|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
23 November 2024 21:47
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
Felipe Wescoup |
| Subject: |
Solution to Gyroscopic Propulsion |
| Question: |
Dear Sirs,
My name is Felipe Wescoup. I am an engineer for an environmental engineering company in Texas.
A couple of years ago I mathematically solved gyroscopic propulsion. I have been sitting on my calculations until I could afford to build the test model. I have had my calculations checked by a PhD Mechanical Engineer. He agreed, my calculations should produce lift. But we won’t know for sure until the test model is built. (I sent my calculations to another PhD ME, but I think he got bogged down in the dynamics.)
The mathematics to produce gyroscopic propulsion is relatively easy. (In comparison to some of the mathematical models I have done.) However, knowing how to produce gyroscopic propulsion is probably less than one third of the way towards producing a gyroscopic propulsion system. A true gyroscopic propulsion system is going to require more than just spinning a gyroscope or two.
I do feel gyroscopic propulsion is possible. I also feel it is the future of space flight. I have done sizing calculations for test models, flying cars, and a vehicle of similar capacity to the space shuttle.
Again, I haven’t been blindly spinning gyroscopes in a lab. Because of the way the gyroscopes have to be set up, I’m extremely confident no one will stumble on to the solution of this phenomenon. And I haven’t seen any models that are close to the solution. I approached and solved this phenomenon mathematically with a strong understanding of rotational dynamics.
I found this website two days ago. I’m unsure if anyone affiliated with or anyone that stumbles across this website can assist me. But I don’t think it can hurt anything. I will not share or discuss my calculations. However, if you feel that you can assist me in developing this technology, send an email to Wescoup@comcast.net.
Thank you,
Felipe Wescoup
|
| Date: |
26 August 2005
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 28/08/2005 04:19:29
| | | Felipe,
Have you looked at the patents presented in this website, or the The Royal Institution’s 1974-75 Christmas Lecture by Eric Laithewaite?
Thank you,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Felipe Wescoup - 28/08/2005 11:46:11
| | | Webmaster,
How can I get this thread moved to the gyroscopic propulsion forum?
To everyone else,
When I first posted my message, I only read a couple of the messages. I spent all of last night reading previously posted messages and responses. It seems there has been a considerable amount of debate about gyroscopic propulsion. While it was very fun to read I would rather try to avoid it.
I’m strongly aware of the differences between physicist and engineers. I would probably be considered a hybrid. I have a good understanding of physics, probably better than the average university professor. However, most physicists have no clue how to design and build something. My background is engineering. And I realize that engineers are very good at using an equation and getting an answer. But don’t even consider why the equation works. I often for my own satisfaction, find myself deriving the equations and methods that I use as an engineer.
Gyroscopic Propulsion:
I suppose the system I have designed would not be considered a pure gyroscopic propulsion device. A linear force is applied from a point of reference. Power is applied to the system. However, the propulsion is produced by gyroscopes. So the question remaining “is this device more efficient than rocket technology?”
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 28/08/2005 14:44:47
| | | Dear Filipe,
The answer to your question "which is more efficient?" is less important than: which can be powered for ever (til things wear out) by electricity derived from solar power in near space, or by nuclear (Yuck!) derived electicity further out. Rockets don't even come near - hence the number of nutters in sheds (I prefer inventive geniuses) to be found here when we are not out in our sheds torturing pieces of metal to our nefarious ends.
Kind regards
NM
PS Don't ever think that just because something is a bit complex someone won't have thought of it before. Thirty odd years ago, when alternative energy was being looked at, I filed for a patent on a (so I thought) "unique" vertical axis wind generator that promised to produce five times more output than the usual horizontal type.
After applying for a search, I received the usual prior art documents from the British patent office in an enormous package. I had forgotten the huge effort that was produced in America to produce wind driven pumps and other machines as the country drove west, where - before oi l - there was no other easy power.
There are some really clever people beevering away in sheds. All right! And some dumb ones like me too.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
