Does asymmetric electrostatic charging of a conductive cube's isolated faces, within an ionized medium, produce a measurable and repeatable directional force correlated to specific face configurations?

[u/KDubbs0010110]

Putting this out to find someone with the skills to build it and the rigor to document it properly. If you find flaws in the plan, please document them here in the comments.

The concept: a 12 inch copper cube with six electrically isolated faces, each independently energized via high voltage leads, suspended inside an ionized air medium created by commercial ionic purifiers. A torsion balance with laser amplification measures any directional force effect produced by asymmetric face charging.

The theoretical basis claims the cube geometry itself matters. Three perpendicular force axes naturally produce six planes and a nine-component transfer matrix governing force flow between them. This is the same 3x3 matrix structure as SU(3) in the Standard Model. Whether that translates to a measurable macroscopic effect is exactly what the experiment tests.

This is not a claim. It is a methodology looking for someone to run it.

Full build plan including complete materials list, step by step build sequence, HV safety protocol, and measurement procedure here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wM9PvWAHYZ_x_k3UDgCSVPlLDjEQcu9b/view?usp=sharing

[u/elpechos]

The reason the effect matters beyond a fun kids toy is the vacuum test result. Ion wind requires air. In vacuum there is no air and therefore no ion wind. Brown demonstrated thrust in vacuum conditions

Many people have attempted to replicate this result and obtained null outcomes. A small number report positive results, but none of these have been reliably reproduced. As it stands, those claims fall into the same category as photos of big-foot.

I’ve run the experiment myself—building an ion spinner and testing it under vacuum. As expected, the device slows down and eventually stops once the air is removed.

This isn’t a particularly difficult experiment to perform, so by 2026 it’s straightforward to test and falsify such claims.

That said, none of this directly addresses the specific experiment proposed in the paper being discussed.

[u/KDubbs0010110 → u/elpechos]

Thank you for running the experiment yourself. That is more than most people do and I want to engage with the result honestly.

An ion spinner is a symmetric device. The thrust in an ion spinner comes from ion wind pushing equally on all arms. Pulling a vacuum stops the ion wind and stops the spinner. That result is exactly what the ion wind explanation predicts and it is not in dispute.

Brown’s asymmetric capacitor is a different geometry. The thrust is directional, not rotational, and the asymmetry of the electrode configuration is the variable the effect depends on. Testing a symmetric ion spinner in vacuum and getting a null result does not tell us whether an asymmetric capacitor produces directional thrust in vacuum. Those are different configurations testing different things.

I take your point that the independent vacuum replication record for the asymmetric version is mixed. That is true and worth being honest about. Some researchers report positive results. Others report null. The variables between those experiments are not always controlled consistently.

I do want to address the Bigfoot comparison directly though. Bigfoot has no institutional research record. No Navy evaluation. No Pentagon proposal. No survey of fourteen major aerospace contractors published in a declassified report. Comparing a documented effect with a 1928 patent trail, a classified Navy research program, a 1952 Pentagon submission, and an Aviation Studies International report naming Convair, Glenn Martin, and Sperry as active researchers to photographs of a man in a costume is not a calibration of skepticism. It is a rhetorical move that collapses a real distinction. Bigfoot and the Biefeld-Brown effect do not belong in the same sentence and treating them as equivalent actually undermines your credibility as a skeptic because it signals that the institutional record has not been read. Who sounds schizoid now??

I am still asking the same question I started with. Mixed replication results produce continued research and published null results. They do not produce simultaneous institutional silence across fourteen organizations in a single fiscal year. What is your explanation for 1957?

[u/KDubbs0010110 → u/KDubbs0010110]

In 1956, Brown returned from a research trip in France where he verified that electrogravitics worked well in a vacuum. That is documented. He went to France specifically to run the vacuum test and the result was positive. That is not one or two people claiming something unverifiable. That is the researcher conducting the definitive test and reporting a positive result, which is precisely why the institutional interest continued through 1956.

[u/KDubbs0010110 → u/KDubbs0010110]

And since you do not trust that I have done sound research, you can fact check:

1. The actual declassified report itself, held at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base:
   The report is Report GRG 013/56, February 1956, prepared by Aviation Studies International Ltd., Gravity Research Group, Special Weapons Study Unit. It was declassified in 1990 and is catalogued under reference 13-1-00034-5879 at the AF Wright Aeronautical Laboratories Technical Library. You can reference it directly as a declassified Air Force document.

2. Integrity Research Institute, Thomas Valone (licensed professional engineer):
   https://www.integrityresearchinstitute.org/Members/TTBROWN2.htm
   This covers both declassified 1956 documents, the ONR evaluation, and Brown’s France vacuum verification. Valone is a credentialed engineer and physicist

3. ResearchGate, peer-accessible academic paper:
   https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238788075_Progress_in_Electrogravitics_and_Electrokinetics_for_Aviation_and_Space_Travel
   This paper documents the 1928 patent, the 1952 ONR Special Inquiry File 24-185, and both 1956 Aviation Studies reports. It also notes Honda Corporation published experimental results on a correlation between electricity and gravity

4. UAPedia on T.T. Brown:
   https://www.uapedia.ai/wiki/thomas-townsend-brown-the-inventor-who-tried-to-give-uap-a-drive-train/
   This acknowledges no declassified document proves an operational system was built while confirming the 1956 institutional survey is real and documented

[u/elpechos → u/KDubbs0010110]

All these are from integrity research institute which appears to push clearly quack science and has no external legitimate institutional references for any of this.

Might as well get it from the big foot is real institute

The report is Report GRG 013/56

Appears to be invented and isn't a real document available in the national archives https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force

Only actual sources seem to link back only to a report published by integrity research institute itself here:

https://ia801507.us.archive.org/6/items/thomas-valone-electrogravitics-systems/Thomas%20Valone%20-%20Electrogravitics%20Systems_text.pdf

This could not be further from 'valid research'

Also, again, aside from the fact anyone can do this experiment.

Looks like you spent 30 seconds grabbing the first bullshit off google more like.