5th May 1884
From: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Cornwall.
To: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
Mr Jenkins,
Thank you so very much for your agreement to meet. I enjoyed our discussion immensely. Your propensity for problem-solving is so prolific I was taken aback. Little did I know that a simple repast would lead us to hypotheses that might improve the very cutlery with which we ate. I must say, I am impressed. You are just the type of fellow which my advertisement was designed to attract.
Your youth and relative inexperience at first planted doubts on your suitability to join our expedition. However, I am pleased with my own foresight to meet you all the same, for I feel it would be very much to the advantage of our endeavour if you would be willing to join us on our next journey. We sail in the spring of next year, and I do hope you can make the necessary preparations and arrangements that would permit you to board.
In the meantime, I have a further problem to which you might apply your talents. Due to the scientific nature of our travels, our expeditionary vessels carry far more crew than strictly necessary for the smooth running of the ship. In truth, one might consider our expeditions as particularly designed to carry those scientific fellows to their outdoor laboratories, and to this end, our ship could be regarded as simply a passenger vessel with its cargo of scientific brains and the many devices with which they arrive aboard equipped. As vessels become ever more manned, this, in turn, provokes an ever-increasing practise to ensure that sufficient lifesaving boats are available aboard to carry the crew and passengers to safety should the primary vessel founder.
If we consider the veritable mountain of equipment that we must carry on our journeys, some stored in holds whilst others are lashed to the deck, I am often vexed by the inordinate amount of space these lifesaving adjuncts consume. This is particularly marked as these additional marine transports lie in place never used except in the most dire of circumstances. One could say that for the entire life of the primary vessel these craft are entirely redundant.
Might you turn your mind to this contradiction? Vessels that live their whole lives carried atop another, and never touching the water until employed but once at the demise of their parent. Can you offer any means by which these boats might not encumber our expeditions until the need for them is sufficiently great?
Enclosed, I offer a comprehensive list of personal supplies, clothing and equipment drawn up by our quartermaster that you will require on our journey. I, of course, enclose a suitable remuneration to cover your costs in these purchases. We begin to train for this expedition in the autumn, and continue through the winter on the house grounds. I look forward very much to receiving you amongst our crew.
Your host
Lord Uriah Chetworth
12th May 1884
From: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
To: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Cornwall.
Lord Chetworth,
I am astonished to be invited to join your vessel and would regard it the highest honour to do so. However, I had so little expectation of success that I had yet to raise the matter of my embarkation upon such a journey with my parents. I so feared their disapproval that I made my journey to London under the pretext of visiting a relative who currently suffers a great infirmity. I have since shown my parents your advertisement and your subsequent correspondence, the intention of which has taken them aback. My Father came round to the idea in short order. However, a Mother’s care for her son has made her considerably harder to convince. My Mother imagines all manner of peril may befall me should I join you. These concerns do not reflect some faintness of her heart, but to the contrary, the strength of her heart in matters that concern her son. Furthermore, these concerns do not reflect some weakness in her understanding of your proposal. My Mother is a strong-willed and practical woman of high intelligence, whose characteristics I perhaps take after more than those of my Father. I suggest that despite my Father’s long training and experience in engineering, which he has passed onto me, I suspect it is from my Mother that I inherit the ingenuity that you see in me and so prize.
That I could convince her through resort of my own wits, I would prefer. This is not to be. To break this impasse, it does embarrass me to request of you some reassurances that you may be able to offer to my Mother. By correspondence should be sufficient, for she is well acquainted with your exploits and your character by reference to the reports of your adventures in the Sunday newspapers of which she reads weekly without fail.
In the meantime, the problem you describe is surely resolved in the simplest of manner. The small boat that might be your saviour if your vessel founders must resolve a clear physical contradiction[1] that is often observed in portable mechanisms. The boat must be both large to hold its passengers, and small to consume little space on board. There are numerous ways to resolve this contradiction, the most obvious of which are segmented[2], nested[3] or folding[4] mechanisms. However, might you consider an alternative? Perhaps you might consider the innovation of British naval officer Lieutenant Peter Halkett, who in 1844 employed pneumatics[5] to offer inflatable boats that can be both large and small depending upon the need. I am surprised that you are unaware of this invention, as Lieutenant Peter Halkett specifically intended such craft for use by Arctic explorers. Does the application of pneumatics resolve the problem stated?
In anticipation of your response.
Archibald Jenkins
[1] The identification of a contradiction is an essential first step in problem solving. You either desire two things, but cannot have them both, or a desired benefit is prevented by a harm.
[2] Separation Principle 1. Segmentation. Divide the object into separate parts. Fragment the object into powders, grains, droplets, etc. Split the object into independent functions.
[3] Separation Principle 7. Nested Doll. Place objects inside another object, or pass one object through another.
[4] Separation Principle 15. Dynamics. Make a stationary object move or interchangeable. Make parts of an object move relative to one another. Optimise the conditions around each part of an object at each stage of operation.
[5] Separation Principle 29. Pneumatics and Hydraulics. Replace solid objects with gasses or liquids. Inflate components or create cushions. Use a vacuum.
