6th July 1897
From: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
To: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Chetworth House, Cornwall.
Chetworth,
We have strolled over two poles to observe vast icy deserts from the land, the sea and, for but a short time, from the air. We have discussed at length alternative destinations for our next adventure, and to struggle back into the most impassable of tropical forests will indeed afford us the most remarkable sights of flora and fauna. These spectacles, plus our scientific observations, are somewhat overshadowed by the extreme hardship required to arrive at a destination consumed by jungle. Throughout these thirteen years in which I have accompanied you on your adventures, I would not think any would suggest that I might shirk a little hardship. I furthermore do believe that the pleasure of arrival is multiplied by the difficulty of the journey, a pleasure of which we both have first-hand experience in abundance.
However, that moment of lift above the ice, in which we each saw the white expanse unfold beneath us as we were hauled behind our careening sleigh remains with me. To expand upon this experience, you will be well aware that thirteen years ago the French armed forces flew the air-ship La France of fifty metres length to land at its departure location, powered by electrical motors of near half a ton in mass. I propose that we determine a means to propel a similar vessel with means of much lighter weight and with far greater endurance.
If we succeed in this engineering feat I wonder if we might on one occasion seize the best of both the unending expanse and a cornucopia of wildlife should we consider sailing over those other great deserts of the world? If we could loft ourselves to some altitude over those tropical savannas of the African expanse, might we drink of God’s great creation in a single panorama that may water our eyes?
Rather than replicate our short hop over the ice, what might we observe if we were to construct a flying-machine of such endurance that we might remain aloft for some days, to observe the great creatures of the African continent? As much of the continent is covered in dark jungle, I would not imagine that we would see much as we traversed above the canopy. However, the savanna of the Southern continent might afford magnificent views of this vast territory from above. We could commence our journey on the relatively lush Eastern coast, and work our way inland, aloft on our device.
Should you require to be further convinced, through associates of my acquaintance I have taken the liberty to contact the Royal Society. My goodness, had I held out the offer of an aerial observation of the savanna with my own hand, these academic bodies would certainly have torn it clean from my wrist in their haste to snatch this opportunity from my grasp. Furthermore, finances have been promised to fund both the expedition and the construction of our vehicle. I enclose details of their offer for your approval.
What say you? Might an aerial adventure be to your liking?
Jenkins
20th July 1897
From: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Chetworth House, Cornwall.
To: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
Archie,
I am somewhat taken aback by your proposal, as fully formed, funded and complete in its design as one might hope. You know me too well, and I am as intrigued by your proposal as you confidently predict. I must convey my extreme interest in your proposal to lift ourselves above the hardships of the wilderness. I have steered my ship from one end of the earth to the other across seas that have buoyed us up and threatened us with destruction in equal measure. However, the infernal coastline has always acted as a barrier to the progress of my vessel. Forced to alight, we must plod inland by foot or horse unaccompanied by a sleek deck and a full sail. However, if you could propose for us a vessel of a design lighter than the air, we might burst the bounds of Poseidon’s reign to explore the land as we might a mighty ship! I relish the very idea.
If your academic associates wish to travel the high road across the savanna, and are willing to pay quite so handsomely for the pleasure, far be it from me to deny them passage. If the Eastern coast is their fancy, I know of a rail line but a few years opened that will take us from Delagoa Bay to Pretoria across the Transvaal. However, I expect that to sojourn only some few miles from the main rail line might not afford us views of the savanna unspoiled. As you have instructed over the years, I include some preliminary musings upon the proposition of value[1] that a suitable vessel might offer. It seems immediately clear from mere minutes of consideration that an airship of sophisticated design will be required. In particular, as we will be well positioned to observe sights undetectable from ground level, I propose that we traverse regions little inspected by man, and carry our flying craft by wagon some good distance off the beaten path before we alight. To this end, we shall require a vessel not of coal and iron, but of a construction so light that we could transport it by hand, horse or cart as we might a tent.
Once underway, with some support from telescopic observations, I expect our lofty position will reveal to us a great many sights never before seen. Hence, we will have need to make multiple descents to perform investigations. This will preclude the action of ballast tipped over the gunwale or gas vented to the atmosphere to manage repeated vertical ascent. We will require some means to fill, empty and refill our envelope.
We do not wish to blow across the African plans as might a feather, so we will require some means of propulsion. Our need to transport this device demands that we eschew resort to the great anvils of steel or copper required by petroleum or electrical motor. I do also wonder if our observations of local wildlife might be aided by some means of propulsion that is not accompanied by the wailing of an internal combustion motor and associated paddle thrashing at the air?
In all, a tall order for any designer. Have you any inspiration that might resolve this demanding schedule?
Uriah
Plate 1: Chetworth makes some assumptions about the vessel required.
[1] Chetworth employs the Value Proposition Canvas of Osterwalder 117 years before its publication
4th August 1897
From: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
To: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Chetworth House, Cornwall.
Chetworth,
To foray from the beaten path with a portable device is an excellent idea, for which a vessel of light weight will be to our advantage. However, the chemical plant required to generates the necessary hydrogen may demand many tons of precursor materials. A more practical plan may be to arrive at D’Urban and take the rail line to Pietermaritzburg to create a depot upon the train line that will deliver to us the necessary supplies. Southern Africa is known for gold mining, and so perhaps the use of green vitriol by that industry might already habituate the region to the supply of iron and sulphuric acid that we require. From this anchor to civilisation, we would sojourn aloft each day. However, all is not lost, for we may stray from the beaten path by traversing upwards from the ground, rather than out from civilisation[2]. 70 miles to the West of Pietermaritzburg we will find the highest peaks of Southern Africa. Hence, we can both explore the vast savanna and climb to investigate the unexplored heights to which I estimate a five-hour journey aloft. To construct a vessel that can make such a long journey and reach such altitude will, as you propose, demand a novel craft of extremely light weight.
