Brian Clegg's Blog, page 131

The nails are out

It's strange when you come to think of it that despite human beings being living creatures of flesh and blood, the aspects that define our outward appearance - hair, skin, nails - are all dead. They have something else in common. They are all based on the wonderfully versatile compound, keratin.

And that's the subject of my latest Royal Society of Chemistry compounds podcast. So if you've 5 minutes to spare take a listen and discover the wonder of keratin.

Muted impact

I've kindly been sent a review copy of Chris Brogan and Julien Smith's The Impact Equation by those nice people at Penguin (henceforth Random Penguins).

I used to write business books (this kind of thing), but I always find it strange coming back to them after being so immersed in popular science, because a popular science book is usually so packed with fascinating information, where the actual content of business books is often incredibly sparse, with about a page's worth of useful information packaged in a whole load of woffle. Interestingly, a while ago, a company did try to do business books on two sides of a sheet of laminated A4. They genuinely did get everything in, but even though people are supposed to want bite sized chunks these days, they wouldn't pay a book price for something so slim. We are victims of our own greed.

The Impact Equation doesn't entirely escape the limitation of having a lot of padding between gems, but it definitely does have some good content. It describes using modern communication channels, essentially the internet, in order to get noticed and achieve things rather than, as the subtitle says, 'just making noise.' The authors point out that just setting up a blog, say, and expecting it to make you widely noticed is a bit like running a seminar and only advertising it inside the venue. You won't get many people turning up.

The equation in the title is the rather corny one that Impact = C x (R+E+A+T+E), where C is contrast and the others are reach, exposure, articulation, trust and echo. You'll have to read the book for the detail of what these are, but they do mostly make sense, though there's the inevitable feeling that the categories have been stretched a little to fit the acronym. Along the way the authors make some very good points that may not be original, but that so many people get wrong. So, for instance, you don't get impact from constantly blogging about what you are trying to sell or tweeting your products 24/7. You need to create content that works with the relevant medium and that people actually want to consume.

There was a really interesting programme on the radio the other day about the slender man phenomenon on the internet. I confess I had never heard of this, but it's basically a story that has gone rogue, taking on a life of its own and becoming a kind of internet myth. One of the contributors made the point that we have gone through what he calls the Gutenberg Parenthesis. This is grandeous-academic-speak for the simple but powerful observation that for all of human history we have had individuals communicating stuff (stories or whatever) directly to other people or groups of people. The printing press took us into a side world where the stuff communicated was set in concrete (or at least paper), without the directness of communication. But now the internet has brought us back into the historical mainstream of direct links. Brogan and Smith don't mention this but I think it underlines everything they say. All their wisdom on good ways to enhance impact is about being aware of this different, more personal type of communication - even if you are tweeting to several million followers.

I did have a few issues with the book. The authors are constantly referring to 'Chris did that' or 'Julien once did this'. I know they are trying to connect with their audience, but as a reader I really don't care about them or want to know about them. I just want the good stuff to make my online impact better. I got really fed up of this self-referential approach. They also clearly haven't read (or at least haven't absorbed) the message of the Black Swan, apparently thinking that you can somehow learn to be another Richard Branson (say). I don't agree with a lot that Taleb says in that book, but his central point that you can only achieve mediocrity as a result of ability in fields like this, and the rest is down to uncontrollable luck (I crudely paraphrase) is incredibly important. You can't learn how to be another Branson by emulating him, nor can you learn how to be another internet sensation by emulating an existing one. Black Swans aren't like that.

There's also one point the authors miss, which is that the internet is international, and it is very easy to assume that your world view (typically a US one) will work everywhere. They unintentionally demonstrate this very well with this blooper: 'BBC viewers may become upset if something interrupts Coronation Street.' This misses the point anyone in the UK could have corrected that Coronation Street (the UK's most popular soap opera) is not broadcast by the BBC, but by its commercial rival ITV.

Overall, then, if you are struggling to know how to go about improving your impact through the internet this is a good place to start. But like practically every other business book, do expect to have to wade through a lot of padding to find a collection of nuggets that would probably fit on two sides of a sheet of paper.

See The Impact Equation at amazon.co.uk and amazon.com or go for Kindle at amazon.co.uk and amazon.com

And enjoy the authors talking about it in this video:


... for me this illustrates neatly why the modern multimedia approach is a mixed blessing. I was quite happy to take their advice from a book, but now I've seen them in person, I'm not so sure...

