[Edwina Lee (OP)]

Prof Braithwaite the inventor of the linear motor gave a lecture in Hatfield Polytechnic (1972-3 ish) which I attended made a deep impression on me. He was introduced as an experimental physicist at the time. He explained the linear motor, then presented his hypothesis about the mechanics of spinning bodies.

He showed that a spinning top on a table jumps and told us that science cannot explain that. Hmmm I thought at the time.  Then he showed us how the equations of Maxwell on electrodynamics, Newton's equations on gravity, . . . share a common form as integral equations. And he speculated that spinning bodies might have an equation of a similar form.

The implication was that if the equation works, then spinning bodies can move sideways in space.

Years later, an experiment for his hypothesis was performed on the ISS, but I never heard anything about it since.

Can someone shed light on that?
And surely, the equation should be derivable from String Theory if true?

[Kryptid]

I found an article by NASA speaking about Laithwaite's idea. Scroll down to the section titled "Gyroscopic Antigravity": https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070004897.pdf

So far, I haven't found any information about a test of such a device aboard the ISS.

[Halc]

Wiki page on Eric Braithwaite says:
"In his lecture before the Royal Institution he claimed that gyroscopes weigh less when spinning and, to demonstrate this, he showed that he could lift a spinning gyroscope mounted on the end of a rod easily with one hand but could not do so when the gyroscope was not spinning."
"In his 1974 lectures, Laithwaite suggested that Newton's laws of motion could not account for the behaviour of gyroscopes and Laithwaite suggested that they could be used as a means of reactionless propulsion."

The effect is easily demonstrated.  The spinning gyroscope (a wheel at the end of a long axle, lifted by the other end) has only weight, but if not spinning, torque must also be overcome, making it far more difficult to lift despite no difference in weight.  I doubt that a professor has that poor of an understanding of simple gyroscopic effects, so my impression is more of somebody claiming amazing feats to the gullible when it is just ordinary (Newtonian) physics going on.
I think I can find a link to a video of somebody doing this, discussed in another thread.

Not sure if this has anything to do with the OP.  On the ISS, the device would have no weight in the first place and would not precess, and has no concept of being 'lifted'. I don't see any mention of 'jumping' in any descriptions in the searches I ran.

[alancalverd]

Eric Laithwaite was an interesting character. His work on electromagnetic suspension and motor systems was inspirational and timely, and he contributed some great ideas in the aerodynamics of buildings, but his lack of understanding of the conservation of angular momentum was baffling.

Interestingly, Eric Braithwaite also served in the RAF and studied physics, but became a schoolteacher, author and later a lecturer in English, not engineering.

The odd thing is that Laithwaite's RAF career was as a test engineer on autopilots, so he should have understood the theory of gyroscopes pretty well.

[Edwina Lee (OP)]

That settles a few things: At 66, I am not having false memory of this and not suffering from dementia, and  no alien has beamed info into my brain. 

[alancalverd]

That's want they want you to think.

[Bill S]

Puzzled by the concept of “sideways” in space.  Isn’t sideways related to the orientation of a body that has a directional nature.  An arrow might move sideways but, surely, a ball, like Ernestine Schumann-Heink, has “no sideways”.

[alancalverd]

A rotating object defines a direction along the axis of rotation. Then any other vector defines "sideways".

[hamdani yusuf]

He showed that a spinning top on a table jumps and told us that science cannot explain that.

What was done to make it jump?

[Bill S]

A rotating object defines a direction along the axis of rotation. Then any other vector defines "sideways".

Thanks, got that. So, because Ernestine was not spinning when she felled the music stand; her comment: "Sir, can you not see, I have no sideways" was justified.  All have to do is now see the problem with moving sideways in space.

[alancalverd]

Actually she did have a sideways, as do most animals (I'm not sure about sea anemones). We have a longitudinal axis and a plane of near-symmetry, so sideways is perpendicular to both. That doesn't prevent the great singers from being almost circular in cross-sectional perimeter, but forwards is definitely where the sound comes out (it is the opposite for politicians) and thus sideways is defined.   

[Colin2B]

[So, because Ernestine was not spinning when she felled the music stand; her comment: "Sir, can you not see, I have no sideways" was justified.  All have to do is now see the problem with moving sideways in space.

I don’t think her comment is justified, as Alan points out she has a direction she and all others define as forwards.
There is no problem with moving sideways in space. Take a non spinning sphere which is moving. Define the direction it is moving as x, any direction perpendicular to x is sideways.

[yor_on]

It should have been pretty easy to check using a scale, shouldn't it?