21st May 1884
From: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Cornwall.
To: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
Mr Jenkins,
I am very well aware of the invention presented by Lieutenant Halkett and have indeed made some occasional use of these infernal rubberised devices. I believe John Franklin bought one for use on his 1845 expedition. On this occasion, the entire expedition party of 129 men and two ships vanished and I fancy that perhaps these fragile craft of India rubber could very well have been the cause. My most fundamental objection to a pneumatic device is this. When I have need to escape from my ship, I will have up to that moment made every effort to remain aboard. My last moments at the helm will be those few moments before the vessel slips under the waves, and how those waves will be as tall as Chetworth House itself to force me from my command! I do not expect that this scene will play upon a calm sea in fine weather. I shall be driven literally from the deck by the force of water. Under such circumstance, I do not expect that I shall find the time to inflate some bladder to act as saviour, nor do I think such pneumatics shall resist the ocean that will force me to abandon ship. No, I will require a more complete vessel with which to make my escape.
Do offer regards to your Mother, with whom I shall correspond at the soonest. I very much understand her trepidation. As I was the only man of the house when I was but a boy, my own Mother too was indeed somewhat protective of me and did fret and fuss if I so much as grazed a knee. One would have thought, surrounded as I was by no less than three doting sisters, that I could entangle myself in few perilous encounters on the House grounds. However, her fears were well-founded, for my compulsion to exploration has always been with me, planted there by God himself upon my birth just so see what I might do with this gift. Not a week passed when I had not forayed into the extensive woodland and become lost, or fallen into Chetworth Lake to be fished out by the groundsmen, or climbed to the highest branch of the highest tree on the grounds to affix a makeshift swing of my own design. The poor woman was driven quite to distraction, whilst my sisters pursued me from one folly to the next to keep me from harm. And yet the more they coddled me, the worse and more wanton I would become with my explorations, to such an extent that I now pursue the four corners of the very world itself. Such is the way of things, how we are shaped as we are by our formative experiences.
So, with regard to the design of a vessel that we hope one day we will never have recourse to employ. What have you in mind? How might we escape a watery fate?
Your host
Lord Uriah Chetworth
16th June 1884
From: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
To: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Cornwall.
Lord Chetworth,
Excuse me, for I had not anticipated the argument which Neptune himself must rouse to force you to abandon your vessel. If you can endure the impertinence, your previous correspondence suggests that alone your very will to remain aboard might keep your vessel afloat. Under those circumstances, perhaps you have no need for an escape route at all? However, in consideration for your crew, and as a result of your correspondence to my Mother, now for myself, I endeavour to design a more complete vessel to aid our escape should the worst arise.
It is clear that I have misunderstood the problem that you wish me to solve. We therefore must better illustrate the narrative. As you have provided such a dramatic timeline of your escape, perhaps we can make use of this drama? Upon the enclosed page I have drawn the arrow of time along the bottom, from left to right. This history describes three acts to a play. We start with plain sailing, but soon encounter a transformation in our fortunes that demands that we abandon ship! In the final act, we have made good our escape, adrift but secure from peril. I have also divided this stage between our actors and scenery with a vertical arrow. Along the top of the page we now see the environment within which our drama unfolds. Across the centre of the page we see our actors and those other props that may measure the size of a man. Along the bottom, we describe all those components from which our props are constructed. Consequently, I divide the page into nine compartments, each numbered on the bottom left corner, with which we might better describe our problem[6].
Next, to write our play, but I leave a preponderance of space for you to complete the tale. In compartment numbered 4 our rescue boat is in storage. The mechanisms by which this might be achieved are offered on that compartment numbered 7, where the internal elements of an object are described. The boat must adopt a small volume and high density, perhaps enabled by folding, segmented or perhaps pneumatic means as described in my previous correspondence.
As time progresses, our environment becomes inclement which we note in compartment numbered 2. The seas become rough, the wind becomes strong, rain falls and the ship begins to sink beneath the waves! Note that in this schema harms and impediments are underlined. Conversely, benefits or resources that may serve to solve the problem are appended clear of notation. With rising seas and sinking vessel, compartment 5 describes the action we must take should Chetworth eventually be forced from his command.
Compartments 7 and 8 describe the physical transformation that our rescue must first exhibit. The boat must be both small and be large, with these two properties separated in time. Become sufficiently large, the rescue boat is deployed, then launched. Now we must determine some means to board this new transport. Once we have made our escape, compartment 6 appends our hope that this little craft is indeed a seaworthy vessel, its essential function of floatation described in the compartment below, numbered 9.
Thus simply appended, I offer this framework for your completion. Can your considerable experience in marine operations describe our drama in greater detail than my meagre experience?
Archibald Jenkins
Plate 1: Chetworth and Jenkins constantly bounced ideas between themselves throughout their partnership. The two hands show that this illustration clearly passed between Chetworth and Jenkins on multiple occasions.
[6] Jenkins hopes to encourage Chetworth to ‘Think in Time and Scale’, to ensure that all features of the problem and solution space are considered.
