Apologies in advance if this post reads more like a rant. I've recently started editing a couple of blogs. Both accept guest blog posts. Both invite potential contributors to pitch directly to me - and I have been inundated with terrible guest blog post pitches ever since.

Now, I don't have the magic formula that means you will see success with every guest blog post pitch.

But I have worked as a freelance writer for many years. I have pitched to many, many publications. I am now on the receiving end of these guest post pitches.

And here's where you may be going wrong with your guest post pitches:

Let's look at a pitch I recently received. It's the (poor) standard of pitch that's regularly hitting my inbox.

My first bugbear is the title. It simply says "Add My Blog Post".

Why?

Why would I add your blog post? Such a generic title tells me nothing about what you're pitching or your proposed content.

​I get hundreds of these emails every day - why am I going to click on one that says "Add My Blog Post"?

You need to grab an editor's attention with a catchy title and details of your proposed copy.

For example, "Pitch: How to Rock An Event At Your Coworking Space" would be a far better title.

Tip: Use your title to tell the editor what you want to write.

The majority of pitches I receive have a generic "gmail.com" domain. This irks me because it tells me nothing about you and, when I open the email, there's also no further information on who you are.

Are you a freelance writer? Are you working on behalf of a specific company or agency? Where's your email signature with details about your job title?

Such pitches give me no idea why I should take you seriously as a writer.

Tip: Include a couple of sentences about you and use a corporate email account.

No, I haven't got all egotistical here. But you should, at the very least, add the name of the editor you're pitching to in your intro.

​A "Hi Gemma" will suffice - it shows you're not just sending the same generic pitch to every blog editor in the world (because you'd never do that, right?).

Also, I edit more than one blog - which one are you pitching to? You just need to say "I'd like to pitch a post to your [INSERT NAME] blog..." here.

Tip: ALWAYS use an editor's name and mention the publication.

Great! You've read my blog! You think it's good and impressive!

So what? 

This isn't going to impress me. What would impress me is a more insightful statement with proof that our brands are aligned or that you have some value to add to my blog.

For example, a better start would be "I read your post on how words are failing women in technology, I recently decided to leave a career in science because of everyday sexism and would like to share my experiences on your blog."

Ta-da! You've also just told me a little bit about yourself, shown that you've actually read my blog and demonstrated how you can add value with a unique perspective on a complex topic.

​Tip: Prove you've read the publication and provide insight.

Oh my goodness. I shouldn't even have to write this down.

If you're pitching to WRITE for a publication CHECK YOUR SPELLING AND PUNCTUATION.

​If you struggle with this, then download the Grammarly app. 

Admittedly, it is easy for such mistakes to slip in. But a glaring grammatical error can be all it takes for an editor to hit the delete button.

Tip: Double check every pitch for simple mistakes.

Now, while there may appear to be nothing wrong with a polite concluding sentence, it's clear this pitcher has not read the editorial guidelines for the blog.

If they had read the guidelines, then they'd know that I only respond to pitches that follow a specific format and how I will proceed with successful pitches.

Editors receive hundreds of pitches a day. We don't have time to respond to every pitch and we certainly won't respond to lazy pitches that don't follow the guidelines we've taken the time to write.

Tip: Tailor every pitch to the specifics of every publication.

In summary, good guest blog post pitches take time. You can't spam every editor you find with the same generic pitch hoping you'll get a hit.

You also need to keep your pitches short. If an idea peaks the interest of an editor, they'll ask you for more info.

Finally, don't offer to write the same generic fodder others could write. Identify an angle or information that's different from the competition.

Be polite. Be specific. Be brief. Be different. 

Remember, editors are human beings.

​We all have our bad days (as this post clearly demonstrates).

​But, if your idea is a good one, we can't wait to work with you.

I'm writing this post for my Mother who for years has pondered this question: "You were so good at maths at school, why didn't you become an accountant?"

There is nothing wrong with accountants. Let's get that statement out of the way now. Without my wonderful accountant my books would balance like a one legged kangaroo on a wine cruise.

But a Maths degree was not for me. A career in accountancy was not for me (and I'd like to point out here - as much for my Mum's benefit as anyone else's - that accountancy is not the only career you can get out of a Maths degree).

I always struggled to explain why Physics holds a place in my heart that Mathematics never did.

Then, I started reading a wonderful book "Fermat's Last Theorem" by Simon Singh, which is a fascinating account of an equation whose proof stumped mathematicians for the best part of 300 years. (I've put a few more details on Fermat's Last Theorem at the end of this post.)

