Misconceptions about gyroscopic stabilization

Patric Müller, Achim Sack, and Thorsten Pöschel

Citation: American Journal of Physics 88, 175 (2020); doi: 10.1119/10.0000517

View online: https://doi.org/10.1119/10.0000517
View Table of Contents: https://aapt.scitation.org/toc/ajp/88/3
Published by the American Association of Physics Teachers
Misconceptions about gyroscopic stabilization
€ller,a) Achim Sack, and Thorsten Po
Patric Mu €schel
Institute for Multiscale Simulation, Friedrich-Alexander-Universit€
at Erlangen-N€
urnberg, Erlangen, Germany
(Received 2 August 2019; accepted 21 December 2019)
A spinning gyroscope resists small torques in directions perpendicular to its axis, that is, the angular
orientation of a body rigidly attached to a gyroscope is stable against rotation around certain axes.
Since the angular orientation of a body is described by three angles (e.g., Euler angles), one might
conclude that it is possible to stabilize the orientation of an object against rotation using a
combination of three gyroscopes spinning around non-collinear axes. We perform experiments under
conditions of weightlessness to demonstrate that systems of coupled gyroscopes cannot arrest the
angular orientation of free-floating objects, in contradiction to a widespread myth about gyroscopic
stabilization, based on the above arguments. VC 2020 American Association of Physics Teachers.
https://doi.org/10.1119/10.0000517

I. INTRODUCTION prominent example for the popularity of this misconception

Spinning flywheels or gyroscopes can stabilize the orienta-
tion of objects. This property is exploited in a variety of
applications including children’s toys, marine gyrostabilizers,
gyrocompasses, and many more. Apart from being of utter-
most practical importance, gyroscopes fascinate physicists
for their interesting behavior (Fig. 1). The sometimes coun-
terintuitive dynamics of gyroscopes are frequently among the
most difficult subjects encountered by new students in phys-
ics. This is evidenced by a vast body of literature on illustrat-
ing and teaching gyrodynamics, see, e.g., Refs. 1–19.
The mathematics of the dynamics of bodies in contact
with gyroscopes is far from trivial, and apparently simple
phenomena turn out to be very complicated. For example,
the stability of a bicycle seems to be related to the conserva-
tion of angular momentum of the front wheel, but the mathe-
matical description is rather involved20,21 and even the fact
itself is not without contradiction.22 The stabilizing effect of
a gyroscope can be nicely demonstrated under conditions of
weightlessness such that the position of the center of mass is
conserved, see Fig. 2. When the astronaut kicks the gyro-
scope slightly, it translates in space, while its axis of rotation
is conserved. Similar to the spinning wheel of a bicycle,
angular momentum defines an axis whose orientation is
stable. However, just as for the bicycle wheel, the object is
free to rotate around this axis.
A common misconception among students, graduates, and
sometimes even professors23 results from the following con-
sideration: assume we wish to fix the position of an object in
three-dimensional space. This requires fixing three scalar
quantities (the coordinates) along three non-collinear unit
vectors. Thus, an apparatus capable of fixing an object in
space must provide three invariant vectors and a mechanism
to keep the object at certain positions along these vectors.
The angular orientation of a solid body is also determined by
three quantities (e.g., the Euler angles); therefore, the same
arguments should apply. Because of its angular momentum,
a gyroscope defines a unit vector, that is, the direction of its
angular momentum and a scalar quantity, that is, the absolute
value of the angular momentum. Therefore, an arrangement
of three spinning gyroscopes with non-collinear axes should
allow for fixing the angular orientation of a solid body.
This is, however, incorrect. The error is due to a misunder-
standing of the nature of angular momentum. Nevertheless,
the above argument can be found in many variations. A
is again provided by a movie from the International Space
Station.24 There, NASA astronaut Don Pettit uses portable
CD-players as gyroscopes. First, he demonstrates that the
spinning disc inside the CD-player stabilizes one axis. In
order to fix the orientation of a flashlight, he then combines
three CD-players such that the axes of rotation of the spin-
ning discs are perpendicular to each other.
The experiment presented in the movie24 was not geared
towards a systematic quantitative investigation and may be
criticized from a scientific point of view. For example, the
astronaut did not perturb the flashlight to test the desired sta-
bility. On the contrary, the flashlight rotates slowly even if
not perturbed. Therefore, we repeated the experiment shown
by the astronaut24 under conditions of microgravity aboard
an airplane performing parabolic flights. In contrast to the
demonstration on the ISS, our experiment allows for record-
ing the time series of the angular orientation of the free-
floating device and, thus, a quantitative analysis. Subsequent
data analysis reveals that three gyroscopes cannot stabilize
the orientation of an object in space, in agreement with
theory.
In order to understand the experiment, we first introduce
the basic elements of gyro-dynamics and then present the
experimental data.
II. GYRO-DYNAMICS
Saying that spinning flywheels have the tendency to retain
their orientation because angular momentum is conserved is
certainly oversimplifying. We wish to explain clearly, in
mathematical terms, what is meant by this phrase. But first,
let us briefly comment on the need for a mathematical analy-
sis: while in many cases, plausible arguments may help to
understand the physics behind observed phenomena, we
believe that there are systems where a deep understanding
can be better (or only) achieved through the language of
mathematics. We also believe that gyroscopic motion
belongs to this class of systems where “scientific literacy” is
a necessary precondition for a fundamental understanding.
For more discussion on this subject, also regarding the teach-
ing of physics courses, see a recent paper by Carl Mungan.25
The evolution of the angular orientation of a rotating solid
body is described by Euler’s equations (see, e.g., Ref. 26 for
a derivation) as follows:

