Talk:Electrogravitics

Intro

With all due respect, the definition in the intro is utter nonsense. As I don't know what was actually intended in the short spring of this research program, I'm not able to provide a better one. I'm tempted to just delete it. --Pjacobi 16:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If that is the fact argument. then it will beremoved. it is from "Roger Quest, Starbridge. iUniverse, 2005. 232 pages. Page 217. ISBN 0595359159". J. D. Redding

Is this a joke? That's a SF novel. --Pjacobi 16:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"In fiction" just added that ... J. D. Redding 16:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A very definitive article was published in the journal for the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics. It is called "Biefeld-Brown Effect: A Misinterpretation of Corona Wind Phenomena." Volume 42, No. 2, February 2004. The author's name is M. Tajmar. The conclusion is as the title says. The Biefeld-Brown effect is just corona discharge. Someone should reference this article in the main page and discuss it a little. 24.4.176.178 09:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How definitive was it? I have not been able to find a free copy online. Other studies such as the one by Talley titled 21st Century Propulsion Concept showed movement in vacuum when the voltage was pulsed at 600 times a second. Another study titled Asymmetrical Capacitors for Propulsion also showed a movement in vacuum when the voltage was first applied. The author's of the second study attributed the movement to ejection of particles from the capacitor because of arcing. If they had encased the capacitor in a dielectric resin they could have determined for sure whether the movement was due to ejection of particles or something else. Did Tajmar's study include pulsed DC voltage applied to the capacitor? 24.250.10.227 (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Paranormal?

I've removed the "Project Paranormal" infobox. Pls explain the paranormal in this. --Pjacobi 16:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

UFOlogy. J. D. Redding

But this topic also has no relation to Ufology. --Pjacobi 16:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Brown's work was controversial due to the fact that others and even he himself believed that this effect could explain the existence and operation of unidentified flying objects (UFOs). J. D. Redding 16:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that bad? By many accounts, UFOs (the kind for which this is a euphemism meaning "extraterrestrial spacecraft") repeatedly exhibit acceleration capabilities which, in today's vernacular, are "to die for". E.g. from a standing start, on the ground, observed by multiple observers from multiple vantage points, to "...and became indistinguishable from the stars in a few seconds." So, why shouldn't interested parties -- people who really want aerospace technology to advance, beyond today's Chinese-firecracker-adaptation rockets, look seriously at electrogravitics to see if it is real, and see if it can be brought within the scope of mainstream physics? That's what real science is about - looking at interesting phenomena, or allegations about phenomena, to see what is really true and what can be done with it. Ridiculing such allegations is not sincere, competent science and leads me to suspect that somebody is trying to keep cats entrapped in bags, for whatever reason (maybe military or commercial advantage, at a time when the lack of better propulsion and energy sources is rapidly destroying the planet).

Source? And pls not from rexresearch. --Pjacobi 16:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

you apparently have no idea who Thomas Townsend Brown was do you? There are sources in his biography and out on the web, will be back with them. J. D. Redding 16:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Below are sources that I just gleamed off the web real quick, there probably are a lot mmore ... J. D. Redding

sources

• The Case for Antigravity http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-286184459501486399
• Robert {Stirniman, perhaps?} Electrogravitics Reference List Updated Electrogravitics List
• N Cook, The Hunt for Zero Point 2001.
• Theodore C. Loder, III “OUTSIDE THE BOX” SPACE AND TERRESTRIAL TRANSPORTATION AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

comments

The Case for Antigravity

self-publised. not a valid source. --Pjacobi 16:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a paranormal connection here at all, just a disputed corner of physics. The connection with UFOs is spurious. Anyone can say UFOs can be powered by anything. Without an actual one (if there are actual ones) to study it's all moot. Totnesmartin 13:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends on your profession. If you work in technical intelligence, you better believe your boss will want you to look into the possible connection. If your work is pure science, and you lack imagination, maybe your point is valid. But it's still not "paranormal", in either case.

