This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Biefeld鈥揃rown effect article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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))
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. 鈥The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.24.215 ( talk聽鈥⒙ 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鈥檚 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)
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)
See: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/ComnErr.html#ELECTROSTATIC%20ANTIGRAVITY -- Pjacobi 23:15, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
-(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]
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.
鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 154.20.165.175 ( talk 鈥 contribs) (aka the bchsia.telus.net anon; geolocated in Vancouver, BC; see also the vn.shawcable.net anon)
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
鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 154.20.165.175 ( talk 鈥 contribs) (aka the bchsia.telus.net anon; geolocated in Vancouver, BC; see also the vn.shawcable.net anon)
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)
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. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by Endos127 ( talk 鈥 contribs) (apparently a single purpose account)
鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 65.4.131.67 ( talk 鈥 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)
Two anons have recently made unexplained deletions:
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)
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:
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)
Hmm... I think the place to inquire would be Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. --- CH 01:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I removed the following sentence: "鈥 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 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):
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聽( talk聽路 contribs) This individual appears to be someone else. --- CH 01:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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鈥揃rown 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)
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鈥揃rown 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Current lead section doesn't tell what the effect actually is about. Added a template. -- J. Sketter ( talk) 02:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
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 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by Scienceandarts ( talk 鈥 contribs) 18:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
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... 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 90.207.180.68 ( talk) 16:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
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. 鈥擯receding
unsigned comment added by
165.201.140.155 (
talk)
20:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 鈥淯pper Time Limit, Its Gradient Curvature, and Matter鈥. [1] Suchard's paper complements a previous research from 1982 by Sam Vaknin on a Chronon field amendment to Dirac's equation [2] [3] 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Eytan il ( talk 鈥 contribs) 00:02, 26 February 2014
References
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)
....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鈥揃rown 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)
Result: Puddytang ( talk) 04:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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鈥揃rown effect" article but could be swayed to merge it. Need more RS to show if Electrogravitics or Biefeld鈥揃rown effect are the common name for this stuff.
Fountains of Bryn Mawr (
talk)
12:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
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鈥揃rown 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鈥揃rown 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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Biefeld鈥揃rown 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I thought 鈥 After connect high voltage, in electrode atoms , The electrons orbit change to oval. And this make centrifugal energy 鈥 and then nucleus gravity use this to make a gravity from bigger mass (electrode ) to smaller . 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Hasan.golandooz ( talk 鈥 contribs) 22:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
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. 鈥 Omegatron聽( talk) 14:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Biefeld鈥揃rown effect article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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))
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. 鈥The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.24.215 ( talk聽鈥⒙ 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鈥檚 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)
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)
See: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/ComnErr.html#ELECTROSTATIC%20ANTIGRAVITY -- Pjacobi 23:15, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
-(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]
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.
鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 154.20.165.175 ( talk 鈥 contribs) (aka the bchsia.telus.net anon; geolocated in Vancouver, BC; see also the vn.shawcable.net anon)
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
鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 154.20.165.175 ( talk 鈥 contribs) (aka the bchsia.telus.net anon; geolocated in Vancouver, BC; see also the vn.shawcable.net anon)
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)
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. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by Endos127 ( talk 鈥 contribs) (apparently a single purpose account)
鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 65.4.131.67 ( talk 鈥 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)
Two anons have recently made unexplained deletions:
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)
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:
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)
Hmm... I think the place to inquire would be Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. --- CH 01:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I removed the following sentence: "鈥 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 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):
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聽( talk聽路 contribs) This individual appears to be someone else. --- CH 01:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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鈥揃rown 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)
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鈥揃rown 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Current lead section doesn't tell what the effect actually is about. Added a template. -- J. Sketter ( talk) 02:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
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 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by Scienceandarts ( talk 鈥 contribs) 18:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
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... 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 90.207.180.68 ( talk) 16:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
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. 鈥擯receding
unsigned comment added by
165.201.140.155 (
talk)
20:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 鈥淯pper Time Limit, Its Gradient Curvature, and Matter鈥. [1] Suchard's paper complements a previous research from 1982 by Sam Vaknin on a Chronon field amendment to Dirac's equation [2] [3] 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Eytan il ( talk 鈥 contribs) 00:02, 26 February 2014
References
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)
....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鈥揃rown 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)
Result: Puddytang ( talk) 04:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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鈥揃rown effect" article but could be swayed to merge it. Need more RS to show if Electrogravitics or Biefeld鈥揃rown effect are the common name for this stuff.
Fountains of Bryn Mawr (
talk)
12:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
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鈥揃rown 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鈥揃rown 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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Biefeld鈥揃rown 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I thought 鈥 After connect high voltage, in electrode atoms , The electrons orbit change to oval. And this make centrifugal energy 鈥 and then nucleus gravity use this to make a gravity from bigger mass (electrode ) to smaller . 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Hasan.golandooz ( talk 鈥 contribs) 22:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
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. 鈥 Omegatron聽( talk) 14:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
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)