Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Levitated macroscopic rotors with 10 hours of free spin at room temperature

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper reports a diamagnetically levitated millimeter-scale graphite rotor whose free spin decays at only 3.85 μHz—over 10 hours at room temperature—and demonstrates that the same rotor acts as a gyroscope with a measured 0.0065°/s…

desk verdict A credible low-dissipation rotor result with a soft gyroscope claim and an extrapolated headline; the stress-test's alleged contradiction does not hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03803 v2 pith:KJC3LYZ4 submitted 2025-06-04 physics.app-ph

Xianfeng Chen , Nirmala Raj , Ruvi Lecamwasam , Mingxi Chen , Christina Yuan Ling Tan , Syed M. Assad , Ping Koy Lam This is my paper
classification physics.app-ph
keywords diamagneticlevitationlevitatedgyroscoperotationaldampingeddycurrentspyrolyticgraphiteangularrandomwalkhighvacuumroomtemperature
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports a diamagnetically levitated millimeter-scale graphite rotor that, at room temperature and pressures below $10^{-6}$ mbar, has a rotational damping rate as low as $3.85\,\mu\mathrm{Hz}$, meaning that after the drive is switched off the rotor keeps spinning for more than 10 hours. Low dissipation at this size matters because large angular momentum improves inertial sensing and opens a room-temperature route to macroscopic mechanical systems. The paper also converts the rotor's precession into a gyroscope: the 12 mm rotor at 510 RPM has a measured angular resolution of $0.0065\,^\circ/\mathrm{s}$, and the estimated thermal-noise limit is $5.7\times10^{-7}\,^\circ/\sqrt{\mathrm{h}}$, in navigation-grade territory. It attributes the residual spin damping to eddy currents caused by wobble of the rotation axis, not to air, and shows that composite rotors do not cure the rotation-mode loss.

What carries the argument

The central object is the four-armed pyrolytic graphite rotor levitated above an axisymmetric permanent-magnet trap: the trap's magnetic scalar potential confines five degrees of freedom but leaves free rotation about the vertical z-axis, so the spin mode has no restoring force and is governed by $I_z \dot{\Omega}_z + \mu\Omega_z = \tau_e$. The argument's load-bearing identity is the rotational damping rate $\gamma = \mu/I_z$, extracted by fitting free ringdowns to $\Omega_z = \Omega_0 e^{-\gamma t}$; the low value of $\gamma/2\pi = 3.85\,\mu\mathrm{Hz}$ is what carries the 10-hour free-spin claim. For the gyroscope, the machinery is the rigid-body gyroscope model given in the Supplementary Information, which relates input angular rates $\Omega_X,\Omega_Y$ to rim displacement $Z$ through a scale factor ($3.34\times10^{-5}\ \mathrm{m/(rad/s)}$ for the 12 mm rotor at 510 RPM), together with the thermal-noise angular random walk $\mathrm{ARW} = \frac{180}{\pi}\sqrt{4 k_B T \mu_\theta}/(I_z\Omega_z)$ that sets the ultimate sensitivity. The dissipation analysis uses the comparison between pyrolytic graphite and composite graphite-epoxy rotors, with Faraday's law $\mathrm{emf}=d\Phi_B/dt$ to argue that a perfectly balanced spinning rotor would generate no eddy currents, so the residual loss must come from wobble.

What would settle it

Record the ringdown continuously for at least 10 hours at pressures below $10^{-6}$ mbar; any deviation from a single exponential with $\gamma/2\pi = 3.85\,\mu\mathrm{Hz}$, or a repeat of the mode-coupling event the paper reports near 2800 s (Fig. 5a), would overturn the free-spin claim. Place the levitation trap on a calibrated rate table and apply known angular velocities; if the rotor's rim displacement does not track the table rate with the claimed $3.34\times10^{-5}\ \mathrm{m/(rad/s)}$ scale factor, the $0.0065\,^\circ/\mathrm{s}$ figure is a displacement noise floor, not a validated gyroscope sensitivity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that diamagnetic levitation, previously confined to low-dissipation micro-rotors, can host a millimeter-scale room-temperature rotor with dissipation lower than any comparable macroscopic rotor, and that this rotor can serve as a passive gyroscope. Measured ringdowns fitted with an exponential decay give $\gamma/2\pi = 3.85\,\mu\mathrm{Hz}$ at pressures below $10^{-6}$ mbar; the same trap spins the rotor up to 930 RPM, and the fitted decay time exceeds 10 hours. The gyroscope sensitivity is obtained by tracking the vertical displacement of the rotor rim with a laser Doppler vibrometer and converting the Allan deviation of that displacement to an input angular rate with a modeled scale factor: $0.0065\,^\circ/\mathrm{s}$ measured, with a thermal-limited angular random walk of $5.7\times10^{-7}\,^\circ/\sqrt{\mathrm{h}}$ estimated from the damping of the librational mode. The paper states that the surviving dissipation is eddy-current loss induced by wobble, since rotational eddy loss should vanish by symmetry for a balanced axisymmetric rotor.

