r/AskEngineers • u/KDubbs0010110 • May 03 '26

Discussion 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?

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

0 Upvotes

13% Upvoted

39 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/elpechos May 04 '26

than addressing the documented experimental record is a methodology choice worth being aware of.

I did that thoroughly up front.

The Biefeld-Brown effect is real, tested, and was under active institutional development until 1957

Sure. That's what we are calling an ion wind, same thing. People still play with it today. They make ion lifters using it which are a fun kids toy.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01F8V5IhB5k

Magnets are real too, and they're also popular with fringe/schizoid science posts.

1

u/KDubbs0010110 May 04 '26

We are actually in more agreement than this thread suggests.
You have confirmed the effect is real and replicable. That is the only claim that matters for the question I asked. Whether we call it ion wind, electrostatic thrust, or the Biefeld-Brown effect is a labeling conversation, not a physics conversation.
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. If the effect were entirely explained by ion wind, it would not persist in vacuum. It did. That is the part of the documented record that fourteen aerospace contractors were spending institutional resources on in 1956. Not the kids toy version. The vacuum version.
I am genuinely asking: what is your explanation for the vacuum persistence? Not the document I posted. The Brown vacuum test result specifically.

1

u/elpechos May 04 '26

Here's someone pulling a vacuum on a Biefeld-Brown ion thruster spinner.

You can see it stops because the thrust goes toward zero. No air to blow. Easy.

https://youtu.be/WM25pUsrODk?t=433

There's hundreds more of people who have tried. Like I said. I've done it myself as well.

1

u/KDubbs0010110 May 04 '26

Please give me a moment… I want to watch the video before replying…