30th June 1884
From: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Cornwall.
To: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
Mr Jenkins,
I have indeed trod the boards in the schooling of my youth in the most amateur of dramatics, but never upon a stage as peculiar as you have set. I shall do my best to play my part, and deliver back to you my script. I would not over emphasis your inexperience, for you have competently described the events that will unfold should we founder, and leave to me only those props we shall require to make our escape in comfort.
Precisely how we will make our escape will require some further thought. We must first deploy our craft, and then find some means to board it. Under benign circumstances and with time to hand this may be achieved with rope, block and tackle to lower a vehicle to the ocean surface. I do not expect to abandon my vessel in circumstances in which I have time to hand, nor do I expect to face a benign sea whilst I make my escape. Alternatively, I might elect to fling the craft over the gunwale and follow it directly.
I have noted the supplies that such a vessel may require after the fact of our escape. To quicken our exit perhaps these might be stored permanently in the device to ensure they are to hand when we find ourselves pressed for time. Furthermore, some means of propulsion will be required. Should I find myself adrift from I would make my best effort to mimic Vice-Admiral Bligh in his mighty effort of navigation once bereft of mutinous crew a century previous. To this end, we would need some means to propel the escaped craft.
I note your continued desire to construct some mechanism that will expand by recourse to folding, segmented or pneumatic means, and so have put my mind to how such a thing might spring into life. At first, I considered that a device might be driven to rapidly expand by springs or elastic materials. However, I note your enthusiasm for the pneumatic, and despite my misgivings have considered how your rubberised device might expand in short order.
Your pneumatic rafts might be connected to those systems that raise steam within the vessel. This steam might serve to expand our rafts instantly[7]. A rubberised bladder thus connected to the boiler of our ship would inflate with such rapidity that we need wait mere moments before our salvation unfolds.
I considered this strategy for a time until I drove your narrative forwards and considered the environment in which such thermally expanded craft must serve. The rough seas we must navigate that you describe in compartment numbered 3 will also be cold. A raft expanded by steam will only maintain its rigid structure for as long as it retains its heat. Once struck against the sea a raft inflated with steam will become quickly flaccid. Consequently, your narrative forced me to consider the wider context, which allowed me to quickly adopt new ideas and then just as quickly reject them is they prove unfeasible. It is clear that your narrative mechanism not only serves to increase the mass of ideas, but also the efficiency with which their veracity might be investigated, accepted or rejected.
I enclose your script appended with my suggestions for your scrutiny.
Chetworth
[7] Separation Principle 37. Thermal Expansion. Change the volume of an object with a temperature change.
9th July 1884
From: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
To: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Cornwall.
Lord Chetworth,
I am pleased that you find my schematic of utility. I too find this a practical means to avoid that focus upon the topic that can draw one’s eye to only those parts of the problem that are of particular interest and away from the portrait entire. To follow from your proposal of a thermal inflation mechanism, this drama now presents a more complete question. How might we achieve an inflation mechanism with the rapidity of your steam-powered idea, but of a variant that is impervious to changes in temperature once inflated?
We seek to control the inflation of our rubberised vessel and begin our deliberation with the mechanical means offered by a simple air pump. You suggest that this does not offer the control that we seek, as this mechanism may be too slow in its operation. You then seek to improve this control by resort to a thermal device. The expansion of steam from the boiler of your vessel offers a thermal mechanism with which to control this inflation process. This proposal is indeed flawed. However, these ideas together offer the first two steps in a stairway of evolution that one will typically observe in the effort to control a device. The first recourse is typically gravitational, where the weight of an object is employed to control its behaviour. When gravity is found inadequate, the engineer will turn to some mechanical device to affect control. A deficient mechanical device may concede to some acoustic mechanism to achieve greater control. Control derived from acoustic means will typically be outperformed by a thermal influence. Inadequate thermal control is escalated to chemical. Chemical evolves into the use of the magnetic. Finally, to that most elusive and exotic of devices, the electromagnetic[8].
I fancy that we are unlikely to expand our emergency vessel using electrical or electromagnetic means without recourse to the most exotic of mechanisms that I have no doubt some genius may offer before the century is out. However, those of us with more earthly talents may be well served to step down this staircase to find a more practical mechanism to serve our ends. To this end, I turn to chemical means to offer our mechanism of inflation. This escalation in control suggests that beyond the most exotic of electrical device, a chemical combination that begins separate lives as compact material of high density but when combined produces large volumes of inert gas. We turn once more to our drama to determine where in our list of props we might find such a material, and it is immediately obvious that should the worst arise we will have in our possession far more seawater than we could ever conceivably desire. As a consequence, I suggest to the gentlemen of the Chetworth House manufactory that a search begins for a suitable solid substance or powder that upon contact with salt water produces prodigious volumes of cool gas.
