Skip to main content

Sticky - Laurie Winkless *****

There has been a suggestion doing the rounds that if you don't get into a book after the first few pages, you should give it up - because life's too short. If I'd followed this suggestion, I wouldn't have discovered what a brilliant book Sticky is. I'll get back to that, but it's worth saying first why Laurie Winkless's book on what makes things sticky, produces friction and grip - or for that matter lubricates - is so good.

Without doubt, Winkless is great at bringing storytelling to her writing. She frames her information well with interviews, visits to places and her personal experiences. But of itself, that isn't enough. The reason, for example, I was captivated by her section on the remarkable (though oddly, given the book's title, entirely non-sticky) adhesive qualities of the gecko's foot was really about the way that Winkless takes us through the different viewpoints on how the foot's adhesion works. We get plenty of science and also a touch of controversy. I'd read plenty of books before that made reference to geckos' feet - but I got far more from this book than I ever have before.

Another example of a section that totally surprised and delighted me was one covering curling (the obscure winter sport, not the business of a hairdresser). I have no interest in any sport - yet what it's possible to do with curling stones, and how the ice is being manipulated  by both the bottom of the stone and the broom was totally fascinating. Again, part of the appeal was that the science wasn't cut and dried. We got to witness a real, fierce if friendly, scientific to-and-fro between two opposing theories (neither of which has yet to come out on top).

I had already read a good, but ultimately too detailed, book on adhesives (Steve Abbott's Sticking Together) before, and Winkless covers these in passing, but there is a far wider coverage here. (Amusingly, given the cover, one thing that isn't covered is chewing gum.) We get into the hydrodynamic properties of swim suits (and sharks), air resistance, all sorts of oddities of ice (including a new view on that old point about skates not melting ice due to pressure), tyres, earthquakes, gauge blocks (I'd never heard of these, but now want some) and more. I won't deny that, as is often the case with material science or geology books, just occasionally the same factors came back a touch too often, but the range of topics was sufficient to revive the interest very quickly.

It's also the kind of book where you discover lots of really interesting snippets of information. For example,  I hadn’t realised that the moment magnitude scale used to describe the strength of earthquakes (the Richter scale hasn't been used for decades, despite constant references in the media) doesn’t take into account the depth at which the quake occurs. So, for instance, Winkless describes experiencing a devastating-sounding magnitude 6.2 quake (she lives in New Zealand) but all it did was roll some pencils off her desk.

So what was the problem at the beginning? It was Winkless's journalistic strength coming back to bite her. There is sometimes so much focus on the interviewees that it focused on their interests too tightly, getting in the way of the science. A later example of this was in the chapter on tyres - Winkless hangs this on Formula 1. She talks to F1 people and as a result there is far too much about F1 tyres and circumstances for anyone who doesn't care about the sport and would rather the focus was on the tyres normal people, like the readers, use. That opening issue that nearly put me off was a really interesting unknown - how ancient cave art pigments manage to stick so well to stone - that was almost entirely hidden with pages that had nothing to do with stickiness or science, just the interests of her interviewees.

Overall, though, this was not a problem, as the excellence of the book shines through. Stickiness may not be something that we often think of as a science issue, but Winkless both shows how interesting it can be, and also how much there is still to learn in this topic that affects all our everyday lives.

Hardback: 
Bookshop.org

  

Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Vector - Robyn Arianrhod ****

This is a remarkable book for the right audience (more on that in a moment), but one that's hard to classify. It's part history of science/maths, part popular maths and even has a smidgen of textbook about it, as it has more full-on mathematical content that a typical title for the general public usually has. What Robyn Arianrhod does in painstaking detail is to record the development of the concept of vectors, vector calculus and their big cousin tensors. These are mathematical tools that would become crucial for physics, not to mention more recently, for example, in the more exotic aspects of computing. Let's get the audience thing out of the way. Early on in the book we get a sentence beginning ‘You likely first learned integral calculus by…’ The assumption is very much that the reader already knows the basics of maths at least to A-level (level to start an undergraduate degree in a 'hard' science or maths) and has no problem with practical use of calculus. Altho

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on

The Art of Uncertainty - David Spiegelhalter *****

There's something odd about this chunky book on probability - the title doesn't mention the P word at all. This is because David Spiegelhalter (Professor Sir David to give him his full title) has what some mathematicians would consider a controversial viewpoint. As he puts it 'all probabilities are judgements expressing personal uncertainty.' He strongly (and convincingly) argues that while the mathematical approach to probability is about concrete, factual values, outside of the 'natural' probabilities behind quantum effects, almost all real world probability is a subjective experience, better described by more subjective terms like uncertainty, chance and luck. A classic way to distinguish between those taking the frequentist approach to probability and the Bayesian approach is their attitude to what the probability is of a fair coin coming up heads or tails after the coin has been tossed but before we have looked at it. The frequentist would say it's def