175 Am. J. Phys. 88 (3), March 2020 http://aapt.org/ajp C 2020 American Association of Physics Teachers
V 175
  
H? x_ x þ Hk  H? xz xy ¼ 0 ;
 
H? x_ y þ H?  Hk xx xz ¼ 0 ; (2)
Hk x_ z ¼ 0:

Suppose the flywheel rotates around its principal inertia axis,

z, (its symmetry axis) at angular velocity x ~ ¼ ð0; 0; x0z Þ. To
study the stability of the rotational motion, we assume a
0
small initial perturbation ~
d ¼ ðd0 ; d0 ; d0 Þ such that the rotation
x y z
axis and the symmetry axis no longer coincide, x ~
¼ ðd0x ; d0y ; x0z þ d0z Þ. A stability analysis of Euler’s equations
(2) (see, e.g., Refs. 27–29) quantifies the temporal evolution of
this perturbation,
 
H? d_ x þ Hk  H? x0z dy ¼ 0 ;
 
H? d_ y þ H?  Hk x0 dx ¼ 0 ; z (3)
Hk d_ z ¼ 0:
Fig. 1. Niels Bohr and Wolfgang Pauli in 1954, debating about a toy gyro-
scope at the inauguration of the new Institute of Physics at Lund. From the last equation follows

Hxx x_ x þ ðHzz  Hyy Þxz xy ¼ Tx ;
Hyy x_ y þ ðHxx  Hzz Þxx xz ¼ Ty ;
Hzz x_ z þ ðHyy  Hxx Þxy xx ¼ Tz ;
where Hxx, Hyy, and Hzz are the principal moments of inertia
~ ¼ ðxx ; xy ; xz Þ is its vectorial angular
of the rotating body, x
velocity, and T~ ¼ ðTx ; Ty ; Tz Þ is an external torque acting on
the rotating body. Note that x ~ and T~ are expressed in the
rotating body-fixed reference frame.
Euler’s equations simplify when we assume that the gyro-
scope is an axisymmetric body with respect to the z-axis
such that Hxx ¼ Hyy ¼ H? and Hzz ¼ Hk and moves in the
absence of external torque, T~ ¼ ~ 0,
dz ¼ const: (4)
Since both the first and second equations do not contain dz,
(1)
the system does not react to a change of the rotational veloc-
ity, xz, except that it spins slower or faster; the other two
components of x ~ are not affected. The reaction of the system
to d0x and d0y is different: we solve the second equation for dx
and insert its time derivative, d_ x , into the first equation to
obtain
2
 2
€d y þ ðHk  H? Þ x0z dy ¼ 0: (5)
H2?
This equation describes a harmonic oscillation of dy, and
an equivalent equation can be derived for dx. This means
that the initial perturbations d0x and d0y do not grow in time
but oscillate around zero, which implies that the rotational
motion of the gyroscope around its symmetry axis is
stable.
To see how this oscillation affects the vector of rotation,
~ , we go back to Euler’s equations (2) and obtain for the
x
component parallel to the symmetry axis

xz ¼ const  xk : (6)

