3rd January 1892
From: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Cornwall.
To: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
Archie,
Our next adventure soon arrives! You may be glad to know that we return to the frozen landscape. A land devoid of any hostile human encounter. Rest assured, we hope to avoid the traumas of our previous adventure. On his occasion, we travel to the base of the world, to the Antarctic, in pursuit of that great leviathan of the sea. However, we seek not to slaughter this magnificent beast, as reported by Melville in the year of my birth. Instead, we plan to deliver a school of those engaged in cetaceous research from the Royal Society to the edge of the Antarctic ice to study the habits of those whale species that inhabit the frozen south. We hope to detect suitable specimens in the open sea and follow the whale at some discrete distance, as that great detective of the Strand Magazine might trail an alert suspect to determine his habits.
I was approached by the Royal Society in the usual manner and was introduced to those portly individuals within the Cetology research community who have risen to such a position of authority that they govern the expenditure of funds and resources in their quest for knowledge. Naturally, I invited these gentlemen to a private club in the London city of which I am a member, to sample the fine spirits and fortified wines retained by the institution for just such an occasion. I was well prepared for this encounter and, in particular, was well aware that these worthies of the whale watching world have often come into dispute at public conferences and within the pages of those scientific papers that such gents are wont to pass as currency between themselves. Once settled into the finest port it took but little time for these two gents to foray back to the bosom of their disagreement and set too.
The topic upon which they settled, and about which had no doubt met on numerous occasions, roused their spirits into a debate to such an extent that club stewards had on more than a single instance the occasion to intervene and keep order, lest the raised voice of science itself disturb other members in the lounge. I was quite bemused by this dispute and found little that might sway me one way or the other. The question to be resolved concerns the minke whale, a small example of the baleen type that is most agile and can swim with considerable speed. We concern ourselves with their feeding habits, and in particular whether they feed beneath the ice of the southern oceans. Suffice it to say, it seems that some in the whaling world consider the minke much like other cetaceous species, who lunge into the depths to find their meal. Others who engage in such research suspect that these creatures dart with speed just below the ice that covers the southern waters, gulping huge mouthfuls of marine creatures to be found near this frozen boundary as they travel. Once the evening had worn to such time that our waiter began to make polite suggestion that we avail ourselves of a carriage or of the private rooms to be found in the club, my guests were two sheets to the very wind that I hope will carry us Southward. The hour became late, and yet strongly they still swam, fortified in academic redoubt built from the logic of their respective positions. Of course, if they had come to some agreement, it seemed likely that our motivation to travel to southern climates might dissipate as might their enmity, and with it the necessary funds to finance our next adventure. Knowing something of whales from my many years of marine adventure, it was not difficult to bolster the defense of one side should a particularly good argument convince the other and threaten an unsatisfactory armistice. With the club stewards breathing down my collar, and time running short, the necessary funds required to resolve this dispute were promised and papers signed. So, we are off to the southern pole in search of whales!
As a consequence, despite the scientific frame about this quest, we venture to the frozen southern pole to settle a wager between two venerable fellows who wield some considerable influence in that world of cetaceous research. The problem before us is simple. How might we detect this small species of whale, pursue it to its feeding grounds at a healthy distance to avoid disturbing its natural course, and follow it beneath the ice?
Uriah
12th January 1892
From: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
To: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Cornwall.
Uriah
I assure you that I am quite recovered from our jungle trials. For certain, one may on occasion revisit these dark dangers in that isolated narrative to be encountered each night. However, perhaps this fantasy is mere debate with one's own self, and as I am sure to come to some agreement such visions will hopefully fade with time.