Note the mechanism in our effort to solve this problem. If one had lost one’s keys to one’s front door, one would not systematically search the whole world to determine their location. One would be well aware that the lost keys reside in one pocket or other found on a limited number of garments. We have yet to recognise the practical means by which we might inflate our rubberised bladder. However, consideration of the typical evolution that we might observe in our control mechanism draws us to search for a solution in a specific location. With this, I narrow down which portion of the House library the gentlemen of the manufactory must visit in search of a solution.
Archibald Jenkins
[8] Standard Solution 2.2.1 Replace an uncontrolled or poorly controlled field with an easily controlled field. Escalate the type of field from gravitational, to mechanical, to acoustic, to thermal, to chemical, to magnetic, to electrical, and finally to the most controllable field, the electromagnetic.
23rd July 1884
From: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Cornwall.
To: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
Mr Jenkins,
I very much appreciate your efforts to resolve our problem with recourse to the pneumatic inflation of a rubberised material. However, upon reflection, I would very much prefer to avoid the trust of my life to such a flimsy device. I have travelled the seven seas and observed the creatures therein, and in particular have encountered at very close quarters all manner of beast so sharp of tooth that the slightest graze would burst a thin bladder, to leave one with nought but a ragged Macintosh to remain afloat. Should I be forced to abandon my vessel, I would expect our emergency alternative to be proof against the mightiest of gales, the sharpest rocks and the most pointed of teeth. A stout wooden vessel is my preference, should the worst arise[9].
I have appended our drama further, and enclose it with this correspondence. Of note in this drama, our stricken vessel is in possession of many parts of use to our emergency substitute should we have need to abandon ship. In fact, should our ship be holed below the waterline to such an extent that it will draw water aboard and imminently sink, if all those pieces could be gathered up and secured with hammer, nails, saw, stout arms and sufficient time we could construct an entire ship anew from those parts. It seems that my objections to your ideas thus far seem not only framed in terms of those materials required to assemble our salvation but also described in terms of the time that proceeds on your drama from left to right. If we could purchase from our fate more time, then perhaps our efforts to resolve our calamity might be eased?
Since ancient times, and devised in the far orient, seagoing vessels proof against loss of hull integrity are divided into separate compartments to contain those waters that rush in, and to protect those other parts of the ship from the flood[10]. Under these circumstances, a great number of those parts of the ship of no use in the construction of a vessel anew are extraneous to our needs, and only add weight to a foundering ship. Should our hull be holed, and as our vessel fills with water, if those parts no longer of use to our progress were disposed of we might purchase some time to assemble those smaller vessels upon which we can make our escape. By far the greatest mass to be found on a steam-powered vessel is the motor and boiler itself. Furthermore, upon contact with ice cold seawater, a boiler at full steam may breach asunder, to release its pressurised contents with vigour, much to the detriment of those who operate the device.
Hence, under conditions of dire emergency, could we eject the core of our motor into the ocean? Clearly, we must depressurise the device whilst evacuating those operators behind stout bulkheads should this core indeed warp and breach upon contact with the sea. A hatch might be opened beneath the vessel, and those parts of great mass might be released to slip into the waters. In this, we purchase time for the assembly of whatever small vessel might offer us a means of escape from the foundering vessel. Indeed, such a device may lighten our vessel to such an extent that no further action need take place. Without steam to drive our vessel, but with breached compartments isolated and with a much-lightened load, we might propel our vessel to a safe port under impulse from the wind alone. Upon modification, our vessel entire comes to our rescue!
Chetworth.
Plate 2: Chetworth illustrates his engine ejection system. In haste, on occasion Chetworth would append to whatever paper was nearest to hand.
[9] In 1880 Chetworth fought a marine reptile single handed with only a boat oar for protection and a wooden boat as escape. Solutions may have to serve emotional needs, not simply practical outcomes.
[10] Holed, but not holed. Separation Principle 1. Segmentation. Divide the object into separate parts. Fragment the object into powders, grains, droplets, etc. Split the object into independent functions.
28th July 1884
From: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Cornwall.
To: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
Mr Jenkins,
Further to my previous correspondence, I had the occasion to travel to London almost immediately upon posting my thoughts, and at the club of which I am a member engaged in a discussion with a colleague of long acquaintance. A Mr Gould of Leicester of who you have not yet had the pleasure of meeting, but to whom I must introduce you, for he is a most inventive fellow. Over a considerable volume of fine port, we discussed my proposal to drop the engine entire off a stricken vessel into the ocean. Some many hours of debate later, and with the sun rising over the capital, we had derived new proposals for your consideration.
A contradiction. The vessel requires an engine, and yet would be advantaged if relieved of that engine should the ship become stricken by wind, wave or rocks. My previous correspondence proposed that we separate these desires in time, to possess an engine when underway, only to dispose of this when the weight becomes a burden. However, Mr Gould challenged us both to separate these needs in space. Rather than wait for the appointed time, why not travel with a vessel in which the engine is already ejected, thus saving ourselves the trouble should calamity arise?[11] Very soon after this discussion, I illustrated our discussion on separate papers in which the parent vessel will possess no propulsion of its own[12] save sail of which I refuse to do without.