Multiplying the first two equations of (2) by xx and xy,

respectively, and adding the equations yield

x_ x xx þ x_ y xy ¼ 0; (7)

which can be written as

d 2
ðx þ x2y Þ ¼ 0; (8)
dt x
and, thus,
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
x2x þ x2y  x? ¼ const: (9)
Fig. 2. ESA astronaut Tim Peake demonstrating the stability of a gyroscope
against small torques aboard the ISS in weightlessness. [Snapshot from a
movie (Ref. 39) where ESA astronaut Tim Peake shows how gyroscopes can With c  xz ðHk  H? Þ=H? , Euler’s equations (2) read
be used to keep the spacecraft stable during his six-month Principia
mission.] x_ x ¼ cxy ; (10)

176 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 88, No. 3, March 2020 M€

uller, Sack, and P€
oschel 176
 x_ y ¼ cxx : (11)

Therefore,

€ x ¼ c2 xx ;
x (12)

with the solution

xx ðtÞ ¼ c1 cos ðctÞ þ c2 sin ðctÞ: (13)

By means of Eq. (10), we find

xy ðtÞ ¼ c1 sin ðctÞ  c2 cos ðctÞ: (14)

If we choose the zero of time such that for t ¼ 0, xy ¼ 0, we

obtain c2 ¼ 0, and with Eq. (9),
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
x2x ðtÞ þ x2y ðtÞ ¼ c1 ¼ x? : (15)

The final result is then

0 1
x? cos ðctÞ Fig. 3. Angular momentum, L, ~ axis of rotation, x
~ , and axis of symmetry of
B C
~ ðtÞ ¼ @ x? sin ðctÞ A;
x (16) the gyroscope, e^z , are all in a plane. Consequently, e^z describes circles cen-
tered by the invariant vector of angular momentum L ~ (see the text for
xk explanation).

that is, the gyroscope rotates around its symmetry axis, z, at against perturbations. That is, if we hit the gyroscope moder-
constant velocity c. The corresponding angular momentum ately, its axis of rotation will stay close to the axis of rotation
reads of the unperturbed system. To be more precise, the axis
0 1 0 1 of rotation will be slightly deflected with respect to the
H? H? x? cos ðctÞ unperturbed axis and starts to rotate around the axis of the
~¼ B
L
C B
~ ¼ @ H? x? sin ðctÞ A:
@ H? A  x
C
(17) space-fixed angular momentum, shaping the surface of a
Hk Hk x k cone (see Fig. 3).
Therefore, since a single gyroscope can stabilize the angu-
At first glance, this result may seem surprising since, obvi- lar orientation of one axis and the spatial orientation of any
ously, angular momentum is not constant, although we are three-dimensional object is determined by angles around
studying a torque free system. But recall that Euler’s equa- three axes, it seems reasonable to fix the angular orientation
tions and hence our entire derivation are formulated in the of the object in space by three gyroscopes each stabilizing
rotating, body-fixed frame of reference. Angular momentum one of the axes. This, however, implies two misconceptions
is indeed conserved in the inertial laboratory frame. about the nature of angular momentum.
In the laboratory frame, where L ~ ¼ const, the symmetry The first misconception concerns the number of indepen-
axis of the gyroscope, z, describes a cone whose axis coin- dent axes: if the gyroscope is rigidly attached to an object,
one axis of the object is stabilized, defined by the angular
cides with the space-fixed orientation of the angular momen-
~ with the angular frequency. From Eqs. (17) and (16), momentum of the gyroscope. The object can, however, still
tum, L,
be rotated around this stabilized axis without any resistance
we find
exerted by the gyroscope. This rotation could be suppressed
~ ¼ H? x by a second gyroscope rigidly attached to the object such
L ~ þ ðHk  H? Þxz e^z ; (18) that it stabilizes rotations around any other axis, different
from the first gyroscope. Therefore, as a special case, a com-
where e^z is a unit vector whose direction is given by the bination of two flywheels rigidly attached to an object such
symmetry axis of the gyroscope. From Eq. (18), we see that that the directions of their angular momenta are perpendicu-
~ x
L; ~ , and e^z are all in one plane and that the angles between lar to one another would resist rotations around any axis.
~ ~ , and e^z are invariant in time. Therefore, we conclude
L; x This reveals the first error: although the orientation is deter-
~ rotates along the surface of a cone whose symmetry
that x mined by three angles, two flywheels (instead of three)
axis is defined by L~ (see Fig. 3). should be sufficient to fix the angular orientation of an object
in space. It turns out, however, that the latter argument is
incorrect due to the second misconception.
III. STABILITY OF SYSTEMS OF GYROSCOPES: The law of conservation of angular momentum states that
EXPERIMENTS IN WEIGHTLESSNESS the total (vectorial) angular momentum is conserved, pro-
A. Two common misconceptions vided the net external torque is zero. This implies that the
total (vectorial) value of angular momentum inherent in a
Consider a spinning flywheel whose angular momentum body is a property of the body itself and is not related to the
points along the direction of the symmetry axis. As shown in internal processes inside the body. Thus, independent of the
Sec. II, the spatial orientation of such a flywheel is stable constitution of the bodies, there is always one vectorial