As we turn to our new horizon, again we turn to prior art for solutions before we embark upon the task of problem-solving. It occurs that your request is surely a solved problem. After all, the whaling fleets of the world have hunted these leviathan for centuries. A stroll to the Bristol docks might easily discover those who would teach me well how to find and how to pursue whales of every species. However, I suspect the objectives of your cetologists may incorporate goals little considered by those marine hunters[1]. We wish to pursue the whale, but do not wish to startle him from his usual habits. We wish to follow his trail, without warning that you walk his path or indeed swim in his waters at all. Indeed, to pursue a whale beneath the ice of the Antarctic is a trail that no whaler ever considered to follow. Furthermore, I thought it best that I inform myself of the habits of our quarry and have spent some time in academic pursuit of our prey. It seems that we wish to stalk a species of whale that is not only particularly small, but also unusually fast through the water, and also sufficiently supple to present a rather agile target. Should we startle this beast, our vessel must offer over twenty-four miles per hour to keep pace, which your maritime skills may indeed coax from sail and steam. However, in the effort to make rapid headway we may make such a tremendous noise that our quarry will only be motivated to further flight. The minke whale is also not disposed to remain at the surface for long periods, but to our advantage must make his presence known every twenty minutes or so to take a breath.
Hence, our means to track this creature is laid bare. We cannot follow this creature as we might a whaleboat towed by a fixed line driven into the beast’s flesh. We must suffice with periodic sightings made at intervals of up to twenty minutes[2]. In this time, at full flight a minke whale might make headway eight miles hidden from our view, to take a moment’s breath and sink once more beneath the waves. From a mast top one hundred feet from the ocean surface, we see only twelve miles before the horizon obscures our objective. A minke whale beside our vessel and startled to its maximum speed must only surface but once or twice to take a breath before the earth's limb conceals him from our view forever. Finally, at only twenty-six feet in length, such a speck may be impossible to discern against the vast void of grey sea.
Our pursuit must therefore resolve numerous contradictions[3]. We must pursue at speed, and yet remain silent. We must observe a large area and yet must locate a small object within that huge expanse of ocean. We must scrutinise every small patch of ocean in detail to find a small object and yet must also survey every inch of a huge expanse in detail. I propose that these contradictions may be resolved if we achieve two ends. First, we must never startle the creatures into flight, and hence need never resort to steam to build up speed. Second, we must devise some mechanism that makes our target much easier to detect at a great distance. Observe that each solution serves the other. The less likely we provoke the creature the flight, the closer we draw him to our observation. The greater distance from which we can observe the target, the less likely we will provoke it to flight. So, I ask you, how might we observe a whale from a great distance? How might we make this whale more easily observed?
Archie
[1] Every customer has the chance of exhibiting some unique idiosyncrasy to be served. What is this customer’s job? What gains are realised by this job? What pains prevent them from realising these gains?
[2] Altshuller’s Class 4 Solutions for detection and measurement. 4.1.3 Transform the problem into detection of consecutive successive changes.
[3] Always seek the contradictions, for they define your problem.
21st January 1892
From: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Cornwall.
To: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
Archie,
Your questions are surely problems that are in possession of solutions? At sea, the clear solution to observation at great distance is offered by a vantage point lifted well above the surface of the ocean and a spyglass that will magnify any object captured within its scope. Of course, as ever, we offer a solution to one problem and we invariably introduce a harm to another part of our device. For every solution that I haul ashore with my line, upon my hook I will invariably find attached yet another problem. The more solutions I pull from the brine, the more problems I dredge from the depths. The only resolution to this endless chain is to maintain this pull until we reach the end of our line, to hope that our last catch will be a solution, not the loose end of yet another problem[4]
To ensure that our quarry remains least disturbed by our presence, how might we double the distance that we can observe from twelve to twenty-four miles before the horizon makes its presence felt? This would demand a crow’s nest so far above our deck that our main mast might measure four hundred feet. Imagine such a lofty perch, spyglass in hand. The smallest swell would swing our vantage atop this arm to such an extent that I see no means to keep our target within the small aperture of a spyglass, nor a means to settle the strongest stomach of a well-weathered seafarer. Our mast must therefore be no mast and be not affixed to our deck, and yet we must remain aloft. To resolve this contradiction we must adopt some means of lifting power alternative to the support of a mast, and a balloon seems an obvious solution[5]. A hydrogen balloon could lift our observation point to a tremendous height, whilst not affixed in any significant manner to our deck, save a strong rope to prevent our lookout from ascending to the heavens, never to be seen again.
