Blog Directory - In order of appearance - below.

Introduction - Current and Topicals:

Hello again
All change
Library
Getting to know JB, Science Mag interview
The Three Sciences
Why so unclear about Nuclear
Being Sat Nav Savvy
The Advent of Christmas Lectures
Following Science Religiously
90 Words, Nothing is perfect - "If only."

Recent press - 21st December, 09 - Express Article

NB. Johnny's monthly Blogs for Triple Sience and the Learning and Skills Council, can all be found here.

21st December, 2009 - For the Daily Express.

IT’S TIME FOR A CLIMATE “ALL CHANGE”.

Ever since writing my TV shows in the 1980's, I have been talking to students, teachers and the general public and enthusing about the amazing possibilities for science and technology in the future. But over thirty years I have seen a terrible change in science education. Roll models like Dalton, Faraday and Curie are hardly ever mentioned and most basic science has disappeared.

Kids are introduced to science as something that is life threatening and deprived of exploration through health and safety. They are being brainwashed into believing that science and technology are crippling the earth and our future, when exactly the opposite is true.

Science education has been turned upside down by worry merchants and it is already costing us dearly in a widespread lack of understanding - it is ignorance that breeds fear and we are raising a generation of scared and scientifically unschooled future adults - It is utter lunacy.

This ignorance goes right to the top and the politics of Climate Change at Copenhagen had lost all sense of rationality. At the end of the Copenhagen fiasco, I heard an IPCC spokesman on BBC Radio 4, say that a Copenhagen commitment of $100 billion might keep the global temperature rise by the end of the century, down to 1.5° C, but it won't keep it down by 2°C. That statement on behalf of the IPCC is so devoid of scientific thought that these people must surely be on another planet? I so wish they were.

On Tuesday 15th December at the Bloomsbury Theatre, I was slow handclapped by a section of the audience. They had taken well my Climate Change thoughts, but when I said “The University of East Anglia has been caught cooking the books (scientifically, not financially) for the sake of research funding grants,” the reaction started. The plain truth can be upsetting to those who have one set opinion.

My claim that Climate Change is not being caused by man made Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is not based on one scientific fact but a whole raft of them. Let me explain a couple.

HOW THINGS BURN.
John Dalton’s 1803 Atomic Theory, forms the basis of all Chemistry. It is explained with just three elements - Hydrogen, Oxygen and Carbon. If we burn Methane (Carbon and Hydrogen) with Oxygen, the Methane breaks up. The Carbon joins Oxygen to make CO2. The Hydrogen join more Oxygen to form H2O or Water. Nothing is lost or gained, but energy is released - that is the Atomic Theory.
Human energy comes from our food, Carbohydrate (Hydrocarbon and Water) and the Oxygen we breath. As we burn energy, we break up the hydrocarbons and release H2O and CO2 in the same way. All burning, rotting or fermenting produces carbon dioxide and water. So how can we say that one is bad and ignore the other?

In normal air, Water is 60 times more present than CO2, but in rain storm or monsoon climates the ratio is far greater. Atmospheric CO2 forms less than 0.04% of the whole atmosphere or one particle in 2500. But man made CO2 is at most 4% of that or one particle in every 62,500.

The first IPCC computer models which claimed that not just CO2, but man made CO2 was causing global warming, had no input for water at all and were scientifically indefensible. Far from carrying a consensus, many scientists resigned from the IPCC, which still used those names as supporters? (The Global Warming Debate, March 1996 - ISBN 0952773406)

But we all know that water effects climate? On a summers day, with cloud it is mild; no cloud and it is hot. On a winters night with cloud, temperatures stay mild; with no cloud, the heat escapes upwards and we have morning frost. This is not rocket science - it’s as plain as the nose on your face and it cannot be ignored. But the IPCC ignored it and all the scientists who disagreed with their flawed computer models? On what grounds?

It is estimated that the atmosphere contains 2,750 billion tons of CO2, which is an enormous amount to frighten people with. But that is still less than 0.04% of the whole atmosphere. Also CO2 is half as heavy as air again and falls back to earth or is washed out of the atmosphere by rain, all the time.

So atmospheric CO2 “has to be replaced”, to keep a balance - this is part of the essential Carbon Cycle. Volcanoes produce by far the greatest amounts of CO2. Many are on land, but far more in the oceans, pushing the continents apart at about the rate your finger nails grow. Their CO2 production is massive.