Well, we are not trying to actually connect it to UFOs, but to UFO discussion and it is found in that discussion. It does not matter who T. T. Brown was, but what people are doing to his work in any fields (including UFO discussion). Collecting themes of relevance to people intrested in paranormal phenomena is the purpose of the "Paranormal" project, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.87.173.176 (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"References and external articles" on steroids

I've removed the patents and websites from that section, the rest also needs fin combing.

Patents

Patents are primary source -- without something coming out of them, they are totally useless for an encyclopedia.

Weblinks

This article is about a research program in the 50s, not the mindfuck going on at contemporary carckpot websites. These ahouldn't be linked here. And the elctrostatic thruster sites aren't unrelated here. They claim no modification of gravity and are fo a low-g environment only. Not the flying car stuff from 50s.

Pjacobi 16:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Patents are sources of Brown's work within electrogravitics. As to your POV pushing with statements of "carckpot websites" and "mindfuck", I'll just let that stand for itself. J. D. Redding 16:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Patents are a primary source only and notable in itself. So they may be (and even this is disputed) in the biography article (it's useless fluff IMHO) but they aren't absolutely out of place here.

Care to comment on the problems with this section? Like linking every preprint containing "electro-gravitic" -- whether or not it is published, whether or not it received any citations, whether or not is related to the article?

Pjacobi 17:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Another examples for the randomness of the items added by Reddi: ISBN 0824792548 -- what's the connection to the article's topic? --Pjacobi 18:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

electrogravity Page 103 J. D. Redding 19:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

After reading the linked document, I removed the electric clock patent. It has nothing to do with the subject matter here. It was a patent for an electric clock regulated by pulses controlled by the movements of a mechanical pendulum. The inventor chose to call this mechanism an 'electro-gravity' drive. — BillC ^talk 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we please come back to this issue? I'm tempted to just remove the ugliest 90% but to not shock Reddi and other editors, we can discuss the problems first. Unfortunately the problem has been discussed in numerous places, without solving it in general:

Patents

Patent application are not notable in itself, let alone reliable. If a device comes out as notable and working (or alternatively not working in a spectucular way), the patents related to that device may become interesting part of its history. But not the other way around.

Preprints and other papers

Just googling for some keywords and indiscriminately adding them is very bad™. Without a minimum of expert knowledge in the area, you can't judge, whether the papers really address the topic of the article. With regard to this specific articles, there are a lot of papers which address the electromagnetic analogy of gravitation, but zilch to do with influencing gravitation by electromagnetic fields.

Pjacobi 08:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Facts and POV dispute

• Removed "see also" [1]
• removed Category:Gravity and Category:Electrostatics; put in Category:Pseudophysics [2]
• POV and unreferenced edit "Mainstream science considers electrogravatics to be a pseudoscience". [3]
• Removed primary source references [4]

J. D. Redding 23:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strange. All the above are indeed valid progress towards fixing the neutrality problems, yet you choose to represent them as making the article less neutral. Guy (Help!) 06:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed category "Pseudophysics" and added category "Propulsion". Even though it may not be gravity manipulation, the devices actually fly and there has been scientific intrest on the phenomenon, even though it vanished in the last five decades.

Keeping the "null POV" statement means we can not go towards the affirmation of gravity manipulation... and not towards the negation of it, either.JulioMarco (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

Editing in my 2 cents: I am not a normal wiki editor but I am somewhat annoyed that comments to the effect that this is psuedoscience or paranormal and such are taken as axiomatic when there are in fact reputable researchers and institutions that have reported positive results in electrogravitics or magnetorgravitics etc...

so i'll just leave this link here for your consideration:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060325232140.htm

as i recall there is actually a electrogravitic or magnetogravitic effect predicted by Relativity; albeit miniscule and technologically useless. this ESA research in fact notes that the effect measured is far out of proportion the Einstein's predictions for electrogravity or whatever you want to call it.

if it is inappropriate i will leave to moderation to remove my input if called for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0E8:A6F0:31F5:1E22:4919:B770 (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:PARA tag

Is it part of the project or isn't it? --Chr.K. 06:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well, since the UFO community is using the concept, I see no reason to remove from projects related to it. putting it under "paranormal" would not be an acceptance of paranormal activity or any paranormal phenomena on it... but just accepting that a community such as the UFO enthusiasts use it a lot... and they do!