And yet, I once more return to our objectives, and once more discover that I have introduced a new contradiction into our conundrum, and to pull upon that fishing line we are once more provoked. I have, in my mind’s eye, lofted a great balloon above my ship to offer a mast of great altitude, but note that we desire great speed should we find the need to pursue the minke at its greatest pace. And yet my ship is now encumbered by a great bladder suspended in the heavens to retard our motion as might a great anchor plunged into the depths.
Once more I make my analysis, knowing well the function that I seek, to suspend our observation platform aloft with a means to achieve this end which is only to our advantage and never to our cost. As you have long taught, we look to the environment for our solution, for the elevation of our function to the wider environment will often yield an elegant result[6]. And there, suspended in my mind I find a great kite, much like those I flew as a boy above the green fields of the family estate[7]. With such a mechanism, our observation platform is not only lifted to its proper height above the ocean using the power of the wind, but it may also act to propel our vessel to the speeds we may require to pursue our prey. This great spinnaker may haul our vessel into pursuit without recourse to steam, and hence in complete silence. A great kite may satisfy all of our demands. A stable observation platform lifted to a great height. A burst of speed in complete silence. We must now determine how we can not only survey the great area of sea that spreads below but also scrutinise this marine landscape entire in great detail.
Uriah
Figure 1: Chetworth considers his contradictions.
Figure 2: Chetworth considers a balloon and kite to replace his mast
[4] Benefit Induced Harms will almost always appear. Solution is an iterative process. If you believe that you possess a valid solution, reanalyse and solve again. You may not.
[5] Altshuller’s Separation Principle 29. Pneumatics and Hydraulics. Replace solid objects with gasses or liquids.
[6] Always look to the super-system to offer functions.
[7] Altshuller’s Separation Principle 30. Replace components with flexible membranes or thin films.
2nd February 1892
From: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
To: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Cornwall.
Uriah
Appended to the enclosed papers I represent the lifting mechanisms that you propose, and I agree that an enormous propulsive kite may indeed not only offer the observation platform that we desire but also the muted propulsion we require to discourage our prey to take flight. Upon this lofted platform we can incorporate an observatory replete with telescopic equipment with which to scrutinise the oceans below. And yet, if we observe from a greater height aloft, we will discover a greater expanse of ocean that we must survey, which is both blessing and curse. The greater expanse we can observe the more time is required to survey this ocean entire and also the smaller our target will appear. We once more introduce a benefit that is accompanied by harm. The ocean that we must survey and the object that we seek differ greatly in their respective scales. If our method of observation rests upon periodic sightings of a marine mammal when it must surface to take a breath, it would be the greatest frustration to find a suitable specimen only to lose it once more among the grey expanse. In preference, once found we would desire our objective to remain found throughout its journey southward to the ice. To unfold a large expanse of ocean beneath for us to survey is to our benefit, so how might we enlarge our quarry to ensure that it will be quickly rediscovered?
I had occasion to visit my parents who reside only a short stroll across the town and put this problem to my Mother, an ingenious woman whom you well know is adept at thinking in a lateral manner. She considered the problem for but a moment, and almost immediately named yourself expert in these matters. My Mother noted that you would not founder against submerged rocks despite noting that they exhibit the very same property of our prey. After all, a rock sufficient to puncture the hull of your vessel will be very small in comparison to the vast ocean upon which you travel. Yet you never founder in such a manner. With a wry smile upon her face, my Mother volunteered no additional clues to her idea and left for the shop floor of the family carriage works. Throughout my whole life, my Mother has cultivated my deductive skills by taking her leave with these half-answers and riddles left in her wake to vex. As is her habit, on this occasion she once more left her poor son to discover her proposal without further assistance. For the entire stroll back to my residence I was vexed to determine the means by which you detect such rocks to avoid foundering and almost put pen to paper to inquire with yourself until I realised my simple error. I had fixed my mind upon the scene in which we expect to search for whale with such inertia that my Mother’s proposal was never present in the scene at all[8]. You would avoid those rocks found near landfall by avoiding the land itself. So, the larger hazard warns you of the smaller. However, this precaution you can only take during the day, in the very conditions that we might search for whales. My Mother’s design is as simple as it is obvious but requires the veil of night fallen to offer the greatest value.