On a smaller scale, soil releases CO2 as do plants and animals which produce around 350 billion tons. Ocean life produces perhaps much more - An incredible 80% of all plant life on earth is in the Oceans. However, it is difficult to measure 70% of the entire Earth’s surface, so figures are guesses.

Against all that, Industrial man made CO2, though growing, is small by comparison; perhaps 24 billion tons or 1/16th plant and animal CO2 and no more than 4% of replenished CO2.

CARE OF THE PLANET.

Of course we cannot ignore our impact on the planet and we should not rape the world of all it’s fossil fuels until they run out. But we have to get our impact into rational proportion and not apply alarmist Man Made CO2 scare tactics.

But we are lessening our impact commendably. Power Station generators in the past 15 years by getting steam to do more work, now get 64% more energy out of coal, oil, gas or nuclear fuel. Has anyone told you that before?

Rolls Royce, just three years ago, thought they could not further improve aircraft engines unless aircraft became flying wings. But with USA agreement they are producing an engine that spears an aircraft to 7 miles high and then switches to an economy mode for the rest of the journey. Likely saving on fuel? 25%.

Modern cars have doubled fuel efficiency in recent years *and are around 90% recyclable and almost 100% reclaimable. I back new Nuclear Power not because it is carbon free, which it is, but because the new plant will be at least four time more efficient.

However, third world poverty makes their adoption of the latest technologies impossible. We even deprive them of GM crops for idealist reasons, completely forgetting that European soil will grow practically anything but Third World soil is often so delicate that our methods are totally unsuited for them. It is utter selfishness and scientific lunacy.

Copenhagen activists have been asking for CO2 reductions for the sake of the Third World. But their argument is wrong. They do not need investment to cut energy use and CO2 production. They need money for more energy to give them a power base, so that their hospitals can function and they can maintain an electrical grid. Then multi national companies can invest and provide jobs and a financial base on which to build towards equality with our disgracefully rich end of the world.

If we scrapped completely the foolhardy and scientifically unsound chase to reduce carbon, while still aiming for greater efficiency, we would have all the money needed to bring the third world out of poverty, save millions of lives year on year and create a fairer and far more balanced world for our kids.

* - An additional thought. Catalytic converts were introduced into cars over 20 years ago and if working correctly eliminte noxious exhaust fumes by a commendable 95 to 98%. They convert Nitrous Oxide into Nitrogen and Oxygen and Carbon Monoxied into Carbon Dioxide - why? Because Nitrous Oxide and Carbon Monoxide are highly poluting and poisonous. However, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide are completely harmless - hence CO2 in soft drinks and fire extinguishers. What is so alarmingly sad and misguided scientific opportunism, is that now we pay a tax on the amount of harmless CO2 that comes from cars, planes and even power stations. If you play a sport you will double the amount of CO2 you produce via your breath each day - are they going to tax that soon? We are told to talk to our plants, as they seem to thrive better - could it be that we are breathing CO2 onto them and thus directly feeding them, as was discovered by Joseph Priestley?

Library

Monday 21st April, 2008. Introduction.

As is the modern fashion, I have decided at last that I should start and maintain a Blog, in which I record from time to time, my thoughts and motivations.

I am most active these days as a speaker or lecturer, and happily the demand for my services remains very strong indeed. So what do I talk about?

Well, my audiences rang from late primary, secondary and sixth form students, through teacher seminars, university outreach events, and for corporate bodies of ever persuasion, either internally, or for their motivational and exploratory conferences or for celebration dinners. As a result, over many years of experience, I have by now found something to say on practically every subject under the sun. One thing I am definitely not, and that is a "Yes Man" who will say anything in support of anything, if the price is right. I am very selective in the engagements that I accept.

Indeed I feel that I have build my reputation on being someone who bring his own ideas to an event, to hopefully give a clearer view of what might be possible. Whatever I have said in the past, I would hope that I have never said anything that I did not believe in implicitly.

All this started when I was writing and presenting my TV series (23 in all). In those days, though I sought expert guidance from time to time, the bulk of research and the formulation of all the programmes was done by me, and I had the last word on the content and intended message of every show.