Load-bearing premise

The results stand on the assumption that the spin rate keeps decaying at the same fitted rate for many hours, and that the model used to turn measured rim wobble into a rotation rate is correct, because the gyroscope was not tested against a known spinning input.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A room-temperature, passively levitated rotor can maintain undriven spin for more than 10 hours, a duration previously seen only in much smaller or actively controlled systems.
  • The 12 mm rotor at 510 RPM reaches a measured angular resolution of $0.0065\,^\circ/\mathrm{s}$, an order of magnitude better than the first optically levitated MHz gyroscope, and its thermal-limited angular random walk of $5.7\times10^{-7}\,^\circ/\sqrt{\mathrm{h}}$ falls in navigation-grade territory.
  • Because the residual rotation-mode damping is attributed to wobble-induced eddy currents rather than air, balancing the rotor and suppressing rigid-body modes should reduce damping further and extend spin time.
  • The composite graphite-epoxy rotor suppresses translational eddy-current damping by about four orders of magnitude but does not reduce rotation-mode damping, implying that rotation-mode loss must be addressed mechanically, not by material choice alone.
  • Rotor size matters: the larger rotor outperforms the smaller one even at lower RPM because gyroscope sensitivity scales with angular momentum $I\Omega$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not calibrate its gyroscope against a known rotation input; if a rate-table test confirmed the scale factor, the same rim-displacement readout would likely support two-axis rate sensing by demodulating both quadrature components of the precession.
  • The wobble-limited damping hypothesis suggests a testable extension: active feedback cooling or electrostatic balancing of the rigid-body modes should lower the rotation-mode damping and approach the thermal limit, and the paper's projected spin speed near $10^6$ RPM would put the angular momentum far beyond current room-temperature rotors.
  • A direct multi-hour ringdown recording would settle whether the mode-coupling disturbance seen near 2800 s recurs and shortens the true 10-hour spin time, which the one-hour traces do not fully prove.
  • The same passive, zero-power suspension could be developed as a sensitive angular accelerometer or torque sensor, since a macroscopic rotor with extremely low damping and large angular momentum translates environmental torques into measurable precession.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a diamagnetically levitated millimeter-scale graphite rotor in high vacuum with a measured rotational damping rate as low as γ/2π = 3.85 μHz, corresponding to an exponential decay time of over 10 hours. The rotor is driven electrostatically to up to 930 RPM, and the damping is characterized as a function of pressure and rotor material, with eddy currents induced by wobble identified as the dominant residual loss. The same setup is used to demonstrate a gyroscope: the precession amplitude is measured via a laser Doppler vibrometer, and the Allan deviation is converted to an angular-rate resolution of 6.5×10^{-3} °/s using a scale factor derived from a rigid-body model; the thermal-limited angular random walk is estimated at 5.7×10^{-7} °/√h.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is the lowest dissipation reported for a millimeter-scale mechanical rotor at room temperature and a promising platform for passive, high-performance gyroscopes. The paper's strengths include a clean experimental methodology: the ringdown fits are exponential, the damping rate plateaus below 3×10^{-5} mbar, and the graphite-versus-composite comparison isolates eddy-current damping. The gyroscope model is derived from first principles in the Supplementary and uses independently measured parameters, avoiding free fitting. However, the gyroscope is not calibrated against a known rotation rate, so the quoted 'measured sensitivity' is a model-converted noise floor, and the 10-hour spin claim rests on an extrapolation of a one-hour clean ringdown for the 5 mm rotor. These caveats are manageable but must be addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, 'Levitated gyroscopes' and Supplementary Eqs. (5)-(17)] The claimed measured sensitivity of 6.5×10^{-3} °/s is not a calibrated measurement: no known angular rate is applied to the rotor, and the value is obtained by converting the Allan deviation of the precession amplitude using a scale factor derived from the rigid-body model in the Supplementary. Because the scale factor depends on the moments of inertia, the damping coefficients, and the position stiffness (Eqs. 5-10), any error or drift in these parameters directly biases the reported sensitivity. The manuscript should either calibrate the scale factor against a known rotation input (e.g., a rate table) or explicitly describe the 0.0065 °/s as a model-derived noise-equivalent rate, not a measured sensitivity.
