Talk:Biefeld–Brown effect

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thermionic valves 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Experiments in Florida and at NASA/NSSTC, LEEIF Facility 

message: -(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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Upward Lift of Tubular Lifter Confirms Ion Wind Not Lifting "Lifters" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ion wind 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Repeated vandalism

message: 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)
thread_title:  The ''vn.shawcable.net anon'' 

message: 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)
thread_title: Re: Lightning Rods

message: 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:
This individual appears to be someone else. ---CH 01:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism by anon

message: 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)
replies: text: References, please. `'Míkka>t 21:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under the radar. 

message: 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. In fact, when Tesla came to the USA he was supposedly carrying plans for a "flying machine". 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Uncited statements

message: 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)
thread_title: More Uncited Statements

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  1955-58 Experiments of Biefeld Brown Effect in Paris 

message: 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)
thread_title:  discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Schlieren 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "In fact, Brown was fully aware of how the device worked." 

message: ....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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "The effect is more widely referred to as electrohydrodynamics" 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes archived okay, but— I found the article is still live under it's title, just a different URL, so NOT dead, just moved WurmWoodeT 01:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  biefeld brown 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "The use of an asymmetric capacitor" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bahder/ARL