Today I am above all, a supreme optimist. I believe that there is nothing wrong with the modern generation and the majority of students I meet in schools, other than that the curriculum they are taught is on the thin side, to say the least. However, I find the energy and committment of teachers seems stronger than I have ever known. I worry that career opportunities are not explained adequately and that though the kids have a drive and desire to succeed perhaps stronger than ever before, they are very often not sure of which way to go and why, and they seem not to be helped in these directions as adequately as they deserve?

I am also an optimist about the future. I am not naive enough to feel that there are not huge problems facing us in the near future. However, having lived through the most expansive and incredible 60 years of progress in every aspect of science and technology, and have seen the basic quality of life improve beyond recognition, I have every hope for tomorrow.

Though mankind is causing a great strain on the earth, I truly believe that we not only can, but already are advancing on every front, to reduce that impact. There is a great deal to be done, but I believe most strongly that given it's head, modern and future technology will do everything required to sustain and support the human race, and the vast majority of creatures and habitats, to a commendable degree. In other words, I feel that we will after the first half of the 21st century, be more thrilled with progress through that period, than we are today with regard to the second half of the 20th century.

Why should I believe this? The answers are complex and I will drip feed them onto the blog as time progresses.

But above all, I believe that a guarded optimism should be instilled in every young person, because that is the way, in an ideal world, life should be for all of us. Without confidence in the future, for our ourselves and everyone sharing the world with us, life would be more strain than joy, and that must be avoided at all costs.

Life is something in which we should each make a daily effort to help everyone else smile through.

Cheers for now,

Johnny Ball.

29th August, 2008. Getting to know ..... Johnny Ball.

The original idea of my Blog was to drop in my "take" on all kinds of issues, as they occurred to me. However, I see that so many blogs become "Rant" pages, where people state their opinions, usually in a disgruntled and opinionated sort of way. I did not want to produce that kind of blog, even though I have no shortage of topics I would like to have my say on.

So I have decided that I will log on the blog, Articles or pieces that I write for magazines or periodicals, from time to time.

This article, by way of a questionnaire, was written for Science and Technology - an Independant Public Service Review, which has just been published.

Getting to know ..... Johnny Ball.

What do you believe are the key challenges for the advancement of science in the years to come?

I could not be more confident about the future of science and technology and its potential for making life better for everyone on earth. However, I am worried about political influences and knee jerk or quick fix reactions from politicians that can have the effect of warping the true picture in some areas of science. As an example, I feel reactions to the so-called threat of global warming and it’s causes are grossly overstated. They have resulted in very costly and often unwise policy decisions and created an atmosphere of depression and apprehension that is proving to be very bad for educational science and for encouraging students towards the right kind of science careers, to the detriment of the future science base of UK plc. I personally do not consider environmental science to be a sensible vocational path as there are no organisations that do not already think environmentally in the strongest and most scientifically sound terms.

How can we attract more people into science and maths?

By explaining how wonderful and rewarding science can be. Providing whizz bang science shows does not particularly help here, as one soon realises on any science path of learning, that much must be done that is mundane in gaining a basic knowledge of science, in order to find the route that most suits each individual student. Like reading a good book, it takes some time and effort to get into and to begin to enjoy the book, by which time, first impressions have often changed or been replaced by deeper feelings.

In five words, what does it take to make a great scientist?

Desiring, believing, wanting to succeed.

What would you regard as your greatest achievement?

Being born mathematically minded was the greatest help, but writing and making the Think programmes and making them work for literally any subject and for any audience, has to be my pinnacle.

What would you regard was the most difficult challenge you have faced in your career?

Not having anyone give me the chance to write for an adult audience.

Have you ever had a Eureka moment?

Often, when I was a comedian and a new idea suddenly burst from my mouth before I ever knew it was coming. Then to find a new way to simplify something very complex in writing TV or stage shows or lectures - they are always Eureka moments.

Who or what inspired you?

The advance of technology is so wonderful that I cannot understand young people who are not inspired by it. This is our greatest error in education today: not conveying the belief, based on our experience of progress, that in the future we will be able to do almost anything we choose, and definitely enough to secure our future and that of the planet.

What is you greatest fear?

That the doom and gloom merchants and the political lobby groups, long with health and safety experts, the over the top child protection agencies, the accident chasing lawyers and all those who restrict our freedoms and the enjoyment of the adventure of life, will prevail and make all our lives a complete misery of controls and restrictions.

You describe yourself as a supreme optimist. What can this achieve?