It tells the tale of finding a proof to an equation that originates from Pythagoras' Theorem. You know, that much-taught equation you probably came across at school: the sum of the square of the longest side of a right-angled triangle equals the square of the sum of the other two sides.

With a little mathematical jiggery-pokery it's easy to prove why this equation is true for every right-angled triangle you could throw at it.

This is known as a mathematical proof. It is true everywhere and for all eternity.

​Now, a mathematical proof is a thing of beauty. To unequivocally prove a concept and sit back in the knowledge that no one will ever disprove your work is something that eludes physicists. I think that's what makes physics so much fun - and why I chose it over mathematics.

Let me explain why with a tale of neutrinos.

A neutrino is a tiny particle that's caused a massive amount of upset within the scientific community. Don't blame the neutrino though - it's actually our tiny human minds that are at fault.

First, the neutrino has a very small mass (electrons are about 500,000 times more massive). But the neutrino shouldn't have any mass at all.

Why? Because this mass doesn't fit with our best explanation of all the particles in the universe: the Standard Model. (There are actually a couple of other problems with the Standard Model - it doesn't include gravity or dark matter, for example. But I digress.)

Second, scientists found evidence that neutrinos may travel faster than light.

Why would this matter? Because if something were to travel faster than light it would pretty much break everything we know about physics.

​This excellent post describes the implications and states: "When you assume that it's possible to travel faster than the speed of light, you're taking the laws of physics and punching them in the stomach and throwing them down the stairs."

​Yikes.

Naturally, this result caused quite a stir in the science community. Particle physicist and TV presenter Professor Brian Cox claimed it would be "most profound discovery in physics for more than a century." 

Fellow physicist and TV presenter Professor Jim Al-Khalili was a little more bullish in his response and claimed that if the findings were proved to be correct, "I will eat my boxer shorts on live TV".

In the end, Jim didn't have to ingest any underwear. The findings were eventually debunked by a range of other experiments that attempted to verify the results and the cause of the anomalous results was discovered to be a loose fibre optic wire.

But what a shame - and not just because two of the scientific team's elected leaders lost a vote of no confidence and tendered their resignations (click here for a brilliant piece where one of the leaders, Antonio Ereditato, is interviewed about the case).

It's a shame because the result wasn't verified.

Can you imagine if it had been? If we had unwittingly proven that matter could travel faster than light?

What a wonderful world physics is where we don't just disregard a result because it doesn't fit. Teams of physicists swooped in and immediately tried to recreate the result. They tested it until there could be no doubt that there was an anomaly.

It is this lack of perfection and need to endlessly test and question everything that makes physics so very appealing to me.

​Maths is too tidy.

As I reach the end of the Singh's beautifully written tale of Fermat's Last Theorem, I suddenly realise that I'm wrong about maths.

You see, mathematical proofs are a thing of perfection. But they are also the pursuit of a few dedicated souls who won't rest until that perfection is found.

​​Andrew Wiles, who eventually cracked the Fermat's Last Theorem nut, announced his findings in June 1993. The proof took decades to devise - and in August 1993 it was found to contain an error.

After a breakthrough in September 1994, Wiles published the corrected proof in 1995.

So, I am wrong. Maths is not tidy. It's just as messy and open to criticism, verification and debate as physics.

​The ability of scientists of any discipline to work relentlessly, debate, discuss and open their minds to the seemingly impossible is what makes every discipline so wonderful.

Maybe it's finally time to apply for a degree in mathematics.

If you take Pythagoras' Theorem and replace the square by any number greater than two, then you will never get a solution. In other words:

It's a devilishly simple equation that anyone can understand - but finding a proof for this equation taunted mathematicians for centuries.

What didn't help was that French "amateur" mathematician Pierre de Fermat tantalisingly claimed to have found the mathematical proof to this equation but never wrote it down - an irritating quirk which he was notorious for. 

Rewind 20 years. I'm a physics and astrophysics undergraduate. When asked what I'm studying, I get two stock responses: 1. You must be really clever, 2. That's unusual for a girl.

These words, no matter how bland or inoffensive they appear on the surface, actually cut pretty deep. They knocked my confidence and made me question whether I deserved a place in the physics department. 

Now, I have a pretty thick skin. The ditty "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" sums up my awkward teenage years pretty well. But these two responses formed part of a wider offensive of comments I'd received during my formative years whenever I mentioned my ambitions to study physics.