By the way, with all due respect to Jacqes Valee, the "argument from authority" (or, more specifically, the (in)famous "magister dixit" clause) has been formally banished from the scientific methodology. In science, the opinion of Albert Einstein, if not properly founded in methodologically sane research, is worth the same as that of a regular three-year old boy talking about gravitational waves: nothing. JulioMarco (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Electrogravitic and electrokinetic differences

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)

WikiProject class rating

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)

This article should be under "pseudoscience".

Because it IS a pseudoscience. TTBrown is the ONLY one who calls it electrogravity.

and all the references on here are meaningless.

The Hunt for Zero Point is written by a man with a degree in CHinese cULTURE. hE IS no pHYSICIST. Russell Anderson (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Well, just wait a second!

First of all, calling it electroGRAVITICS is, in my opinion, not scientific, since no actual scientific work that I am aware of (and, please, do not speak of lone researchers in their ivory towers getting great results and definitive proofs) has really found any evidence of a relation between the thrust that occurs in assimetric capacitors to gravity manipulation (actually, we have problems to define gravity in quantum physics and its definition in relativity would not fit the case of a small object inside Earth's atmosphere).

Actually, it's not so much a thrust as an acceleration field. You know, like gravity :^)

Trying to spot one of those engines (a large one) with LIGO would be a way to find major evidence of gravity manipulation, indeed, since it would most certainly generate grvitational waves, if it has anything to do with gravitation. Failing to spot it would be a major evidence on the contrary, given the sensitivity of LIGO.

So why doesn't somebody, even a prankster, set up a T.T. Brown asymmetric capacitor or array thereof next to one of the LIGO observatories in dark of night sometime, and switch it on and off at, say, 1-second intervals, to see what reaction the LIGO researchers have to the anomalies this produces (or doesn't produce) in their data?  :^) More seriously, why don't those scientists do the experiment themselves? Ought to be easy and cheap enough.

On the other hand, it can not be called "pseudoscience". Many people has actually built those floating devices (I am getting ready to build one myself) and there is a link in YouTube (which I lost, sorry...) to a group studying it under vacuum conditions (and failing to acquire any thrust, by the way...).

In order to keep this article in mainstream science, we could change its name to "Electrostatic Propulsion" or "Assimetric Capacitor Engine" and redirect "Electrogravitis" to it (paying the due respect to Mr. T. T. Brown).

Lets face it: it may not be gravity manipulation and may have become UFO enthusiasts territory (with all due respect to UFO enthusiasts...), but it is science, and understanding it could give us a hint on possible intresting electric phenomena... and, luckily, better ion engines! ;)

I guess any passionate move - like calling it "pseudoscientific" or actually claiming to see gravity manipulation in it - would be a transgression of the POV banishment on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.87.173.176 (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not science just because you wish it so. If you can provide video evidence, that may be a step in the right direction, If you can find peer-reviewed papers in reputable journals (i.e. not "The Journal of Fancily-dressed StarChild Researchmen") then you can begin to discuss this notion outside the purview of psuedoscience/junk science - 65.213.147.254 (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Go ahead and drop in the template:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Pseudoscience

Kortoso (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

though amazingly similar to Hutchison effect, I believe, I believe! --Neurorebel (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup

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)

