arxiv: 2605.06700 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · ⚛️ physics.class-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

Modeling the Frictional Driving of a Gyroscope Casing by a Spinning Rotor

Vedat Tanr{\i}verdi , Arda Erbasan

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 01:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.class-ph

keywords gyroscopefriction modelingrotor-casing torqueair dissipationtouchpoint frictionangular velocitysatellite rotation

0 comments

The pith

Friction from a spinning rotor drives the gyroscope casing to rotate until air dissipation and touchpoint drag bring it to a stop.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines how friction transfers torque from a rapidly spinning inner rotor to the outer casing of a gyroscope, causing the casing to begin turning, and how air resistance plus contact-point friction then slow the whole system to rest. By writing equations of motion that include several alternative mathematical forms for each source of friction and fitting them to measured time series of the casing's angular speed, the authors test which combinations reproduce the main observed pattern of acceleration followed by deceleration. A reader would care because the same frictional driving and damping processes appear in satellite attitude control and other rotating machinery, so usable models could help predict and manage unwanted rotations in those systems.

Core claim

The rotation of the gyroscope casing arises from frictional torque exerted by the spinning rotor at their contact surface; this rotation is subsequently opposed by air dissipation torque that scales with speed and by a touchpoint friction torque that acts at the support. Several functional forms for each torque are inserted into the coupled angular-velocity equations and fitted to experimental records. The resulting fits show that selected combinations of these models reproduce the primary rise-and-fall behavior of the casing speed, while certain residual discrepancies indicate that additional physical effects are still missing from the description.

What carries the argument

The set of speed-dependent torque functions (air-drag, rotor-casing friction, touchpoint friction) inserted into the differential equations for the two angular velocities and fitted to time-series data.

If this is right

Some of the tested friction models reproduce the main acceleration and subsequent deceleration of the casing.
Air dissipation and touchpoint friction together account for the gradual stopping of the rotation.
The same torque modeling approach can be applied to improve rotation predictions for satellites that contain spinning rotors.
Residual mismatches between model and data point to the need for additional terms to reach higher accuracy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the fitted torque forms remain valid at lower pressures, they could be used to estimate residual friction in space-based gyroscopes.
The modeling strategy offers a template for predicting how rotor friction might induce slow drifts in other sealed rotating systems.
Repeated experiments with varied rotor masses or surface materials would test whether the current torque expressions generalize or require new parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen mathematical forms for the three friction torques are assumed to capture all dominant torques without large unmodeled contributions or parameters that change appreciably during a run.

What would settle it

New measurements of casing angular velocity at different rotor speeds or in a partial vacuum that systematically deviate from the predictions of the best-fit torque models by more than the reported experimental scatter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.06700 by Arda Erbasan, Vedat Tanr{\i}verdi.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Experimental setup. The gyroscope is at the center. Four lights (blue) are used to iluminate it. Sony ZV-1 camera (red) is at the top of the gyroscope, and ELP Web camera (purple) is next to it. The experimental setup can be seen in figure 1. The rotation of the casing is measured with an ELP Web camera, which takes images at 260 fps, while the rotation of the rotor is measured with a Sony ZV-1 camera taki… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Measurements of the gyroscope’s angular positions. The (red) circle at the center is used to find the position of the center. The (red) rectangular piece is used to measure the angular positions of the casing. Three rectangular pieces (blue, white, and green) are used to measure the angular positions of the rotor. Because of the fast rotation, they appear smeared. The corners of the rectangular pieces nea… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Angular positions of the casing for cases 1 and 2. As previously mentioned, due to equipment limitations, only fractions of the angular positions of the rotor are available. Overcoming this issue is necessary to fit the data for the rotation of the casing. Drawing on results from previous work [22], two data sets for the angular velocity of the rotor’s rotation were generated. The experimental values and g… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Experimental and generated data (GD) for the angular velocity of the rotor. Black lines show generated data and experimental data are seen with their uncertainties. There are three distinct experimental data for each case. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Generated data and fits for the rotor’s angular velocity. Continuous (red) lines show the data generated according to experimental results. There are four different fit results: Dotted (turquoise) lines show reduced model (RM), dashed (white) lines shows generalized model (GM), dotteddashed (purple) lines show reduced model obtained from joint fit (RM-JF), and double dotted-dashed (brown) lines show gene… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Angular velocities of the casing. Experimental data is shown by (black) dots together with their uncertainties. There are four different fit results: Dotted (red) lines show reduced model (RM), dashed (turquoise) lines shows generalized model (GM), dotted-dashed (purple) lines show reduced model obtained from joint fit (RM-JF), and double dotted-dashed (yellow) lines show generalized model obtained from jo… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Normalized fit residuals for the casing’s angular velocity, (ψ˙ cf it − ψ˙ cexp )/σ where σ represents the experimental uncertainty. Turquoise lines show reduced model (RM), red lines show generalized model (GM), purple lines show reduced model obtained from joint fit (RM-JF), brown lines show generalized model obtained from joint fit (GM-JF). reduced model or joint fits. While some of these structural pat… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Change in Kf + R τ dψ across different cases. Turquoise lines show reduced model (RM), red lines show generalized model (GM), purple lines show reduced model obtained from joint fit (RM-JF), brown lines show generalized model obtained from joint fit (GM-JF). Using the parameters derived from the models, the right-hand side of equation (5) can be calculated via the experimental angular velocities, providin… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The rotation of the casing and rotor of a gyroscope is studied by considering frictional effects. Friction causes the casing to rotate, and over time, air dissipation and friction at the touchpoint gradually stop this rotation. Several models for air friction, friction between the rotor and casing, and friction at the touchpoint are analyzed. Fit results demonstrate that while some of these models can describe the primary motion, certain effects require further study to yield more precise results. These findings can aid in developing improved models for the rotation of satellites.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper fits standard friction models to gyroscope data and shows some capture the main casing rotation while others fall short, but stays at descriptive curve-fitting without strong validation.