We must therefore significantly decompose the material structure of the airborne device to offer as many functions as possible from only a few components[3]. To this end, I offer a schematic of a typical air-ship on the enclosed papers indicated with the number 1, appended with the functions that we desire. A fabric envelope is filled with hydrogen to lift the payload aloft. A motor propels the vehicle forwards. A pump might be used to control the volume of gas in the envelope and thus control our rate of ascent or descent. Strong steel pressure vessels will store those gasses unused. Indicated with the number 2, I offer our usual matrix of those interactions between our primary components to create the Substance-Field. Indicated with the number 3, the question that remains queries how we might transform this molecule into a structure as small as can possibly be conceived?
I offer a further matrix for your consideration, indicated with the number 4, in which I propose the functions that we desire along the top row. I cross-reference these functions with those components that we might find employed by a typical air-ship. Finally, I propose how those characteristics possessed by each component might offer all of the functions desired. With this tool so constructed, we might draw some conclusions about the form of flying device that could fulfil our needs. Most utility arises from either the fabric that forms the envelope that lifts or from the motor that drives our vehicle forwards. To answer a question, we must ensure that we well form the question itself. As a consequence, I employ this foil and put to you a singular question. How might the forces produced by these assets, to be found perpendicular in my first schematic, be re-tasked to offer all of the functions demanded from the other parts?
For example, near two decades ago Forlanini employed a steam engine pointed vertically that rose some 39 feet from the ground for near two dozen seconds. Perhaps our motors alone might provide both thrust and lift, and eschew the need for the envelope altogether? In this, I create a fanatical device the like of which one might find in Verne, which I took the liberty to idly sketch within the space that remained on the page.
Jenkins
Plate 2: Jenkins describes the basic functions of an air vehicle.
Plate 3: The Substance-Field of an airship is illustrated by Jenkins.
Plate 4: Jenkins would on occasion leap to literal flights of fancy.
[2] Separation Principle 17. Another Dimension. Increase the number of directions in which an object can move. Reorient an object. Use the reverse side. Use multiple layers.
[3] Altshuller’s Standard Solution 3.1.4 System simplification. Achieve all functions but reduce/trim components. Integrate several components into one but still deliver all the functions desired.
18th August 1897
From: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Chetworth House, Cornwall.
To: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
Archie,
My word, how we would thunder through the clouds aboard your fantastic vessel! I fancy that this thrashing machine would demand motors of enormous power to heave it aloft. I doubt that your whirligig might hold us aloft for mere seconds, nor the days that you propose we remain air-borne. An impractical folly indeed. Nay, I would continue with a vessel safely supported by the natural elements beneath the hull, be that sea or air. On your matrix numbered 4 I am drawn not to the motor as you propose, but to the rubberised fabric envelope to offer all of the functions desired. A vessel constructed entirely from fabric might be uncommonly light-weight.
The library of Chetworth House reports a Paul Haenlein in 1872 propelled a balloon with an internal combustion engine running on coal gas. The low density of this gas permitted its use to also inflate the envelope and allow the vehicle to ascend. This strategy combines fuel, fuel tank and lifting envelope into a single device. Despite this efficiency, I fear I have saved little encumbrance from our vessel, for there remains the great mass presented by those motors that drive our vessel forth, and those pumps that modify the volume of gas within the envelope. Perhaps we can too combine these functions into one as you suggest? To this end, I offer a modification to your Substance-Field to realise this strategy and continue your numbering with the label of 5. To separate the gas pump and realise this function with the propulsive motors does result in an illustration of pleasing symmetry. Despite this gain, this new structure seems little changed excepting the loss of an additional pump, and thus remains a good weight of steel and oil to lift to great heights or propel on long journeys.
Besides, I have an alternate means to rid ourselves of the pump with which we might reshape our envelope. Your air-ship minds me of a sea-going vessel, and so I was struck by an idea when I considered the action of a ship’s anchor. With anchor secured, a vessel can be pulled into position through action of the crew. Indeed, a swimmer who desires the deep strongly might employ that anchor chain to pull himself to the very depths as far as his breath will hold. The strength of the crew and the mass of payload is a resource as yet unconsidered. These might reshape the lifting envelope, but perhaps not in the manner you might anticipate! Rather than the weight of anchor pulling down, might an anchor of buoyant structure pull upwards?[4] As I have sketched, prior to flight a primary envelope is filled to provide a buoyancy that matches the payload precisely. The device entire must change its buoyancy without changing the volume of gas within, so we release far into the heavens an auxiliary balloon of smaller size[5] that will ascend rapidly at first but more slowly with increased altitude. With the payload and crew balanced by the primary envelope, could fellows strong of arm haul upon the auxiliary envelope and in their effort to drag it earthward, lighten the primary vessel? Unencumbered, the main vessel may ascend, to be precisely controlled in altitude with an uncommon quiet but for the exertion of the crew. With such silence, we could descend with stealth upon the wildlife below, to observe their behaviour at close quarters. However, despite this effort to silently traverse the terrain, the propulsive motor remains. Have you an alternative means to turn a propeller with power that might retain this stealth?
Uriah
Plate 5: Chetworth attempts to remove the pump that manages envelope buoyancy.
Plate 6: Chetworth hatches a plan to manage altitude entirely by hand.
[4] Altshuller’s Separation Principle 13. Do it in Reverse. Reverse a function. Implement the opposite action. Place an object the other way around or upside down or inside out. Start at the end, and work towards the start.
[5] Separation Principle 1. Segmentation. Divide the object into separate parts. Split the object into independent functions.
29th August 1897
From: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
To: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Chetworth House, Cornwall.
Chetworth,
Your proposal of a flying machine with such stealth that one could descend upon those below undetected will definitely serve our purpose very well. A machine of complete silence, and yet can propel itself at will across the landscape would allow us to advance upon those below little alerting them of our presence, and at a night doubly so. I will devote my energies to realising a vessel with such silence and to this end we have a number of problems and related devices that we must resolve.
First, to fully realise this strategy we must rid ourselves of the behemoth motors that will typically supply motive force. The matrix proposed in my previous correspondence queried whether the gas filled envelope might provide that impulse, and one might immediately leap to rend a hole in this pressurised bladder to allow gas to escape with such force that the envelope entire is propelled forwards. However, to employ the energy stored by this pressure would not propel us far. Alternatively, your suggestion that we employ the envelope itself as fuel store with the enclosed gas as fuel supply is a fine idea, for which I commend you. I propose that we indeed use the fuel in our balloon to propel the balloon, but employ the usual hydrogen as lifting gas and energy supply, for it is superior in lifting power and can be manufactured on-site.