Everything that pessimism is incapable of achieving, but most of all an enrichment of life for everyone and indeed for the whole earth.

What are your priorities for 2008?

To get across the true message of what science can and is doing for all of us, to more and more people, and by doing that, make them happier that it is happening.

"The Three Sciences" - They always have been, and always will be ever more amazing.

I have had such a wonderful career in Science over the past 30 years, working with almost every branch of the science industry, making videos on water management and nuclear power, learning about the very latest aircraft or vehicles for the disabled, exploring the origins of chemistry and making modern materials technology films, lecturing on Darwin and Mendel and clarifying what DNA and the British Genome project means for our future.

It all began when I wrote and presented Maths and Science series for BBC Children’’s TV. I kept the programmes entertaining by always linking and cross referencing one branch of science with another and so made my name as a promoter of all things scientific.

Through all this, I quickly learned that in this technological age, the basic three Sciences of Physics, Chemistry and Biology become ever more intrinsically linked. So I was so thrilled whenthe Triple Science educational initiative was set up. There is no doubt that these three very different sciences, Physics, Chemistry and Biology all developed independently and at separate times. So why should we be happy to ““Mix them all Up”” as ““Triple Science”” today?

Physics really began some 400 years ago, when Galileo discovered much about basic forces, things falling or flying through the air and the principles of light and lenses. This, along with Kepler’’s explanation of how the planets revolve around the Sun, was all that Isaac Newton needed to tie the whole thing up with his Theory of Universal Gravitation and Three Laws of Motion. This then enabled the very physical Industrial Revolution to get going in the late 18th century.

Chemistry was still mostly mysticism and alchemy. Then 1804, John Dalton’’s Atomic Theory, showed that energy in a fire or even a human body, requires just 3 basic elements; Hydrogen and Carbon mixes with Oxygen and a chemically change produces Water and CO2 - nothing is lost, nothing is gained, but Energy is released. Very quickly Humphry Davy alone discovered half a dozen new Elements and Michael Faraday showed how we could produce stronger metals, tougher glass or use electricity to coat cheap metal with silver or gold. Mendeleev produced his Periodic Table around 1850, and soon the whole set of 92 naturally occurring elements was complete. The Chemical Industry was born and the materials revolution had begun with the pharmaceutical revolution quickly following as scientists learnt to juggle the basic elements in thousands of different ways.

Biology was last to arrive, with Darwin’’s publishing The Origin of the Species by Natural Selection in 1859. Gregor Mendel showed how species pass on their characteristics to their offspring, whether plant or animal and when Rosie Franklin X rayed DNA around 1950, Crick and Watson realised from the pictures that it formed a double helix which could easily replicate itself. Today our understand of Biology, means we can cure diseases, assist every living thing and produce food more successfully than ever before.

So how come these three totally different sciences, with their own unique histories, can be taught as one science today? As we have grown to understand more, so we have discovered that they are more interconnected than we ever realized. We are biological creatures, yet we move physically due to electrical impulses which carry signals around the body, generated by our control centre, the brain. These impulses enable the body to react through subtle chemical changes which enable us to grow and function biologically or move physically.

Recently, at the Beijing Olympics, the UK performed better than at any time for over 100 years. Just one example of our success shows that all three sciences were involved and were essential to our success? Our Cycling Team rode a bike which required physics to help understand how it works and how to make it work better. However, a modern bike is a triumph of chemical engineering using modern synthetic materials that are incredibly light, strong and efficient. However, the Bike still requires a biological rider, and he or she had to be supremely efficient, physically, thanks to an understanding of what the chemistry of their diet does to and for them in order to make them such a brilliant biological being. What is more, by 2012 when the Olympics come to London, every aspect of those three sciences will have been engineered better and advanced and improved, and so it will go on.

So, what does the future hold for all of us? Well, Physically we will engineer ever more efficient machines, devices, buildings and infrastructure that will also be cleaner and more environmentally friendly than anyone has yet imagined. We will learn to assemble Chemicals ever more efficiently, perhaps even building things one atom at a time and thus producing perfect devices, stronger and more reliable than ever believed possible. Biologically we will understand ever more about all living things, not just to cure diseases or keep them healthy, but to help ensure their survival in the future.

All these improvements will be engineered to happen. It is not a question of “If”; It is just a question of “When?” To my mind, this should be explained to every student, with the plea that they just think from time to time, “How many brilliant new scientists will we need to make all this happen, and could I perhaps be one of them?”

