Lab Report- Gyroscope

Student ID: 2020314622

Department: Electronic and Electrical Engineering

Name: Asafo Agyei Azariah

Objective
The objective of this experiment is to understand the torque and angular momentum and to observe
the nutation and rotation of a gyroscope. In this experiment, a gyroscope will undergo two different
motions, precession, and nutation. The goal is to measure the torque and the angular momentum by
demonstrating precession and nutation.

Experimental equipment
For this experiment, we need a gyroscope, a scale bar, stand, string, pully, weight hanger, weights, a
wire, a stick, a clamp and an I-CA system.

Method
The torque, T, is the tendency of a force to rotate an object about some axis. Mathematically, it is
defined as the vector product of the position vector, r, of the point where the force is applied and the
force vector F.

T=r*F

T = rFsin $

The angular momentum L is the rational analogue of the linear momentum. The angular momentum
of a particle is defined as the vector product of its position vector r and its linear momentum vector P.

L = r * p = r * mv

L=Iw

I: moment of inertia (rigid body)

The angular momentum of a rigid body L is given as the product of its moment of inertia I and the
angular velocity, w, around an axis of rotation.

dL/dt = r * f

The time rate of the angular momentum L equals the torque exerted on a particle or a rigid body.

Torque on a gyroscope

T=r*w

W: gravity on a gyroscope

A gyroscope is a spinning flywheel in which the axis of rotation is free to move by itself. When the
gyroscope is set to rotation around its axis, the angular momentum L is also directed along this axis.
The torque by gravity is directed at right angle to the angular momentum L.

Angular Velocity of Precession

O = d$/dt = (dL/L)/dt = (T dt/L)/dt = T/L = MgR/Iw

During an infinitesimal time, interval dt, the angular momentum L gets an infinitesimal increment dL
= Tdt directed along T and thus the direction of angular momentum is rotated by d# without changing
its magnitude. The angle of precession O is calculated by the time rate of the precession angle # and
equals the ratio of the torque T and the angular momentum L.

Procession of a gyroscope

It occurs at specific initial condition: O = T/L

Nutation of a Gyroscope

In general, the motion of a gyroscope is a superposition of torque-induced precession and torque-free

nutation. The precession of a gyroscope occurs only when the initial angular velocity satisfies the
precession condition. In the general case, for arbitrary initial conditions, the motion of a gyroscope is
a superposition of torque-induced precession and torque-free nutation. Nutation of a gyroscope
reveals itself as a small vibration and shivering of the precession axis.

Method and Data

Before the experiment, make the gyroscope parallel to the rotational axis by using a support and a
clamp. Connect one end of the wire to the gyroscope. Connect the other end of the wire with a weight
and a hanger and then connect it to a pulley. Make sure that the weight hanger does not touch the
ground when it is fully loose. Rotate the gyroscope with the wire such that the weight is located at the
initial position of the pully. Start recording and let go of the rotator so that the weight starts to drop
due to gravity. Repeat the experiment several times by varying the mass of the weight. Calculate the
moment of inertia. We can calculate the acceleration by drawing a graph as a function of time and
position from the data. It is helpful to set a scale bar vertically since the motion of the weight is
governed by gravity.

There are several precautions which you must be aware of to avoid problems for yourself or the
apparatus. The rod is strong enough to support the heavy sphere only in the vertical position, so avoid
picking up the sphere by the rod if possible. The sphere itself is rather soft metal and it must be exactly
round for the experiment to work. It will, therefore, be ruined if it falls onto the hard floor. Finally, you
will be working with a rapidly spinning object. If the spinning ball contacts the supporting cup, it will
probably climb out and proceed across the room, damaging itself and perhaps also you. You can avoid
this problem by leaving the air supply on whenever the sphere is spinning, and by not pushing the
sphere into the support. The rod has a bearing on the end which you can hold to control the sphere
without slowing it down. When you do want to slow the rotation, gently squeeze the rod with two
fingers, while holding onto the bearing to steady it. Do not push directly on the sphere. With a little
care and common sense, you should not have any problems.

Formula of the Moment of inertia and my results.