  2. [Section II.E, Fig. 4a and Section III, Fig. 5a] The 10-hour spin claim is based on γ/2π = 3.85 μHz, which is measured for the 5 mm rotor at 930 RPM (Fig. 4a, red trace; Section II.E). The one-hour ringdown shown in Fig. 5a is for the 12 mm rotor at 510 RPM, whose spin frequency decays from 8.5 Hz to about 5 Hz in 3600 s, implying γ/2π ≈ 24 μHz. This is not an internal contradiction because the damping rate depends on rotor size, rotation speed, and wobble (as the paper states), but the headline claim should be explicitly attributed to the 5 mm rotor at 930 RPM, and the paper should present or reference a long-duration decay trace for that rotor to support the extrapolation to 10 hours. The current presentation, with a general title and abstract, risks overgeneralizing the result.
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (4) and Fig. 6b] The thermal-limited ARW of 5.7×10^{-7} °/√h is an estimate, not a measured stability. The paper does label it 'estimated,' but the Discussion states that the large rotor 'already operates in the navigation-grade range' based on this estimate. Since the Allan deviation measurements in Fig. 5c show a monotonic increase with gate time and are dominated by long-term drift, the projected thermal limit is far below the demonstrated performance. The paper should clarify that the navigation-grade claim is a theoretical projection based on the measured θ-mode damping, not a demonstrated property of the current gyroscope.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4a caption] The caption should specify which trace corresponds to the 5 mm rotor and which to the 12 mm rotor, and give the initial rotation speed for each ringdown; the current caption only says 'the red line represents data from a 5 mm rotor' without identifying the corresponding speeds or pressures.
  2. [Section IV, Discussion (reference [39])] Reference [39] is cited for the 'first optically levitated gyroscope operating at MHz speeds (0.08 °/s),' but reference [39] is a paper on a vacuum-levitated metal oscillator, not a gyroscope. The correct citation appears to be [47] (Zeng et al.) or [48] (Arita et al.); please correct.
  3. [Abstract and Section IV] The term 'measured sensitivity' for the gyroscope should be revised to reflect that it is derived from the Allan deviation using a model-based scale factor, e.g., 'noise-equivalent angular rate' or 'Allan-deviation-derived resolution'.
  4. [Title and Abstract] The phrase '10 hours of free spin' is based on the measured time constant of an exponential fit; consider 'spin-down time constant exceeding 10 hours' or state explicitly that this is an extrapolation, not a direct observation.
  5. [Supplementary Information] The scale-factor derivation would benefit from a table listing the measured parameters (Ix, Iy, Iz, µx, µy, cs) used for each rotor, as the current text only quotes the final scale factors of 3.34×10^{-5} m/(rad/s) and 7.53×10^{-6} m/(rad/s).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: damping, gyroscope transduction, and thermal-noise ARW all trace to direct measurements or an external reference model; self-citations are procedural and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The headline damping rate γ/2π = 3.85 μHz is obtained by fitting Eq. (2) (Ωz = Ω0 e^{−γt}) directly to measured ringdown traces in Fig. 4a; it is a primary measurement, and the 'free spinning duration exceeding 10 hours' is the exponential time constant τ = 1/(2π × 3.85 μHz) = 11.5 h — a transparent unit conversion of the fitted parameter, labeled 'corresponding to,' not an independently predicted quantity. The gyroscope sensitivity of 0.0065°/s is a measured vertical-displacement Allan deviation (Fig. 5c) divided by a scale factor (3.34e-5 m/(rad/s)) computed from the rigid-body gyroscope equations in the SI (Eqs. 5–17), adapted from the external reference [22] (Poletkin et al.) and evaluated with independently measured moments of inertia, spin rate, and damping; the scale factor is not fitted to the gyroscope output, so the transduction, while uncalibrated by a rate table, is not circular. The thermal-limited ARW of 5.7e-7°/√h is likewise a projection computed from the external formula [22] (Eq. 4) with measured θ-mode damping (Fig. 3) and spin rate, explicitly labeled 'estimated.' The one-hour spin spectrum of the 12 mm rotor in Fig. 5a decays from ~8.5 to ~5 Hz, which matches the 12 mm rotor's own high-vacuum γ/2π ≈ 21.5 μHz in Fig. 4a; the 3.85 μHz record belongs to the 5 mm rotor at 930 RPM, so no internal contradiction is present in the data. Self-citations are procedural or background: [32] for the composite fabrication recipe (re-validated by fresh ringdown measurements in Fig. 4c), [26] for the expected rigid-body mode count (confirmed by the camera-based identification in Fig. 3), and [42] for Allan-deviation conventions; none is load-bearing for the central claims.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The paper leans on standard rigid-body gyroscope equations and on previously published diamagnetic-levitation and composite-fabrication results, mostly from the same group [26, 32, 39]. The key numerical results are derived from exponential fits and a model-based scale factor; the ledger above lists the assumptions that must hold for those numbers to mean what the abstract says they mean.