27th Sept, 2008. This article was written for and appeared in The Sun newspapeer on Friday 26th September 2008, following the news that EDF had bought British Energy and is planning 4 new Nuclear reactors on two established Nuclear sites in the UK.

Why So Unclear About Nuclear? _ asks Johnny Ball.

With over 400 Nuclear Power Generators operating without concern around the world, why should the UK, which invented the process, be last to adopt it now, or as the greens would wish, throw it out altogether? Every single branch of technology has improved beyond recognition over the past 20 years. Why should anyone think that the same has not happened in the Nuclear Industry?

OK, so what improvements? Well those that the anti brigade never acknowledge. In all fossil fuel power stations (mostly thanks to Rolls Royce UK technology) generator efficiency alone has improved over 15 years by a staggering 62% (from 33% to 54% ) producing that much more electricity from the same amount of fuel. Good Green News? You would think so?

Partly as a result of this, but more to do with improvements in design and operation, new Nuclear will produce around 8 times as much energy as the old Magnox stations did, from the same fuel. When one closed down, an engineer wrote to me, "We have been safely producing exactly what we were designed to produce, but with 50 year old plumbing. Imagine what we could do with the latest equipment."

The new plant will be around 25% the size of the old and easily fit onto existing sites. It will produce only 10% the waste, but it will eat the high level waste produced over the past 50 years and turn that to low level waste, as a small percentage of fuel used, year on year. It's just like taking a squeezed lemon and squeezing it more efficiently. Working for a year in or near a new plant, will expose you to as much radiation as you get from a single brazil nut.

Why should we trust the French to do it? I would much prefer it to be UK based, but at least the majority of the jobs will be filled by our engineers. However the French are already 85% Nuclear reliant and export cheap electricity across every border including the UK where between 5 and 15% of our energy most days, comes from.

The Ukraine of Chernobyl fame, is around 50% nuclear reliant with a desire to go to 85%. As in all things we now follow Europe, which is 30% reliant on Nuclear. For every European citizen the industry produces 5 grams of waste a year (much of that low level). Yet the Chemical Industry produces 120,000 grams of waste per person, much of it toxic and radio active, a greater amount by a factor of 24,000 and all without a squeak from the greens. How come?

Lets compare new Nuclear with Wind. Both are carbon free, discounting construction. Just one of these new stations will produce more electricity than all the wind farms, both built and planned. Not one wind tower would be built without massive subsidies from you and me, the tax payer _ how much? Well once you count industrial tax breaks, we're paying all of it. New Nuclear will neither ask for nor receive any Government funding, so sure or the operators, that they will make their money back over years, as is the normal way of business. EDF are already saying, it will produce the cheapest electricity of all systems. Why? Because they know it to be true.

An audit on British Wind Farms (and German and USA) showed them to be returning around 13% of their potential. So in fact, they are all costing 8 times as much as it says on the tin. Would you buy any product offering such a deal? New Nuclear is 8 times better than the old. Would you refuse such a deal? Of course not. Yet the greens are desperately pushing us towards the option that is 64/1 (64 times) less sensible? Cloud Cuckoo Land or what?

A friend who worked in the French Generating Industry all his life, told me, "Johnny, Britain is famous for the farce, with the MP with trousers around his ankles and the girl in the wardrobe in her underwear. British Energy policy over the last 20 years, would make the greatest farce ever." Please lets stop the farce and ensure a sound supply of electricity for the future, whilst we learn to adopt across the board, new technologies that will give us eventually, a safer and far greener world.

Here is another story that did not appear in the article. When Calder Hall was opened by the Queen, some 50 years ago, a scientist put a brown paper bag onto her outstretched hands. "It's very warm?" she said. "Yes Ma'am, it's plutonium," said the scientist, "but don't worry Ma'am, the brown paper is sufficient to ensure you come to no harm from the radiation". We haven't learnt much since then have we?

BEING SAT NAV SAVVY.

Do you have a Sat Nav system in your car?

Now that everyone wants one, the price has dropped like a stone and they are incredibly cheap, especially when you consider just how clever the maths needs to be to make them work reliably.

It was good old Galileo who worked out how cannon balls fly through the air and
Johannes Kepler who worked out how planets move in ellipses around the Sun.
Then along came Isaac Newton who put the two ideas together and came up with Gravity and how that works.