It felt like society was, at best, confused as to why a girl would want to study science and, at worst, thought STEM subjects should be left to the boys. 

Such words cause a crisis of confidence.

An inherent lack of confidence amongst aspiring women in technology is regularly cited as a core reason why girls turn away from STEM subjects. Recent research from Microsoft found girls in the UK are interested in science and tech subjects before the age of 11, but this drops sharply when they turn 16. So, what's happening in that intervening five years?

I'd like to turn to one of the 1,000 girls who took part in the Microsoft survey. Paisley Edwards, a 12-year-old from Croydon, who highlights the importance of having more positive female role models in science, like her Mum who's a pharmaceutical scientist.

​However, it is this quote from Paisley that so succinctly addresses the first comment that I 'must be clever' to do physics:

​You see, the thing that always got me with that 'you must be clever' response is the way it would be said. Immediately, a wall was put up. People bristled, put my degree subject in the "too difficult to understand or talk about" box, smiled and moved on. 

This always baffled me. Science is just my thing. I'm not sure if that makes me clever or not. It just makes sense to me. (​But ask me to bake a cake or drive a car and I'm lost, sweating and swearing  - usually in that order.)

While none of my male colleagues seemed to be told they were clever for studying physics, this is not purely a gender-specific issue. It's a science-specific issue. 

A divide between the science community and wider society still exists, despite the best efforts of many wonderful science communicators (a topic I've covered into the past - even pulling poor Brian Cox into the debate).

The stereotypical socially awkward geeks so regularly portrayed in shows like The Big Bang Theory don't help. They make science seem impenetrable and an exclusive topic of an intellectually elite few.

In fact, science is simple. Science is changing the world we live in and any good scientist will happily discuss their work or topic you take an interest in. To quote physicist extraordinaire, Richard Feymann: "If you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it."

​Trust me, I talk to scientists for a living. It's a fascinating world and one that'll open your eyes to the wonder of the world around us.

OK, now let's look at the second stock response. I was one of five women studying physics out of a class of 100 back in 2000 when I started my first Masters in Physics. So, yes, it was unusual for a girl.

Just as being a male midwife still raises eyebrows with some, as only 99.6% of UK midwives are men.

A use of words, again, is to blame - and it affects both men and women. This fascinating study from Totaljobs used previous academic research from The University of Waterloo and Duke University, which outlined a series of male and female gender-coded words.

Totaljobs analysed almost 77,000 job adverts over a six week period to assess the frequency of gender-coded words in UK recruitment and found 478,175 words that carry gender bias in these ads.

​That's an average of six male-coded or female-coded words per job advert.

Looking at these words, it breaks my heart. We're ALL a wonderful mix of attributes and these words are used without thinking to pander to the stereotypes of a society where boys are clever and leaders, and girls are pretty and submissive (I'm looking at you, Clarks Shoes, for calling girls' shoes "dolly babe" and the boys' equivalent "leader").

Yes, I'm a woman who loves science. I also have a husband who is far better in the kitchen than me. What does that say about us? Bugger all.

Instead of pointing out what's different, we need to embrace our differences or we end up living in a Trump-fuelled toxic world where CERN has to launch an (albeit brilliantly worded) anti-sexual harassment campaign and even the most experienced female scientists feel they do not have a place in the world's laboratories.

Instead, we need to start using words to help women in science. Jess Wade is leading the way here and is steadily setting up Wikipedia pages for all those women in science without the recognition they deserve. 

​Let's start using the power of words to change things so science is never seen as an elusive topic, or one that's purely for the boys.

And when someone tells you they're studying physics, don't dismiss them as being too clever or unusual.

​Ask them to tell you more.

Where do I start with a post about Friday night's Space Shambles event? It's difficult to know because the night itself was such a glorious mess of laughter, science and song that there wasn't any discernible start or end. Just a constant stream of bonkers and brilliant stuff.

Hosted by Infinite Monkey Cager Robin Ince and guitar-wielding spacewalker Chris Hadfield, we saw Apollo 9 astronaut Rusty Schweickart (who flew a real Lunar Module) play the retro video game Lunar Lander (he did quite well), UK science comedy troupe Spoken Nerd calculate Pi with a pie and comedian Stewart Lee robustly declare he "hates nothing more than space people" before shooting down the entire premise of space travel in one fantastic monologue. (Little known fact: Lee has flown to space in his bin and it's not that hard. Also, don't ask him how to go to the loo in space.)

These skits were interspersed with a great selection of scientists, whose six-minute lectures gave powerful pulsar-like blasts of knowledge into the audience. 

Space scientist Monica Grady dazzled with her talk on Rosetta (leaving me with the ear worm "Rubber Ducky, you're my friend'), physicist Lucie Green showed a tiny piece of Skylab to us, physicist and oceanographer Helen Czerski was joined on stage by Kimokeo Kapahulehua, a Hawaiian native who spoke about canoes, navigation and the stars, Jim Al-Khalil somehow summed up the history and future of the universe in six minutes, and a round table answering questions from the audience ensued with the Sky at Night's Chris Lintott, planetary scientist Suzie Imber and Hadfield, who revealed that space smells of witches.

That's right. Witches. Or at least the smell they leave behind when they disappear in a puff of smoke. Which makes far more sense. Right? (Well, it's a lot more fun than Brian Cox's postulation on the smell of space during his arena tour!)

We were treated to music from Grace Petrie (one of the many goosebump-inducing moments of the night when she sang her Golden Record Song), Public Service Broadcasting, She Makes War and onstage band Steve Pretty and the Origin of Species. (Who started the show with a laser harp. Brilliant.) Chris Hadfield also got out his trusty guitar and sang a bit of Bowie, later joined by Sheila Atim, who finished the song with a powerful vocal punch.

And with actor, writer and comedian Reece Shearsmith's beautiful rendition of Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot and a delightful, final poem penned and performed by Robin Ince, the night couldn't have thrown a better paraphernalia of science and intrigue out into the Albert Hall, all overlooked by a mesmerising spacesuit-wearing puppet called Sam.

Space Shambles was a night of gentle chaos and science. Because, after all, science isn't ordered, it's chaotic.

Which all seems quite fitting given that a few hours before Space Shambles began its tour de force of science, one of the world's greatest scientist's, Stephen Hawking, was interred in Westminster Abbey. Hadfield paid a touching tribute to Hawking, along with Apollo astronauts Alan Bean and John Young. 

Before his death, Hawking requested a single equation should be inscribed on his grave. This equation demonstrates that black holes aren’t entirely black after all, and instead emit a glow that became known as Hawking radiation.

Even Hawking was surprised by his own work. Speaking about this equation, Hawking said: "At first, I thought this must be a mistake in my calculation. But what persuaded me that it was real, was that the emission was exactly what was required to identify the area of the horizon with the entropy of a black hole."

Entropy is an odd beast to describe (I had a bash with some Lego, here) - it's often regarded as a measure of disorder, and sometimes a measure of information. 

Well, Space Shambles was a night of disorder and information in equal value. I certainly wouldn't have changed it for the world.

Science doesn't only belong in stuffy lecture halls or cordoned off in a lab. It belongs in the Albert Hall surrounded by musicians, comedians and a 5,000-strong audience.

We all need a little more science and chaos in our lives.

​Well played, Space Shambles. 

Enjoy the journey, Professor Hawking.

Bring out the trumpets! The gender pay gap is shrinking! So, why does it still feel more like a gender pay chasm?

Well, because we still have an awfully long way to go. The most recent figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that: "In 2017, men on average were paid £1.32 more per hour than women, which, as a proportion of men’s pay, is a pay gap of 9.1%. The pay gap has fallen from 10.5% in 2011 to 9.1% in 2017, but remains positive in value – meaning that on average men are paid more than women."

One core reason for this difference is the tendency for women to move into poorly paid or low-skilled part-time jobs after having children, or leave the world of work altogether.

​Further research from the ONS found: "The employment rate for women with dependent children is 73.7% with 51.8% of the jobs being part-time whilst the employment rate for men with dependent children is 92.4% with 90.1% of these jobs being full-time."

The gender pay gap is a complex issue and rates of pay within the freelancer community are notoriously difficult to measure. The ONS even concedes: "One reason for the limited coverage of self-employed income is the difficulty involved in measuring it. As noted in a recent discussion, existing data on self-employment incomes are largely based on survey responses."

On the one hand, a software developer in London with three to five years experience could expect to command a salary of between £40,000 and £70,000. A contractor with the same skill set and experience could demand £500/day.

​On the other hand, figures from the ONS reveal the distribution of self-employed income appears centred around £240 a week, much lower than that for employees, which is centred around £400 a week.

Life as a freelancer is unpredictable. It is filled with highs and lows (that aren't just financial in nature).

So, is freelancing the solution to the gender pay gap? No.

But employers can learn an awful lot from the freelancer lifestyle and could address the gender pay gap at the same time.