read the letter

The headline result is that models for air friction, rotor-casing friction, and touchpoint friction can be adjusted to describe the observed primary rotation of the gyroscope casing, but some additional effects still need attention for better accuracy. The authors apply this to data from a spinning rotor setup and note the potential for satellite modeling. What the paper does reasonably well is present a clear set of phenomenological models and show through fits which ones capture the dominant behavior. The approach is standard for this kind of mechanical system, and the abstract is candid about the remaining gaps. If the full text includes actual data plots and parameter values, that would give readers something concrete to work with. The soft spots are more about what is missing than what is wrong. The fitting is done on the same data used to evaluate the models, which always carries a risk of overfitting without separate test cases or predictive checks. There is no mention of error bars, data collection details, or whether the models hold up under different conditions. The connection to satellite attitude dynamics is mentioned but not developed, so it functions more as context than as a tested outcome. The central claim holds up as a descriptive exercise but does not claim or demonstrate anything beyond routine model comparison. This kind of work is aimed at researchers in applied mechanics or spacecraft dynamics who deal with frictional effects in rotating systems. A reader interested in new theoretical insights or large-scale applications will not find them here. Someone looking for practical model comparisons on a lab gyroscope might get some value. I would send this to peer review. The experimental component and model fitting provide enough substance for referees to assess, and the modest scope means it is not overclaiming. Reviewers could usefully push for more validation or uncertainty quantification, but the paper is grounded enough to warrant that step rather than a desk rejection.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines the rotation of a gyroscope casing induced by friction from a spinning rotor. It develops and compares multiple phenomenological models for air dissipation, rotor-casing friction, and touchpoint friction, then reports fits to observed rotation data showing that some models reproduce the primary motion while additional effects must still be incorporated for higher precision. The work suggests these findings may help improve models of satellite rotation.

Significance. If the model fits prove robust upon detailed scrutiny, the paper supplies a practical set of friction terms for describing coupled rotor-casing dynamics in low-friction rotating systems. The deliberately modest central claim and explicit acknowledgment of remaining effects avoid overstatement, but the absence of reported error bars, data quality metrics, or out-of-sample validation keeps the immediate significance moderate.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that 'fit results demonstrate that while some of these models can describe the primary motion' is presented without any mention of data quality, error bars, goodness-of-fit statistics, or whether the fits are predictive versus post-hoc. This omission prevents assessment of whether the models capture the underlying physics or simply reproduce the calibration data.
[Abstract] Abstract: fitting several friction parameters (air dissipation, rotor-casing, touchpoint) to the same rotation time series carries an inherent risk of circularity; without independent validation data or out-of-sample tests, it is unclear whether the reported agreement constitutes genuine predictive power or merely an interpolation of the fitted curves.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract would be strengthened by a concise statement of the experimental apparatus or data acquisition method so readers can judge the scope of the primary motion being modeled.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each point below and have made revisions to the abstract and discussion to clarify the nature of the fits and their limitations.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that 'fit results demonstrate that while some of these models can describe the primary motion' is presented without any mention of data quality, error bars, goodness-of-fit statistics, or whether the fits are predictive versus post-hoc. This omission prevents assessment of whether the models capture the underlying physics or simply reproduce the calibration data.