Now Newton’s maths is all fine for building bridges and skyscrapers and working out how aircraft fly, but it just wasn’t good enough to produce our Satellite systems. For that we needed Albert Einstein.

It was Albert and his relativity that threw a spanner in the works, relatively, when he said that a clock moving through space would move slower than a clock on earth.

Let me explain that, if I can. Light travels at 300,000 kilometres per second, which is very fast indeed. Einstein said, “If you look at a clock, you can see a second hand moving as it passes the time. What would happen, if while you were looking at the clock, you moved away on a beam of light? The clock would seem to stop moving and as far as you could see, it would be frozen in time. For you, on your beam of light, time would have stopped.”

Now we cannot travel at the speed of light but a satellite does travel at high speed and it is also travels some distance above the earth. So a GPS satellite’s clock does move slower --- and faster -- Ouch.

Well clever old Albert came up with two separate theories of relativity. First, Special Relativity and then General Relativity.

The GPS satellite system has 32 satellites at present of which between 8 and 10 are within sight of your Sat Nav at any one time. They travel in 6 different orbits, some 20,200 km above the earth at a speed of around 14,000 kph or about twice around the Earth in a day (only 1/77,000th the speed of light).

General Relativity says that a GPS satellite’s atomic clock will tick more rapidly by 46 microseconds per day, because of its distance from earth and the weaker pull of gravity, whilst Special Relativity says that the same clock will tick slower by 7 microseconds a day because of its speed, compared to the speed of light. So altogether it is going 38 millionths of a second faster, per day.

To account for that, when it is launched, software onboard gives it an offset frequency of 10.22999999543 MHz instead of 10.23 MHz and that keeps it in perfect line with clocks on the surface of the earth.

Now this is just as well. You see, if the two clocks were out of sync by 1/1,000,000,000 of a second per day then your Sat Nav would be out by 1 ft or 30 cms, which is as accurate as it needs to be.

However, if the two clocks were out by 100 times that and still only 1/10,000,000th of a second out, then your Sat Nav would be out by 100 ft or 30 metres, and you will be driving in your car with your relatives, on the wrong carriageway of the motorway.

You would also be going the wrong way, at which point, for you, time might suddenly and finally stop altogether, relatively.

THE ADVENT OF CHRISTMAS LECTURES

For most religions, candles represent life in the living flame. As Christian Advent Candles burn for the 25 days until Christmas, I am reminded of another 25, for ever linked to Christmas and also to science. In 1825 Michael Faraday became director of The Royal Institution in London and began the Faraday Christmas Lectures, still maintained to this day.

Faraday’s first Christmas Lecture topic was also his favourite, repeated at least 3 times in his life; “The Chemical History of a Candle”, so apt for Christmas. His book is now in print once again - probably no better Christmas present for a scientifically minded young person or perhaps more importantly, a modern science teacher?

Let me paraphrase the lectures as briefly as I can, to show the simplicity and richness in Faraday’s scientific method and its relevance in today’s scientific world.

A candle is made of a wax that usually contains paraffin, but which is clean and nonstaining. It has a wick which would burn up in a couple of minutes, but which in the wax candle, will last for hours? Why?

A match ignites the wick and immediately the wax just bellow starts to melt. Solid paraffin wax does not burn and neither does the liquid wax. However the liquid wax rises up the wick by capillary action. To test capillary action, stand a bunched up paper or cloth napkin in a saucer of water or wine and watch the liquid rise up the napkin. Let a towel hang over the edge of a bowl of water, with one end in the water. Quickly, the water travels up the towel, over the edge and forms a puddle outside the bowl.

Capillary action causes liquid wax to rise up the wick and vaporise as it gets hotter. Then at last it burns and sustains the candle flame. With inflammable liquids, it is the vapour that burns. In movies, when anyone sets light to leaking petrol, the flame hovers over the liquid fuel, but its heat creates more vapour and the flame gallops along the stream of fuel.

But wick, heat and inflammable vapour are not enough for the candle to burn. Place a glass over the candle and it goes out in seconds as the part of the air it needs for combustion - the Oxygen - is exhausted. The candle flame behaves like an invalid. They both need oxygen. Feed them pure oxygen and they are both invigorated. Without Oxygen nothing can burn. How do fire extinguishers work? They cut off the oxygen.