177 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 88, No. 3, March 2020 M€

uller, Sack, and P€
oschel 177
quantity—its angular momentum—which is conserved, irre-
spective of the number of gyroscopes attached to this body.
Instead, the total angular momentum of the body results
from the vectorial sum of the angular momenta of all its con-
stituents, M~¼M ~1 þ M
~2 þ   . Consequently, an array of
gyroscopes attached to an object has the same stabilizing
effect as a single gyroscope with angular momentum M. ~ In
particular, this means that the angular orientation cannot be
fixed in space using an array of gyroscopes spinning at con-
stant velocities.
Although this argument seems to be almost trivial, the
opposite is claimed on many occasions, even in prominent
publications.24
B. Experimental setup
To test the conjecture of multi-gyroscopic stabilization,
we performed experiments with an array of three flywheels
rigidly combined such that their axes are pairwise perpendic-
ular. The apparatus is sketched in Fig. 4. The edge length of
the cubic arrangement is 12 cm, and the weight of the whole
apparatus is 1:0 kg. The resulting moment of inertia with
respect to rotations around the diagonal of the whole setup is
10:6  103 g  cm2 . Each of the flywheels is made from poly-
carbonate, has a diameter of 80 mm, is 6 mm thick, and has
a mass of 36:19 g. The resulting moment of inertia with
respect to the symmetry axis is 34 g  cm2 . Each flywheel is
driven at a constant rate of 10000 rpm by a motor of the type
used for model helicopters. A MEMS (microelectromechani-
cal sensor) is used to measure the orientation of the setup as
a function of time. An integrated microcontroller operates
the motors at constant speed of rotation and records the data
from the MEMS. Curiously, the MEMS device itself uses a
submillimeter reference gyroscope30 to measure the rate at
which its orientation changes—that is, the components of the
angular velocity ðxx ; xy ; xz Þ at which the experimental setup
rotates around the axes x, y, and z of the body-fixed
Cartesian coordinate frame.
To study the dynamics of the experimental setup in the free-
floating, torque-free regime (see Eq. (2)), the experiments were
Fig. 4. Experimental setup. (Left): a cube with three perpendicular flywheels. The padding along the edges is due to the operation on a parabolic flight cam-
paign. (Right): sketch of the array of gyroscopes.
178 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 88, No. 3, March 2020
performed aboard an aircraft performing parabolic flights,31
where special flight maneuvers allow for conditions of weight-
lessness for intervals of approximately 22 s. Usually, the
experiments are fixed to the floor of the airplane. Since techni-
cally both the airplane and the apparatus follow parabolic tra-
jectories, the apparatus would be weightless, provided the
airplane performs an exact parabola. However, due to atmo-
spheric influences and other perturbations, the motion of the
aircraft is not ideal. One can decrease the deviations from
weightlessness considerably by performing the experiment in
free-floating mode. Here, the experimentalist releases the appa-
ratus that floats decoupled from the airplane and, thus, feels
(almost) perfect weightlessness. Any imperfections of the tra-
jectory of the aircraft lead to a motion of the free-falling appa-
ratus with respect to the airplane. Figure 5 shows a snapshot
from a movie of the free-floating experiment. The full movie is
available as the supplementary material.32 Using free-floating
experiments, one can achieve weightlessness up to a high preci-
sion, however, only for a short period of typically 5–10 s, while
the duration of the parabola performed by the aircraft is about
22 s. We recorded the angular velocity ðxx ; xy ; xz Þ of the array
of spinning flywheels during such free-floating intervals.
C. Experimental results
The movie of the parabolic flight experiment (see mov-
ie1.mp4 of the supplementary material32) illustrates the mis-
conceptions described in Sec. III A: despite the three
perpendicular flywheels, the experimental setup does not
retain its orientation. Let us analyze the motion of the appa-
ratus quantitatively using the recorded angular velocity
ðxx ; xy ; xz Þ as a function of time, shown in Fig. 6.
The highlighted intervals in Fig. 6 indicate periods of free-
floating where the apparatus moves in the absence of gravity.
During these intervals, the components of the angular veloc-
ity in the body-fixed reference frame reveal periodic oscilla-
tions, in agreement with Eq. (16). In the time intervals
between the highlighted intervals, the experimentalist rein-
stalled the apparatus in the center of the aircraft’s cabin to
M€
uller, Sack, and P€
oschel 178

