Skip to main content

Launch day

Regular readers can hardly have failed to notice the appearance of my new book Inflight Science, but today is the official publication date, which seemed worth marking. If you are toying with buying a copy, today would be a great day to do it!

To say I'm pleased with this book would be an understatement - sometimes everything just seems to come together right with a book, and this is a prime example. It was genuinely great fun to write, which I think is half the battle. It is so much harder to make a book interesting if you are struggling to be interested in the topic yourself.

One or two people have pointed out the irony that I hate flying, but funnily it really isn't an issue. I prefer to use other means of transport on environmental grounds, and if I have to fly, it scares me witless. But then most people either experience fear or boredom in flight - and I think that's why a book like this can be helpful, because it's a distraction and hopefully brings back some of the genuine wonder we ought to have when performing the amazing task of travelling through the air seven miles up.

If you feel the urge, you can get the standard book from Amazon.co.uk (sorry, Amazon.com-ers - yours isn't out until September but you can preorder), or if you are a Kindle person it's on both Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com.

To finish off, here's a quick quote from a couple of the early reviews:
…we should be grateful for this book from Brian Clegg, an unabashed aircraft geek. Everything about aircraft seems to fascinate him: how much they weigh, how their lavatories work, how they affect our bodies. His curiosity extends to airports, which he turns into pleasure palaces full of little-known facts rather than the dull shopping malls we normally take them to be. His book is structured as a representative flight, from check-in to customs, in which at every turn he micro-analyses the technical and scientific aspects of the experience. I consider myself reasonably competent on matters aeronautical, but he still managed to surprise me with something new on every page. For example, he digresses on why there will never be electric aircraft. The reason is that to carry the same amount of energy as 10kg of jet fuel, you'd need one ton of batteries…. He points out that only children tend still to be excited by aircraft. We should take their curiosity as a guide. With this book in hand, we have all we need to set off on our next flight with our eyes open to the sheer wonder of what is involved. Mail on Sunday (Alain de Botton)

Inflight Science by Brian Clegg is, essentially, an eye-spy book for adults... fitting into that publishing niche somewhere between hard science and Schott’s Miscellany that was so successfully exploited by the Cloudspotter’s Guide... The great strength of this book is its ability to pull out from the mundane experiences of modern air travel - the contrails and cumulonimbus, the security scanners and salted snacks - to explain a wider technical point... We are called - it is the Royal Society’s motto - to take no one’s world for it. In that spirit, Clegg includes several of his own experiments, so you too can perform some basic mile-high science... [some] are ingenious.  The Times (Tom Whipple)

Comments

  1. How exciting. Congrats! I'm off to buy it now. And well done on those very high falutin' reviewers :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Sue - let me know what you think!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wendy Williams8 April 2011 at 13:20

    It sounds like this book is really taking off Brian (forgive the pun!). Well done!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 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 recent 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 ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope