Do you like Dyson? I don't know, I've never Dysed.

In a bit of a bumper week, yesterday saw another outing with Mark O'Donnell of BBC Radio Wiltshire to a landmark of science and technology in the county. This time it was off to sunny Malmesbury to visit Dyson's R&D centre. Yep, the vacuum cleaner home of the world. (And, yes, I did get my knuckles wrapped for referring to one during the recording as a 'hoover'.)

I expected this to be the low point of our tour. What were we going to see except corporate PR and a load of engineers at CAD terminals, sending instructions off to the Far East to build Dyson's products? In practice it was very different - and much more enjoyable than I expected.

Ok, the corporate PR part was true. We had at least two Dyson employees with us at all times, using their fingerprints to get us through the extravagent security. One was a PR person (who by appearances was about 14). So the expectation was we were going to get the sales tour. However, in practice all the talking was done by two engineers. Admittedly engineers who were perhaps carefully selected - they looked like Hollywood stars playing engineers, and spoke without a single 'erm' or hesitation. But they were real engineers who knew their stuff and talked with real conviction about the science that goes into Dyson R&D. And that was quite extraordinary.

You might expect the vast echoing hall with robots repeatedly using or dropping ~~hoovers~~ vacuums to see how they survived wear and tear. But from there we moved to 3D printers and worked on up. The 3D printers produce prototype plastic components overnight, straight from the CAD. I'd heard about such things, but never seen them in action, or the results, which were remarkably good. Then there was the microbiology lab, where we peered through a microscope at dust mites (urgh - I'd never make a biologist). With more than a hint of Porton Down, this is the place they study the enemy to see just what they need to separate. Because in the end, something I hadn't really thought about before, most of Dyson's business is about moving air and separating particles and fibres from it.

In a sequence of chambers we visited a vast Faraday cage forming an electromagnetic test facility to check for interference (and protection of the electronics from outside zapping), a semi-anechoic chamber with weird non-parallel walls of foam wedges, where the sound of the machines is worked on (apparently you can't make them too quiet, or people think they aren't powerful enough) and a sealed controlled environment where products are repeatedly tested under identical conditions to see if a new version does better than a previous one. I was bowled away by the amount of science as well as engineering that goes into these designs.

Is Dyson the best vacuum cleaner in the world? I don't know. I was talking to someone that evening who reckoned their build quality was iffy, and much prefered an over-engineered American cleaner. But I think it's hard to argue that Dyson is not the most advanced manufacturer when it comes to down to the ingenuity and science that goes into their designs.

When we went to Porton Down they kindly sent us away with digital thermometers, in good Health Protection fashion. We were kind of hoping that Dyson would send us out with a mini-vacuum each - or at least one of their dinky bladeless fans. But nothing. Hey ho. Who wants another hoover anyway?

Image from Dyson website

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

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...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

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...

Search This Blog