Fig. 5. Snapshot of the free-floating experiment. While the array of fly-
wheels is freely floating inside the airplane, the experimentalist himself is
fastened on the floor of the airplane by a belt.
allow for a new free-floating interval. Here, the measured
velocity components fluctuate irregularly.
The angular velocity, ðxx ; xy ; xz Þ in the co-moving refer-
ence system is, however, a rather unintuitive quantity since it
describes the rate at which the experimental setup rotates
around a set of body-fixed axes whose orientations vary in
time themselves. For a more intuitive characterization, we
consider rather the orientation of the apparatus in the inertial
laboratory system. The question “what is the laboratory sys-
tem in the case of our experiment?” is delicate. In an inertial
system, a force-free body moves at constant velocity. In the
presence of gravity, this can only be achieved by switching
to a coordinate system in free fall. Despite performing para-
bolic flight maneuvers, the aircraft is not in perfect free fall,
first due to atmospheric perturbations and second since the
cabin of the aircraft rotates around the axis perpendicular to
the main direction of the cabin and perpendicular to gravity.
Therefore, a coordinate system attached to the airplane can-
not be used as an inertial reference frame. Our experimental
apparatus that is floating inside the aircraft is, however,
freely falling to a very-good approximation. Therefore, we
define our laboratory system such that its origin is attached
to the center of mass of the free-floating apparatus. Its coor-
dinate axes are perpendicular to one another and do not
rotate. Consequently, in this coordinate system, a force-free
body33 would perform a straight trajectory at constant veloc-
ity, that is, this system qualifies as an inertial system.
The time-dependent orientation of the apparatus in the
laboratory frame can be obtained from the momentary angu-
lar velocity x ~ ¼ ðxx ; xy ; xz Þ expressed in the body-fixed ref-
erence frame (x, y, z), as delivered by the MEMS sensors:
for a short time interval, dt, the body-fixed coordinate system
rotates around its axes by ~ u¼x ~ dt. Starting from an arbi-
trary initial orientation, the orientation of the apparatus in
the laboratory frame can be obtained by successively inte-
grating the angular velocities and correspondingly rotating
the initial reference frame.
The transformation between the body-fixed frame and the
laboratory frame (that is, the rotation of the apparatus around
the axes x, y, and z) can be described by the matrices
0 1
1 0 0
B C
Mx ¼ @ 0 cos ux sin ux A;
0 sin ux cos ux
0 1
cos uy 0 sin uy
B C
My ¼ B @ 0 1 0 C A; (19)
sin uy 0 cos uy
0 1
cos uz sin uz 0
B C
Mz ¼ @ sin uz cos uz 0 A:
0 0 1

For sufficiently small rotation angle ~u , we can approximate

cos u  1 and sin u  u, and, additionally, the sequence of
application of the matrices is unimportant.27,34 We choose
the sequence x, y, z and define the general rotation matrix

