Obituary
The truth, the half-truth or perhaps nothing like the truth – a tribute to John
Warren (1923–2016)
Geoff Auty with contributions from Stuart Leadstone and Tim Watson
While many readers will never have noted the
name John Warren appearing occasionally in
our pages, he has kept careful watch on School
Science Review (and other science publications)
since long before I became Editor. His last direct
involvement with SSR was to write to Christopher
Talbot (with a copy to me) giving his support
to the article ‘Metalloids, semiconductors,
semimetals and poor metals’ in our September
2016 edition (SSR, 98(362), 11–15). By then his
health was so poor that he needed the support
of a grandson to write the letter, and sadly we
have to report that John died at the beginning
of December 2016, having reached the age of
93. Although often known for being critical,
John would also give praise and support when
justified as shown by the letter to Christopher
Talbot, which is reproduced below with his
permission. The effort and care shown in this kind
of communication would rarely reach the public
domain and it is not always appreciated that John
had a constructive side.
A university education was not easy to pursue
in the 1930s without wealth but, after leaving
secondary school, John obtained a job as a
laboratory assistant in a factory and continued
to study part time at a technical college. Bad
eyesight prevented him being involved in
military service in the Second World War and his
continuing studies enabled him to achieve a BSc
degree as an external candidate from London
University in 1945. He continued to work part
time, studied to achieve an MSc degree and
obtained a temporary post as a demonstrator at
Liverpool University. When a colleague became
ill he was suddenly thrust into lecturing, but also
managed to pursue research leading to a PhD.
Determination indeed!
John eventually became a senior lecturer
in physics at Brunel University and, from
conversations, I learned that he not only looked
for oversimplifications or errors in SSR, but
seems to have written to Physics Education rather
more often. In addition, he would challenge what
he felt to be inadequate explanations on notices
and posters at the Science Museum in London.
Nor did media presentations of science escape
his critical scrutiny. Several communications to
the BBC and other programme-makers ensued.
These sometimes elicited acknowledgement,
occasionally promises of follow-up, but rarely
achieved the improvement of quality for which
he hoped. John’s philosophy was that it was
better to offer a full and clear explanation than
to think that a simplified answer would enable
development of understanding of additional
details at a later stage.
As his eyesight deteriorated, John needed
large-print communications and often had to have
things read to him, but he still managed to send
handwritten letters and, if telephoned to discuss
them a fortnight later, he could remember the
content precisely. Despite his frustrations, he was
in my experience always polite and just keen to
be helpful.
He published two books, The Teaching of
Physics (Butterworths, 1965), which brought
instant applause from teachers of the subject who
had been too busy to think fully for themselves,
and Understanding Force (John Murray, 1979).
Some writers of physics textbooks sought John’s
eagle-eyed inspection, and Collins invited him
to contribute to the physics content of the third
edition of their English Dictionary. Since I
became Editor, we have published in SSR two
letters from John as sequels to other articles, and
in June 2008, March 2009 and September 2009,
he produced a three-part set of articles under the
overall title ‘Some causes of error’. For teachers
of physics, these are worth reading over and
over again.
Although John’s physical faculties deteriorated
in recent years, his mind remained razor-sharp to
the end, and he never lost the zeal and dedication
SSR March 2017, 98(364)
9
Obituary: John Warren (1923–2016)
John’s last communication to a contributor to School Science Review
Dear Mr Talbot,
Your article in School Science Review
(September 2016, 98(362), 11–15) will be of
great value in drawing the attention of teachers,
examiners, authors etc. to the difficulties being
imposed upon students by the unplanned and
uncoordinated attempts to introduce unnecessary
subclassification of the elements.
Classification of new, well-defined categories is
a major part of scientific thought. The supreme
example is the system of Linnaeus; one can
hardly conceive of biology without this system.
Nevertheless, not all classifications are helpful.
I can think of many failures in classification in
physics, astrophysics, biology, and sports science.
In your article you explain how such properties as
atomic size affect the nature of elements. I would
only wish to add the important question, ‘Is the
atomic number odd or even?’
Germanium
My own concern is with the classification of
germanium. In 1947, the invention of the pointcontact germanium diode initiated a period of
several years that transformed the history of the
world, replacing thermionic valves by solid-state
devices for nearly all purposes. This made possible
the modern world of high-speed computers and
advanced telecommunications. The production
of silicon of sufficiently high purity displaced
germanium from its position of importance and it is
now almost totally forgotten.
To those of us who lived through the germanium
era it came as an unwelcome surprise to find that
most pupils were being taught that germanium
to the lifelong cause he espoused: to present
fundamental principles of physics with rigour and
clarity to students and the general public alike.
John’s motto, ‘Think for yourself; don’t be
guided by precedent’, is an excellent principle to
live by, not only in physics.
is a metal. In your article you give an account of
insulators and semiconductors (the distinction is
purely arbitrary). What you have stated should be
sufficient to make clear the fact that germanium
is not a metal; nor is it intermediate between
metal and non-metal in its electrical properties.
Germanium has a band of transmission in the
infrared which is inconceivable in a metal. This
is consistent with an energy gap of 0.7 eV. In
electrical properties silicon is similar to germanium,
having an energy gap of 1.1 eV.
The thermal conductivity of germanium, like other
non-metals, tends to zero as the temperature tends
to absolute zero. It rises fairly rapidly to a peak
value at well below ambient temperatures. The
conduction of heat is by lattice-vibration (phonons).
By contrast, heat conduction in metals is by the
(so-called) ‘free’ electrons. Metals conform roughly
to the Wiedemann–Franz–Lorenz rule, which is
quite inapplicable to non-metals and can thus
provide a clear distinction between metals and
non-metals. At very low temperatures the specific
heat capacity of germanium is proportional to the
cube of the kelvin temperature, while for a metal
the value is very low but rises initially in proportion
to the temperature over a small range.
Note: the surface properties of substances (such
as metallic lustre) should be avoided in classification
because the properties of surfaces may be very
different from those of the bulk material and are
usually significantly affected by impurities.
Yours truly
Dr John Warren
Those who knew John will treasure his
memory, the memory of a man insatiably curious,
incurably honest, and generous.
Geoff Auty (SSR Editor, formerly of New College, Pontefract), Stuart Leadstone (formerly of Banchory
Academy, Kincardineshire) and Tim Watson (formerly of King’s School, Worcester)
10
SSR March 2017, 98(364)