We agreed that we might rid ourselves of the engine in this manner if we divided our vessel into separate parts, to take from our primary transport the harmful component, whilst extract only the useful motive part via chain or rope[13]. To this end, we might tow the primary vessel with a separate engine, as a harness of fine horses might pull a carriage[14],[15]. Should the hull in possession of the motor become stricken, and if remote from the primary vessel, a good stretch of clear water will act as buffer from a tremendous cloud of steam, or at worst a detonation should its heated innards come into contact with an icy sea[16].
Being an experienced sailor, I find this dislocation of ship and motor disconcerting, to be towed as I might be in harbour or navigating a canal boat. To Mr Gould, I offered a compromise. To pull the motor back to the hull, and perhaps articulate the hull, in which the engine resides in the rear half, to allow the whole to swivel about the centre[17]. Alternative musing proposed that our motor might nest inside our primary hull, without significant connection to it[18].
What say you? Have our port fuelled deliberations borne fruit?
Chetworth
Plate 3: Chetworth’s illustration seems to have been made quite soon after his discussion with Mr Gould.
[11] Separation Principle 10. Prior Action. Separate contradictions by performing a function in advance.
[12]Separation Principle 4. Asymmetry. Make an object asymmetrical, or more asymmetrical.
[13] Separation Principle 24. Mediator or Intermediate. Use an intermediate object to transfer or exercise the action. Temporarily attach an object to an easily removed intermediate.
[14] Separation Principle 1. Segmentation. Divide the object into separate parts. Split the object into independent functions.
[15] Separation Principle 2. Taking out. Extract and employ only the useful part, or separate the harmful.
[16]Separation Principle 11. Cushion in Advance. Prepare in advance a function that will mitigate potential harms, should they arise.
[17] Separation Principle 15. Dynamics. Make a stationary object move or interchangeable. Make parts of an object move relative to one another. Optimise the conditions around each part of an object at each stage of operation.
[18] Separation Principle 7. Nested Doll. Place objects inside another object, or pass one object through another.
2nd August 1884
From: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
To: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Cornwall.
Lord Chetworth,
Upon the loss of your vessel, you desire an entire vessel built anew and you propose the stricken vessel transformed to mitigate this strife, to continue its voyage despite grievous injury. You demand the design of an entirely new ship or a modification to your existing vessel so extreme that you are better served by building a new ship entire. Might I suggest that a more practical course be set, to provide a means of escape that can grace the deck of any ship, unmodified? To this end, in the event of calamity, you also propose the construction of a new vessel from the components of the stricken ship. I note that you express a singular observation in a most unexpected manner. Prior to any need for escape, you describe the disappearance of our emergency boat. The lifeboat vanishes as if time in our drama were running backwards, right to left. In truth, the vessel should appear and consequently inflate or unfold from some small package. For you, in reverse, it vanishes? How could a lifeboat vanish? As you propose, by discarding its function and fashioning something new from this scrap material. To construct something of practical use upon the deck of your ship, this lifeboat does not become small but indeed vanishes. The material of the boat may remain, but if the function of a boat disappears, as does the boat itself[19]. Our identity is to be found in what we do, as does our technology.
If we turn our clocks to once more mark dramatic time in the usual direction, some device aboard your ship becomes a lifeboat. After all, whatever this device is, we most certainly have no need of its function once the parent vessel is sunk. What part of the ship would offer material to become a boat[20]? In compartment 7 of our narrative, I have appended those parts of the ship that might offer stalwart service throughout most of its life, save that of a boat. Which of these elements might later serve as a boat? To transform a sleeping mattress would provide every crew member a life raft for his own personal use. The fastest a structure might be built is achieved if that structure is already complete. Consider a mattress, pneumatic in nature. Employed every night it might carry each sailor to his slumber. Should the worst occur, there will be no need to expend precious time to inflate this raft, for it will be ready inflated to carry him to his salvation[21]. However, you have previously eschewed the use of pneumatics, so my search continues.
I note those functions internal to a lifeboat. In particular, a lifeboat must by necessity offer seating. Might the deck of a ship, particularly one devoted to the long observations of scientific research, have need of seating? If so, the seating of a lifeboat offers but one impediment to its employment when not at sea, for the seating is on the inside. What if a boat might be turned inside out or upside down whilst on the deck[22], to be folded back to its proper arrangement when we have alternative need? In this, I offer an illustration of such a transformable boat and push back to you our solution process. What other structures of your vessel might serve the majority of their lives as small contributors to a ship complete, to be transformed into a ship entire under the direst of circumstance?
Archibald Jenkins
Plate 4: Jenkins create a rescue boat from components that offer an alternate function for most of its service.
[19] An object is defined by its function, not its material. Verbs, not nouns, are key to identity.
[20] Separation Principle 6. Universality. Perform multiple functions with a single component and remove the redundant components.
[21] Separation Principle 9. Prior Counteraction. Counteract anticipated harms in advance.
[22] 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.
16th August 1884
From: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Cornwall.
