It's caused by the bearings.

The lubricant used in a gyros bearings becomes "aligned" to a spin
direction.
Reversing the spin, the lubricant/impurities must become realigned.
Realignment is felt as friction.

Case closed where's my Nobel ?

It's caused by the bearings.

The lubricant used in a gyros bearings becomes "aligned" to a spin
direction.
Reversing the spin, the lubricant/impurities must become realigned.
Realignment is felt as friction.

top9@gazeta.pl wrote:

http://www.oswirus.krakow.pl/cat_14/gyroscope/

A symmetric harnessed gyroscope accelerated to a given spinning
frequency takes different time periods to stop, depending on the
direction of previous spins. For repeated alternating, anticlockwise
and clockwise spinning, the rotation period in both directions
significantly increases, which is not the case when the gyroscope is
repeatedly rotated in the same direction. Using the measurements it was
observed, that the time of gyroscope's rotation was significantly
lengthened or shortened, what indicates that it either increased or
decreased the movement resistance of the gyroscope. The presented
experimental results suggest the existence of anomalous movement
resistance and demonstrate that a fixed spinning gyroscope displays
unusual history-dependent movement resistance effects. The effect is
real, large, reproducible and does not follow from experimental errors.

The manuscript was reviewed thrice, according to the publishing
procedure in "Physical Review Letters" within two year. The remarks of
all the reviewers were taken into account during its correction.
Because the publishing procedure for our manuscript in "Physical Review
Letters" finished, we decided to publish it in Journal of Technical
Physics, J.Tech. Phys., 46, 2, 107-115, 2005.

Ref: http://www.oswirus.krakow.pl/cat_14/gyroscope/OpenAppealtoAPS.doc

N.C.Bartelt
Divisional Associate Editor
Physical Review Letters

Dear Dr. Mazur,

I am writing in connection with your manuscript "Anomalous "memory"
effects in a spinning top", LW8007, submitted to Physical Review
Letters. As you know, appeals beyond the level of the Divisional
Associate Editor are handled by the Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Martin
Blume. Dr. Blume evaluates the appeal solely on the basis of the
correctness and fairness of the procedures used in reviewing the
manuscript.

However, as a matter of practice, I review all such appeals in my
capacity as Editor and Chairman of the Divisional Associate Editors.
If I am convinced by the arguments presented, I accept the manuscript
for publication in Physical Review Letters. If not, I may forward the
appeal to Dr. Blume. In this way, your email of September 23, 2003
has come to my attention and I have studied the manuscript and the
associated correspondence.

Unfortunately, I have decided that the manuscript is not appropriate
for Physical Review Letters. Basically, you report surprising effects
in a mechanical system under conditions which are very well known to
be governed by existing principles of physics. Your results could, in
principle, be of interest in two ways. First, they could be evidence
that the known principles of physics need to be modified. Since an
enormous number of tests of those principles have been successfully
carried out, it is very unlikely that you have discovered something
truly new in physics. To establish that an extremely strong case
would have to be made. Such is clearly not the case.

Unfortunately, I have decided that the manuscript is not appropriate
for Physical Review Letters. Basically, you report surprising effects
in a mechanical system under conditions which are very well known to
be governed by existing principles of physics. Your results could, in
principle, be of interest in two ways. First, they could be evidence
that the known principles of physics need to be modified. Since an
enormous number of tests of those principles have been successfully
carried out, it is very unlikely that you have discovered something
truly new in physics. To establish that an extremely strong case
would have to be made. Such is clearly not the case.

Secondly, you might have found an effect which, although consistent
with known physics, was both interesting and useful in other
applications. To make the case for this approach, you would have to
clearly understand the origin and underlying explanation of the
effect. This is also clearly not the case. Since your appeal did not
involve a procedural issue, I am not forwarding it to Dr. Blume. You
may, of course, appeal to Dr. Blume if you wish. However, in my
opinion, such an appeal is not likely to be successful.

Jack Sandweiss

Editor and Chairman of the Divisional Associate Editors
Physical Review Letters

top9@gazeta.pl wrote:

http://www.oswirus.krakow.pl/cat_14/gyroscope/

A symmetric harnessed gyroscope accelerated to a given spinning
frequency takes different time periods to stop, depending on the
direction of previous spins. For repeated alternating, anticlockwise
and clockwise spinning, the rotation period in both directions
significantly increases, which is not the case when the gyroscope is
repeatedly rotated in the same direction. Using the measurements it was
observed, that the time of gyroscope's rotation was significantly
lengthened or shortened, what indicates that it either increased or
decreased the movement resistance of the gyroscope. The presented
experimental results suggest the existence of anomalous movement
resistance and demonstrate that a fixed spinning gyroscope displays
unusual history-dependent movement resistance effects. The effect is
real, large, reproducible and does not follow from experimental errors.

The manuscript was reviewed thrice, according to the publishing
procedure in "Physical Review Letters" within two year. The remarks of
all the reviewers were taken into account during its correction.
Because the publishing procedure for our manuscript in "Physical Review
Letters" finished, we decided to publish it in Journal of Technical
Physics, J.Tech. Phys., 46, 2, 107-115, 2005.

Ref: http://www.oswirus.krakow.pl/cat_14/gyroscope/OpenAppealtoAPS.doc

N.C.Bartelt
Divisional Associate Editor
Physical Review Letters

Dear Dr. Mazur,

I am writing in connection with your manuscript "Anomalous "memory"
effects in a spinning top", LW8007, submitted to Physical Review
Letters. As you know, appeals beyond the level of the Divisional
Associate Editor are handled by the Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Martin
Blume. Dr. Blume evaluates the appeal solely on the basis of the
correctness and fairness of the procedures used in reviewing the
manuscript.

However, as a matter of practice, I review all such appeals in my
capacity as Editor and Chairman of the Divisional Associate Editors.
If I am convinced by the arguments presented, I accept the manuscript
for publication in Physical Review Letters. If not, I may forward the
appeal to Dr. Blume. In this way, your email of September 23, 2003
has come to my attention and I have studied the manuscript and the
associated correspondence.

Unfortunately, I have decided that the manuscript is not appropriate
for Physical Review Letters. Basically, you report surprising effects
in a mechanical system under conditions which are very well known to
be governed by existing principles of physics. Your results could, in
principle, be of interest in two ways. First, they could be evidence
that the known principles of physics need to be modified. Since an
enormous number of tests of those principles have been successfully
carried out, it is very unlikely that you have discovered something
truly new in physics. To establish that an extremely strong case
would have to be made. Such is clearly not the case.

Unfortunately, I have decided that the manuscript is not appropriate
for Physical Review Letters. Basically, you report surprising effects
in a mechanical system under conditions which are very well known to
be governed by existing principles of physics. Your results could, in
principle, be of interest in two ways. First, they could be evidence
that the known principles of physics need to be modified. Since an
enormous number of tests of those principles have been successfully
carried out, it is very unlikely that you have discovered something
truly new in physics. To establish that an extremely strong case
would have to be made. Such is clearly not the case.

Secondly, you might have found an effect which, although consistent
with known physics, was both interesting and useful in other
applications. To make the case for this approach, you would have to
clearly understand the origin and underlying explanation of the
effect. This is also clearly not the case. Since your appeal did not
involve a procedural issue, I am not forwarding it to Dr. Blume. You
may, of course, appeal to Dr. Blume if you wish. However, in my
opinion, such an appeal is not likely to be successful.

Jack Sandweiss

Editor and Chairman of the Divisional Associate Editors
Physical Review Letters