If we do indeed employ the gas that holds us aloft as fuel supply, I can hear your consternation before you utter, for I have proposed a contradiction. The gas that lifts us must also propel us. If we employ the lifting envelope for one purpose, we cannot employ it for the other. To either lift or propel presents a technical contradiction. This envelope must both lift and provide power to propel, but to achieve one may harm the other. How are we to resolve this conundrum? Do remember that we can separate a contradiction between two desires in space, in time, by condition or by scale. The latter strategy is of import here, for what quantity of our lifting gas must we consume to power our journey? How does the volume of gas required to lift compare to the volume of gas we might consume to propel us forward? Fear not, for I estimate that for a flight of ten hours, I suspect that we may consume only three per cent of the lifting volume. The gas needs of propulsion are far smaller than the need for gas to lift the vessel, hence the contradiction is separated by the relative scale of one to the other. Should the journey extend in time and the loss of lift demand compensation, your auxiliary balloon, separate from our primary source of gas and lofted to excessive height, may serve to counter the loss of lift over a matter of days should it be pulled ever earthwards. Furthermore, if you would excuse an indelicate proposal, I suggest that our bodily needs over a matter of days, ultimately tossed overboard, may in some part counter the loss of lift. Other disposables, such as ammunition too may serve to counter the loss.
With combustible Hydrogen secured for our use, how might we transform this chemical energy into useful motive power without recourse to heavy mechanical vessels to contain explosions, pressures, pistons, leaver arms, bearings and gearboxes? How might we combust this mixture without deafening detonation? You will well remember the rocket engine that propelled us across the ice through steam that results from the combustible mixture of hydrogen with oxygen expanded with such a roar that one might presume that we had been attacked by another bear! To do so again would surely send those below scattering in terror at the sound of such a monster. Here we define our problem clearly. How to expand our gas slowly and quietly, using no heavy mechanisms, and yet still draw motive power from the propulsive device?
Jenkins
5th September 1897
From: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Chetworth House, Cornwall.
To: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
Archie,
You set me quite the puzzle, dear boy, for I must draw power from a mighty rocket engine with the roar of a lion whilst taming it to such a degree that it makes no more noise than a mouse. It then struck me to consider, which makes the greatest sound? The bellow of a single lion, or the squeak of one hundred mice? Might our rocketry escape into the atmosphere from a multitude of nozzles spread across our vessel[6]? Might we spread this cacophony amongst many small nozzles distributed around our vast envelope?
Upon further consideration, I fear that placing devices of flame and thunder high in the very combustible canopy that supports our very lives may introduce a point of failure that none would prefer to witness from close quarters. Conversely, such a failure might offer a spectacular sight to those safely below. As a consequence, although linked by the use of combustible gas, perhaps we should firmly separate our means of lift from our means of propulsion. We might simply draw this array of rocketry down to the gondola to sprout from a multitude of arms to breathe their fire around our living space. In the high altitudes of our ultimate destination, this may indeed be agreeable. However, a better idea sprung into my mind.
If such an arrangement of small rockets can push our envelope entire forwards, I was minded of some teaching in my youth. Aeolus, being the Greek god of the air and wind, offers motive power through a motor that shares his name. The Aeolipile, or Hero’s engine, builds steam inside a spherical kettle speared through by a shaft and allowed to rotate on bearings. Two cranked spouts direct steam along the surface of the sphere perpendicular to the shaft which motivates the whole to rotate.
Is our rocket motor, in which hydrogen and oxygen are combined with vigour into gaseous water, not also a steam engine? If we were to attach our propulsive screw to this contraption of Aeolus it would rotate without recourse to those deafening detonations required to drive the piston of a reciprocating engine. This continuous conflagration separates combustion from detonation[7], and if spread across sufficient mouths might transform a roar into a rush potentially mistaken by the beasts below for a common gust of wind? As a result, the thrust from a rocket that proceeds as straight as an arrow becomes motion in rotation[8].
With the rocketry concentrated to a smaller volume and driven to rotate a propeller, perhaps the opportunity arises to further separate its roar from the beasts we wish to stalk by placing the whole spinning contraption inside some box well insulated to avoid the escape of sound[9]? Have I yet expanded our gasses sufficiently quietly, using no heavy mechanisms, and yet still managed to draw from it sufficient motive power?
Uriah
Plate 7: Chetworth draws from his understanding of antiquity to create a suitable engine.
[6] Noisy, but silent. Separation Principle 1. Segmentation. Divide the object into separate parts. Fragment the object into powders, grains, droplets, etc. Split the object into independent functions.
[7] Separation Principle 20. Continuity of Useful Action. Continuously work at full capacity without a break. Demand the full output from all parts of an object. Remove periods of idleness. Replace vibration with rotation.
[8] Separation Principle 14. Spheroidality. Curvature. Replace straight parts with curved parts. Replace motion in a straight line with rotation. Use rollers, or balls, or spirals, or domes. Use centrifugal force.
[9] Separation Principle 11. Cushion in Advance. Prepare in advance a function that will mitigate potential harms, should they arise.
18th September 1897
From: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
To: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Chetworth House, Cornwall.
Chetworth,
I am impressed with your efforts to provide a means of propulsion. Once the problem is well-formed, the first step to provide a solution is to determine if another has already offered an answer. However, only Chetworth would recourse to antiquity itself to discover the required prior art.
A Catherine wheel of steam rocketry may offer us the propulsive means we require. However, I fear that the mechanism that you describe may remain a somewhat complex and heavy device that we must loft to great altitude. I would suggest that we continue our deliberations, in which some modification of your original idea might offer a lighter load.