free parameters (3)
  • Rotational damping rate gamma/2pi from exponential ringdown fit = 3.85 uHz (5 mm rotor, 930 RPM, high vacuum); 21.5 uHz (12 mm rotor at 7e-7 mbar)
    The headline dissipation claim comes from a single-exponential fit to measured ringdown data; no uncertainty is reported, and Fig. 4a does not show the full 10-hour interval.
  • Rigid-body resonance frequencies and Q factors = 8.83 Hz (Q=22), 17.89 Hz (Q=19), 22.31 Hz (Q=13)
    Lorentzian fits in Fig. 3a identify the X, theta, and Z modes; they are used to quantify mu_theta in Eq. 4 and to explain the spin-up speed limit from rigid-body resonances.
  • Gyroscope scale factor = 3.34e-5 m/(rad/s) for 12 mm rotor at 510 RPM; 7.53e-6 m/(rad/s) for 5 mm rotor at 930 RPM
    Computed from the rigid-body model and measured parameters, not from a calibrated rotation input. This conversion turns displacement Allan deviation into the reported deg/s figures.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Rotational motion obeys the linear damping model I_z Omega_z_dot + mu Omega_z = tau_e (Eq. 1), giving a single exponential decay Omega_z = Omega_0 e^{-gamma t} (Eq. 2).
    Used to extract all reported damping rates. The paper shows mode-coupling disturbances in long traces (Fig. 5a), which could make the effective decay non-exponential over the extrapolated 10-hour interval.
  • domain assumption For a perfectly symmetric rotor, magnetic flux through the rotor is constant during z-axis rotation, so rotational eddy-current damping vanishes; residual damping is attributed to wobble.
    Invoked in Section II E to interpret the plateau damping. Wobble amplitude is not directly measured, so the quantitative attribution to eddy currents relies on this model plus the composite-rotor comparison.
  • domain assumption The gyroscope equations of motion (Supplementary Eqs. 5-11, adapted from [22]) with measured I_x, I_y, I_z, mu_x, mu_y, and dynamic-stiffness terms describe the levitated rotor's response to input rotation rates, and the derived scale factors map vertical rim displacement to deg/s.
    The 0.0065 deg/s figure is obtained by converting displacement Allan deviation with this modeled scale factor; no calibrated angular-rate input is applied.
  • domain assumption The thermal-noise limit for the gyroscope is ARW = sqrt(4 k_B T mu_theta)/(I_z Omega_z) * 180 * 60 / pi (Eq. 4), with mu_theta taken from measured rigid-body damping.
    Used for the 5.7e-7 deg/sqrt(h) estimate. It is a projection, not a measured stability, and assumes the dominant noise is thermal.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Levitated macroscopic rotors with 10 hours of free spin at room temperature." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KJC3LYZ4

@misc{pith2026250603803,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Levitated macroscopic rotors with 10 hours of free spin at room temperature},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KJC3LYZ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03803}
}
abstract