To: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
Mr Jenkins,
You present an intriguing question, and one quite suited for one with a disposition towards marine vessels. Which part of my ship might serve as a boat, and has no wish to sink beneath the waves with the rest of its vessel once a long service aboard is complete? Your proposal that a boat may offer much of its service as seating is a logical assumption. However, I feel sure that we could pursue a much larger prize. What is the singular largest component aboard that might serve as a complete vessel?
As I search my ship with my mind’s eye[23], why must we rush from one part of the ship to another to make our evacuation? Can we evacuate from where we stand? Perhaps the answer is to be found in those compartments that are usually occupied? If the hull of my vessel becomes compromised, perhaps holed by some submarine rock or great marine leviathan, those compartments held aloft upon the deck will remain safe from such hazards. This protection of deck structures from harm provokes me to wonder what utility we might draw from those parts of a ship not usually immersed in the ocean? Can these structures remain afloat upon the waters, independent of the primary hull? Should these compartments be easily detached from the stricken vessel, each may encapsulate the crew and provide a means to escape from the sinking ship. Should the crew muster in these compartments in situations of dire emergency, we might allow the ship to sink beneath us, whilst our transformed cabin rises from the deck like a phoenix, albeit somewhat more damp.
To this end, should a cabin become a boat, or must a boat become our cabin? After some consideration, I agree that a practical approach would not demand that we construct a new ship entire. However, a compromise might be found if our hull remains untouched, but we demolish our wheelhouse to replace it with an alternative better suited for our escape. To continue on this practical path, we could replace our wheelhouse with a boat that we are confident will offer a seaworthy alternative. We could plumb our communications with the engine room and control of the rudder into the cabin of this small vessel mounted upon our deck. In this sanctuary, should our vessel founder the crew will already be aboard our emergency boat. As the primary vessel sinks, we need only detach our wheelhouse from the deck, an be free of the sinking ship that might drag us below.
Indeed, it is a long and venerable tradition that the captain of a ship be the last to depart under an evacuation. However, under this new arrangement, should I be struggling with the helm under heavy seas, as captain I would by default be the first to board the life-boat. A peculiar state of affairs, but for sure an agreeable insurance against calamity.
In this I have sought to discover the largest and most oft used structures aboard our vessel for reuse should we founder. For the vast majority of the life of this escape craft, it should exist not at all, for its function is entirely absent. Should disaster strike, this escape craft springs into life, and into existence. Does the arrangement illustrated suit our purposes?
Chetworth
Plate 5:Chetworth sketches a possible escape pod.
[23] List all of the resources available to solve the problem. As you make this list, do not evaluate the suitability of each to solve the problem. Simply list them all.
1st September 1884
From: Archibald Jenkins, Bristol.
To: Lord Uriah Chetworth, Cornwall.
Lord Chetworth,
Your efforts to discover functional components upon your ship with which we might fashion a new vessel know no bounds. Your proposal makes new use of a huge portion of your ship should the worst arise. This new vessel must exist when required but otherwise not exist at all, and to achieve this end you nest one vessel inside the other[24]. However, it is a long-held maxim of engineers that if an idea is not pleasing to the eye, then the idea in all probability is a poor solution. Othello himself may have been led to believe that he would find no truth in beauty. However, it seems that many gentlemen of a scientific persuasion hold that they will always find beauty in truth. With this maxim in mind, and with reference to your sketches, I fear that your vessel mounted upon the deck, resting upon its pointed keel, teetering upon this slim edge, does not look quite as pleasing at is might. In the resolution of one problem, we introduce another[25], for to affix one boat atop another will require some more secure interface[26].
As I illustrate in the papers that accompany this letter, could the original wheelhouse float upon the ocean without modification? Despite the poor seaworthiness of such a basic box, a flat bottom does lend itself well to resting upon the deck of a heaving ship. After all, this wheelhouse will spend almost its entire life aboard, and to this end should we well suited to its place of rest. Hence this extemporaneous vessel must be both flat bottomed and must possess a keel[27]. These geometries may be separated in time if a keel could be extended from the innards of the vessel in times of need[28]. Hence, for much of its life, this keel might act as a dividing wall within the wheelhouse, to be extended into the environment to stabilise our escape.
I illustrate an alternate to your proposal, in which an entirely enclosed capsule with a flat base rests upon the deck of your ship. As we may have need to escape in extremely rough weather, this complete enclosure is perhaps better suited to survive submergence by enormous waves, to bob upon the surface whilst protecting the crew, as might the pod that contains a row of garden peas
Whilst I completed my illustrations, I noted the quantity of mast and rigging that could cause some considerable impediment to the exit of this escape craft from the deck. It would not do to have taken such pains to create this escape ‘pod’, only that have it dragged to the bottom of the ocean via some unfortunate entanglement with the stricken craft.
To resolve this problem, I required some means to eject this salvation from the deck, to draw it clear from the primary vessel with such speed and with such force that no rigging may impede our escape. Our strategy of listing resources within the problem is once more employed and I once more reference our drama to determine how this pod may be ejected from the ship. I considered for a time some pyrotechnic device, to drive the vessel from the deck. However, under conditions of great storm we have all the propulsive power that we need to launch our escape. Sails might be prepared and fashioned as a kite, and in conditions of high wind be provoked to drag the escape pod from the deck, and out into the open sea to safety.