In the meantime, we must turn also to our second problem if we are to move with silence through the air. We must find some means to transform these energies into motive force. A propulsive screw that spins sufficiently fast to provide thrust will thrash at the air to produce frothing and foaming similar to that seen astern of a ship. This thrashing produces shearing forces that tear at the air with such terrific violence that considerable noise will result. The propeller produces motive force by pumping a mass of air through the disc swept by the blades. To increase this mass of air one might increase the speed of air pushed through the disc by increasing the rate at which the propeller spins. The faster this propeller thrashes at the air, the greater the sound.
To make headway with silence we must derive force from our propeller whilst spinning it as slowly as possible. If we cannot spin the propeller faster, so must we transform some other feature of the device[10]. To increase the mass of air pumped astern we might increase the size of our propeller to enormous dimensions. To minimise noise, we must construct a mechanism to move a vast disc of air that may encompass our vehicle entire and be thrust astern. I would propose that we aim to design a propeller at least twice the span of that employed by La France, to quadruple the area of that mouth which consumes our propulsive medium.
To achieve this span, I suggest that we turn to prior art[11] that possesses more in common with your beloved sailing vessels. Imagine in your mind’s eye the great sails stretched above your vessel. Our airborne vessel must move with the very wind from which we might wish to draw some impulse. A vessel unfixed to the surface of the Earth must follow the prevailing weather, and so to employ sails as a ship might is beyond our reach. With craft and wind moving together we will draw no perpendicular force from such sails and can neither tack nor jibe. Alternatively, perhaps we can employ vast sails to operate as a propeller? Consider, a ship in full sail, but reversed whereby the ship moves wind of our own making and not the converse. Can you draw upon your naval skills to offer a proposal for such a propeller?
This vast volume of air serves a second purpose. The desire for silent motion offers a blessing in disguise as a slow impulse upon a vast area of air offers a more efficient means to propel our vessel forth. If we wish to remain aloft for hours, or even a full day, such efficiencies will be very welcomed.
Jenkins
[10] Separation Principle 35. Transform properties. Change a Parameter. Change the concentration, density, flexibility, temperature, volume, pressure or other physical state of a component.
[11] A fundamental feature of Altshuller’s innovation framework is to investigate prior art before embarking upon innovative thinking. If an inventor has already solved your problem, you may not have to reinvent the wheel. Efficient innovation is key.
27th September 1897
From: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Chetworth House, Cornwall.
To: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
Archie,
I have designed a number of seagoing vessels in my time and thought the design of a suitable sail to act as propeller a straightforward task. Little did I know that the effort would diverge somewhat from traditional marine architecture. Indeed, this vast and combined sail need turn only slowly to consume a large volume of air. However, it took only a few minutes consideration to realise that the construction of four large sails accompanied by mast and rigging would rapidly diverge from our desire to construct a lightweight and portable device. Consequently, I flung my scrawls into the fire in frustration but rescued them soon after so you might review my progress[12].
Your direction to consider a marine solution had driven me to a significant psychological inertia, in which I could think of nought else but the sail of a ship to resolve our problem. I took a short stroll around the house gardens and resolved to break this inertia with some structure, for we know well that to be both large and small is a classic contradiction which we understand well how to resolve. The sail of a naval vessel does offer some of the features that we desire, for the thin film or flexible membrane offered by the canvas sail will fold neatly into a small volume for storage. After all, that is their very purpose onboard a marine vessel. To identify the problem with precision will draw our focus upon the mast itself. Rarely must I ever store more than a single mast entire, and a strong crew aboard a solid vessel offer many opportunities for storage and handling of this stout support. I surmised that I must search elsewhere for this mighty trunk. If I removed this wooden support[13], what structures remain? The canvas sail and the rigging remain to form my structure. How could these flexible parts offer the stiffness we require[14]? I considered stretching the canvas with a weight strung below, but this would not allow the sail to rotate above. I considered the reverse[15], to stretch the canvas taut with yet another small balloon, to encounter the very same problem, but inverted[16]. In this inversion of mass to employ a balloon, I soon discovered the solution that stared me in the face. I looked to the heavens for a solution to see the very lifting envelop that supports our craft. Could I simply fill an envelope shaped as a sail with pressurised gas to provide vast propeller?[17] In this, the canvas of a sail supports itself![18].
Uriah
Plate 8: Not every idea is a good idea.
[12] Record your bad ideas. After all, two half ideas can combine to make a wholly good one.
[13] Separation Principle 2. Taking out. Extract and employ only the useful part, or separate the harmful part from the object.
[14] Separation Principle 6. Universality. Perform multiple functions with a single component and remove the redundant components.
[15] Separation Principle 13. Do it in Reverse. Reverse a function. Implement the opposite action. Place an object the other way around or upside down or inside out. Start at the end, and work towards the start.
[16] Separation Principle 8. Counterweight. Compensate for the weight of an object by combining it with another object that has lifting power. Employ a lifting force from the environment.
[17] Separation Principle 29. Pneumatics and Hydraulics. Replace solid objects with gasses or liquids. Inflate components or create cushions. Use a vacuum.
[18] Separation Principle 25. Self-Service. Allow an object to offer a benefit or remove a harm from itself.
7th October 1897
From: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
To: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Chetworth House, Cornwall.
Chetworth,
Thank you for the rescue of your notes from the flames of your hearth, for they do illustrate well your efforts to break a psychological inertia for which I fear I am to blame. It is so vital that we ask questions well, for an error at this early stage can drive those queried down a false path from which they may never escape[19]. Please accept my apologies.
Your escape from these constraints and subsequent proposal to inflate our vast but silent propeller presents us with a number of options. If we did fill the propeller with lifting gas, we offer yet another envelope that will contribute to the total lift of the vessel. This is to be appreciated, but arranged as you suggest in your previous correspondence I fear we may place the exposed rocketry within our gondola much too close to the pressurised envelope of our propeller that we will have filled with explosive gas. To separate the hazard presented by the co-location of rocket efflux and explosive gas led me to consider alternative resources in our problem[20] that may offer gasses that can pressurise our propeller. I propose an alternative.
