Antigravity force in powered precession gyroscope

Question

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:

Legend:

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:

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.

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

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.