Uploaded April 2026 | Updated September 2026, 3 days ago
Al Baur presents the results of experimental work using variations on a double tube design for an electrostatic levitator. Baur’s work is unique in that he is actually making electrostatic levitation devices maintain a specific height and travel along a path in between upper & lower rails in an electrostatic / ion-wind circuit.
How the levitator works
The basic levitator consists of a lightweight body made from very thin aluminum foil, reinforced with insulating structural material such as PLA, nylon wire, or LDPE foam. Above it is a negatively charged plate. The levitator presents a broad conductive surface toward that upper plate, which creates an electrostatic attraction upward, while specially shaped points or edges produce ionization.
Baur explains the motion as the result of three main forces acting together: electrostatic attraction upward, gravity downward, and ion wind / ion thrust that can push upward or sideways depending on the geometry. The attractive force helps hold the levitator inside the field, while the ionization provides directional bias and motion. In his view, the field itself “wants to keep everything inside,” which is why the device can self-center and follow a track without tethers.
He repeatedly emphasizes that shape matters. Small bends in the foil leaves determine whether the craft simply hangs in place or moves laterally. By angling the leaves, the electrostatic attraction and ion push become unbalanced in a controlled way, causing the levitator to translate around a circular path or along a defined trajectory. That is why some versions remain stable and stationary, while others orbit or move continuously.
Performance claims and scaling
Baur reports a number of experimental figures. He says the largest tested levitator had a height of 250 mm, the fastest recorded speed was about 4 m/s, and the largest tested payload was 6 grams. He describes typical trajectories ranging from about 1 to 10 mm in one dimension and around 60 mm in width for smaller examples, though larger systems use much larger tracks.
For power, he presents a rough scaling argument suggesting that larger systems become more favorable. In his example, doubling linear size causes weight to rise faster than power demand, which leads him to argue that larger electrostatic levitators may be relatively more efficient. He gives speculative estimates such as roughly 450 watts for 1 kilogram, 4 kW for 10 kilograms, and 45 kW for 100 kilograms, though he presents these as extrapolations rather than demonstrated results.
He also gives one concrete “horse” example: a quarter-meter-tall unit with four collectors and four ionizers, weighing about 10 grams, consuming around 13 watts at 60% humidity, with a low-side input around 8.5 volts and a calculated high-voltage output around 70 kV. He notes, however, that this voltage is not a direct in-situ field measurement, because system impedance reduces the actual voltage available along the trajectory.
Instrumentation and experimental setup
Baur briefly discusses the hardware behind the experiments. He uses a high-voltage power supply that can operate between 10 and 50 kV, and says his supply can go up to 100 kV. The controller lets him set limits on voltage, current, and power, and includes an oscilloscope function to help identify leakage and monitor system behavior. He says he often prefers to work in current-control mode rather than voltage-control mode.
Other materials and tools he mentions include a mini digital scale with 0.01 g resolution, a humidity meter, aluminum foil, nylon or PLA reinforcement, LDPE packing material, contact glue, and a 3D-printed template to make the levitators more consistently and quickly. The overall impression is that, while high voltage is involved, the craft themselves are inexpensive and relatively accessible to experimental builders.
Bottom line
The presentation is best understood as a report on a practical experimental electrostatic levitation system in air that appears to combine corona attraction, ion-driven push, and geometric self-stabilization to produce untethered hovering and guided motion. Baur’s strongest contribution is not a polished formal theory, but a set of repeatable-looking demonstrations, design heuristics, and scaling ideas that suggest electrostatics may be more dynamically useful than many experimenters assume.
Al Baur presents the results of experimental work using variations on a double tube design for an electrostatic levitator. Baur’s work is unique in that he is actually making electrostatic levitation devices maintain a specific height and travel along a path in between upper & lower rails in an electrostatic / ion-wind circuit.
How the levitator works
The basic levitator consists of a lightweight body made from very thin aluminum foil, reinforced with insulating structural material such as PLA, nylon wire, or LDPE foam. Above it is a negatively charged plate. The levitator presents a broad conductive surface toward that upper plate, which creates an electrostatic attraction upward, while specially shaped points or edges produce ionization.
Baur explains the motion as the result of three main forces acting together: electrostatic attraction upward, gravity downward, and ion wind / ion thrust that can push upward or sideways depending on the geometry. The attractive force helps hold the levitator inside the field, while the ionization provides directional bias and motion. In his view, the field itself “wants to keep everything inside,” which is why the device can self-center and follow a track without tethers.
He repeatedly emphasizes that shape matters. Small bends in the foil leaves determine whether the craft simply hangs in place or moves laterally. By angling the leaves, the electrostatic attraction and ion push become unbalanced in a controlled way, causing the levitator to translate around a circular path or along a defined trajectory. That is why some versions remain stable and stationary, while others orbit or move continuously.
Performance claims and scaling
Baur reports a number of experimental figures. He says the largest tested levitator had a height of 250 mm, the fastest recorded speed was about 4 m/s, and the largest tested payload was 6 grams. He describes typical trajectories ranging from about 1 to 10 mm in one dimension and around 60 mm in width for smaller examples, though larger systems use much larger tracks.
For power, he presents a rough scaling argument suggesting that larger systems become more favorable. In his example, doubling linear size causes weight to rise faster than power demand, which leads him to argue that larger electrostatic levitators may be relatively more efficient. He gives speculative estimates such as roughly 450 watts for 1 kilogram, 4 kW for 10 kilograms, and 45 kW for 100 kilograms, though he presents these as extrapolations rather than demonstrated results.
He also gives one concrete “horse” example: a quarter-meter-tall unit with four collectors and four ionizers, weighing about 10 grams, consuming around 13 watts at 60% humidity, with a low-side input around 8.5 volts and a calculated high-voltage output around 70 kV. He notes, however, that this voltage is not a direct in-situ field measurement, because system impedance reduces the actual voltage available along the trajectory.
Instrumentation and experimental setup
Baur briefly discusses the hardware behind the experiments. He uses a high-voltage power supply that can operate between 10 and 50 kV, and says his supply can go up to 100 kV. The controller lets him set limits on voltage, current, and power, and includes an oscilloscope function to help identify leakage and monitor system behavior. He says he often prefers to work in current-control mode rather than voltage-control mode.
Other materials and tools he mentions include a mini digital scale with 0.01 g resolution, a humidity meter, aluminum foil, nylon or PLA reinforcement, LDPE packing material, contact glue, and a 3D-printed template to make the levitators more consistently and quickly. The overall impression is that, while high voltage is involved, the craft themselves are inexpensive and relatively accessible to experimental builders.
Bottom line
The presentation is best understood as a report on a practical experimental electrostatic levitation system in air that appears to combine corona attraction, ion-driven push, and geometric self-stabilization to produce untethered hovering and guided motion. Baur’s strongest contribution is not a polished formal theory, but a set of repeatable-looking demonstrations, design heuristics, and scaling ideas that suggest electrostatics may be more dynamically useful than many experimenters assume.