Electro-Gravity via Chronon field

An electro-gravitational craft according to E. Suchard's theory is based on charge separation and is NOT the usual Biefeld-Brown ionocraft/lifter 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 ionocrafts. Equation (30) in Suchard's paper has a divergence component, that according to interpretation (6) possibly without the 2 in the denominator, offers a way to achieve electro-gravity via the non-inertial term -2Div(U)P(Myu)P(Nu)/Z in (30) where P(Myu)P(Nu)/Z deviates from the local notion of conservation laws and reminds of Dennis Sciama's Inertial Induction , though the full theory is with a complex probabilistic time field that results in a more complex equation. 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 Earth rotation and 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 negative charges if the constant of electro gravity is 1/8PiK. K is the constant of gravity and Pi=3.1415... and positive charges if the constant is 1/K. The conservation law (31) with zero charge Div(U)=0 is the ordinary local conservation. Matter fields in Suchard's theory prohibit inertial motion, i.e. matter is expressible by an acceleration field as an antisymmetric matrix that rotates the velocity vector of any particle that can measure proper time and results in it's acceleration in the field. The anti-symmetric matrix is a member of the Lie Algebra of SU(4) and it describes rotation and scaling without the need for Clifford Algebras. This acceleration field does not affect photons and does not directly change the space-time curvature. It takes a very strong electric field of about 1 Mega Volts over 1mm to expose an acceleration of 8cm/Sec^2 of even uncharged particles in an electric field. The non-inertial acceleration, though dependent on mass, is not gravity despite the dependence on mass. Gravity itself results from the divergence of a curvature vector that coincides with the electric field. In the classical limit, the non-inertial acceleration is opposite in direction to the gravity that results from the electric charges. The constant that describes the relation between the square norm of a curvature vector and energy, decides which "force" will be dominant. If it is more than 1/4PiK then the gravity that emanates from electric charges is stronger than the acceleration field which is opposite in direction. If it is less than 1/PiK then the acceleration field that prohibits geodesic motion, is stronger. Written covariantly, an acceleration field is an antisymmetric matrix and not a 4-vector. Electrons have an attracting acceleration field and a repulsive gravitational field and positrons have a repulsive acceleration field and an attractive gravitational field. Matter itself results from coupling between an event wave function and a field of time - not a coordinate of time !!! Matter is described in an appendix in Suchard's paper, "Event Theory", as a non-zero curvature vector and a series of wave functions, each representing an event which by Sam Vaknin's theory is an actual transfer of the time itself. Suchard's paper complements a previous research from 1982 by Sam Vaknin on a Chronon field amendment to Dirac's equation

References

Section above originally added by User:Eytan il on 00:05, 26 February 2014

"Criticism" section

This article is in the Pseudophysics category. It is "fringe". To have a separate "Criticism" section makes no sense. I moved that small paragraph to the lead as the lead should explain why it is pseudophysics. Also the lead is very small WP:LEAD, and needs more info. Bhny (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSINTRO "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article" which means this material should appear in the article body first for it to even show up in the lead. At this article's small scale a short paragraph in an article should follow a much shorter mention in the lead. To better summarize I would suggest a short paragraph in the lead like:

It has since been shown that Brown misunderstood a well known electrokinetic phenomena, thinking it was an anti-gravity force. The field of electrogravitics has been characterized as a pseudoscience.

The lead also suffers from WP:REFBLOAT, again, most of this should appear in the article, not in the lead per WP:LEADCITE.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That this topic is pseudoscience is important and should be part of any summary. Also this pseudoscience label could be expanded on in the article. I will not stop anyone expanding on this. That is actually a good idea. Whether we first write a good lead or first write a good body of an article is a chicken and egg thing. Why not have a good lead and a good body. Also three refs over three sentences isn't refbloat. Bhny (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Citations such as "...the B-2 Stealth Bomber.[4][5][6][7]" is WP:REFBLOAT as per the guideline, and leads should not have all those references, they belong in the body. As to "this topic is pseudoscience", that is problematic. I know it is, and you know it is, but that does not meet Wikipedia's requirements re: the sources in this article are too thin to support name calling re:WP:LABEL - "give readers information about relevant controversies". Information should be spelled out in the body for the reader to decide for them selves at this point in the articles development. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes I see in the first paragraph we have four refs in a row. I've cleaned it up a little. I thought we were talking about the second paragraph. Bhny (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverted the article back to basic MOS and guidelines since there does not seem to be a rational to exceed them. Expanded it some from there. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged" WP:CRITS. Bhny (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Per the same essay, "Approaches to presenting criticism" ---- example #3 recommends a "Criticism" section, and has a similar topic cited (Creationism). Its actually only part of the essay "approaches" that matchs this type of topic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Merger with Biefeld-Brown effect

Please discuss at::Talk:Biefeld–Brown_effectPuddytang (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC) I propose this page be merged with Biefeld-Brown effect, for the reasons that both articles substantially duplicate each other. My proposed edit would incorporate that article's discussion of the cause of the effect into this article. See: User:Puddytang/Electrogravitics. Puddytang (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Why was my changes to Electrogravitics article undone?