M ¼ Mx My M z : (20)

Therefore, the orientation at time tðnÞ  tð0Þ þ ndt can be

expressed by a rotation matrix

MðtðnÞ Þ ¼ Mð0Þ  Mð1Þ … MðnÞ ; (21)

where MðkÞ represents the rotation ~ u ðkÞ  ~

Fig. 6. (Color online) Components of the angular velocity, xx, xy, and xz,
in a body-fixed reference frame as functions of time, recorded during a zero-
gravity parabola. The highlighted (labeled) intervals indicate four periods of
free floating. The colors and labels agree with those in Fig. 7.
u ðk1Þ during the
ðk1Þ ðkÞ
interval ðt ; t Þ. The direction of the rotation axis at time
tðnÞ , expressed in the laboratory frame, is then given by the
unit vector e^ðnÞ , which is the eigenvector of MðnÞ correspond-
ing to the unit eigenvalue.27
Figure 7 shows the motion of the apparatus, represented
by the vector e^ during the parabolic flight, based on the mea-
sured angular velocities presented in Fig. 6. When freely

179 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 88, No. 3, March 2020 M€

uller, Sack, and P€
oschel 179

Fig. 7. (Color online) Orientation of the apparatus in microgravity during a
parabolic flight. The white arrows show the momentary axes of the co-
moving reference frame, and the red arrow without label shows the momen-
tary axis of rotation, e^. For each instant of time, tðnÞ , the position of e^ is
marked by a dot on the unit sphere. During the intervals of free floating, the
total angular momentum of the apparatus is conserved. For each free floating
interval specified in Fig. 6, the angular momentum is shown by an arrow,
marked by the same color and label as in Fig. 6. The direction of e^ at times
tðnÞ is marked by a dot on the unit sphere. The dots corresponding to free
floating periods appear circular around one of the colored (labeled) arrows.
Dots corresponding to values of e^ outside the intervals of free floating are
scattered randomly on the unit sphere and are shown in gray color.
floating, the vector e^ moves approximately on the surface
of a cone whose symmetry axis is defined by the vector of
total angular momentum of the apparatus. For each free-
floating interval, the vector of total angular momentum was
determined by fitting a cone to the momentary positions of
e^. These vectors of angular momentum are shown by
arrows whose colors (labels) correspond to the colors
(labels) used in Fig. 6. The blue cone (label c) corresponds
to the third free-floating interval and degenerates almost to
a disc. The direction of e^ at time tðnÞ is marked by a dot on
the unit sphere. The dots corresponding to free-floating
periods appear circular around one of the colored (labeled)
arrows. Dots outside the intervals of free floating are dis-
tributed randomly on the unit sphere and are shown in gray
color. The left panel of movie2.mp4 of the supplementary
video material32 shows an animated version of these data
where additionally the momentary axis of rotation is indi-
cated by a red arrow. The right panel of the movie shows
the synchronized experiment as performed during the para-
bolic flight. Gray arrows show the momentary axes of the
co-moving reference frame. A slow motion version of the
video is available as movie3.mp4 of the supplementary
material.32
The representation of the measured data shown in Fig. 7
and Ref. 32 reveals immediately the misconception dis-
cussed in the Introduction and in Sec. III A: although the
apparatus contains three flywheels with perpendicularly ori-
ented rotation axes, the device rotates around a body-fixed
axis, which in turn rotates around the space-fixed axis of the
total angular momentum. The latter axis is conserved during
180 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 88, No. 3, March 2020
each free-floating period due to the absence of external
torques.
IV. SUMMARY
The orientation of spinning flywheels is robust against per-
turbations. This means that a single gyroscope that is rigidly
attached to an object is able to stabilize one axis of the object.
A popular misconception suggests that the orientation of an
object can be arrested completely by mounting a second gyro-
scope. While the first gyroscope stabilizes one axis of the
object, the second gyroscope stabilizes the remaining rotational