It is Oxygen that determines how the candle burns. Hot air rises and fresh air is drawn up the outside of the candle to replace it, keeping the outer surface of the candle cool. Under the flame, the heat produces a perfect bowl shaped pool of hot liquid wax at the top of the candle. But no Oxygen gets in and the flame sits above the liquid. The air which is 20% Oxygen, comes up the candle surface and bends into the flame, producing both the brightness and the characteristic shape of the flame. Place a card against one side of the candle, quite near the top and see how the flame is affected by receiving less rising oxygen.

But what happens to the paraffin wax vapour and oxygen as they burn? Hold a plate, upside down a few inches above a candle flame for a minute or so. A black spot of Carbon soot forms on the plate. Remove the plate and touch the spot with your finger - it is moist. The plate surface and the soot are wet. Where did the water come from?

Every time we burn anything, we are burning hydro-carbons. Oil, coal, gas, wood, paper, the food we eat (carbohydrate), and even ourselves, are all made of hydro-carbons - Hydrogen, the element the Sun is made of, and Carbon.

Hydro-carbons with oxygen, burn vigorously. A Hydro-Carbon molecule is 4 very light Hydrogen atoms with a single Carbon atom. Oxygen usually comes in groups of two atoms. Burn them and the Hydro Carbons split and they all get mixed up.

H H C H H when burned becomes H O H___?__H O H
O O O O ? O C O ?
One Oxygen joins each two Hydrogens to make two molecules of H2O - Water.
The Carbon joins two Oxygens to form CO2 , which Faraday called Carbonic Acid.

Nothing is lost - Nothing is gained. But Energy is released as Heat - a classic Chemical Change, as explained in Dalton’s Atomic Theory. This simple experiment explains how life itself exists on Earth. Hydrogen on its own is so light it would disappear up into space. Burn Hydrogen with Oxygen and it can power rockets into space.

Locked together, Oxygen and Hydrogen form Water, the most vital substance on the planet. The moist parts of your body are Water. The solid stuff is mostly Carbon.

Dalton and Faraday wondered why, if burning things always produces CO2 and H2O, there is not a build up of H2O and CO2 in the atmosphere? They realised that plants reverse the process. Plants absorb water and die without it - large trees suck up water in huge quantities.
But plants are not made of water. Plants are mostly Carbon.

CO2 is half as heavy as air again. Hot CO2 rises but soon cools and falls where the plants are waiting to gulp in all the CO2 they can get. A Tree is 85% Carbon, which all comes from the atmosphere. But of all the pant life on earth, a massive 80% is in the Oceans, which must also absorb vast quantities of CO2 to grow. The Carbon is fixed and becomes part of the plant, and the Oxygen is released back into the atmosphere, to maintain the balance.

Now man is capable of upsetting the balance, but with only 4% of all CO2 being man made, the upset is amazingly slight and natural extra plant growth more or less maintains the balance. You could say that man’s industry is helping to Green the planet.

Today, science teaching is bogged down by alarmist fears of climate change and students are asked not so much to learn and enjoy science, as to spend the majority of science lesson time in seeking ways to save the planet? And all of it is based on spurious fears of CO2 being somehow dangerous, which is totally false. CO2 is as natural and vital as water. The damage to science teaching and to the future scientists we are producing is immense.

The 2008 Faraday Christmas lectures are to be presented by Prof Chris Bishop, who will take us on a hi-tech trek to explore the science behind the digital revolution in search of the ultimate computer. As with Faraday in 1825, the audience will be rivetted and inspired by wonderful examples of man’s scientific ingenuity. They will not be depressed by largely baseless claims of impending doom or the idea that CO2 is in any way, a pollutant or a danger to the earth and to mankind. Merry Christmas.

Nothing is perfect? - “If only?” (In 90 words, for a forthcoming Book)

What is Britain’s most popular poem? Rudyard Kipling’s “If.” Remember? So how sad, when I spotted a fatal flaw; the line “If neither foe nor loving friend can hurt you!” What? If a loving friend cannot hurt you, you are not “a man, my son,” you are a self centred unfeeling monster. So dear Rudyard, how about the less callous “If you can bear the hurt your loved ones bring you?” That hurt is inevitable; most cutting; part of life! Manage that - then perhaps, “you’ll be a man, my son.”

Johnny Ball - Nov 08.

Back to top