Low-dissipation rotors with large angular momentum are essential for precision sensing and probing macroscopic quantum phenomena. To date, low dissipation can only be achieved for micro-scale rotors. Here, we report a diamagnetically levitated millimeter-scale rotor exhibiting a measured dissipation rate as low as $3.85\,\mu\mathrm{Hz}$ at room temperature, corresponding to a free spinning duration exceeding 10 hours. The rotor is levitated stably over an axisymmetric permanent magnet trap, and can be driven up to 930 RPM using contactless electrostatic actuation in high vacuum. Leveraging its low damping rate and large angular momentum, we realize a precision gyroscope with a measured sensitivity of $6.5 \times 10^{-3}\ \mathrm{^\circ/s}$ and an estimated thermal-limited stability of $5.7 \times 10^{-7}\ \mathrm{^\circ/\sqrt{h}}$. These results establish diamagnetic levitation as a promising room-temperature platform for high-performance gyroscopes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03803 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Experimental setup. (a) Schematic of a graphite rotor with four arms (gray) levitated above an inner cylindrical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Driving force and rotational dynamics. (a) Driv [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Frequency response curve of the levitated rotor. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Energy dissipation of the levitated rotor. (a) Ringdown measurements of the rotor at different pressures and their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Levitated gyroscopes. (a-c) Gyroscopic measurement results for the 12 mm rotor. (a) Frequency spectrum of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Angular momentum versus size of different lev [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gonzalez-Ballestero, M

    C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, M. Aspelmeyer, L. Novotny, R. Quidant, and O. Romero-Isart, Levitodynamics: Lev- itation and control of microscopic objects in vacuum, Sci- ence374, eabg3027 (2021)

    2021

  2. [2]

    Millen, T

    J. Millen, T. S. Monteiro, R. Pettit, and A. N. Vami- vakas, Optomechanics with levitated particles, Reports on Progress in Physics83, 026401 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    Dania, D

    L. Dania, D. S. Bykov, F. Goschin, M. Teller, A. Kassid, and T. E. Northup, Ultrahigh quality factor of a levitated nanomechanical oscillator, Physical Review Letters132, 133602 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Deli´ c, M

    U. Deli´ c, M. Reisenbauer, K. Dare, D. Grass, V. Vuleti´ c, N. Kiesel, and M. Aspelmeyer, Cooling of a levitated nanoparticle to the motional quantum ground state, Sci- ence367, 892 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Piotrowski, D

    J. Piotrowski, D. Windey, J. Vijayan, C. Gonzalez- Ballestero, A. de los R ´ ıos Sommer, N. Meyer, R. Quidant, O. Romero-Isart, R. Reimann, and L. Novotny, Simulta- neous ground-state cooling of two mechanical modes of a levitated nanoparticle, Nature Physics19, 1009 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    B. Melo, M. T. Cuairan, G. F. Tomassi, N. Meyer, and R. Quidant, Vacuum levitation and motion control on chip, Nature Nanotechnology19, 1270 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    L.-H. Liu, Y. Zheng, Y. Tian, L. Wang, G.-C. Guo, and F.-W. Sun, Nanoscale vacuum gauge based on second- order coherence in optical levitation, Physical Review Applied22, L041006 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Timberlake, G

    C. Timberlake, G. Gasbarri, A. Vinante, A. Setter, and H. Ulbricht, Acceleration sensing with magnetically levi- tated oscillators above a superconductor, Applied Physics Letters115(2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Jin, K. Shen, P. Ju, X. Gao, C. Zu, A. J. Grine, and T. Li, Quantum control and berry phase of electron spins in rotating levitated diamonds in high vacuum, Nature Communications15, 5063 (2024). 9

    2024

  2. [10]

    W. Ji, C. Xu, G. Qu, and D. Budker, Levitated sensor for magnetometry in ambient environment, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21524 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    B. A. Stickler, B. Papendell, S. Kuhn, B. Schrinski, J. Millen, M. Arndt, and K. Hornberger, Probing macro- scopic quantum superpositions with nanorotors, New Journal of Physics20, 122001 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Y. Ma, K. E. Khosla, B. A. Stickler, and M. Kim, Quan- tum persistent tennis racket dynamics of nanorotors, Physical Review Letters125, 053604 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    B. A. Stickler, K. Hornberger, and M. Kim, Quantum rotations of nanoparticles, Nature Reviews Physics3, 589 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    J. Ahn, Z. Xu, J. Bang, P. Ju, X. Gao, and T. Li, Ul- trasensitive torque detection with an optically levitated nanorotor, Nature nanotechnology15, 89 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    J. Ahn, Z. Xu, J. Bang, Y.-H. Deng, T. M. Hoang, Q. Han, R.-M. Ma, and T. Li, Optically levitated nan- odumbbell torsion balance and ghz nanomechanical ro- tor, Physical review letters121, 033603 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    S. Kuhn, B. A. Stickler, A. Kosloff, F. Patolsky, K. Horn- berger, M. Arndt, and J. Millen, Optically driven ultra- stable nanomechanical rotor, Nature communications8, 1670 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Schuck, D