Authors: We agree the abstract was too terse on this point. The revised abstract now states that the models are fitted to the experimental rotation time series and that agreement is judged by reproduction of the primary observed motion. The main text describes the fitting procedure; quantitative error bars and formal goodness-of-fit statistics are not emphasized because the models are phenomenological and the goal is to distinguish which terms capture the dominant dynamics rather than to perform precise parameter estimation. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: fitting several friction parameters (air dissipation, rotor-casing, touchpoint) to the same rotation time series carries an inherent risk of circularity; without independent validation data or out-of-sample tests, it is unclear whether the reported agreement constitutes genuine predictive power or merely an interpolation of the fitted curves.

Authors: We acknowledge the inherent limitation of fitting multiple parameters to a single time series. The models are phenomenological tools for identifying which friction mechanisms account for the main features of the data. We have added text in the abstract and discussion clarifying that the reported agreement is post-hoc on the available dataset and should be regarded as a starting point for model refinement rather than a validated prediction. Out-of-sample tests would require additional independent runs, which lie beyond the scope of the present study. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper develops several phenomenological models for air dissipation, rotor-casing friction, and touchpoint friction, then fits them to observed casing rotation data. It reports that some models describe the primary motion while noting that additional effects need further study. This is explicit parameter fitting and model comparison; the abstract ties conclusions directly to 'fit results' without presenting the fits as independent out-of-sample predictions or first-principles derivations. No equations reduce to their inputs by construction, no load-bearing self-citations are invoked, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work. The modest central claim remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review prevents identification of specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; paper appears to rely on standard Newtonian mechanics plus empirical friction laws.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5384 in / 1037 out tokens · 27573 ms · 2026-05-11T01:21:40.953078+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

Jellett, A treatise on the theory of friction, (Hodges, Foster and co., Dublin, 1872) 181-187

J.H. Jellett, A treatise on the theory of friction, (Hodges, Foster and co., Dublin, 1872) 181-187

work page
[2]

Fokker, The rising top, experimental evidence and theory,Physica 8(1941) 591-596https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-8914(41)80039-1

A.D. Fokker, The rising top, experimental evidence and theory,Physica 8(1941) 591-596https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-8914(41)80039-1

work page doi:10.1016/s0031-8914(41)80039-1 1941
[3]

Tanrıverdi, Revisiting dissipative motion of a spinning heavy sym- metric top and the rise of the top by friction,Rev

V. Tanrıverdi, Revisiting dissipative motion of a spinning heavy sym- metric top and the rise of the top by friction,Rev. Mex. Fis.69(2023) 021403https://doi.org/10.31349/revmexfis.69.021403

work page doi:10.31349/revmexfis.69.021403 2023
[4]

Starin, J

S.R. Starin, J. Eterno, Attitude Determination and Control Systems, (NASA, 2011)https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20110007876

work page arXiv 2011
[5]

Parks and L

R. Parks and L. Maunder, Damped Free Oscillations of a Gyroscopic SystemNature190(1961) 710https://doi.org/10.1038/190710a0

work page doi:10.1038/190710a0 1961
[6]

Predicting Sequential Design Decisions Using the Function-Behavior-Structure Design Process Model and Recurrent Neural Networks

P. Sethna and M. Balachandra, Transients in high spin gyroscopic sys- temsJ. Appl. Mech.41(1974) 787-792https://doi.org/10.1115/1. 3423389

work page doi:10.1115/1 1974
[7]

Ge and M.H

Z.M. Ge and M.H. Wu, On the stability of motion of several types of heavy symmetric gyroscopes with damping torquesTrans. Can. Soc. Mech. Eng. or CSME Trans.11(1987) 243-247https://doi.org/10. 1139/tcsme-1987-0027

work page 1987
[8]

Longuski and P

J.M. Longuski and P. Tsiotras, Analytical Solutions for a Spinning Rigid Body Subject to Time-Varying Body-Fixed Torques, Part I: Constant Axial TorqueJ. Appl. Mech.60(1993) 970-975https://doi.org/10. 1115/1.2901010 18

work page 1993
[9]

