From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 3 April 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.


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. 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? (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


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

  • The Case for Antigravity
  • Robert {Stirniman, perhaps?} Electrogravitics Reference List Updated Electrogravitics List
  • N Cook, The Hunt for Zero Point 2001.

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 (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"References and external articles" on steroids[edit]

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

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

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[edit]

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)

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:

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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".[edit]

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 (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 - (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Go ahead and drop in the template:

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)


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[edit]

An electro-gravitational craft according to E. Suchard's theory [1] 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 [2], [3] 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 [4][5]


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

"Criticism" section[edit]

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[edit]

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)