As night falls and the land can no longer warn of smaller dangers, a lighthouse will warn of impending submerged rocks. Might a similar illumination allow us to track our whale once discovered?[9]. Might the blackness of night offer not disadvantage, but benefit, and be required to permit us sight? To pull upon the chain of problem and solution and back to problem once more, we have a new objective. How might we firmly attach a lighthouse to our quarry, and how might such a mechanism be provided sufficient power to light our way for days or even weeks of pursuit?
Of this, you know the solution full well, for as I exchanged day for night, to resolve this problem you must exchange the depths of the sea for the depths of the very land itself.
Archie
Figure 3: An observation capsule is slung beneath a very large kite.
Figure 4: An observation capsule is slung beneath a very large kite.
[8] Psychological inertia will mask many solutions from your view. Use a framework to break from lazy thinking.
[9] Altshuller’s Class 4 Solutions for detection and measurement. 4.2.2 We need to measure something but cannot do so directly. Measure a field that is connected to the substance measured.
12th February 1892
From: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Cornwall.
To: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
Archie,
Your puzzle was by far the easiest to resolve, for I well remember how we illuminated our way during our subterranean adventure of 1888. We solved this problem with a light that draws vitality from our own exertions, and if it were not for this endless illumination that we wound into these lamps once we had lost our way under the earth, we may never have emerged to the surface again. Thank heavens for your singular ingenuity, for we wound the springs of our clockwork mechanics that powered our lamps as if our very lives depended upon it, for they did indeed!
You propose that we might use similar to attach a powerful beacon to our quarry, which will quickly alert us should it surface. In dull, overcast and particularly in night-time conditions the location of our target, despite embedded within in a vast ocean, will be entirely obvious to our observer aloft. Hence, we have enlarged our prey as we have enlarged the vast sea that we survey.
I suspect that our cetological passengers may demand a chase of some days, at a discrete distance, to determine the typical habits of the minke whale. I doubt that the springs that we wound to store vitality within our lamps will store sufficient energy to light these lamps for the entirety of this hunt. As a result, as ever we raise our function to the environment and must oblige our prey to wind the clockwork mechanism of these lamps. The means by which these marine mammals without arm nor hand nor finger nor thumb might wind such mechanism is clear. As the whale swims through the brine a great rush of water will pass the flanks of this creature. This torrent of water could be put to good use, through the addition of a water turbine that passes its power into the body of our clockwork lamp[10]. We propose a lighthouse atop the island of our whale to warn us of its presence. I accept that we must first find this quarry in the traditional manner and that the application of this lamp may ensure that we do not lose our target once found. However, how will we affix one to the other? We must carefully approach these small specimens and somehow fix our lighthouse in miniature to this whale. I am absolutely opposed to lancing our objective with barbed harpoon, to which we tie a rope, at the other end of which we fast our illumination. Furthermore, any injury to our prey will most likely alter its natural behaviour and may indeed curtail its journey to the southern ice sheet, or its ongoing journey through life at all, for that matter.
