All the fun of the Astrofair

On Saturday I spent an extremely entertaining day in Sidmouth, not on one of the town's beaches, but instead at an astronomical observatory.

I confess that, while I knew about Norman Lockyer, I wasn't aware of the Norman Lockyer Observatory - and it's a wonderful find.

Lockyer was a professor at Imperial College (or, rather, its predecessor) and one of his main studies was the Sun. Using spectroscopy - splitting the light from the Sun into a colour spectrum, where dark lines indicate the presence of atoms that are absorbing particular energies of photons - Lockyer discovered a puzzling line in the yellow band, which had not been seen before. He had discovered an element that had not yet been found on the Earth, and named it after the Greek word for the Sun, helios. As well as discovering helium, Lockyer brought another significant presence of modern science into being when he founded a journal called Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals today.

When he retired to Devon, Lockyer established an observatory, which has grown to be today's Norman Lockyer observatory. Apart from a handful of telescope domes, the facilities now include an excellent lecture theatre and planetarium, and, for the fair on Saturday, an array of marquees that took me back to my youthful delight in all things astronomical. If the cash had been available I could have spent thousands on the technology on sale - and even without cash I was pressed into taking part in an experiment when I dared to enter the Institute of Physics tent.

I was there primarily to give a talk, based on Before the Big Bang, which seemed to go down well - but also took part in the fair and spent a lot of time next to a fascinating stand where a collection of stellar spectra on glass plates, mostly over 100 years old, was on display and could even be picked up and looked at. The archive, under the aegis of Exeter University and the Observatory, has apparently over 7000 of these plates which need cataloguing (the old catalogue was lost) and scanning in high res to preserve their delicate and valuable contents - after all these are records of spectra made before the light pollution we so decry to today.

All in all a brilliant day, and if you are anywhere near the West Country, I urge you to turn up at next year's fair - or at one of the observatory's many other events through the year. You can discover their programme and much about it at their rather quirky (bear with it) website.

I just wish I had taken some photos - but I was having too much fun!

Comments

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

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

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

Search This Blog