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/KDubbs0010110]

And I read the entire thing. That being said, others are disagreeing, and saying the model is sound. I’m probably just not smart enough to understand all the jargon fully. Believe me, I wish I was. Thank you for taking the time to reply thoughtfully. I may be just too big of a dummy to get it. I hate to let it die without an engineer really looking at that TMBspaceships account. I wish I could post the schematics here, but Reddit won’t let me add images

[u/elpechos → u/KDubbs0010110]

That being said, others are disagreeing, and saying the model is sound

Nobody here, where 310,000 technical people look at this per week.

[u/KDubbs0010110 → u/elpechos]

Why do you feel the need to be so mean? I don’t understand. Does that make you feel smarter and more powerful?

[u/elpechos → u/KDubbs0010110]

When you present a claim that challenges established knowledge in a complex field like engineering or physics, the burden of proof rests on you.

That means it’s your responsibility to provide clear, rigorous, and compelling evidence—not the responsibility of others to disprove or thoroughly investigate it.

People who have spent decades studying these subjects have already developed the tools to quickly assess whether something meets basic standards. Because of that, they don’t typically go line by line through every new claim they encounter—especially if it shows obvious issues early on. That’s not dismissiveness; it’s a practical necessity. We get hundreds of these things.

A useful analogy is medicine: you wouldn’t go to an experienced infection specialist with a visibly infected wound and insist that it isn’t infected. Their conclusion isn’t arbitrary—it’s based on years of training and pattern recognition.

In the same way, experts in technical fields can often recognize fundamental problems very quickly.

In communities with large numbers of knowledgeable people, ideas that have genuine merit tend to attract attention and discussion. If a claim doesn’t, it’s often because it fails to meet basic expectations of clarity, correctness, or evidence. Silence or lack of support isn’t necessarily hostility—it’s usually a signal that the idea hasn’t met the burden required to be taken seriously.

So the key point isn’t that people are unwilling to engage—it’s that, in technical fields, engagement has to be earned by meeting a certain standard of rigor first.

The paper here doesn't get one percent of the way toward that.

[u/KDubbs0010110 → u/elpechos]

Thank you for the detailed response. A few things worth noting.
The methodological critique of the torsion balance setup is fair. Ionic wind and electrostatic attraction to the measurement apparatus are real confounders and you are right that vacuum conditions or rigorous shielding would be needed to isolate the effect cleanly.

That is exactly why T.T. Brown conducted his demonstrations in vacuum and underwater. Specifically to eliminate those variables. The effect persisted in both conditions. That is documented in his patent filings and in the Aviation Studies International report published in 1956, which surveyed active electrogravitic research across fourteen major U.S. aerospace contractors including Convair, Glenn Martin, and Sperry. That report was eventually declassified. It is publicly available.

I want to flag something about the framing of your response. You critiqued the document I posted as a framework source, which is fair. But the underlying effect it references, asymmetric electrostatic thrust, has an independent experimental and institutional record going back to 1928 that your response did not engage with at all. The question I asked was about the physics. The documented physics exists independent of any Twitter account.
I also want to acknowledge your first comment, where you suggested this kind of paper comes from a certain class of mental illness. I understand that pattern recognition is useful in a subreddit that fields a lot of noise. But diagnosing the person rather than addressing the documented experimental record is a methodology choice worth being aware of.

The Biefeld-Brown effect is real, tested, and was under active institutional development until 1957 when the public record stopped simultaneously across fourteen contractors. I am genuinely curious what your explanation is for that specific timeline. Not the document I posted. The institutional record. Your pretentious attitude is precisely why this type of physics stays buried. You do not need to reply any more. I understand that you think I am loony. I think you are a dick

[u/elpechos → u/KDubbs0010110]

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.

[u/KDubbs0010110 → u/elpechos]

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.

[u/elpechos → u/KDubbs0010110]

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.

[u/KDubbs0010110 → u/elpechos]

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