What's our Belisha Beacon?

A Belisha beaconI was crossing the road (the way you do) on a zebra crossing and enjoying the mellifluous name of the flashing orange ball-on-a-stick that alerts drivers to its presence: a Belisha beacon. It is named, of course, after Leslie Hore-Belisha, who introduced both the driving test and these handy crossings when a transport minister in the 1930s.

When you think about it, it's rather sweet, naming something after the minister responsible in this way. I think it is something we ought to see more of. Forget 'free schools' which sounds like something Victorians set up for the deserving poor. Let's have Gove schools. Or Blair wars, Brown gaffes, Osborne cock-ups and Cameron u-turns. Actually, with the exception of the schools, they're a bit vague - we need specific, detailed objects like the Belisha beacon. Perhaps a Grayling commissioner for police commissioners.

They don't have to be named after politicians, of course. We might speak of a Dyson cleaner, for instance (though in practice we tend to call it a hoover, something that really irritated them when I kept doing it while touring the Dyson R&D department). Or a Branson stunt. (Not cockney rhyming slang.)

What are your suggestions for the new equivalent of a Belisha beacon? Who, for instance, introduced dog poo bins? I'd love to know.

Image from Canthusus at the English language Wikipedia

Phoney Phun

I had interesting time last week trying to get my phone line back.

I received a phone call which was irritatingly dead. But for once there was a caller ID number, so I called them back. At least I tried to. But I couldn't dial out because the line was blocked. Their autodialler had called me up but it hadn't released the line. Not everyone knows this, but it's the caller that 'owns' the line. If you hang up on someone who calls you and they don't hang up too, the line is still held. So no matter what I did at my end - unplugging the phone, whatever - I couldn't get my line back.

I called the caller ID number on another line. A recorded message told me it was research call from a respectable market research company I've dealt with in the past. if I wanted to confirm they were legit I could call the Market Research Society. But it gave no way to contact them. So I called the MRS, who gave me the market research organization's number.

Cue rambling conversation with receptionist there who didn't know, for instance, that you can't hang up on a number if the dialler doesn't release the line. Eventually, after several sequences of them muttering to their IT people, 35 minutes later the line was freed up. Apparently this was a result of a frantic check around their call centre, checking all the lines.

It just goes to show - autodiallers are dangerous things in the wrong hands.

Playing the writer

My Starbucks 'office'As I type I'm sitting in our local chain coffee shop (what the hell, it's Starbucks). I've a fairly quiet day, so I thought I'd play the writer for once and have breakfast and work here a while, as I'm told this is what real writers do.

On the whole, though, I'm not sure it works for me.

Don't get me wrong. It's great having the sort of job where you can decide to have a leisurely breakfast and a quick peruse of the paper, but when it comes down to real work, I'd rather be sitting at my desk at home. Here there's background music, chatter, barista rattle... how is this supposed to help me concentrate? I brought with me the copy edit of my next book to check over, as I thought this might be the sort of thing I could do in a coffee shop, because it doesn't require the same level of concentration as writing, but even that I'd prefer to do in a comfy chair at home.

I can only think that those who do get all excited about working in a coffee shop miss the hustle and bustle of people around them. They want to be with people. And I can understand that. It's why I so enjoy giving talks and the like. But for writing I want peace and comfort. I only have music playing if I'm doing something brainless like the accounts - otherwise I work in silence.

So this isn't for me. But I'll still enjoy a read of the excellent i newspaper and finish my coffee before getting back to the grindstone.

Too soon, Apple

Yes, Apple, thin is sexy... but not always practicalRecently there has been an IT media frenzy on the subject of Apple's new iPad Mini. What's it for? Does it go against the better judgment of the late St. Steve? Does it make the iPod Touch redundant? In amongst all this, Apple has made another technology decision that I think in some ways is more important, yet it has hardly been noticed. The new version of their desktop all-in-one, the iMac, no longer has a CD/DVD drive.

I use an iMac and I love it. You only have to see one of those huge, shiny screens to get all excited. It is a superb product. And I probably would buy one without a CD/DVD drive - but I would resent it.

The reason they've done it is, as far as I can see, is primarily to make the computer wafer thin. It does look stunning because of this, but the fact is I can't get too excited about the difference in depth. In the end, I look at the front of my computer. As long as it doesn't stick out beyond the edge of the desk, I don't really care how deep it is. But I would miss the CD/DVD drive.