Archibald Jenkins
Plate 6: Jenkins proposes that a cabin becomes a boat and not the converse suggested by Chatworth.
Plate 7: Jenkins fashions the cabin into a pod to contain and protect the crew.
Plate 8: Jenkins illustrates Chetworth’s escape device.
Plate 9: Jenkins adds a kite to draw the escape pod from the deck.
[24] Separation Principle 7. Nested Doll. Place objects inside another object, or pass one object through another.
[25] Beware Benefit Induced Harms. By resolving one problem well, you introduce a new problem elsewhere.
[26] The solution strategy and its practical instantiation are two quite separate concepts.
[27] Always seek the contradiction. Flat but not flat.
[28] Separation Principle 7. Nested Doll. Place objects inside another object, or pass one object through another.
Historical context
The strategy that Chetworth and Jenkins employ to offer a more convenient lifeboat begins with an attempt to resolve a classic physical contradiction, to be both large and small. This effort evolves to banish the lifeboat from the deck altogether by transforming its function into one required by the vessel during normal operations. Numerous patents throughout the 19th Century offer the partners inspiration to arrive at their conclusions.
Whilst Halkett may indeed have developed the fist rubberised lifeboat in 1844, earlier mentions of folding emergency boats constructed from inflated rubberised material can be found in the patent record. In 1837 a Mode Of Constructing Vessels To Be Used As Life-Preservers And For Other Purposes is attributed to John Macintosh, of New York, identified as US462. In the words of Macintosh, I take canvas, or other flexible material, and render it impervious to water by means of a solution of caoutchouc, or in any other of the known ways of effecting this object; and of this flexible material, So saturated, I make my vessel which is to contain the persons, or things intended to be buoyed up, and conveyed upon the water. Such a vessel may be made to assume a variety of forms dependent upon the purpose for which it is to be used, whether for one or more persons, the transportation of troops and baggage, or for other objects.
Whilst this option is described as inflated by mechanical means, typically thought the breath of the operators, the patent record for the 19th Century also presents the opportunity for Jenkins to inflate such a rubberised bladder using chemical means. For example, US450408 awarded in 1891 to Carlo Frattini of Rome and simply titled Float, offers an emergency buoyancy inflated by chemical means. The present invention belongs to the class of flexible floats made of impermeable cloth or like material which can be inflated with air or any other gas; but there is an essential difference in the manner in which the inflation of my float is accomplished and the manner in which other floats are inflated, for, as far as I am aware, my float is automatically inflated as soon as it is plunged in the water by means of special arrangements and constructions. Frattini continues with a description of this chemistry. The chemical substances may be any of those which generate gas merely by their contact. In order to obtain a quick formation of gas, it is preferable that both the substances be liquid; but at all events it is absolutely necessary that at least one of them be in a liquid state. I quote the following specimens: acidulated water with a solution of carbonate of ammonia; acidulated water with a solution of bicarbonate of soda; acidulated water with turnings of iron and zinc.; pure water with effervescent magnesia, citrates, &c.
A similar inflation mechanism can be observed in the device proposed by HENRY C. LAVERY of Wisconsin in 1900. US650976 relates to life-preservers; and the primary object of the invention is to provide a life-saving device which is very compact and designed to be carried upon the person, attached to the clothing, and which while normally deflated is capable of being automatically inflated by the action of water soon after the device comes in contact with the water where the person is suddenly and unexpectedly thrown overboard by the capsizing of a boat or from various other causes. This handy device is illustrated in Figure 1. The space between the plates is partially or wholly filled with the chemicals, and these may consist of tartaric acid and carbonate of soda, which when attacked by water will give off carbonic-acid gas. Any other chemicals which will produce a like effect may be used.
Figure 1: A handy device to rescue a fellow fallen overboard.
Altshuller offers a number of means by which the physical contradiction of being both large and small might be separated. Strategies such as segmentation, nesting, pneumatics and hydraulics, replacing a mechanical system, flexible membranes, thin films, porous materials, rejecting and regenerating, thermal expansion, discarding and recovering or employing another dimension will separate in time the need to be both large and small. Consequently, a large selection of folding life-boats are to be found in the patent record. Jenkins presents the TRIZ methodology ‘Thinking in Time and Scale’ to Chetworth, who appends this tool which provokes Jenkins to make an observation.
The Ideal Outcome desired in the efficient stowage of a lifeboat is the mass and volume of the device shrinking to zero. Jenkins notes that this can be achieved if the lifeboat vanishes. To vanish, the lifeboat needs only serve an alternate function. Jenkins proposes that this boat could be employed as furniture within the cabins or upon the deck of the ship. Of course, Jenkins didn’t invent these. These ideas can be found in the patent record.
