founder of Nicapp or whatever. It would therefore make more sense to move Electrogravitics and BBE to the TT Brown article than visa versa.

Since we can't seem to reach any consensus here, maybe we should ask for input on the TT Brown page and the Electrohydrodynamics page. Regardless, I do not support merging anything to those pages or deleting either of those pages without including them in the discussion. I suspect that the authors of the Electrohydrodynamics article, if they are still around, would be strongly opposed. Puddytang (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually I was not implying a merger with Thomas Townsend Brown... sorry if it came off that way. I am proposing merging material concerning Thomas Townsend Browns and his theory from this article into Electrogravitics and redirect Biefeld–Brown effect to Electrogravitics.... basically this edit without merging in the "Effect analysis" section. Elecrogravitics has nothing to do with "corona discharge" / "air molecules to become ionized near sharp points and edges" so that material should not be merged with Elecrogravitics. Elecrogravitics is claimed by the article definition to be "anti-gravity propulsion created by an electric field's effect on a mass". The "Effect analysis" section seems to be a description of Electrohydrodynamics#Electrokinesis although unreferenced. It could be deleted out in the merger and noted at the Electrohydrodynamics talk page for future referencing/expansion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Sorry I misunderstood. It sounds like we are basically in agreement. The only thing I would add is, based on my google searches, I think Biefeld-Brown Effect is probably the more appropriate name for the consolidated article rather than Electrogravitics. Puddytang (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per published books Electrogravitics[5], "electro-gravity"[6] is the predomenent term over "Biefeld Brown" effect[7] and is claimed to be the name for the entire field - The Planets by Byron Preiss[8], Frontiers of Propulsion Science, Marc G. Millis, Eric W. Davis Page 16[9] LaViolette[10]. Biefeld-Brown Effect is Browns personal name for the effect per LaViolette. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biefeld–Brown effect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110115142418/http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2002/08/05/zero_gravity/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2002/08/05/zero_gravity/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes archived okay, but— I found the article is still live under it's title, just a different URL, so NOT dead, just moved WurmWoode^T 01:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought … After connect high voltage, in electrode atoms , The electrons orbit change to oval. And this make centrifugal energy … and then nucleus gravity use this to make a gravity from bigger mass (electrode ) to smaller . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasan.golandooz (talk • contribs) 22:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't "capacitors". Capacitors store electrical energy by separating the electrodes with an insulator. These are not meant to store energy, and are separated by a conducting fluid, not an insulator. If Brown used the term "capacitor", then put it in scare quotes whenever used. — Omegatron (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per this edit, the paper being cited clearly has a "Summary and Suggested Future Work" section and covers ionic mobility, not "electron" mobility. We can not synthesize our own conclusions from a primary source paper and/or make "Although" MOS:EDITORIAL statements. Also, describing edits based on source material as "vandalizing" is WP:UNCIVIL. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]