Wiltshire science and Mark O'Donnell

For a number of years I was proud to count the late BBC Radio Wiltshire presenter Mark O'Donnell as a friend. He very sadly died at the end of 2019 - but I wanted to look back and remember some remarkable inserts we made for his show.

The idea was to visit science and technology locations in Wiltshire. It was a great opportunity to find out more about these places, whether historical or modern. What made the visits was Mark's warm presence and ability to draw the listener in to the scene. Sadly the BBC has not kept the tapes of the visits, but here are a few written highlights from me.

The startling significance of Mr Talbot's spectacles - visiting Lacock Abbey and the scene of the first negative image
A revelation in Wroughton - at the Science Museum controlled environment store and library (a location that so impressed me that I suggested it as a location for my little TV piece teaching quantum physics to then BBC business editor Robert Peston)
How oxygen was first discovered in an adventure playground - visiting Bowood House and Joseph Priestley's laboratory
A scary time at Porton Down - inside the Health Protection Agency's controlled laboratories
Do you like Dyson? I don't know, I've never Dysed - off to Malmesbury to see Dyson's R&D centre (and trying not to call them hoovers)
Forget Houston, I've been to Swindon - the surprise location of the UK Space Agency
What is it? A puzzle from our visit to the WRC in Swindon

Just to finish, Mark's producer for much of his time at the station and now presenter Karen Gardener gave this tribute to Mark on her show shortly after his death.

Image from BBC

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

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