IZ = ½ * m (r22 + r12)
 Radius1(m) Radius2 (m) Mass of Disk (kg) Moment of Inertia
(kg.m2)
0.125 0.004 1.687 0.013

Mass of Hanger (kg) Acceleration (m/s2) Radius (m) Moment of Inertia

(kg.m2)
0.205 2.052 0.125 0.012
0.402 3.370 0.125 0.012
0.600 4.302 0.125 0.012

Moment of Inertia

I = t/a = [(g – a)]/(a/r) = mr2 (g/a – 1)

Acceleration

dy = ½ (a)*dt2 a = (2 dy)/dt2

Div M (kg) R (m) I (kg*m2) w (rad/s) O Th OExp Error

(rad/s) (rad/s)
1 0.10 0.15 0.013 38.69 0.28 0.26 7.69%
2 0.10 0.17 0.013 54.50 0.23 0.25 8.00%
3 0.20 0.15 0.013 45.11 0.49 0.45 8.89%
4 0.20 0.17 0.013 59.76 0.42 0.43 7.67%

This is the formula of precession and the results we get.

RPM(revolution per minute)

RPM = (revolutions)/min = (2pi rad/ 1revolution)/(60sec/min) * (revolutions)/min rad/sec

Q(Experience)
Sec/1revolution 2pi rad/ 1revolution * 1revolution/sec rad/sec

Q(Theorem)
Q = t/L = MgR/Iw

Discussions
It was hypothesized that the initial effects of a gyroscope’s forces would make the tracking task more
difficult for spin trials, and this would equally affect both orientation conditions. Contrary to this
expectation, orientation was a stronger predictor of error in the two spin conditions and did not
appear to affect the pre- and post-spin conditions to the same degree. Additionally, we anticipated
that for both orientations, the spin and post-spin conditions would be characterized by a substantial
reduction in error over time. This hypothesis was supported. 50 These results indicate that gyroscopic
reactive forces redirect the torques imposed by wielders to push the tip of the object away from its
intended trajectory. Additionally, there is evidence that a period of retuning is required when the
gyroscopic forces are discontinued. The persistence and directional nature of this retuning is
comparable to that seen in prism adaptation (Redding, Rossetti, & Wallace, 2005), and sets it apart
from the retuning process required by a change in object weight. The reason for the effect of
orientation is unclear. However, one possibility is that in the vertical condition, the gyroscopic reactive
forces were produced in directions that were orthogonal to gravity. In the horizontal condition,
participants needed to supply a constant torque in the frontal plane to support the pointer against
gravity as well as a variable torque in the transverse plane to track the horizontal trajectory of the
target square. While the gyroscopic forces generated in the spin conditions were variable, they were
supplied in the transverse plane which was already entailed in the task before the gyroscope started
spinning. In the vertical condition, the torque supplied by the participant to track the target square
was in the frontal plane, or the same plane in which the counter-gravitational torque was supplied.
Therefore, the participant was required to extend control from just one plane to two, imparting a
greater degree of difficulty between the trials in which the gyroscope was on versus off. Whether
participants would continue reducing diversion over the course of a longer gyroscope trial is uncertain.
After an initial dramatic period of diversion reduction in the vertical condition of the gyroscope phase,
the correction appears to level off between 1–2 cm from 0. However, there appears to be a slight
trend toward further reduction in both the later stages of the on phase of the vertical condition and
the entire On phase of the horizontal condition. A longer 51 trial might demonstrate continued
learning of how to wield the gyroscope across a straight trajectory. The after-effect seen in the Off
phase of both orientations suggests that the properties of the gyroscope object were to some degree
comparable to either transformations of properties of the reference frame (e.g., a new viscosity, as in
Shadmehr & Mussa-Ivaldi, 1994) or as seen in adaptation to Coriolis forces (Cohn, DiZio, & Lackner,
2000; Lackner & DiZio, 1994). Alternatively, a transformation of the relationship between sensory
information and orientation of the perceptual information as in prism adaptation shows learning
aftereffects (Redding, Rossetti, & Wallace, 2005). Since such aftereffects were not seen in the control
condition that used the added mass, this suggests that gyroscopes are better thought of as
transformations that concern the object’s reference frame to some degree rather than
transformations of the object’s persisting properties.

Some of the main results obtained in this experiment are:

The effective I extracted from slope of a linear fit to the data gives excellent agreement with
theoretical value.

The parameter λ 1 obtained from a best fit to the data is in good agreement with the theoretical value
although it shows a slight increase with rpm value.

The theoretical model gave a good agreement with the experimental data for six different initial values
of the disk spin velocity comprising a range from 600 rpm to 1600 rpm. In addition, a second θ0 value,
and a second mass value of the spinning disk were tested and gave good agreement.

The measured asymptotic “dip” angle below the horizontal, Δθ0 ,(e.g. Fig. 5e and Fig. 5f ) implies
conservation of total angular momentum6 , i.e., orbital (precession) plus spin, within the uncertainty
of the measurement.