    M. Schuck, D. Steinert, T. Nussbaumer, and J. W. Kolar, Ultrafast rotation of magnetically levitated macroscopic steel spheres, Science advances4, e1701519 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Monteiro, S

    F. Monteiro, S. Ghosh, E. C. van Assendelft, and D. C. Moore, Optical rotation of levitated spheres in high vac- uum, Physical Review A97, 051802 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Rademacher, J

    M. Rademacher, J. Millen, and Y. L. Li, Quantum sens- ing with nanoparticles for gravimetry: when bigger is better, Advanced Optical Technologies9, 227 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Abramovici, W

    A. Abramovici, W. E. Althouse, R. W. Drever, Y. G¨ ursel, S. Kawamura, F. J. Raab, D. Shoemaker, L. Sievers, R. E. Spero, K. S. Thorne,et al., Ligo: The laser interfer- ometer gravitational-wave observatory, science256, 325 (1992)

    1992

  13. [21]

    C. F. Everitt, D. DeBra, B. Parkinson, J. Turneaure, J. Conklin, M. Heifetz, G. Keiser, A. Silbergleit, T. Holmes, J. Kolodziejczak,et al., Gravity probe b: fi- nal results of a space experiment to test general relativity, Physical Review Letters106, 221101 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    K. V. Poletkin, J. G. Korvink, and V. Badilita, Mechan- ical thermal noise in micro-machined levitated two-axis rate gyroscopes, IEEE Sensors Journal18, 1390 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Chen, Macroscopic quantum mechanics: theory and experimental concepts of optomechanics, Journal of physics B: atomic, molecular and optical physics46, 104001 (2013)

    Y. Chen, Macroscopic quantum mechanics: theory and experimental concepts of optomechanics, Journal of physics B: atomic, molecular and optical physics46, 104001 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    Fr¨ owis, P

    F. Fr¨ owis, P. Sekatski, W. D¨ ur, N. Gisin, and N. San- gouard, Macroscopic quantum states: Measures, fragility, and implementations, Reviews of Modern Physics90, 025004 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    M. D. Simon and A. K. Geim, Diamagnetic levitation: Flying frogs and floating magnets, Journal of applied physics87, 6200 (2000)

    2000

  18. [26]

    X. Chen, A. Ke¸ skekler, F. Alijani, and P. G. Steeneken, Rigid body dynamics of diamagnetically levitating graphite resonators, Applied Physics Letters116(2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    X. Chen, T. de Lint, F. Alijani, and P. G. Steeneken, Nonlinear dynamics of diamagnetically levitating res- onators, Nonlinear Dynamics112, 18807 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Y. Leng, Y. Chen, R. Li, L. Wang, H. Wang, L. Wang, H. Xie, C.-K. Duan, P. Huang, and J. Du, Measurement of the earth tides with a diamagnetic-levitated micro- oscillator at room temperature, Physical Review Letters 132, 123601 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    P. Yin, X. Xu, K. Tian, S. Lin, Y. Sheng, C. Yin, D. Long, C.-K. Duan, P. Huang, J.-h. He,et al., Experimental constraints on the symmetron field with a magnetically levitated force sensor, Nature Astronomy , 1 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Romagnoli, R

    P. Romagnoli, R. Lecamwasam, S. Tian, J. Downes, and J. Twamley, Controlling the motional quality factor of a diamagnetically levitated graphite plate, Applied Physics Letters122(2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    H. Xie, Y. Li, R. Li, Y. Leng, Y. Chen, L. Wang, D. Long, X. Bian, C.-K. Duan, P. Yin,et al., Suppressing mechan- ical dissipation of diamagnetically levitated oscillator via engineering conductive geometry, Physical Review Re- search5, 013030 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    X. Chen, S. K. Ammu, K. Masania, P. G. Steeneken, and F. Alijani, Diamagnetic composites for high-q levitating resonators, Advanced Science9, 2203619 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    S. Tian, K. Jadeja, D. Kim, A. Hodges, G. Her- mosa, C. Cusicanqui, R. Lecamwasam, J. Downes, and J. Twamley, Feedback cooling of an insulating high-q dia- magnetically levitated plate, Applied Physics Letters124 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Khanna, J

