Talk:Biefeld–Brown effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Older comments

[edit] Experiments in Florida and at NASA/NSSTC, LEEIF Facility

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))

[edit] Personal undergrad experiment

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

[edit] Personal USAF experiment

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

The "recent paper" (not, as far as I can tell, peer-reviewed, or in fact reviewed in any way the would remove spelling errors) linked above totally ignores the possibility of air entraiment by the ion wind, which is the standard explanation. It describes a single experiment, conducted in air, and claims that vacuum experiments are unnecessary (in reality, vacuum experiments show no force).
That patent is almost certainly speculative; it is almost certainly invalidated by prior art, since the original discoverers of the effect patented it (speculatively), and since there's been many articles published on the subject since.
The site has videos, but they show nothing of the sort described. --Andrew 19:51, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Andrew, but you aren't looking. I highly suggest you delve deeper into Naudin's "Lifter Project" pages. BTW: Speaking of spelling errors, the *entrainment* I observed was insufficient in my own experiments to explain the amount of thrust observed.

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

A quote from [1]: "A polarisable dielectric medium is required to get a thrust." This seems to say that the effect will not work in a vacuum. (Which is exactly what vacuum experiments demonstrate).
The site full of videos vaguely describes three experiments that involve a physical partition between the electrodes. Two of them are simply understood by electrostatic attraction (this is not mentioned on their pages, but is alluded to on the page of the third. The third is more interesting. It uses three light bulbs (calling them vaccum tubes; I have no idea what the internal pressure is, but normal light bulbs do not operate in a vacuum) as one electrode, and the usual sheet of metal as the other. The videos show motion when power is applied. No information is provided about current draw or force. One simple explanation is that the tubes themselves may be being raised to a high voltage and serving as electrodes. Without actual data, it's impossible to tell what's going on.
If you did your own experiments, post the data somewhere and we can discuss it. --Andrew 21:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Upward Lift of Tubular Lifter Confirms Ion Wind Not Lifting "Lifters"

          -(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)
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))

[edit] Solid-Dielectric Thrusters

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

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

I think the vacuum experiments are trying to rule out the possibility of using a lifter as a source of propulsion in space. In air, it's an interesting but highly power-intensive way to move air, akin to fans, propellers, and magnetohydrodynamic drives. If it actually works in space, it could be useful as a form of spacecraft propulsion. Every known mechanism by which it could operate in space, though, makes it pretty unsatisfactory as a propulsion method.
If the solid-dielectric phenomenon you allude to is the same phenomenon, and you can point us to some reliable information about it, I'm sure somebody would work it into the article.
Incidentally, complaining about people's ignorance (even if they are ignorant) is not usually a good way to get positive attention for your ideas. --Andrew 06:38, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Let's not forget that NASA has filed and GOT some patents for using the Biefeld-Brown effect for thrusters. So this could be an indication that the Biefeld-Brown Effect can be effictively used as thrusters in deep space. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.58.253.131 (talk • contribs) . (aka the kuleuven.ac.be anon in Leuven, Belgium)
Can you list some? NASA clearly states that the BB effect is nothing more than standard EHD in this paper.
In spite of decades of speculation about possible new physical principles being responsible for the thrust produced by ACTs and lifters, we find no evidence to support such a conclusion. On the contrary, we find that their operation is fully explained by a very simple theory that uses only electrostatic forces and the transfer of momentum by multiple collisions.
— Omegatron 01:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

No, we've had more than our share of insulting crackpots here already; being rude will just get you flagged as another one and more-or-less ignored. I've looked at that site before; in fact we link to it. Nothing I've seen there convincingly conflicts with the conventional ion wind hypothesis, although the site author clearly thinks these things will work in a vacuum. --Andrew 02:44, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
An "air dielectric" implies that the air is insulating. Because of the high voltage, the air will break down around the sharp electrode and become conducting, and charged particles will drift through the neutral air in between, which means it's not a capacitor anymore. - Omegatron 03:44, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] Ion wind

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)

[edit] Just thought you would find it interesting...

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

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

[edit] Repeated vandalism

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)

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)

[edit] Recent anon edits

Two anons have recently made unexplained deletions:

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

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

They just keep going, and going, and going... They look to all be from AOL addresses. Did you check any of the others? They're all removing exactly the same thing, so they are probably the same person. Are dynamic IPs reliably geolocatable? — Omegatron 17:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
In case you didn't notice, CH, this has been going on since early April, in both Biefeld–Brown effect and Lifter (ionic propulsion device). — Omegatron 17:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

among others.

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

Only a crank could make the exact same edits dozens of times without getting the hint.
What kind of proxies are those? If they're open proxies, can't we block them permanently? — Omegatron 20:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

But you're the one who said "definitely a proxy". — Omegatron 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)

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

[edit] The vn.shawcable.net anon

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)

[edit] Re: Lightning Rods

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)

[edit] Vandalism by anon

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

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

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

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

[edit] Under the radar.

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)

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