Talk:Electrogravitics

message: * Removed "see also" 
* removed :Category:Gravity and :Category:Electrostatics; put in :Category:Pseudophysics 
* POV and unreferenced edit "Mainstream science considers electrogravatics to be a pseudoscience". 
* Removed primary source references 
J. D. Redding 23:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a valid point. I've never edited or contributed to Wikipedia, but this article is of great interest to me and I would prefer not to feel contaminated by someone's personal bias. The article as it stands is biased with anger and does a great disservice to even those who would like to disprove the phenomena in question. 2600:6C67:8C40:4690:CD87:F083:715D:169E (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts and POV dispute

message: Is it part of the project or isn't it? --Chr.K. 06:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that it should be covered by the project because of its popular culture ties to Ufology and "government suppression of aline/clean technology" conspiracies. - perfectblue 10:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So is anyone saying this is/might be UFO technology? There have  also been theories that UFOs travel using nuclear power or magnetic fields, but we don't include those topics. It seems slightly beyond the project's range to include a putative power source for a UFO. Totnesmartin 21:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, I feel that because this topic is used in a pseudoscientific way by UFO-nuts to try to make themselves sound legitimate when explaining UFO physics that it has become a part of UFO-lore. It's like including a conspiracy boiler plate on the page about the Texas book repository that LHO is supposed to have shot JFK from. - perfectblue 07:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, if that was a put down of ufology, the field is in fact highly respected amongst free thinkers, such as genius Jacques Vallee (the one who is willing to consider the possibility that they are not interstellar or terrestrial in origin). 
--Chr.K. 22:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:PARA tag 

message: Greater distinctions should be made between the electogravitic devices Brown had patented in 1928 and the electrokinetic ones he had developed during the fifties.  Many electrokinetic experiments have been performed successfully.  The recent electrogravitic tests conducted by Buehler, Musha, and Okamota should be cited in this article along with the theoretical assessments by Ivanov and Iwanaga.  Notability for those results stems from the early ramifications of the Trouton-Noble experiment. Tcisco 17:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Electrogravitic and electrokinetic differences

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: This article was way off tone, had almost zero reliable sources with large sections being unsourced, and went off subject/window dressed the content with unrelated topics such as duplicating Biefeld–Brown effect and spinning off into electrostatic, "Talley's report",  and "Seversky's patent". It also seems to be a pseudoscience linkfarm. Unreferenced material deleted and article trimmed down to WP:RS. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Please discuss at::Talk:Biefeld–Brown_effectPuddytang (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Merger with Biefeld-Brown effect 

message: Reverted this edit Claims the Biefeld–Brown effect and Electrogravitics had two different definitions are unverified and contradicted by available sources. See 
Paul Schatzkin, Defying Gravity: The Parallel Universe of T. Townsend Brown, 2005-2006-2007-2008 - Tanglewood Books, Chapter 64: Flying Saucer Pipe Dreams (online excerpts) and Paul Schatzkin, Defying Gravity: The Parallel Universe of T. Townsend Brown, 2005-2006-2007-2008 - Tanglewood Books, Chapter 12: The “Biefeld-Brown” Effect  (online excerpts). Also see Talk:Thomas Townsend Brown#Ionic wind and Electrogravity. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupported claims 

message: Since the subject of Electrogravitics presently has no cited scientific explanation I suggest that the page be deleted and parts possibly merged into other subjects. Bengt Nyman (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Has a scientific explanation" is not a requirement for a wikipedia article. We have all sorts of articles about nonsense, hoaxes, and disproved theories. Instead WP:GNG is the standard and WP:RS the stadard relating to it, and I see several cited sources discussing this topic. DMacks (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly, I know that somebody was going to say that. Let me share this with you. It has gone out to a number of people involved in this science and concerned about wiki's treatment of the subject:
Thomas Townsend Brown.
I assume that you already know a bit about Brown. He was the first to perform tests which directly support the Dipole Gravity theory.
However, he didn’t understand what he had, partially because the theory didn’t exist yet.
I am referring to what he called his Electrogravitics experiments and not the ion drift or ionic wind experiments which he called the Biefeld-Brown effect.
Brown misunderstood some of his own electrogravitics experiments. The experiments with the large capacitor standing vertically on a scale were easy to understand because the large dipole that the capacitor represents would either make the capacitor appear to loose weight or gain weight by about 1%, depending on the polarity of the capacitor. However, the experiment where the capacitor is hanging horizontally from a wire around its midsection was misunderstood and misreported. In this position one end, or one polarity of the capacitor would “loose weight” while the other would “gain weight”.  As a result, the effective CG of the capacitor shifts and the whole capacitor tilts and moves sideways until the effective CG is under the point of suspension again. Brown misunderstood this action thinking that he had produced some kind of propulsion, when in reality he had simply shifted the effective CG of the capacitor. Brown also performed these tests in a vacuum and in an oil bath to exclude any ion drift or ionic wind. 
Sadly enough Brown spent a big part of the rest of his life trying to sell his electrogravitics as a propulsion system which understandably didn’t go very far.
So there are actually already laboratory tests that support the dipole gravity theory.
Thought you might want to know.
P.S. I have asked Nils Rognerud if he would be willing to replicate these experiments and he is presently preparing to do so.
More about the equipment and the accuracies required to register this effect, if you so desire. 
Best regards
Bengt E Nyman
https://www.dipole.se  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengt Nyman (talk • contribs) 23:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Dipole gravity <--- that would have to exist for starters. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is in process.Bengt Nyman (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: From: Wal Thornhill <walt@holoscience.com>
To: Bengt Nyman <bengtenyman@yahoo.com> 
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: T. T. Brown and dipole gravity
Thanks very much Bengt,
I knew of T T Brown and the Biefeld-Brown effect but not the experiment you describe, which is very important.
I am keen to hear about Nils efforts to duplicate the experiment.
Regards,
Wal T
Bengt Nyman (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: From Bengt Nyman <bengtenyman@yahoo.com>  Today at 10:41 AM
To:	
Wal Thornhill
CC	
Nils Rognerud  Siggy Galaen  James Allison Johnson  Lars Pålsson  åke staffan norlander
Message body
Hi Wal,
The way I see it we are talking about what Brown coined "Electrogravitics", which is the apparent change in weight of a standing capacitor, gaining weight when charged with one polarity and loosing weight when charged with the opposite polarity. Brown's early 1900 electrogravitics experiment is mentioned in the English Wikipedia under "Thomas Townsend Brown" as well as under "Electrogravitics" and under "Biefeld-Brown effect". Perhaps because the lack of an earlier complete, accurate and quantitative account of Dipole Gravity, like in http://www.dipole.se/ ,all three articles mention the experiments but treat them with skepsis and as unexplained.
  
The explanation is that a charged capacitor represents a large dipole, where the large electrical charge itself registers as a dipole "weight" of its own, which the scale in the experiment senses as added to or subtracted from the weight of the physical capacitor.
I will keep you informed.
 
Bengt Nyman
Bengt Nyman (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research into a link between "Electrogravitics" and "Dipole Gravity theory". I would suggest another outlet. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete electrogravitics page