degree of freedom. Despite its popularity, this mechanism is
spoiled because if several gyroscopes are combined rigidly to
one mechanical system, their angular momenta add up to one
total angular momentum. As illustrated by our experimental
results, only this total angular momentum is conserved and, just
like for a single gyroscope, this total angular momentum only
defines and stabilizes one axis of the object, whereas the object
is still able to rotate around this axis. Even though the ISS astro-
naut24 uses three perpendicular gyroscopes, he only accom-
plishes stabilization of one axis. If the stabilized axis coincides
with the direction of the light beam, this can be sufficient to
hold a flashlight because the non-stabilized rotation around an
axis parallel to the direction of the light beam is unimportant
for the function of the flashlight. In this case, however, the
most efficient spin stabilization is achieved when arranging the
gyroscopes collinear rather than perpendicular because (in this
case) the vectorial summation of the individual angular
momenta leads to the largest total angular momentum.
With this paper, we aimed to demonstrate that the na€ıve
concept of gyroscopic stabilization using an array of gyro-
scopes as explained, e.g., in Ref. 24, does not work as
expected. For an effective gyroscopic stabilization, the gyro-
scopes should be actively driven either by controlling their
individual angular velocity or by controlling the directions of
their axis of rotation. There is a wide range of applications of
such stabilizations from shipping35 to astronautics.36 Contrary
to passive stabilization, multiple gyroscopes in orthogonal
arrangement are reasonable in the case of active stabilization
because a single gyroscope can determine, at most, two of the
three degrees of freedom of an arbitrary rotation in three
dimensions. The Hubble space telescope, for example, is
equipped with six (partially redundant) gyroscopes (see, e.g.,
Ref. 37). These gyroscopes are part of the Hubble point con-
trol system. By active driving, angular momentum can be
transferred between the gyroscopes and the remaining parts of
the telescope. The resulting torques are applied to point the
telescope in a desired direction. Similar techniques are used in
inertial navigation systems in general (see, e.g., Ref. 38).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the German Aerospace Center, DLR,
for financial support through Grant No. 50 WM 1752-
GRANADA. The presented data were recorded during 5
parabolic trajectories of the 31th DLR parabolic flight
campaign in Bordeaux.
a)
Electronic mail: patric.mueller@fau.de
1
P. L. Edwards, “A physical explanation of the gyroscope effect,” Am. J.
Phys. 45, 1194–1195 (1977).
2
W. Case, “The gyroscope: An elementary discussion of a child’s toy,”
Am. J. Phys. 45, 1107–1109 (1977).
M€
uller, Sack, and P€
oschel 180
3 26
W. Rueckner, “Using a gyroscope to find true north—lecture demon- L. Landau and E. Lifshitz, Mechanics (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1982).
27
stration,” Am. J. Phys. 85, 228–231 (2017). H. Goldstein, C. Poole, and J. Safko, Classical Mechanics (Addison
4
E. F. Barker, “Elementary analysis of the gyroscope,” Am. J. Phys. 28, Wesley, Boston, 2002).
28
808–810 (1960). S. T. Thornton and J. B. Marion, Classical Dynamics of Particles and
5
J. Higbie, “The motorcycle as a gyroscope,” Am. J. Phys. 42, 701–702 Systems (Thomson Learning, Toronto, 2003).
29
(1974). G. R. Fowles and G. L. Cassidy, Analytical Mechanics (Thomson Brooks/
6
H. L. Armstrong, “On the precession and nutation of gyroscopes,” Am. J. Cole, Belmont, 2004).
30
Phys. 35, 883–885 (1967). N. Yazdi, F. Ayazi, and K. Najafi, “Micromachined inertial sensors,” Proc.
7
R. C. Colwell, “Some demonstrations of spinning tops and gyroscopes,” IEEE 86, 1640–1659 (1998).
31
Am. J. Phys. 4, 203–204 (1936). F. Haber and H. Haber, “Possible methods of producing the gravity-free
8
J. L. Snider, “Gyroscopic precession,” Am. J. Phys. 33, 847–847 (1965). state for medical research,” J. Aviation Med. 21, 395–400 (1950).
9 32
L. Larmore, “A note on the teaching of gyroscopic precession,” Am. J. See the supplementary material at https://doi.org/10.1119/10.0000517 for
