Technical Guide to Telekinesis Practice and Theory

 The Static Electricity Myth in Telekinesis Experiments

When people first encounter telekinesis experiments, the explanation almost always seems obvious: static electricity. Charged hands, invisible electric forces, maybe a bit of triboelectricity. It feels intuitive, familiar, and safely within textbook physics. The problem is that, once measurements are introduced, the electrostatic explanation falls apart. This article does not attempt to argue for any particular metaphysical interpretation of telekinesis. Its purpose is much narrower: to document a set of reproducible experimental observations and to show why static electricity, despite being the default intuition, does not account for what is actually measured.

 

What is actually observed

Across repeated experiments—both by the author and by other practitioners—a consistent pattern emerges:

• Practitioners often use their hands, but this appears mainly to help focus attention rather than to provide a mechanical or electrical driver. Motion can often be induced without moving the hands, and sometimes even without direct visual contact.
• When hands are used, it is possible to switch rapidly between apparent pushing and pulling effects.
• The author has sustained a stable spinning motion of a small round object balanced on a needle for more than ten minutes, with very constant angular velocity.
• Motion can be induced in objects enclosed within sealed containers, sometimes over large distances and even during videoconference-mediated interaction.
• Conductive objects (metals) and dielectric ones (plastic, paper, etc.) respond in essentially the same way.
• Direct measurements with electroscopes and electrostatic voltmeters show no detectable voltage and no net charge on spinning “psi wheels.”
• Some advanced practitioners can deliberately electrify objects, causing paper, coins, or books to adhere to walls. Electrification can also occur remotely: for example, a psi wheel spinning inside a container may later adhere to the container wall. These effects are typically absent in experiments performed by beginner practitioners.
• Some advanced practitioners can generate sufficiently high voltages within their bodies to jolt another person, produce sparks near metal, or illuminate luminescent tubes or bulbs by touch.
• Air currents clearly amplify the effects. Some practitioners claim the ability to intentionally direct airflow (often called aerokinesis). The author and others report being able to disperse clouds to the point of disappearance, which may represent a macroscopic version of the same process.
• Shielded candles can be extinguished from distances of several meters or even remotely; the author has personally replicated this effect.

At first glance, some of these observations may sound electrostatic. The measurements, however, tell a different story.

 

Why static electricity is the wrong explanation

Electrostatics gives us two straightforward quantities to check:

• Voltage, which corresponds to the line integral of the electric field.

• Net electric charge, which can be detected with an electroscope and is related to the surface integral of the electric field through Gauss’s law.

If static electricity were responsible for the observed motion, at least one of these quantities should be detectable. In practice, neither is.

Repeated measurements consistently show:

• no measurable voltage difference, and
• no net charge accumulation on the moving object.

This is not a subtle or ambiguous result. It directly contradicts the idea that classical electrostatic forces are doing the work.

 

Zero voltage does not mean zero electric field

Here is where intuition often fails. The absence of measurable voltage or net charge does not imply the absence of electric fields altogether. It is entirely possible to have strong, highly localized electric fields or steep field gradients that integrate to zero over macroscopic paths or surfaces. Conventional instruments such as voltmeters and electroscopes are effectively blind to such configurations.

In other words, static electricity is ruled out—but electric field effects are not.

 

Two non-electrostatic ways fields can produce motion

Localized electric fields can drive motion through mechanisms that do not rely on static charge:

1. Dielectrophoresis
   Neutral dielectric materials experience forces in non-uniform electric fields due to induced polarization. These forces depend strongly on material properties and field gradients.
2. Electrohydrodynamic (EHD) airflow, often called ionic wind
   Electric fields act on ions in the surrounding air, producing bulk airflow that mechanically pushes or rotates nearby objects.

The experimental evidence strongly favors the second mechanism.

 

Why ionic wind fits the observations

If dielectrophoresis were dominant, conductive and dielectric objects would behave very differently. In experiments, they do not. Metals, plastics, and paper all respond in essentially the same way.

Ionic wind, by contrast:

• produces mechanical forces through the air,
• does not require net charge transfer to the object,
• generates no measurable voltage, and
• naturally couples to ambient drafts and airflow.

This framework also explains a key threshold effect. At low ion current densities, any deposited charge leaks away as fast as it arrives, leaving no detectable electrostatic signature. At higher intensities, leakage paths become saturated, allowing charge to accumulate. Only then do classical electrostatic effects appear—objects sticking to walls, papers clinging together, and measurable surface potentials.

In this view, electrostatic charging is not the cause of motion, but a secondary effect that emerges only beyond a certain intensity.

 

What remains unexplained

If advanced practitioners can generate strong localized electric fields near their bodies, it is relatively easy to imagine ionic wind forming close to the hands or skin.

More difficult questions remain:

• How can object motion occur at a distance?
• How can motion be induced inside sealed containers with no internal ion sources?
• How might large-scale effects, such as cloud dispersal, fit into this picture?

These observations suggest that the ionic-wind model, while promising, is still incomplete. Exploring how localized field structures might form remotely or persist in closed systems will be the subject of future posts.

Published: 2026-02-09