Apple would probably say it's just like losing your diskette drive. Do you miss that? Well, no, I don't. Not only does my iMac not have a diskette drive, neither did my previous Dell desktop which I used for three years prior to the iMac, and I never once missed it. And no doubt at some point it will be similar. But I think Apple has made the move too soon.

Okay, I can buy music on iTunes or from Amazon, but I still get a fair amount of my music on CDs. Sometimes it's a gift, sometimes it's something that isn't available as a download. And just occasionally I want to take a look at a DVD while at my desk. And then there's the writing side. Admittedly an external hard drive handles backup via my network, and I usually transfer files to other computers here via WiFi or memory stick. But I still find myself putting things like homebrewed music onto CD or DVD-ROM to provide it to someone outside the house. I don't know if it's still the case, but when one of my daughters did a Media A-level recently, she had to provide videos on disc as part of her course. A CD/DVD drive and burner is still useful.

Okay, yes, I could use an external drive. But I don't want to - it detracts from the whole point of having an all-in-one. And yes, eventually I will abandon CDs and DVDs entirely. But not yet, Apple, it's too soon.

Paid to view

We're all familiar with pay per view - the idea of paying money to watch a sporting event or whatever on TV, but now there's the inverse. Paid to view. An opportunity to be paid to watch those miniature masterpieces known as adverts.

At the moment, apparently, you have to be invited, but soon I think anyone will be able to pop along to the Nectar Adpoints site and be made rich beyond their wildest dreams by watching a few ads.

Okay, I exaggerated a bit. A lot. All the payments are in Nectar points (which as cunningly worth half as much as pennies, so the impressive-sounding 500 nectar points is £2.50). There's an up-front joining award (currently 250 points), then you get an amount for watching an ad (typically 4 points), another 4 points for answering a couple of multiple choice questions and a bonus point for clicking through to the manufacturers website. So that's typical 9 points, or 4.5p per ad. As most ads lasts 30 seconds, allowing another 30 seconds for faffing around with the questions that's £2.70 an hour, rather below minimum wage (though I suppose it's more fun than working in McDonalds).

However, don't give up your day job. You are only allowed to earn 250 points - £1.25 - a week.

The question that fascinates me is whether or not this process gives any real benefit to the advertisers, who presumably are paying for the privilege. And funnily I would suggest it doesn't, because of the way Nectar has decided to make sure you are actually watching the ads. Some time in every 20 to 30 seconds they pop up a little box on the screen. The viewer then has to click the box within 5 seconds or the ad starts again. I can see why they do this, because they don't want you starting an ad then doing something other than looking at the screen. But I still think it's a bit of a shot in the foot.

To see how the system worked, I did try out a few ads (the things I do for my readers...). To begin with I was treating it like a very slow video game. Wait for the box to come up and click it. But after a few ads I actually watched one or two of them I hadn't seen on TV. And found every time I actually watched the ad, I missed the box and had to start all over again. So the only way I could get my magnificent reward was to not watch the ad. Of course it is possible to do both with a bit of practice, but I did find the more interested I was in the ad, the more likely I was to forget to click the box, and so got irritated with the advertiser - surely not what they are trying to achieve.

Time, I think, to rethink the attention checking mechanism!

Where are the flying saucer pics?

My UFO photo, possibly concealed by the MOD/FBI*On Sunday I appeared on that interesting internet literary radio programme, Litopia After Dark (it's the 21 October show, not yet uploaded when this post was published). I was slightly thrown as I expected to be talking about publishing and books, but because of the closeness to Halloween, the topics were primarily the supernatural. At one point this strayed into the matter of flying saucers. One of the other guests was asking, if a flying saucer landed on your lawn and an alien came in for a cup of tea, what would you do? Would you tell people?

This started me on a different train of thought. Flying saucer photographs. As Fermi once asked about  visitors from another world, where are they all? You might say that there are plenty of photos of flying saucers. In fact I recently reviewed a whole book of them. But in a way, these emphasise my point.

Most flying saucer pictures are really, really bad or look fake (or both). I know a little about such fakes as I went through a phase of making them in my teens. (Just for fun.) Broadly there were two kinds. A relatively detailed model, suspended against the sky with fishing line, which typically had to be a little out of focus to cover up that this is what it was, or a hubcap or metal plate, thrown high in the sky, frisby style.