    S. Khanna, J. N. Ho, J. Irwen, and W. C. Wang, Diamag- netically levitating three phase motor with optical feed- back control, International Journal of Optomechatronics 4, 424 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    Y. Su, Z. Xiao, Z. Ye, and K. Takahata, Micromachined graphite rotor based on diamagnetic levitation, IEEE Electron Device Letters36, 393 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    Y. Xu, Q. Cui, R. Kan, H. Bleuler, and J. Zhou, Re- alization of a diamagnetically levitating rotor driven by electrostatic field, IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mecha- tronics22, 2387 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Moser, H

    R. Moser, H. Bleuler, and J. Sandtner, Diamagnetic sus- pension system for small rotors, Journal of Micromecha- tronics1, 131 (2001)

    2001

  30. [38]

    Ozawa, Y

    Y. Ozawa, Y. Fujii, A. Chiba, H. Sugimoto, H. Suzuki, and H. Bleuler, Principles and test result of novel full pas- sive magnetic levitation motor with diamagnetic disk, in 2021 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE)(IEEE, 2021) pp. 3943–3948

    2021

  31. [39]

    Xiong, L

    F. Xiong, L. Guo, Z. Chen, A. Du, C. Li, and T. Wu, Achievement of a vacuum-levitated metal mechanical os- cillator with ultra-low damping rate at room tempera- ture, Communications Physics8, 80 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Liu, W.-Y

    W. Liu, W.-Y. Chen, W.-P. Zhang, X.-G. Huang, and Z.-R. Zhang, Variable-capacitance micromotor with lev- itated diamagnetic rotor, Electronics Letters44, 681 (2008)

    2008

  33. [41]

    Ke¸ skekler, O

    A. Ke¸ skekler, O. Shoshani, M. Lee, H. S. van der Zant, P. G. Steeneken, and F. Alijani, Tuning nonlin- ear damping in graphene nanoresonators by parametric– direct internal resonance, Nature communications12, 1099 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    X. Chen, N. Kothari, A. Ke¸ skekler, P. G. Steeneken, and F. Alijani, Diamagnetically levitating resonant weighing scale, Sensors and Actuators A: Physical330, 112842 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    J. A. Zieli´ nska, F. van der Laan, A. Norrman, R. Reimann, M. Frimmer, and L. Novotny, Long-axis 10 spinning of an optically levitated particle: A levi- tated spinning top, Physical Review Letters132, 253601 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    V. M. Passaro, A. Cuccovillo, L. Vaiani, M. De Carlo, and C. E. Campanella, Gyroscope technology and appli- cations: A review in the industrial perspective, Sensors 17, 2284 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    El-Sheimy and A

    N. El-Sheimy and A. Youssef, Inertial sensors technolo- gies for navigation applications: State of the art and fu- ture trends, Satellite navigation1, 2 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Ieee specification format guide and test procedure for two-degree-of-freedom dynamically tuned gyros (1989), aNSI approved 4 May 1989; published 5 June 1989

    1989

  39. [47]

    K. Zeng, X. Xu, Y. Wu, X. Wu, and D. Xiao, Opti- cally levitated micro gyroscopes with an mhz rotational vaterite rotor, Microsystems & Nanoengineering10, 78 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Arita, M

    Y. Arita, M. Mazilu, and K. Dholakia, Laser-induced ro- tation and cooling of a trapped microgyroscope in vac- uum, Nature communications4, 2374 (2013)

    2013

  41. [49]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity optomechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 1391 (2014)

    2014

  42. [50]

    S. Kuhn, A. Kosloff, B. A. Stickler, F. Patolsky, K. Horn- berger, M. Arndt, and J. Millen, Full rotational control of levitated silicon nanorods, Optica4, 356 (2017). SUPPLEMENT AR Y INFORMA TION Here we describe the modeling of a levitated 2-axis rate gyroscope, adapted from...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.