The major insight is that rather obscure experiments might be particularly provocative to students imagination. They are uncluttered and the effect is hard to ignore. Cognitively, it cuts through cultural conditioning to that loads student's perceptions and renders them agreeable to our education system. I am not some far left alternative radical here, but a scientist who has made steady progress understanding through a series of frontiers. The is nothing special about this, its just what you do. As you progress there is a smaller and smaller fraction of people you associate with who get there is a gap between what we are capable of knowing and what circulates in common cultural consciousnesses. There is no particular drama here, until things reach crisis points. Generally I find, that it is a life threaten illness of a person or the someone they care for, and there is a requirement to interact with advanced technology and concepts that till that point have been pushed into the background. In overview, I make no particular judgement on this state of affairs, there is nothing particularly positive that some on attending to daily affairs and domestic activity can do with electron spin. At no point in the day is relevant. Yet the metric, relevance to the conduct of personal affairs although seductive and pleasant runs a course to tragedy. My mind turns to some industrial accidents I have been as a first responder and disconnected power or poured water on acid burns. For those people the connection with the reality of our underlying technology mattered. Rather than being a point of contempt that someone understood and knew what to do, there was appreciation that there was one in a hundred who wasn't like the crowd. I think here we are not going for a big measurable hit in understanding in our kids. We are not going particularly a rise in the score in our testing which has been leveled out across so many variables like social background and time (If the testing yields better performance this year and it would have shown better performance had it been used in previous years ... that is not valid or equitable). I suppose what I am interested in is seeding curiously in a few, perhaps one. The profound thing is that new insight is something used when it is most critical and it tends to be most critical in a situation that no one could predict and we can somehow get that one in hundred thinking outside the square makes that critical difference. In the quiet time you share with people after those big accidents we talk about this sort of thing and how society as a whole doesn't get it. So what do we have in mind. The Einstein de Haas experiment. Einstein is a big draw card here. He is embedded as a kind of symbol in our cultural language. People ask who is the de Haas guy and is he really necessary. It is interesting when people make this comment as they reveal how they are thinking with Einstein as a proxy for actual understanding. It is bit like, for me, attending a piano recital and the musician walks out on the stage and says "Piano, not just any piano but a grand concert piano that can sound awesome to people who can hear. Piano, piano, grand piano Yamaha!", then the people around me applaud saying "Bravo!". In the circumstances one has to understand the absolute lack, vacuum of understanding before you. To say that Einstein fudged his analysis, fell folly to bias for scientific results that confirmed what he was thinking would be like saying the Queen or the Pope were just ordinary people. So one saves this for later, years later for your one in a hundred student who is going to resonate with the profound. Not that Einstein was wrong, that is hardly profound. What is profound that we are immersed in a cultural, to borrow some terminology here, field that does not allow him to be wrong. To be more precise our culture does not allow us to think that he is wrong. The experiment itself is humble, profound and connects with our universe