The trouble with this second approach is that the thrown object usually travelled at an angle that made its flight look totally unrealistic. And fascinatingly, several of the 'UFOs' in the book I reviewed had exactly the same problem - they were flying at a weird angle, just like my hubcap. I was also amazed that the book included a famous picture of UFOs over the nighttime Capitol building in Washington. It does look impressive. A formation of flying lights apparently close over the dome of this impressive structure. That's what you see in the book. But if you take a look at the uncropped version of the photo, there are a series of street lights on the steps in front of the building. In exact mirror formation to the 'UFOs'. The UFOs are just the camera producing a reflection of the bright lights on the dark sky.

The point that occurred to me during the radio show was this. The reason UFO photos are universally so awful is that the vast majority of the people who claim to have seen them didn't have cameras with them when they come across a UFO. So it's just that 1 in a 1,000 time someone did have a camera that we get the shots, and there are sufficiently few that most are rubbish. At least, that's the argument. Only it's not like that anymore. These days I never go anywhere without a camera and video camera. It's on my phone. And the same goes for many millions of others. So why haven't we seen a sudden burst of vast quantities of good photographic/video evidence of UFOs and little grey men?

Sadly, the answer seems straightforward. Because they were never there in the first place.

* I had hoped to illustrate this with one of my old fake UFO photos, but my albums are in boxes in the loft and the relevant albums weren't in any of the easily accessible boxes. Coincidence? Or conspiracy?!?

Hitting the lithium

It's time for another Royal Society of Chemistry compound podcast - and today I'm an contemplating the joys of lithium carbonate. It's a surprisingly versatile molecule, even though it tends only to have one association for most of us.

Take a listen and in around 5 minutes you'll find out more...

Today versus clean energy

Rather worryingly I have just heard the Today programme make a total hash out of explaining a new and clean way to produce petrol. Frankly, they were very close to just laughing at what, to me sounds an excellent idea.

You might say that petrol (gasoline) is yesterday's fuel - but you'd be wrong. It's today's fuel and we are a good way - 20, 30, maybe 40 years off it being seriously phased out. We neither have the infrastructure, cheap enough vehicles or good enough range on electrics to switch to hydrogen and/or electric cars. People who think it will be sooner live in cloud cuckoo land. And don't think the switch will be driven by us running out of oil. Apart from untapped oil reserves in harder-to-get-to places, many countries have coal reserves, and coal can be converted into oil. The US alone has enough coal to fulfil current oil usage for around 200 years at costs less than current oil prices. So we need ways to do petrol in a more environmentally friendly fashion, which this is.

The scheme is a clever one because it gets its carbon from carbon dioxide in the air, so when you use the petrol you aren't adding any CO2 to the atmosphere. It's a demonstrator at the moment, producing something like 5 litres a day, but in principle it can be scaled up. It uses carbon dioxide and water vapour to produce methanol, which is then converted to petrol, and the energy to do all this is renewable. Here's a quick video:



So let's see how Today got it wrong. First, Evan Davies, for whom I usually have quite a lot of respect was mocking the fact that it only produced 5 litres a day. 'That'll solve our problems,' he said (roughly). Come on, Evan. It's a demonstrator. The quantity is irrelevant.

Then their economics correspondent (or environment correspondent, this is from memory) waded in. He pointed out that you have to put the energy in to make the petrol here, where the energy came from the Sun in fossil fuel, so it will take a lot more energy in compared with the energy you get out. This is true to a point - but bear in mind petrol doesn't jump out of the ground into your car's fuel tank. We have to have extremely expensive (both financially and in energy terms) discovery and drilling operations, not forgetting the cost of cleaning up nasty oil spills. And it's not petrol that comes out of the ground, it's crude oil. So then you have the energy intensive operation of cracking and extracting the petrol from this.

Finally, there was no mention of the most significant point. That pretty well all the energy expended in the extraction, preparation and use of petrol today involves burning fossil fuels and adding to the CO2 load of the atmosphere. By comparison, in this method the energy used in producing the petrol is renewable and the petrol itself came out of the atmosphere so doesn't add to the CO2 load when its burned.

Realistically there are problems. The process might not scale up well. It could be expensive both financially and in energy terms (I don't know how much energy goes into the discovery, drilling, extraction and refining of petrol). But to effectively dismiss it out of hand the way the Today team did is appalling.