Conclusion
From the photographic record of laser dot trajectory on a horizontal plane, the parameters of
movement for a total of 120 experiments were determined. Theoretical expressions are verified
experimentally. From the parameters obtained by photographic records, quantities µ/I1 and I3/I1
were found, and then were compared with the direct measurement of these on the mass
distribution of gyroscope. Although there was some dispersion, the average on measurements is
adjusted in a precise way with theoretical data.

Experimentally was shown that the number of rotations per nutation cycle is a lineal function of
the relation between velocities of precession and nutation, and the average inclination angle of
gyroscope axis. The slope and intercept with the axis coincide, inside the range of uncertainty, with
the values predicted by the model. The analysis made on this work does not considered the friction
due to air viscosity, although the photographic registers evidence this effect; this is an indicator of
the high level of sensibility in this experiment. Nevertheless, because relatively small intervals of
time were taken, these effects were ignored.

These four experiments offer an entry point to a new area of research on the perception action
implications of forces generated by objects. The mechanics of gyroscopes have been studied for
centuries and are well established. The psychophysical implications of many mechanical forces for the
haptics and for multimodal perception, while newer, are also well established. To date, however, there
is very little understanding of how the haptic perceptual 55 system deals with mechanical forces that
are more dynamically tied to moment-to-moment changes in the object’s orientation. If similar
processes support motor learning in distorted force fields as has been shown in prism experiments,
Experiment 4 will have demonstrated the possibility for gyroscopes to serve as rehabilitative devices
for patients showing spatial neglect (Newport & Schenk, 2012). Knowing how L affects perception and
action would allow an extension of the applications of so-called haptic displays that are gyroscope-
based. Currently, these devices have been limited to signifying events by using discrete “kicks” of
torque to a user (Murer, Maurer, Huber, Aslan, & Tscheligi, 2015; Winfree, Gewirtz, Mather, Fiene, &
Kuchenbecker, 2009), or by communicating two-dimensional directional information to allow a user
to consciously update their strategy of navigation through a space (Amemiya & Gomi, 2013). The
experiments outlined here offer the possibility of using similar devices to simulate object properties.
In addition to sensory aids, some rehabilitation research is aimed at producing a postural aid using
control moment gyroscopes (CMG). While these devices offer some promise, one potential limitation
is rehabilitative patients’ abilities to stand and walk under the new force field instantiated by these
devices.

A commercial demonstration gyroscope was adapted to accurately measure both precession and
nutation at high spin rate of the disk. Numerical simulation of the data based on the perfectly
symmetric and frictionless heavy top theoretical model was performed. Good to excellent agreement
between data and model was found over a relatively large range of initial conditions of the dynamical
system.

Suggestions for Follow-Up Work ƒ

Modifications and improvements to the apparatus to further reduce friction.

ƒFull error analysis

ƒ Extend model to include non-conservative, i.e., frictional term(s) for closer agreement with
experimental data (e.g., Rayleigh dissipative functions, to be empirically determined from data)

ƒ Incorporate a best fit parameter analysis routine within the numerical algorithm.

References
Adolph, K. E., Bertenthal, B. I., Boker, S. M., Goldfield, E. C., & Gibson, E. J. (1997). Learning in the
development of infant locomotion. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 1-
162.

Atherton, M (1990). Berkeley’s revolution in vision. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Badshah, A., Gupta, S., Morris, D., Patel, S., & Tan, D. (2012). GyroTab: a handheld device that provides
reactive torque feedback. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing
systems (pp. 3153-3156). ACM.

Berkeley, G. (2010). LXXIX: One born blind, made to see, what judgment he’d make of magnitude. In
An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision. By George Berkeley. Gale Ecco, Print Editions, United States.

Carello, C., Anderson, K. L., & Kunkler-Peck, A. J. (1998). Perception of object length by sound.
Psychological Science, 9(3), 211-214.

Carello, C., Fitzpatrick, P., Domaniewicz, I., Chan, T., & Turvey, M. (1992). Effortful touch with minimal
movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(1), 290-302.

Carello, C., Shockley, K., Harrison, S., Richardson, M., & Turvey, M. T. (2003). Heaviness perception
depends on movement. Studies in perception and action, VII pp. 87-90.

Carello, C., Wagman, J. B., & Turvey, M. T. (2005). Acoustic specification of object properties. In J.
Anderson & B. Anderson (Eds.), Moving Image Theory: Ecological Considerations (pp. 79-104).
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.