Phys. 32, 595–596 (1964). movies of the parabolic flight experiments. movie1.mp4 shows the array
10
R. Cross, “The rise and fall of spinning tops,” Am. J. Phys. 81, 280–289 of perpendicular flywheels under conditions of weightlessness. Despite the
(2013). three perpendicular flywheels, the apparatus does not retain its orientation.
11
R. Cross, “Why does a spinning egg rise?,” Eur. J. Phys. 39, 025002 (2018). It rather precesses around its space-fixed total angular momentum. This
12
C. M. Sendra, F. Della Picca, and S. Gil, “Rotational stability—An amus- observation can be quantified by measuring the vectorial angular velocity
ing physical paradox,” Eur. J. Phys. 28, 845–857 (2007). and orientation of the device. movie2.mp4 compiles the video of the para-
13
E. Butikov, “Precession and nutation of a gyroscope,” Eur. J. Phys. 27, bolic flight experiment (right part of the movie) and a synchronized visual-
1071–1081 (2006). ization of the quantitative measurement data (left part of the movie). The
14
E. McGlynn, “Introducing gyroscopes quantitatively without putting stu- three gray arrows in the left part indicate the current orientation of the
dents into a spin,” Eur. J. Phys. 28, 479–486 (2007). apparatus, the red arrow illustrates the axis around which it currently
15
P. Davidowsky and M. Rogers, “Debunking a video on youtube as an rotates. For each instant of time the orientation of the axis of rotation (the
authentic research experience,” Phys. Teach. 53, 304–306 (2015). tip of the red arrow) is marked by a gray dot. During the free-floating inter-
16
H. Kaplan and A. Hirsch, “Gyroscopic motion: Show me the forces!,” vals, the dots are colored: green dots correspond to the first, yellow dots to
Phys. Teach. 52, 30–33 (2014). the second, blue dots to the third, and orange dots to the fourth free-
17
S. Kostov and D. Hammer, “It has to go down a little, in order to go floating period. During the free-floating intervals, the space-fixed angular
around’—Revisiting Feynman on the gyroscope,” Phys. Teach. 49, momentum can be obtained by fitting cones to the corresponding data
216–219 (2011). points. These fitting cones are drawn together with the resulting direction
18
J. R. Galli and B. W. Carroll, “The four-ball gyro and motorcycle counter- of the total angular momentum. The blue cone, corresponding to the third
steering,” Phys. Teach. 55, 238–239 (2017). free-floating interval, almost degenerates to a circle. movie3.mp4 is a slow
19
R. Cross, “Laithwaite’s heavy spinning disk demonstration,” Phys. Teach. motion version of movie2.mp4.
33
52, 349–349 (2014). By “force-free” we mean that the body does not experience any other force
20
J. Meijaard, J. M. Papadopoulos, A. Ruina, and A. Schwab, “Linearized except the gravitational force of Earth.
34
dynamics equations for the balance and steer of a bicycle: A benchmark M. J. Benacquista and J. D. Romano, Classical Mechanics (Springer,
and review,” Proc. R. Soc. A 463, 1955–1982 (2007). Basel, 2018).
21 35
B. Borrell, “The bicycle problem that nearly broke mathematics,” Nature T. W. Chalmers, The Automatic Stabilisation of Ships (Chapman and Hall,
535, 338–341 (2016). London, 1931).
22 36
J. D. G. Kooijman, J. P. Meijaard, J. M. Papadopoulos, A. Ruina, and A. N. S. Bedrossian, S. Bhatt, W. Kang, and I. M. Ross, “Zero-propellant
L. Schwab, “A bicycle can be self-stable without gyroscopic or caster maneuver guidance,” IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 29, 53–73 (2009).
37
effects,” Science 332, 339–342 (2011). NASA Space Telescope, “Hubble’s pointing control system”, <https://
23
This statement is based on informal surveys that we conducted. www.spacetelescope.org/about/general/gyroscopes/> (2018).
24 38
NASA Human Space Flight, “Spin stabilization”, <https://spaceflight.nasa. W. T. Thomson, Introduction to Space Dynamics (Dover, New York,
gov/gallery/video/station/expedition6/category/ndxpage14.html> (2003). 1986).
25 39
C. E. Mungan, “In defense of derivations,” Phys. Teach. 54, 316–317 European Space Agency, “Gyroscopes in space”, <http://www.esa.int/
(2016). spaceinvideos/Videos/2016/03/Gyroscopes_in_space> (2016).

181 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 88, No. 3, March 2020 M€

uller, Sack, and P€
oschel 181