These results are full of interest and will attract a large readership. I can see that through the scientometrics. These graphics and analyses are clearly thought out as usual, and the results are interpreted so that the readership will be able to understand them without ploughing through the maths if they want to concentrate on engineering essentials. The results also show the great power of the Maxima code, controlled by the skill and experience of co author Dr Horst Eckardt. A huge amount of new information comes out of a problem that up to a few week ago was only vaguely understood, half understood and misinterpreted. Having understood the problem at last, all kinds of engineering solutions become possible, so we can engineer new kinds of railway systems for example with reduced drag. In the aerospace industry these results can eb used to enginner new kinds of mechanism that will allow aircraft to lift off, helping the wings lift the plane. These mechanisms can also be used in vehicles of all kinds to reduce drag. This is an outstanding section. It shows what can be done with the elegant mathematics of the eighteenth century enlightenment. A large number of possibilities has suddenly emerged.”
Thank you for providing a ‘black and white’ statement to the effect that ‘the Civil List Scientist’ and an employee of a major German company subscribe to an idea which is a sine qua non in the lunatic fringe: the ludicrous idea that spinning-tops truly defy gravity. That will come in very handy later as a pièce à conviction. It would have been better if the nonsense were actually published, rather than disappearing into the oubliette known as aias.us. On the rare occasions that loony papers sneak into previously reputable journals, they either trigger a new round of experimentation to check what nobody doubted in the first place (e.g. Hayasaka and Takeuchi), or the journal is thereafter viewed with suspicion (e.g. Wayte – no, surprisingly not a pseudonym). Of course, there is a bit of a problem with Siemens Stain’s falling gyroscope calculation. If it is in free-fall, it might as well be in one of those vomit-Comets which are used to simulate gravity-free conditions. But, in that case, a spinning object will exhibit its well-known tendency to take up a fixed orientation in space, so why is he still predicting precession and nutation? It is also well-known that any asymmetrical object will always have two stable axes of rotation and one unstable one (try spinning a shrink-wrapped book about each of its three axes in turn). Has SS deliberately chosen an unstable axis? Do they even know what we are talking about?