Do remember that we had resolved to simplify the steam-powered rotor that you proposed in a previous correspondence. I noted at the time that your efforts to simplify and lighten the motor in comparison to a petroleum motor were well made. However, we still had need to simplify further[21] to reduce weight to a minimum. Your proposal spreads a roaring rocketry between four nozzles. We know well that an elegant solution will arise if we can trim components from the solution, and ensure that each part that remains performs as many functions as can possibly be squeezed from each.
We have proposed a gas generator at the hub of a vast propeller to create a large volume of hot, gaseous steam that expands to provide our propulsive effect. This minds me to consider, need we pressurise this vast propeller specifically with fuel gas? Could we achieve a similar end by pressurising this additional envelope with high pressure and hot steam? If our envelope could survive the rigours of this hot gas, a tremendous opportunity arises to indeed offer a motor to Aeolus. What if we not only introduced this gas into the propeller to inflate it rigid but also permitted this hot gas to escape from the envelope in a manner that will provoke it to turn? If a suitable envelope material can be sourced, we can trim three of your rocket nozzles from the design and suffice with a single combustion chamber to feed our propeller envelope with hot gas. Through the trimming, merging and consolidation of components our motor becomes a single combustion chamber of only a single rotating part, an ignition mechanism, and a small air pump without reciprocating pistons nor rods that must resist explosive fuels
We near our goal, but a final question remains. The unfamiliarity of this design constitutes an undiscovered country for us to explore, much as we might a new continent. Does the novelty of our new design offer any new benefits that cannot be realised by a more established approach?
Jenkins
Plate 9: Jenkins proposes the propulsive steam to inflate the propeller
[19] Expressing the problem well is as important a task as formulating a solution. Spend at least half of the effort formulating a good question.
[20] Always list all of the resources available within the problem space. If we can avoid smuggling new components into the problem space and employ resources already present, elegant solutions may result.
[21] Keep trimming, until you can trim no more.
19th October 1897
From: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Chetworth House, Cornwall.
To: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
Archie,
In our pursuit of a structure that is both portable and silent we near our goal! In our trimming, the fewer parts that remain the better the score, much as the fewest strokes taken in a round of golf will win the day. If we were to keep score in our exchange, I fear I may be losing. However, I have some remaining strokes to play and hope them long.
The power realised by combustion of hydrogen and oxygen within our chamber is transferred to the vessel not through the velocity of gas as one might a rocket, but via the high pressure that issues from this chamber. If we were to wrap this chamber in insulating material, we not only maintain the temperature in this chamber to better combust our gasses, but also this material will dampen the sounds that issue forth. The only escape for the untamed noise of combustion is from the very pipe that feeds our propeller. Might a further segmentation within this structure diminish the noise of combustion further?
I both correspond and share an enthusiasm for motor vehicles with an acquaintance who resides within the United States. This correspondent finds objectionable the noise that results from the sudden release of explosive gasses from the engine of a motorcycle. This very year he proposes a means by which the expansion of these exhaust gasses might do so gradually, and in so doing to break it up and cool it to such an extent that when it is finally exhausted into the atmosphere its pressure and temperature are practically normal. Clearly, we do not wish to do similar, for it is this pressure that is ultimately transformed into the velocity that drives our propeller. However, might we trade some thermal energy using pockets and chambers within our propeller envelope to quieten the roar of our combustion? Might noises be diminished by a series of passages, chambers or resonating chambers, tuned in such a way that they cause destructive interference?
If an internally segmented device is employed to quieten our device, this raises a question. At one soiree at Chetworth House some years ago now, inebriated, I dropped a full magnum of Champaign upon its head. The bottleneck was sheared complete, to propel the fine and somewhat expensive liquid from the open end by the pressure of gas that had collected at the bottle bottom. The bottle entire flew across the room at such a tremendous rate that guests were sent scattering to every corner of the ballroom! Our high-pressure steam is provoked to high velocity only upon its exit from the fabric of the propeller and will shriek up exit. If momentum is to be generated and transferred to our propeller, and as momentum is a combination of mass and velocity, could we diminish this shriek by making a trade of velocity for mass? Thermal energy is lost as this steam passes through the complex structure. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, this steam will cool within the whirling blade to transform into liquid water[22]. With the pressure of combustion behind it, might the ejection of water from our propeller do so at a slower velocity but with a greater density, to produce a rocket propelled by liquid water as its working material? This water constitutes a plug at the outlet of our envelope behind which the full pressure of our combustion chamber drives. In the act of ejecting water at a lower speed than a gas rocket, do we further quieten our propulsive mechanism to that of a powerful garden hose?
Uriah
[22] We must retain our momentum but slow the speed of the efflux. Separation Principle 36. Phase Transition. Freeze, condense, melt or boil a material to change its state.
6th July 1897
From: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
To: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Chetworth House, Cornwall.
Chetworth,
Your water propelled rocket exhibits merit. However, the novelty of the design will demand considerable experimentation to trust our lives aloft. I propose a period of experimentation on the house grounds to fully appreciate this technology. I offer an illustration of our preliminary proposal from which we must draught engineering drawings from which to work.
Now that we have arrived at a preliminary proposal, it is worth reviewing our journey, for I note that we did not follow our proposed plan. We elected to decompose our Substance-Field to the smallest of molecules, and you did indeed make some headway in this regard. We employed this illustration to trim fuel supply and fuel tanks, and replaced pumps to control altitude with muscle power from the crew. I note that we now have a component powered by hydrogen that revolves, with which we might wind earthwards our auxiliary balloon. However, I prefer your alternative, as this would offer a means of ascent and descent whilst under no power and in complete silence.
We have trimmed this system, but our primary process has considered each node, in turn, to simply reduce the harms imposed by each. Scrutiny of this illustration highlights our focus upon the motor and fuel supply and also exposes our neglect of alternative means to an elegant solution. Note the lack of effort to reduce our payload demands. I intended further correspondence in which effort is made to propose lightweight alternatives to our equipment needs and diminish our payload to a minimum. However, perhaps our emergency contingencies avoid this need. We must take a 5-hour journey to the highest ground of Southern Africa and can take with us no additional means of transport, such as horse nor mule. As a consequence, what are we to do should our vessel fail? I do not relish a 70 mile descent on foot with the minimum of supplies.