No explanation given just undone with NPOV used.

How does NPOV related to my change from How I Control Gravity to How I Control Gravitation, the actual name of Brown's paper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.202.204 (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC) (Comments moved from my talk Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC))

The material was written as commentary so fails WP:NPOV. It also seems to be copy/pasted from the comments of an author selling a WP:SELFPUB WP:FRINGE book[5]. If there is reliable commentary/review of this work it could be a mention under "Criticism" (Criticism can be a pro and con section if both sides exist in reliable sources). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The paper's I referenced in my book and added to the article are valid scientific works. How is my mention that I covered that in my book which you say is fringe any different from Paul Lavolette and his fringe books and the general fringe nature of the article itself? You didn't even keep the edit to the name of Brown's work which was Gravitation not Gravity. It seems you are less interested in encouraging critical thinking skills, giving people a jumping off point to due further research than you are to sticking to your self-defined NPOV. The book I linked to was free, yes I am selling it but I am also giving it away for free.

Lastly, how am I making a POV statement when I state that encompassing the capacitor in epoxy would eliminate the arcing and then researchers could see if there is still movement. That is simple deduction and does not make a comment on what would happen, whether it would still move or not. Did you even bother to read the research papers I mentioned? The one hosted on my site was done by NASA.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.202.204 (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

How I Control Gravity to How I Control Gravitation - I see the book described both ways, if you can nail one version down with a definitive source, please add it. Re: "my book": Self-published media are largely not acceptable on Wikipedia (see WP:RSSELF). Your own research/findings/ideas do not belong in Wikipedia. If you have peer-review and your work is cited in a general reliable secondary source, then yeah, that secondary source would be usable in Wikipedia. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The points I cite about a parallel plate capacitor with a dielectric between its plates moving in a vacuum or in Brown's lab are facts written in the research papers. Do you have any qualms with me quoting them and linking to the papers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.202.204 (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Any interpretation of primary source material (such as research papers) requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation (WP:PSTS). So its not acceptable per Wikipedia policy. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to make interetations of the primary source, merely quote from them, One paper was written for Phillips Laboratory and Air Force Systems Command, Propulsion Directorate, Edwards AFB; the other was done by NASA; is that acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.202.204 (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The NASA paper and the Talley paper is already cited in the article with interpretation by a secondary source (all state there is no effect in a vacuum). What more can we say? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The NASA paper I present is not Jonathon Campbell's work. An anomalous result was found in that NASA paper http://www.forbiddentechnology.org/pdfs/Asymmetrical%20Capacitors%20for%20Propulsion.pdf . Talley's research http://www.forbiddentechnology.org/pdfs/Twenty%20First%20Century%20Propulsion%20Concept.pdf also had an anomalous result. Flat out stating that they showed no results is misleading and does a disservice to the wiki reader. Read the papers yourself. I ask again can these anomalous results be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.202.204 (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The NASA paper is refernce #7

NASA --> Asymmetrical Capacitors for Propulsion--->Conclusions---> "A simple model was developed of ions drifting from one electrode to the other under electrostatic forces, and imparting momentum to air as they underwent multiple collisions. This model was found to be consistent with all of our observations.....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."

R.L. Talley---> Twenty First Century Propulsion Concept---> CONCLUSIONS---> "The electrostatically generated propulsive force, which was claimed to exist by T.T. Brown for test devices driven by steady electrostatic potential differences between the device electrodes, under high vacuum conditions "when there was no vacuum spark," was not observed."