Hence, I set my mind to determine how we might approach each whale with stealth and harness our lamp to its body without harm. Rather than strike a barb into the objective, we would surely prefer to ‘lasso’ the whale as those cattle herders of the American prairie capture a stray calf? To pursue a solution to this conundrum as I might pursue any game, I include my reasoning on the attached papers. It occurs that the security of a sharpened barb but also the safety of a harness might be achieved through the application of suction. At the very moment of inspiration, I called for my gunsmith to immediately attend. We worked through the night, to design the weapon described upon the enclosed papers. A firearm of standard construction projects a suction cup onto the smooth surface of the whale. Although the impact might force sufficient air from under the device to hold fast for some minutes, together we determined that some means to continuously recharge this vacuum is required. Hence, the agitation upon a lever above the device should suffice to work a small pump to maintain this condition. Thus armed, and with the means to approach the beast, we will have the means to attach lamp to whale.
Uriah
Figure 5: Chetworth seeks the security of a harpoon with the safety of a lasoo.
Figure 6: A keen shooter, Chetworth designs a gun to project a safe alternative to the harpoon.
[10] A means to wind energy into the mechanism is missing from our system. Altshuller’s Class 1 Building and destruction of fields. Solution 1.1.4. Use the environment. Introduce an additive from the environment to enhance an insufficient benefit.
23rd February 1892
From: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
To: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Cornwall.
Uriah
I am intrigued by your modification of the venerable harpoon, for I too have wondered how we might secure our illuminated device to a whale. I had imagined a lighthouse tower entire, perched atop the whale to poke above the surface of the sea. With such a theatrical prop fixed to the grey mound of whale flesh, to distract the eye and disguise this living mass, how sailors may have marvelled at the small moving island propelled past their bows at speeds greater than their own vessels. This scene entire seemed ludicrous, and so I was in search of an alternative mechanism.
You draw upon your knowledge of whaling[11], and choose to trail the illuminated device behind as a whaleboat is dragged by fleeing prey, a harpoon fixed into its back to trail a frothing red. To this end, I enclose an illustration of the whale powered lighthouse which we must fix to our prey. The light source trails far behind the beast fixed by a long chain or rope. The motion of the beast will force seawater through a turbine, which upon turning with sufficient speed will energize an electrical dynamo. The supplementary winding of internal springs, as our hand-wound examples contained, will maintain the supply of energy should the creature remain stationary for a period. The energy supplied will illuminate powerful electrical lights, which once more draws us to a contradiction.
We wish to pursue our prey, but do not wish to startle our prey to further flight. To this end, we have carefully affixed a beacon to its flank without injury nor pain. Hopefully, the additional drag from this device will encumber nor concern such a powerful creature. But our prey now trails a powerful, bright light. Should the beast attempt to escape this spectre, wherever it flees the light will follow. Any speed at which the whale makes its escape, this phantom will match precisely. How can we see this beacon from many miles, the brilliance of which the beast will remain entirely ignorant? This contradiction is easily resolved by noting that we reside aloft in the air, whilst the beast will ever remain below. A rolling mass may ensure that only the uppermost lamp remains lit whilst those lamps directed into the dark waters will be automatically disconnected[12]. Hopefully, with the lamp trailing far behind and directed only into the skies the whale will not be startled by this powerful illumination and provoked to even greater flight. With such a device affixed to our prey, we shall detect and pursue him through both day and night. This mechanism only describes the central act of our story. A trouble remains. How might we first find our prey, launch boats, skulk towards agile, alert and energetic creatures, make fast our illuminating lamps, and recover our boats before the creatures detect our presence and take flight? I would prefer that an idea occurred to me from careful observation, much as Newton found, and an apple fell upon my head to propel me to an innovation. However, no such poetry provoked me to look skywards, for the idea simply appeared in my mind unbidden. It occurred that in our design we have already launched a boat of sorts, for aloft we imagine a great kite hanging above our vessel[13]. With a suitable method of control, and a suitably long line to fix it to our ship, could we swoop down from the heavens in silence?