As a consequence, those supplies required to sustain us in flight must also sustain a long hike through mountainous terrain. The demands upon these supplies aloft match those contingent. Supplies must be portable and carried in entire by the crew[23]. I consider those supplies of greatest weight, such as food and water, in plentiful supply in the local environment. Hence, I do wonder if a transport from the region may be similarly sourced? Correspondence with our contacts in the Royal Society suggests that the source of the Umkomazi River is to be found in the highest peak, Thabana Ntlenyana, and also passes only some 25 miles from Pietermaritzburg. If we were to foray to this river source aloft, we not only ensure a ready supply of water to sustain our expedition but also remain close to a potential route of escape. We have lightened our vessel by making considerable use of parts inflatable. Should an alternate means of travel home be required, our lightweight, portable design allows us to cannibalise our flying vehicle into a wide range of possible marine vessels, from an inflatable raft for a single man to an entire barge with which we could navigate the Umkomazi river and back to civilisation.
Under such contingent circumstance, Chetworth not only becomes captain of the heavens on the outward journey but also should the worst arise becomes captain of the waters on the return home!
Jenkins
Plate 10: Jenkins offer some preliminary proposals for an airship of uncommon stealth.
Plate 11: Jenkins reviews the solution strategy.
[23] Separation Principle 22. Blessing in Disguise. Transform a harm into a benefit. Use a harm to remove another harm. Increase a harm until it is no longer harmful.
6th November 1898
CHETWORTH PREPARES FOR AIRBORNE NAVIGATION OF THE AFRICAN CONTINENT. MASSIVE EXPLOSION AT CHETWORTH HOUSE!
An enormous explosion rocked Chetworth village to herald Lord Uriah Chetworth’s expedition to Southern Africa. Residents of the village gathered in the church hall to discuss the alarming turn of events; a meeting attended by Lord Chetworth himself. In the early hours of Tuesday morning, on the first day of November, residents of the village were awoken by a mighty detonation that rattled windows some 3 miles from the grounds of Chetworth House. A great plume of white smoke could be seen rising from the house grounds, and the volunteers of the local fire service made haste to the grand house to investigate the commotion.
His Lordship was in residence at the time, to be found outside the famous house manufactory from which the miraculous inventions of Chetworth laboratories so very often emerge. His Lordship was found accompanied by his staff, all somewhat blackened and concussed by the event but little more worse for wear. The manufactory was intact, however, a nearby outhouse in which experimentation had taken place was ablaze. No casualties had resulted from the detonation, and much to the consternation of the assembled fire service those discovered at the scene were in higher spirits that their situation might have demanded. The amusement of the assembled did raise some displeasure amongst the volunteers of the fire service, for they well know the dangers of an uncontrolled flame. His Lordship met with the fire service as they arrived, to offer refreshments to the crew and an explanation of the morning’s events which was repeated at the village gathering later in the day.
The detonation which had so shaken the residents arose from the successful generation and accidental ignition of a large quantity of hydrogen gas on the house grounds intended to lift a novel airship (pictured). Chetworth explained to village residents that the explosion demonstrates the successful generation of sufficient hydrogen gas from their portable gas generation plant that will soon form a base of operations in Zululand. After this meeting, a considerable sum was donated by Chetworth to the local shelter for abandoned cats, due to the commotion that ensured and the considerable injury to those kindly ladies who care for these destitute felines.
Plate 12: Local residents of Chetworth House were surprisingly tolerant of His Lordship’s antics.
Historical context
Chetworth and Jenkins did not invent a rocket-powered airship. This proposal is perhaps a little ambitious for the period. However, a number of original patents offered inspiration for this development which well serves the narrative desired.
The construction of an airship with the endurance desired by Jenkins is an ambitious plan in 1897. Jules Henri Giffard launched a powered airship 45 year earlier 1852, propelled by a 2.2 kilowatt steam engine weighing 160kg. This early airship travelled 6 miles per hour and made a journey of almost 17 miles. Jenkin’s model for his own vehicle is the airship La France, constructed at Chalais-Meudon near Paris in 1879. On its seven flights in 1884 and 1885 the La France airship returned five times to its starting point. To serve the needs of Chetworth and Jenkins a little fictional ambition extends this performance over a decade later to a 150 mile round trip taking 10 hours.
Chetworth proposes that a lightweight aircraft could be constructed, that might allow the expedition to transport it by hand far inland to unexplored regions. This might be feasible if it were not for the enormous quantity of precursor material required to generate the necessary hydrogen. As a result, Jenkins suggests a portable chemical plant be constructed near the rail line, to consume materials delivered by train. The inspiration for this plan is drawn from two patents. Patent US229034, Apparatus For Producing Hydrogen Gas, was granted to Eugene Ernest Egasse of Paris in 1880. In the words of Egasse, the invention consists, essentially, in the elements peculiar and necessary novel to combination produce hydrogen of the various gas in a rapid and economical manner, more especially designed for use in conjunction with balloons, and in the peculiar compact arrangement and relation to each other of said elements, whereby the apparatus, as a whole, is made readily portable or may be directly attached as a necessary appendage to balloons…The apparatus, when employed for the inflation of balloons, for instance, being very compact and at the same time capable of generating great volumes of gases, is readily made portable, and such balloons may therefore be inflated without first carrying them near gas works from which the gas is obtained; in fact, the apparatus may be made a part of the balloon and supply the necessary gas during a voyage without necessitating a landing to make up any deficiency in the supply of gas which may result from either natural or compulsory escape, and when such a necessity arises in a place where there are no gas-works the voyage is necessarily interrupted.