Let me explain.

​Last week, I sat on a panel for the launch of the Modern Work freelancer magazine. I was asked if I would ever return to full-time employment. I gave this response:

You see, working as a freelance writer does address several of the key issues for women in the workplace, including:

I'm going to have a wee moan here. Why is the school day (generally) 9-3 and yet most jobs (where you have to commute) are 9-5? It's incompatible and leaves most working parents (especially those without regular family support to bridge the gap) with a difficult choice: hire in some help or quit your job.

If you work as a freelancer, you can work around the school hours. It's not easy (you have to fit in those missing hours somewhere), but it's a more viable option than paying a small fortune for childcare or leaving employment altogether.

The uneasy truth is that (regardless of your sex) the world of 9-5 work and the world of parenting are not compatible.

Unless, maybe, you can win a flexible working contract. However, a  recent study found that a large number of mothers are forced to leave their jobs after flexible working requests were turned down.

So, freelancing is the only viable option.

Some 72.8% of the UK's chief executives and senior officials are men and the number of female leaders is consistently overestimated around the world.

As a freelancer, you have control over your career path. You can choose to keep the status quo or ramp up your career.

It's an empowering experience where you not only choose what you work on, and whom you work with but your long-term aspirations too.

When you're self-employed, there's no Boy's Club to break into or risk of being asked "are you pregnant?" in an interview (research from the Equality and Human Rights Commission  recently revealed most UK employers believe a woman should say at interview if they are pregnant). 

​This excellent article also highlights the in-built macho culture in tech that's sending women running to the hills. 

Unfortunately, sexism is just as rife in freelancing as it is in permanent employment. And the problems can be exacerbated when you don't have a manager or HR department to help you deal with these issues.

However, as a freelancer, you can choose your clients, your work and avoid working with misogynist attitudes.

This last sentence irks me.

Why, as a woman who wants to work, should you have to feel the only way to earn a decent wage, have a rewarding career, achieve a better work/life balance and not be faced by sexism at any level is to freelance?

This isn't what freelancing is about.

Freelancing should not be the only way to earn a decent wage.

Freelancing should not be the only way to have a rewarding career.

Freelancing should not be the only way to achieve a work/life balance.

Freelancing should not be the only way to escape sexism.

For me, freelancing is a hugely empowering career path. And it's a path that I was lucky enough to choose when working for an inclusive and supportive employer all those years ago as a software developer.

It's time employers started understanding that traditional 9-5 jobs do not work for the majority of women who want many of the aspects that automatically come from self-employment.

I can already hear the standard mutterings (from some) along the lines of: "If you want this so-called work/life balance, you can't expect to be paid the same as someone who does the 9-5."

For those reading this article who think women don't have the right to work and raise a family: read this.

And this.

For those reading this article who think women don't have the right to fair pay, a rewarding career and a sexism-free workplace: bugger off.

Back to my original question.

No. Freelancing is not the panacea to the gender pay gap.

Some even suggest the gender pay gap is worse for female freelancers. 

Freelancing is not a silver bullet to resolve the issues women in work still face every day.

But there are elements of the freelancer lifestyle that many employers could embrace to help keep more women in the workforce.

If we can achieve this and keep women working in skilled roles, then we could take the gender pay gap to zero.

A neutrino is a tiny subatomic particle.

It's also one of the most abundant particles in the universe.

In fact, there are roughly 65 billion neutrinos passing through your body right now.

Did you notice them? 

No?

That's because neutrinos barely interact with matter, which makes them really difficult to detect.

To detect anything you can't "see" like a neutrino, scientists usually use one of the four fundamental forces to "see" how a particle interacts with matter. 

These four fundamental forces are: the electromagnetic force, gravity, the weak force and the strong force.

Neutrinos have a neutral charge and a very small mass. So, you can't detect them with the electromagnetic force (because they have no charge) or easily detect them with gravity (because they are so light and tiny).

And neutrinos do not interact with the strong force (which bonds protons and neutrons together in an atom's nucleus) because they simply do not feel it.

Neutrinos are only affected by the weak force, which has a tiny range and is involved in the decay of nuclear particles. The problem is, the chances of a neutrino interacting with the weak force are incredibly small.

This post explains the (quite frankly, bonkers) process of detecting neutrinos rather well.

This year, we could see some exciting neutrino news as a huge, extraordinary machine called KATRIN (KArlsruhe TRItium Neutrino) will try to determine the mass of the neutrino once and for all. This is a lovely article all about the experiment.

