Skip to main content

How oxygen was first discovered in an adventure playground

Okay, oxygen wasn't really first discovered in an adventure playground, but I enjoyed watching Richard Hammond's hokey but visually stunning Invisible Worlds programme last night and the presenting style has rubbed off a bit.

Yesterday I had another of my outings with BBC Wiltshire to a science/technology site in the county. The target was Bowood House between Calne and Chippenham, which is known to anyone with children in the county as the best outdoor adventure playground in the vicinity. I have to admit to my shame that in all the visits I've made with the kids I never once noticed its scientific gem - the laboratory where Joseph Priestley discovered oxygen.

It was a lovely sunny day for a visit to this rather odd country house. Odd because the house itself was pulled down in the 1950s, and the 'house' now available to visit was really just the service block of the departed 'big house'. Luckily, Priestley's lab was (just) out of the big house itself.

One thing I love about these visits is the behind the scenes feel, taking me back to my British Airways days, when I always used to feel rather special going airside at Heathrow as part of my job. At Bowood it was curator Kate Fielding who led BBC presenter Mark O'Donnell and me in through the back route, heading via the kitchen and the currently stripped tea room (the house opens to the public in 2 weeks time) to the orangery (now a picture galllery) and next to it Priestley's laboratory.

This small room - maybe 4 metres square - seems smaller now because it is surrounded by bookcases, which weren't there in Priestley's time. It has none of the feel of a laboratory - it's just a typical country house room with no doors, but a wide opening onto the South front. It was the windows here, outside the lab, that Priestley used to capture sunlight with a large burning glass, which he focussed on mercuric oxide and produced a gas with strange properties like re-lighting glowing spills and keeping mice alive. A gas he would call 'dephlogisticated air' (it was the French chemist Lavoisier who named oxygen soon after in his radical shakeup of the naming of chemical substances).

We had lots of fascinating input for the recording from a classic amateur enthusiast, retired GP Norman Beale, who has made a study of Priestley's time in Calne and at Bowood. Mostly we inevitably concentrated on Priestley's work in the house, sponsored by the Marquis of Lansdowne, but there were inevitably some references to his other achievements, from inventing soda water to having his house burned down by an angry mob for his republican views. I also learned about the Dutch scientist Jan Ingenhouz, the discovered of photosynthesis. I knew the name, but not that he did his key work in the UK, nor that he spent his last years (after his discovery) at Bowood.

If I'm honest, Wiltshire hasn't got the greatest record of scientific discovery - but it's still fascinating looking into these locations, being in the places where something significant happened, and tapping into the local knowledge and enthusiasm for the subject.

Photo of Priestley's laboratory courtesy of Wikipedia.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...