Five years later a Portable Gas-Generator For Filling Balloons is proposed by Carl E. Myers, of New York, patent US320885. Myers invented a new and useful improvement in Portable Gas-Generators for filling balloons by the Vitriolic Process, which differs from those heretofore in use in being much more compact as to bulk, portable as to weight, and more durable or capable of repeated action, without serious injury from the destructive energy of the sulphuric acid used with it, while it is also more readily set in operation, and is more rapid in action and develops more gas at less expense than any vitriolic. In this design, rather than employ metallic reaction vessels, wooden reaction vessels are employed, despite the need to contain sulphuric acid required to generate hydrogen. Subsequent contact with dilute sulphuric acid converted into a coating of indestructible carbon, which protects the underlying wood and the oil which impregnates it, and thus secures it from further attacks…The subsequent application of dilute sulphuric acid to the interior of the tank in actual use, while generating hydrogen gas by the action of vitriol on fine iron turnings, is sufficient to burn, carbonize, or otherwise change the exposed oil-soaked wood, so that it is enabled to resist the further corrosive action of the acid. This comparative indestructibility permits of the repeated charging and discharging of the tanks, so that small ones may, by continuous and repeated use, serve in place of a much larger tank not so protected, while the smaller size permits of easy movement by one person, and cheaper transportation, the operations of gas-balloonists being largely itinerant and the necessity of cheap and easy transportation imperative.
The reaction container is vulnerable to attack from acid, but must be in contact with this acid. This contradiction is resolved by self-service[24], and a blessing in disguise[25] to result in a small lightweight chemical plant. The sentiment of these designs offers Jenkins the portable plant he desired. The practicality of these proposals I leave to the chemists.
Chetworth’s proposal to silently control the altitude of his balloon using manpower alone pulling upon a smaller auxiliary envelope is drawn from US patent 213603. An Improvement In Aerial Balloons was granted in 1879 to Count Antoine Apraxine, of St. Petersburg, in the Empire of Russia, presently resident at Paris, in France. The design of Count Apraxine is illustrated in Figure 1. Count Apraxine, explains. This invention relates to improvements in the construction or arrangement of aerial balloons, with a view to facilitate the working and control of the same, and to permit of dispensing, either wholly or partially, with the discharge of ballast or gas during the ascensions or descents… the upper balloon, c, is allowed to rise alone to the desired height, and the lower balloon, a, being loaded as nearly as possible to the point of equilibrium, its ascent is effected by the aeronaut hauling in the line, which may be recoiled in the car, or allowed to pass freely through the bottom of the latter. The proposal is ingenious. However, I suspect it may only offer a practical means to control altitude should the auxiliary balloon be quite large in comparison to the primary lifting envelope, or employ rope to the auxiliary balloon that extends thousands of feet in length to draw this control through a wide range of atmospheric densities.
Figure 1: The dual balloon of Count Apraxine, 1879
The use of the lifting gas as propulsive fuel arises a number of times in the historical record. The particular calculation that exposes the scale difference between the needs of lift and the needs of propulsion is not my own but is offered by Paul Haenlein, of Mainz, Germany in 1872. US patent 130915 describes the use of the gas filling the balloon for propelling power as well as for ascending. The gas-engine is fed from the contents of the balloon itself. The gas is mixed in the interior of the working-cylinder of the engine with air-say, one volume of gas to twelve of air-which is ignited by an electrical spark, by which means the piston of the cylinder is caused to move to and fro. The engine is driven not by an excess of pressure of the gas in the balloon, but by the explosive power of a mixture of gas and air. As, by degrees, the engine consumes gas of the balloon the ascensive power of the latter is lessening, to compensate for which a certain quantity of ballast has to be thrown out; and in the mean time, to keep up the same pressure in the interior of the balloon, as gas is consumed by the engine, air is to be introduced by a fan or some other means. The consumption of the gas by the engine is so little that for ten hours working it amounts to only three per cent of the contents of the balloon. A contradiction beautifully separated by the relative scale of each need.
Chetworth suggests that the noise of combustion might be diminished by segmenting the propulsive device into a number of smaller thrusters. This idea was drawn from The British patent GB189914615A awarded in 1899 to Heinrich Bauer, a glove manufacturer of Prague. One or more ventilators or blowers actuated by any means but preferably by electricity are placed. The strong current of air thus produced is directed through tubes provided with cocks or valves to nozzles arranged horizontally preferably at the central portion of the balloon or machine. Chetworth then modifies his idea to employ multiple jets to rotate a propeller. The steam engine of antiquity provides a preliminary inspiration. However, patent US37841, an Improvement In Rotary Engines awarded to Solomon S. Mecay in 1863 ultimately provided a model for a simple rotary steam jet to offer inspiration more contemporary to Chetworth. Mecay writes, my improvements relate more especially to the construction and arrangement of the drum or propelling-cylinder, also to the steam eduction channels and exhaust-outlets of rotary engines; and the nature of said improvements consists in so increasing the internal area of the steam-drum as to produce a greater capacity for an accumulating volume of steam, and, furthermore, so forming and arranging the eduction-channels and exhaust-outlets in such a manner, remote and disconnected from the ports, as to receive a greater pressure there against by compression, yet diminishing the surface of friction, resulting in an increased energy or power of the engine.
We must wait until 1967 before we see the inflatable sail proposed by Chetworth (US3298346, Steven M. Cochran, Winchester, Mass.) However, I felt that the existence of inflatable mattresses sufficient to offer Chetworth the inspiration for a propeller blade of similar design. A mattress inflated by air and of suitable structure to provide inspiration for this pneumatic wing is provided by US66706, awarded in 1867 to Jonathan R, Hamilton of Oregon. The object of my invention is to make air beds, of any suitable size or dimensions, that will keep level and in proper form whether partially or fully inflated. My invention consists in the construction, arrangement, and combination of the screw and cap-nut stays fastenings with the stay-cords and air-tight, water-proof bed-tick. My invention further consists in the self-closing puppet-valve tubes for inflating the bed, and the manner of securing the same to the tick air-tight…The cloth or ticking for making my improved air beds is coated on one side with India rubber or other elastic cement, so as to make it impervious to water, or so as to prevent the air, when compressed, from passing through it.
Most notable in the proposals made by Chetworth and Jenkins is the use of hydrogen combustion to create rocket propulsion. The use of hydrogen as a rocket fuel is a product of 20th Century research, with the launch of Goddard’s first liquid fuelled rocket in 1926. Goddard’s research is perhaps a little too late in history for Chetworth to consider hydrogen as a suitable fuel with which to make a steam rocket. However, consider patent GB188103561A proposed in 1881 by Auguste Henry Van De Kerkhove and Theodore Snyers from Belgium and illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2: A New And Improved Method Of And Machinery For The Direct Propulsion Of Land, Water And Aerial Motors Or Engines, Applicable Also As Stationary Engines.