In fact, there are quite a few neutrino-based experiments going on around the world: here's a list of the lot.

This is an excellent series of in-depth articles from Berkeley that give more details about neutrinos and the implications of neutrino mass.

And if you want to find out more about the experiments that hinted neutrino mass could explain why we live in a matter universe, check out this article from New Scientist.

The meteoric rise (and fall) of Bitcoin has peaked the world's interest in the technology behind it - blockchain. But the implications and applications for blockchain technology go way beyond cryptocurrencies...

For once, the word "blockchain" actually describes this technology quite well.

A "block" is simply a record of new transactions. This could be a record of a cryptocurrency purchase or medical records or any chunk of data.

Once a transaction is completed, the "block" is encrypted and added to a "chain".

The encryption process is known as "hashing" and it's carried out by lots of computers. If they all agree on the answer, each block gets a unique digital signature.

This creates a chain of encrypted blocks.

Or, a blockchain.

Each block is stored chronologically and the chain cannot be altered or tampered with, only added to. And, when a change does happen, the blockchain is updated for everyone in the network at the same time.

You can only make a change if you have a private key (aka password) to access the block.

A popular analogy is to think of blockchain as a Google doc and traditional data storage as an old-school Microsoft Word doc. 

The Google doc can be simultaneously viewed and edited by everyone with access to that document.

With a Word doc, you have to send the document to one person at a time, ask them to make a change and then send it back before you send it to the next person.

Blockchain is a completely different way to store data, compared to the traditional process of storing your data in a big central database.

Using blockchain, data is distributed across a network of computers and not in one place. Here’s another useful explanation from online forum Bitcoin Talk:

Blockchain is basically giving two people a safe way to exchange data, without the need for a third party (such as a bank) to verify the transaction. 

If you think about traditional transactions, there are three parties involved: the owner (who holds an asset), the market (everyone who is interested and/or able to buy that asset) and the regulator (who makes sure the owner and market follow the rules when a transaction happens).

With blockchain, we don't need a regulator as the network of computers validates a transaction.

​This could have wide-reaching implications for banks - and a wealth of other industries too.

While blockchain is synonymous with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies at the moment, there are many different ways it could be used.

​A recent UK government report on blockchain technologies provides a good overview and examples of the use of blockchain, as does this article from The Conversation.

Last night, I gave a keynote talk at Nottingham Trent University on behalf of the society for freelancers and the self-employed - IPSE. The Freelancing for Students event is part of a new series and is designed to give students across all disciplines top tips and advice on how to successfully launch a career as a freelancer.

A terrifying number of people turned up, but it wasn't that scary at all. I was joined by Di Tunney from The Creative Quarter Company and there was a great panel discussion with three fellow freelancers, all addressing the challenges of finding work as a freelancer.

The advice we all gave was, rather spookily, very similar (and without seeing the other talks prior to the event, I promise). So, here are the highlights for anyone eager to kick off a freelance career:

You may assume that if you generalise then you'll have a larger selection of work to choose from and get more work. Somewhat counter-intuitively, the opposite is true.

When I set up as a freelance writer, I didn't push my science and technology skills to the front of my work. I was pitching for generic work and against a pool of generic writers. As a result, I didn't stand out from the crowd and, if I did manage to win some work, it wasn't very well paid.

Then, I set up as "the freelancer who gets tech". Yes, it's a cheesy tagline but it succinctly tells you what I do. Wrapped up in that personal branding is my USP: I've worked in the science and technology sectors I write about, giving me a unique level of experience that other writers cannot offer.

So, what's the message here? Find out what makes you unique. Push it to the front of everything you do.

If you can identify and shout your specialism from the rooftops, more work and more pay will come your way.

You'll become an expert in your field and the go-to person for that specialism. People know what you offer, and you'll be their first port of call as a result.

Once you have your specialism, make sure you don't take a blinkered approach to your work. If an unusual job offer comes in and it's outside of your comfort zone, go for it.

Speaking in the panel discussion, Chantal Duarte, sports psychologist and project management specialist freelancer, echoed this sentiment and told the students to have confidence in their skill set.

​You're not "just" a student.

​An example from my experience is when I was approached to do a spot of ghostwriting work for a prominent CIO. Initially, I hesitated as I hadn't considered working as a ghostwriter. But, I accepted the contract.

Now, that CIO has become one of my best clients. He's recommended me to his colleagues and he's probably responsible for 20% of the clients on my books.

And I nearly turned him down because I "wasn't sure" if I wanted to ghostwrite.