To this end, I propose an open platform be slung beneath our observation post, aloft. From this perch perhaps we do not resort to ingenious invention, but merely to the sharp eye and steady hand of human skill. I have witnessed on many occasions the great Chetworth perform feats of skill with firearms from the most unstable of footing. From the swaying back of great elephants to the pitching, rolling deck of a ship at sea. Under the greatest of stress and most fierce of peril, I have seen Him draw a rifle round onto a target as might a draughtsman scribe a line with the straightest rule. What say you? Might we swoop down upon our prey from a great kite?
Archie
Figure 7: A miniature lighthouse powered by the whale’s motion is proposed.
Figure 8: Jenkins proposes shooting from a platform beneath the observation capsule.
[11] You cannot innovate alone, for others will possess vital experience and knowledge that you do not.
[12] Separation Principle 4. Asymmetry. Make an object asymmetrical, or more asymmetrical, to improve its function.
[13] 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.
25th March 1892
From: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Cornwall.
To: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
Archie,
Your prodigious imagination will most certainly make demands upon my skills in the hunt. I thank you for your praise and feared that my own opinion of my performance would immediately respond in the positive. Alternatively, to assess if our observation platform could deliver our illuminated mechanism has required some considerable research and experimentation to determine the practical utility of this proposal.
To gain some objective perspective I turned to my dear sister, Harriet. My sister has temporarily returned to Chetworth House to rest from her many travels overseas with her nursing mission. These journeys do on occasion demand from her some skill in defensive shooting, and her skills are bettered by very few gentlemen she may encounter on her journeys, much to each gentleman’s great cost. I tracked my sister to our stables, to gather some skilled and objective opinion on my prowess with firearms, and whether I could achieve the shot that you describe in your illustration.
Unfortunately, my sister and I have long suffered a certain competition between our respective shooting skills, a rivalry that has endured since our father first placed a rifle in my hands and my dear sister objected to this blatant favouritism. Despite our father’s disappearance from this education only two years later, together my sister and I have developed a practised eye throughout our childhood to serve us both very well into maturity. As one might anticipate, rather than offer a brief opinion, Harriet asked me to include in this correspondence her gratitude to you for presenting an opportunity to once more compare our efforts and test my claim to superiority. To answer your question in all honesty Harriet suggested some arduous experimentation upon the grounds of Chetworth House. At your suggestion, and in an attempt to replicate the illustration that you kindly provided, Harriet directed the gentlemen of the house manufactory to erect a swinging platform from one of the highest trees on the grounds. The tree selected by Harriet was, in fact, the very tree from which she fell so many years before, to her now permanent impairment. I suspect her choice may have been to prick my guilt over her injury and spoil my aim. Regardless, the gentlemen of the manufactory quickly slung from this cursed tree a platform to your specifications and a mechanism to swing it most violently.
Upon this unsteady platform both Harriet and I spent a very pleasant afternoon discharging various firearms from my collection in an attempt to hit the smallest of targets at a variety of distances[14]. Our long-standing competitive fervour in this matter only escalated the challenge to a most ludicrous condition, and soon we were striking targets far smaller than a mere whale under motions far more vigorous than I would expect our observation platform may experience at sea. The gentlemen of the manufactory swung the platform upon which we perched with great gusto, whilst targets were moved to and fro with great vigour. It is often the case that Harriet will escalate a wager far beyond that to which any sensible gentleman is willing to risk, and in this situation behaved little different. Ultimately, I was forced to abandon my part in this competition once my sister had used her feminine whiles to convince young Jarvis, that gentleman of the manufactory most recently engaged, to sprint about the gardens as Harriet attempted to drive our most enormous calibre from the collection through a silver tea tray held aloft above the young man's head. I can report success as the tray was struck true and the young man suffered no ill effect whatsoever from the experience, save the stiff drink with which he was rewarded upon the conclusion of our afternoon’s experimentation.
Uriah
[14] Always remember, good ideas are not solutions, they are questions. Once these questions have been answered by practical experimentation or theoretical evidence, only then might we call them solutions.
How will Chetworth and Jenkins follow the minke whale beneath the ice of the Antarctic? Find out, in part 2 of Iron Whale.