This proposal is perhaps a good example of those designs proposed in the fiction inhabited by Chetworth and Jenkins. A proposal that can be theoretically conceived, but is perhaps physically impractical given the technology of the day. Electrical batteries are employed to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. These materials are them permitted to vigorously recombine into water, releasing heat with a resulting expansion as steam.
This invention is based upon the fact that a liquid or gas issuing from a reservoir exerts on the wide opposite the escape or exit opening a pressure, a reacting pressure which is in direct proportion to the speed with which it escapes. It is the principle on which reacting vessels, hydraulic turbines, and the like are constructed; it is the force or reaction which imparts to the cannon and fire-arm the recoil movement when the gun is discharged. In this design electrical power is employed to create the necessary combustible materials which are delivered to storage chambers. A system of pumps and governor mechanisms regulate the supply of gas to a blower. The blower propeller is an important element of the system, its form and size vary according to the requirements and the use to which they are applied; it may be pear shaped cast in bronze, cast iron, or made of iron or copper plates; the hydrogen and oxygen injected by the regulator explode by coming in contact with the flame of a lamp or of a gas jet, the air contained in the blower and the air issuing violently by the very narrow neck exerts an enormous pressure on the semi-spherical base opposite to the summit of the cone. And in order that after the action there may be re-action thereon, the blower is provided with a funnel shaped opening to assist the air to enter in the blower after the vacuum caused by the explosion.
In this design, Van De Kerkhove and Snyers propose a jet engine with features similar to the pulse detonation engine that propelled the German V1 flying bomb over half a century later. Van De Kerkhove and Snyers recognise the utility of this jet motor and continue in their patent to invent the jet powered aircraft employed by Chetworth and Jenkins in an earlier adventure over the arctic ice.
This system of direct propulsion solves the problem of mechanical flying on the aeroolynostatic [sic] theory ‘heavier than air’. It is the flying kite improved or adapted to the practical requirements of aerial navigation. By decomposition of forces it is proved that the resistance of air tends to lift up vertically an inclined plane in motion. This decomposition gives theoretically a vertical leverage power of about 90% of the power which pushes the inclined plane against the air, but say for all practical purposes 75%, than a uniform constant pressure of about 500lbs. pushing an inclined plane against the air will raise a weight of 375lbs. This power is obtained by means of the system of direct propulsion of an inclined plane; this inclined plane to ensure its stability of suspension is lightly divided longitudinally on its transverse axis. The hull of the ship is relatively very long, narrow, and high enough, knife blade shaped, in order to cut well through the air. In the rear part of the hull, the blowing apparatus or propeller is placed, firmly secured, and forming a part fixed to the hull so as to transmit its impulsion to the whole structure, on which is fitted the inclined plane of the wings. The blowing propeller of conical form, convex base (pear shaped), very long, with a very small neck for propulsion, and if desired provided with a reaction funnel as before.
The generation and regulation arrangements are placed in the hull of the ship, so as to place the centre of gravity of the apparatus under the centre of suspension of the inclined plane, the displacement of this centre being the base of direction. The ship at rest floats on the water and there re-descends after the aerial voyage. Supposing that is weight, apparatus and passengers, about 1600lbs., if for this system of direct propulsion we develop a pressure of 2200lbs. while floating, the apparatus will slowly rise out of the water and will go through the air. In this design, Van De Kerkhove and Snyers propose the pulse detonation jet powered flying boat illustrated in Figure 3, twenty years before the Wright brothers flew, and over fifty years before the jet age. Such is the nature of innovation, where design can precede practical implementation by a great many years and is the nature of the fiction in which Chetworth and Jenkins inhabit.
Figure 3: The Van De Kerkhove and Snyers propose the pulse detonation jet powered flying boat
Van De Kerkhove and Snyers continue by putting all of the pieces together to propose the generation of power using a fixed or stationary engine that employs a rotary jet turbine. Unlike the continuous jet described by Chetworth, the rotary steam turbine of Van De Kerkhove and Snyers continues to employ a detonation to propel it, contrary to Chetworth’s desire for more silent operation.
Finally, Chetworth refers to an acquaintance with which he corresponds on the matter of automobile design. In particular, Chetworth refers to the engine muffler or silencer. In 1897 patent US582485 was indeed awarded to Milton O. Reeves and Marshal. T. Reeves, citizens of Indiana. Our invention is especially adapted for use with high-tension explosion-engines to be used in propelling motorcycles. It has been found best in practice to use a high-tension explosion-engine on motorcycles, so as to attain a maximum power with a minimum weight of engine; but one of the objectionable features of this class of engine is the noise due to the sudden release of the exploded mixture after it has accomplished its work in driving the piston. The object of our invention is to provide means for expanding the exhaust product gradually, and in so doing to break it up and cool it to such an extent that when it is finally exhausted into the atmosphere its pressure and temperature are practically normal.
As far as I know, the liquid powered bottle rocket was indeed invented by Lord Uriah Chetworth during a party in which we dropped a bottle of expensive Champaign upon its head, to shear the neck entire and propel the bottle across the ballroom. Beyond this, I can find no other record.
[24] Separation Principle 25. Self-Service. Allow an object to offer a benefit or remove a harm from itself. Employ waste energy or material.
[25] Separation Principle 22. Blessing in Disguise. Transform a harm into a benefit. Use a harm to remove another harm. Increase a harm until it is no longer harmful.
Very cool. Gets me thinking of air ships. With todays transparent plastics and resins, I’m sure a blimp comprised mostly of said materials would be extremely stealthy. If one also pairs with a Lubors lens array (as some people online already created “invisibility shields) it could be even more stealthy maybe. If one wants quite propulsion and electric perhaps some ionic wind propulsion device and or sail? A bit futuristic but near silent means propulsion. Steam also can be extremely quite too though as seen in those old steam powered cars. A bit of Tesla’s remote capabilities control would be a vessel worthy for lord :)