The thought of the opportunities I would have lost if I hadn't accepted his offer still makes me shudder.

When you're starting out, it's vital to try and practice your craft on a daily basis. This will help you to build your skills, find your voice and create a signature style that will (again) make you stand out from the crowd.

It's important to take inspiration from others in your industry, but be original in that work. Create something that you love and is fun to work on.

For example, my Sunday Science blog (where I explain science with Lego) started off as a fun way to keep me blogging on a weekly basis. It's now snowballed and I have hundreds of subscribers to the weekly newsletter. It's also been another way for me to find work as I regularly get emails from readers of the blog who want me to write for them.

Work experience is a great way to build your portfolio of work. Don't be put off if a company or individual doesn't advertise that they offer work experience - send them a cheeky pitch for work anyway (more on pitching later).

You may want to approach companies from different industries too. Again, it's about throwing the net as wide as possible and seeing if you can catch a break.

When you're at university, you could also volunteer for a student society. For example, if you want to be a freelance web designer - find a society with a lousy website and ask if you can redesign it for them.

And every time you do a chunk of work experience, put it in your portfolio. Write down what you did, the skills you gained and the people you met. 

Work experience is, essentially, an extended job interview where you'll meet people working in the industry. So, make a good impression and start forging connections.

Finding work as a freelancer often comes down to whom you know. Which leads me to my next point...

Go to industry events and talks. Check out the IPSE events page and come along to a talk. Get out there.

I'll be honest, I've been networking for 15 years now and I still find it a bit scary. But, try to get involved and have a chat with the other attendees. Sometimes opportunities will come your way from the most random conversations and connections you make.

Online networking is another necessity when you're building your pool of resources. So, identify a social network (or networks) that matches your work and go for it. Connect with thought leaders and comment on their posts.

LinkedIn is a must-have for most industries. Make sure you have an account and that it's up to date with all your latest projects. And put your specialism at the very top of your profile.

Get a website. It doesn't have to be anything fancy, just a page telling people who you are, what you do and your portfolio of work (with some contact details) is all it takes.

When you pitch to companies or individuals for work, be smart. 

I always start with a short introductory email. It helps if you have a personal contact but, if you don't, I'd recommend a sneaky little tool called ahrefs. This provides a small button in your browser that you can click when you're on a company website and it'll give you the email addresses of people at that company.

Make sure every pitch is tailored to that company.

DO NOT send the same generic email to 100 companies. It will be deleted.

Tell people who you are, what you do and how you can help them.

Do that in 2-3 sentences and provide a link to find out more. 

Something like:

Dear [insert contact's name],

My name's Gemma Church and I'm the freelance writer who gets tech.

I noticed [insert company name] hasn't updated its blog in a while.

As a specialist science and technology writer, I believe I could create some compelling content for your site. [Give examples here]

You can find out more about my work here. And, if you fancy a chat, my number is 01223 926205.

Thanks, Gemma

If you don't hear anything back, you could give them a quick phone call and ask to speak to someone in the marketing department. Or you could fire out another email.

The main thing is to be personal and proactive when pitching.

There are a lot of freelance job finding websites out there. Just do a quick Google search.

​While they are a great way to find people and (most) offer payment protection so you aren't left chasing a client over an invoice, there are some disadvantages.

For example, the website will take a cut from your fee and these jobs can be poorly paid compared to the industry average. After all, you'll be pitching for work with people around the world. It can be difficult to compete in this space.

Also, a handy tip is to search for jobs that aren't necessarily advertised as a freelance position. In particular, if you notice a post has been around for a while, the company in question is clearly struggling to fill that post.

So, give the HR department a call and ask if you could help them fill that skills gap?

This was probably the overriding advice from all the freelancers at the IPSE event.

Finding work as a freelancer is tough. You have to continually pitch and promote yourself across multiple platforms and to multiple people to get the work in.

Then, sometimes, you'll get an avalanche of work and wish you had that 9-5 job.

​Other times, you're twiddling your thumbs and panicking about the lack of work.

But it's totally worth it.

Because freelancing gives you the opportunity to do something you truly love. It gives you the freedom to set your own goals and fulfill your ambitions.

Some days, you'll work 5-9.

And you won't care.

​Because you'll love it.

In the last 10 days, we were treated to a Super Blue Blood Moon AND the first flight of the SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket. If Musk's dreams are realised, we may be shuttling humans to and from the Moon in a matter of years.

It's so exciting to see space travel peaking the world's interest again. And, for most interstellar journeys, it all starts with the Moon.