That's the papers conclusion and that is what the secondary source reported. That's as far as we go in an Encyclopedia. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep feeding people the blue pill, I took the red pill a long time ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.202.204 (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Unsupported claims

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)

Delete electrogravitics page

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)

"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)

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) Bengt Nyman (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Edited Bengt Nyman (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Dipole gravity <--- that would have to exist for starters. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It is in process.Bengt Nyman (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Redo of merger with Biefeld-Brown effect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result is no consensus. There were 3 supports and 2 opposes and both sides just posited opposite views on whether this should be contextualized in the other article or have it's own article. Additionally, IP .37.16 raised a strong argument that was not responded to. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 20:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

---

The last time it was discussed in 2014 at Talk:Biefeld–Brown_effect it seemed like there was some consensus to merge this article with Biefeld–Brown_effect, yet nothing has changed and the merger discussion banner has been at the top of both pages for 9 years now. Can we complete the merge or did I miss something at the end of that discussion? Reconrabbit (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment: It looks like it was proposed, merged and reversed on the 17th June 2014; then the tag was removed per consensus on 19th November with this edit. However, I agree that the 2014 discussion at Talk:Biefeld–Brown effect#Proposed Merger with Electrogravitics seems to have been leaning towards a merge. Given the gap, I agree that its worth reconsidering the issue here. Klbrain (talk) 08:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge ---> Electrogravitics. Lead at Biefeld-Brown effect says its Ionic wind, history section says its a moniker for Thomas Townsend Brown's influencing gravity electronically. Its a Brown name for a pseudoscience so should point here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge -> Electrogravitics Weak Keep I think they are two distinct topics, where electrogravitics seems like a more general concept and where this effect appears to be documenting a specific setup or experiment. Electrogravitics should probably link to this page rather than being an extended part of it - however I'm not opposed to a high quality merge that moves across all the sources. Mr Vili talk 02:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

? You are commenting on Talk:Electrogravitics - and the proposal is "this article be merged into Electrogravitics". "link to this page", are you proposing a merger of Electrogravitics into Biefeld-Brown effect? Its confusing - I was part of the 2014 and I had to re-read it to even figure out where I stood and what type of merger was even being proposed.

Looking at it now it looks like Biefeld-Brown effect should be gutted of most of its content per WP:NOTDICT, i.e. descriptions of ion wind belong at ion wind, not at another article by another name, and "Disputes surrounding electrogravity and ion wind" belong at Electrogravitics. Once we do that cleanup, Biefeld-Brown effect is getting close to WP:NOTDICT. The one thing going for Biefeld-Brown effect is that it is not fully explained, so you can hang a (short) article on that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, by "this" I meant Biefeld–Brown effect (thought this merge proposal was within that talk page). I think the pages are related, but separate topics.

I think it makes sense to have a section on the effect within Electrogravitics, but with a "read more" template at the section heading Mr Vili talk 00:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm.. Actually, these two pages appear to be documenting the same phenomena, I believe I was mistaken that Electrogravitics is a collection of theories that involve gravity manipulation using some kind of electrical effect. Mr Vili talk 00:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Don't merge The articles are on distinct topics. The asymmetric capacitor is a specific device, investigated by mainstream science, and given a specific mainstream explanation. That is very distinct from the claim that it has something to do with "gravity". The history behind each is also distinct: Brown discovers the electro-gravatic effect in the 1920's, and reaches peak popularity in the early 1950's, after which it goes dormant as a cultural phenomenon. By contrast, the asymmetric capacitor got a lot of traction during the early days of the internet, with an explosion of interest (it even got on slashdot, more than once), and mainstream science doesn't provide a clear disposition until 2003 (and nothing in there deals with "gravity"). So these seem like distinct topics to me. The general similarity is that both are rooted in Brown and his promotion, that both are a touchstone of fringe/amateur pseudoscience sub-pop culture. BTW, most merge proposals deal with articles that have large overlaps of topic/text. If you read these two articles, there is no duplicated content between the two. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Electrogravitics are unproven but the other article is. Also per IP. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge: This entire article should be merged into the history section of Biefeld–Brown effect, noting the pseudoscientific malarkey. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.