Sorokin, V.V

A.V. Sorokin, V.V. Yaremenko, Control Moment Gyroscopes for Spacecraft Attitude Control Systems: History of Development,Gy- roscopy and Navigation13(2022) 53-58https://doi.org/10.1134/ S2075108722010060

work page 2022
[10]

Dahl, A solid friction model, Technical Report TOR-0158(3107- 18)-1, (The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, 1968)https://apps

P.R. Dahl, A solid friction model, Technical Report TOR-0158(3107- 18)-1, (The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, 1968)https://apps. dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA041920

work page 1968
[11]

Canudas de Wit, H

C. Canudas de Wit, H. Olsson, K.J. ˚Astr¨ om, P. Lischinsky, A new model for control of systems with friction,IEEE Trans. Autom. Control40 (1995) 419-425https://doi.org/10.1109/9.376053

work page doi:10.1109/9.376053 1995
[12]

˚Astr¨ om, C

K.J. ˚Astr¨ om, C. Canudas-de-Wit, Revisiting the LuGre friction model, IEEE Control Syst. Mag.28(2008) 101-114https://doi.org/10. 1109/MCS.2008.929425

work page arXiv 2008
[13]

Canudas-de-Wit, P

C. Canudas-de-Wit, P. Lischinsky, Adaptive friction compensation with dynamic friction model,IF AC Proc.29(1996) 2078-2083https://doi. org/10.1016/S1474-6670(17)57978-1

work page doi:10.1016/s1474-6670(17)57978-1 1996
[14]

Pan, F.Z

S. Pan, F.Z. Xu, L. Chen, W. Huang, J. Wu, Coupled dynamic modeling and analysis of the single gimbal control moment gyroscope driven by ultrasonic motor,IEEE Access8(2020) 146233-146247https://doi. org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3012694

work page doi:10.1109/access.2020.3012694 2020
[15]

Hill, Dynamics and control of spinning spacecraft using translat- ing masses with friction compensation,J

D.E. Hill, Dynamics and control of spinning spacecraft using translat- ing masses with friction compensation,J. Spacecr. Rockets54(2017) https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A33839

work page doi:10.2514/1.a33839 2017
[16]

Z. Gai, J. Wang, Research on dynamic seal friction torque compensation for a low-slow-small UAV tracking system,IEEE Access11(2023) 6404- 6412https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3237264

work page doi:10.1109/access.2023.3237264 2023
[17]

Sancak, Z.Y

K.V. Sancak, Z.Y. Bayraktaroglu, Observer-based friction compensation in heavy-duty parallel robot control,J. Mech. Sci. Technol.35(2021) 3693-3704https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-021-0738-2

work page doi:10.1007/s12206-021-0738-2 2021
[18]

Iwasaki, T

M. Iwasaki, T. Shibata, N. Matsui, Disturbance-observer-based nonlin- ear friction compensation in table drive system,IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics4(1999) 3-8https://doi.org/10.1109/3516.752078 19

work page doi:10.1109/3516.752078 1999
[19]

Olsson, K.J

H. Olsson, K.J. ˚Astr¨ om, C. Canudas de Wit, M. G¨ afvert, P. Lischinsky, Friction models and friction compensation,Eur. J. Control4(1998) 176-195https://doi.org/10.1016/S0947-3580(98)70113-X

work page doi:10.1016/s0947-3580(98)70113-x 1998
[20]

P. Wu, C. He, Z. Ren, Q. Feng, G. Chen, C. Ren, Measurement of the equivalent friction coefficients of ball bearings based on the variations in kinetic energy,Friction13(2025) 9440947https://doi.org/10. 26599/FRICT.2025.9440947

work page arXiv 2025
[21]

S. Wolf, M. Iskandar, Extending a dynamic friction model with nonlinear viscous and thermal dependency for a motor and harmonic drive gear, IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom.(2018) 783-790https://doi.org/10. 1109/ICRA.2018.8460613

work page arXiv 2018
[22]

Tanrıverdi, Dissipative motion of a spinning heavy symmetric top,Eur

V. Tanrıverdi, Dissipative motion of a spinning heavy symmetric top,Eur. J. Phys.41(2020) 055001https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1361-6404/ab9930

work page 2020
[23]

Gurrisi, R

C. Gurrisi, R. Seidel, S. Dickerson, S. Didziulis, P. Frantz, K. Fergu- son, Space station control moment gyroscope lessons learned,Proc. 40th Aerospace Mechanisms Symp.(2010) 161-174https://ntrs.nasa.gov/ citations/20100021932 20

work page arXiv 2010