Our Moon is quite unusual compared to other moons in the Solar System because it is the largest moon compared to the size of its host planet. Big Moons should orbit big planets. 

But that's assuming that our Moon formed in the same way many other moons did: when a planet is forming, some of the material is pulled together to form a moon. This is known as accretion.

But our Moon's composition is too dissimilar to the Earth for this to have happened. So, we believe the Moon was formed when a Mars-size body called Theia collided with the early Earth. Dramatic stuff.

Sadly, not cheese. It's predominantly made of rock and the dusty surface is covered with impact craters and dead volcanoes. These craters formed from asteroid collision millions of years ago but, because there's no weather, you can still see them today.

One of the goals of the Apollo 16 mission was to "pick up rocks", according to astronaut Charlie Duke. The Apollo 16 mission collected nearly 213 pounds of rock and soil samples and, despite extensive geological training, Charlie admitted they chose to "pick up one of every colour" on the lunar surface. 

Under the surface, the Moon is likely to have a small core of iron and a thick mantle of rocks rich in iron and magnesium.

Here's a final interesting fact about the Moon and its average 238,855 mile distance from the Earth. You could fit every planet in the Solar System between the Moon and Earth.

Yes. The Moon's gravity pulls the Earth and causes the tides in our oceans. The pull of the Moon is also slowing the Earth's rotation down, causing every day to increase by 2.3 milliseconds every century. And the Moon is also getting 1.5 inches further away from the Earth every year.

We also believe that the Moon's gravitational effect on the Earth caused it to tilt at just the right angle to produce  a relatively stable climate over billions of years. This effect, combined with the planet's tides, allowed life to flourish. 

So, if there was no Moon, there may be no life on Earth.

If you want to find out more about exploration of the Moon, this post from National Geographic is a great starting point. And here are some great lunar stats.

SpaceX is not the only entity interested in going to the Moon. Five missions are planned in 2018, including: a Chinese mission to land a rover on the far side and the Chandrayaan-2, which has been developed by the Indian Space Research Organisation and will include a moon orbiter and a rover.

Two of the other lunar missions will be privately-funded. These are Hakuto, a group of space professionals inspired by Google’s Lunar X Prize, and Part-Time Scientists, a group of volunteer scientists and engineers based in Germany that plan to use SpaceX rockets and deploy two rovers. Finally, NASA’s TESS will also perform a flyby of the Moon.

The colonisation of the Moon is another fascinating prospect. And one that we're getting closer to realising. And if you're wondering why we should go to the Moon in the first place, this post from NASA is a rich pool of resources. 

​There's also great fun to be had on the Moon, if this video is anything to go by:

 Wormholes are theoretical passages through space-time that could create shortcuts across the universe.

They're also a staple sci-fi phenomenon and are predicted by the theory of General Relativity.

Let's take a step back and we need to understand a few other scientific terms. General Relativity predicts the existence of Black Holes - singularities in space that are infinitely small and infinitely dense with such a strong gravitational pull that nothing (not even light) can escape there pull once you get close enough to one (past a line known as the event horizon).
 
Then, in 1916, Austrian physicist Ludwig Flamm took the concept of black holes and noticed another solution was possible - a white hole. As the name suggests, this is the opposite of a black hole and ejects matter from its event horizon.

White holes have a lot of jolly interesting consequences. Some suggest the Big Bang might have been the result of a supermassive white hole.

But (and here's where we get to wormholes) Flamm also suggested that black holes and white holes may be connected by some sort of tunnel through space-time. This tunnel provides a shortcut between two areas of space-time.

Some 20 years later, American theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler coined the phrase "wormhole" to describe that tunnel connecting black and white holes.

Maybe... but there are several rather large (or small) issues to overcome. The first is to do with size: wormholes are predicted to exist on microscopic levels (a thousandth of a million, million, million, million, million centimetres). However, as the universe expands, then so could the size of a wormhole.

Second, wormholes aren't very stable and, therefore, don't last very long (unless they're filled with exotic material like negative matter).

But that's not deterred some scientists. A recent article by physicist Ethan Siegel detailed how humans could travel through a wormhole.

Wormholes are a hot topic in science and NASA even dedicated $1.2 million to its "Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project" between 1996 and 2002, which studied various proposals for revolutionary space travel theories that would require major breakthroughs in physics to be realised.

This is a more in-depth article about wormholes and this lecture from Stephen Hawking covers the possibilities of time travel using wormholes.