I have an idea that a powered for rotation gyroscope with fixed precession can serve as antigravity engine. I also wonder of someone tried an experiment to prove that it does not work.

The following kinematic scheme should be solved to prove it wrong or right:

Antigravity force in powered precession gyroscope


  1. The Flywheel is powered with some electric engine1, having rotation moment M1 and angular momentum L1.
  2. The free end of Flywheel axe goes on circle of the RAIL. The rotation of the precession movement is powered with some electric engine2, having rotation moment M2 and angular momentum L2 (I am not sure if it is fair that there is a stable angular momentum).
  3. The whole system has some weight (m), the gravity force acts as G

The question is the following: What are the conditions that this system works, creating the lifting force F acting opposite gravity force G.

Most probably I am wrong and there is no lifting force appearing in the task, however if there is a bit of truth at least, the mechanical gravity engine is feasible if this idea will be further developed.

Sincerely, Alexander Spacelifter

edited 12/04/2022: I have prepared the following rendering, which may better describe the topic:

Gyroscopic lifter scheme

edited 13/04/2022: I believe, that the forced rotation to increase angular speed of precession movement may create “some” force as proposed by many other people doing the research and experiments with gyroscopes. However, I watched a lot of video clips on YouTube, and did not find any experiment where the angular speed of forced precession movement is reaching or exceeding the angular speed of gyroscope rotation. Moreover, not a single video of experiment where the efficient motors will be in relevant balance with gyroscope flywheel(s) weight. I mean, if the power of motors, speed of rotation and weight of apparatus will not be balanced, even the aerodynamic apparatus, like quadcopters, are not flying. Certain conditions should met.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What is leading you to the supposition of lifting force here? Is it because you can feel "resistance" from the gyroscope as you try to turn it around with your hand while it is spinning? That is not actual lifting force, but something else which can be explained if you want. But I want to know what you're thinking is "lifting force", so that an alternative, more correct, explanation can be generated. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 12, 2022 at 2:14
  • $\begingroup$ I think yes, because I feel the resistance that prevents to turn the running gyroscope. I wonder if there is possibility to give a single direction to the sum of forces, and if the sum of forces maybe not equal to zero having the system motorized in its axes. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 12, 2022 at 6:48
  • $\begingroup$ I think that the force F is constraint force not applied Force . if F is applied force the gyro will fly on air ? $\endgroup$
    – Eli
    Commented Apr 12, 2022 at 16:34
  • $\begingroup$ Let’s imagine this motorized gyroscope works in space. The question is, if there any conditions of working, which generate forces and the vector sum of these forces is more than zero. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 13, 2022 at 7:46

2 Answers 2


This scheme gets invented every 20 years or so and then gets promptly disproved both by experiment and by dynamical analysis. For example, I thought that I had invented this very scheme with my freshman physics lab partner in 1971. So we built one, and couldn't get it to work. It was a great learning opportunity but nothing more.

Sadly, there was a professor of electrical engineering in the UK, Eric Laithwaite, who published a description of a scheme identical to what you describe here around 1970 (and with whom we corresponded!), who then spent the remainder of his career coming up with and publishing ever-more complicated and nonphysical reasons why it should work and bolstered his position with his own experiments, which contained one fatal flaw or another that he could not see.

Ours was using a bathroom scale to measure the antigravity effect without realizing that it was the torque applied to the weighing platform that made the weight needle deflect and not that the apparatus on the platform actually weighed less while the motors were running the thing around in circles.

Briefly put, this is the reason that this scheme cannot generate thrust: If the flywheel on the end of the lever is allowed to pivot at its end, the apparatus will precess at constant speed. if the precession speed is increased by external means, the lever with the flywheel on its end will swivel up as it precesses, giving the impressionable undergraduate or the ill-informed electrical engineering professor the impression that a force was thereby applied to the end of the lever, urging it to rise- and that force represents thrust.

But this is not what is going on. the flywheel at the end of the lever applies not a linear upward force to the end of the lever but instead a torque which acts to twist the lever upwards as it precesses. with the pivot locked to prevent the lever from rising, when we "force" the precession the lever then applies a twisting force to the rest of the apparatus, which urges the whole shebang not to rise upwards against gravity but instead to fall over.

Like I say, a learning experience.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for this reply, very interesting story of yours and another electrical engineering professor. Can I clarify if you have used two motors in your experiments, as proposed in the topic? It is very important that both rotation movements will have its own sources of rotation moment. I have no possibility to build an experimental apparatus, but maybe someone here can give proper equation, why the total sum of forces in this system will be zero despite any characteristics of its elements? I will try to draw a better image of proposed system and update the description. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 12, 2022 at 6:41
  • $\begingroup$ We used two motors spinning two flywheels and a string wrapped around a pulley to rotate the apparatus. On the other end of the string was a weight and pulley arrangement. I will edit my answer to include more info. -NN $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 12, 2022 at 16:42
  • $\begingroup$ Did you try a case when speed of forced precession movement is exceeding the angular speed of gyroscope rotation? Or have you heard maybe, that someone checked this case? Another case, which I believe is fair to check experimentally, if the fixed lever at 45 degrees is changing anything or not, again with a conditions of high speed forced precession movement. PS. Maybe the string wrapped around a pulley and weight at the end, leaded to wrong results of experiments or the speed of this rotation was too low. Modern electrical motors should be able to solve this flaw. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 13, 2022 at 7:36
  • $\begingroup$ None of those things would have altered the outcome. Try it and see. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 13, 2022 at 15:33
  • $\begingroup$ I concur: if the precession speed is increased by external means then if the setup isn't anchored the setup will topple. There is a 2012 discussion by me of gyroscopic precession, that makes that toppling outcome clear. The explanation is visualized with images.The phenomenon of gyroscopic precession is made transparent by capitalizing on symmetry of the setup. (For instance, the gyro wheel is conceptually divided in four quadrants.) $\endgroup$
    – Cleonis
    Commented Apr 15, 2022 at 5:21

There is no magic anti gravity force. The force F comes entirely from the table and is the same whether the gyroscope is spinning or not. If the table is removed the gyroscope simply falls with acceleration g even while the gyroscope spins.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.