US12450, Bed-Boat Or Life-Preserver, awarded to J. Stevenson, of Philadelphia in 1885 and illustrated in Figure 2 proposes a new and Improved Bed-Boat or Life-Preserver for the safety of persons traveling by water, the whole being so constructed that in case of accident to the vessel, it can in a few minutes be converted lashed together will form a substantial raft, upon which the passengers and crew may trust, themselves in case of emergency.
Figure 2: Stevenson folds a bed into a boat shape.
Similarly, US155169, Improvement In Life-Boats And Mattresses, awarded to E. O. Schartau of New Orleans, proposes a mattress, in order that it can practically and to any great advantage be adopted as a life-preserver of sufficient bearing power, must be so light that it can without difficulty be carried, and, if circumstances require it, be launched in the water, by the feeble arms of a woman. Further, it is of the utmost importance, at a time when, on the ship, everything is confusion and panic, that the arrangement of converting the mattress into a life-boat should be so simple, perfect, and unfailing that no time is lost and no mistake done for the immediate and effective use of the life-boat.
In 1855, US13771, Sofa Life-Boat, was awarded To Peter van Zile, Searles M. Griffen, and J. Warren. S. Dey, of New York. This design is illustrated in Figure 2. For most of its life, this device acts as a sofa. If an evacuation is required, the hinge will allow the sofa to transform into a boat. The principal novelty consists in the division of the boat in two equal or nearly equal parts from stem to stern directly through the keel in such a manner that the two halves can be entirely separated and again joined together by means of couplings or springs.
Figure 3: An 1855 method by which a lifeboat might spend most of its service aboard as a seat upon the deck
In 1888 US388875, Life Boat Deck Seat, was awarded to George Hughes of Liverpool. This invention has for its object a life-boat which can be used on ordinary occasions as a deck-seat. This configuration is not hinged at one end but is hinged along the keel and is illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 4: Hughes hinges the seat/boat along the keel.
We see this idea presented for a third time in 1890, illustrated in Figure 4. US429928, Deck Seat For Ships, was awarded to John Michael Lovold, master mariner, of Liverpool. The subject of my invention is a deck-seat for vessels, which may be employed for the ordinary uses of a deck-seat, and in case of necessity may be used as a boat…The advantages of my improvement are apparent. As a seat it is convenient and neat in appearance, and as a boat it possesses desirable characteristics of strength, buoyancy, and good shape. In this design, the boat is not split at all but instead is to be found by turning the seat upside down.
Figure 5: Lovold flips the seat upside down to reveal a boat.
This solution strategy seeks to not only elevate the function required to the super system but also to reuse this component for other purposes. With the idea of reusing components of a ship as a life-saving vessel firmly implanted in the mind of Chetworth, the adventurer seeks larger game than mere deck furniture. The result of this search discovers the use of entire cabins as boats. This idea can be found a number of times in the 19th Century record, from the detachment of deck superstructures to the incorporation of entire boats nested inside the primary vessel.
In 1854, patent US10945 simply titled Ship Building is awarded to Joseph Burch of Macclesfield, Great Britain. The vessel Burch designed is illustrated in Figure 5. My invention consists in a mode of constructing vessels in two distinct parts, but having the appearance, when together, of one perfect vessel, the larger or parent part to be the great body of the ship containing the whole length of the keel-main and foremasts, hold space for machinery, stowage, fore-cabin, berths, &c. The lesser or escape part to contain berths, Saloon, victualing-stores, treasury, &c., the escape part to have the form of and be a perfect vessel of itself.
Figure 6: Burch places a boat within a boat, to employ the smaller vessel as a means of escape.
To launch this boat Burch proposes that watertight compartments beneath the escape vessel be filled, to deliberately but partially sink the stern of the parent vessel and lower the escape vessel to the surface of the sea. In offering an escape vessel in this manner, Burch reflects the comments of Chetworth on the ease in which evacuation might be made. The captains and crews of vessels having the means of escape at hand for themselves and passengers will lose neither energy nor presence of mind. There will be no scrambling into launching and swamping unseaworthy boats. Also, note how Burch protects the escape vessel from the thrashing propeller with an unusual turbine design shifted forward from the stern and partially recessed into the hull.
One year later, in 1855, US13006 Improvement In Floating Cabins For Steam And Other Vessels was awarded to William R. Jackson, of Baltimore. Jackson does not transform a boat into a cabin, as Burch proposes. Alternatively, as illustrated in Figure 6, Jackson proposes that a cabin is repurposed as a boat. The nature of my invention consists in the construction of deck or saloon cabins of steam or other vessels in such a substantial manner by securing and uniting the several parts thereof-viz., the floor, the sides, and roof to each other as to render it capable of resisting the violence of the shock of launching, when necessary, and the force of the wind and waves when launched, and thus subserve the purpose of a safety and escape vessel or life-boat in the event of accident from foundering or fire occurring, while at the same time its value and usefulness as an ordinary cabin of the vessel are not in the least degree affected.
Figure 7: Jackson proposes that a cabin detaches to become a boat.
The extending keel that Jenkins adds to this flat-bottomed craft is inspired by US602684, Life Boat, awarded to Albert Henry, of Rochefort-sur-Mer, France and illustrated in Figure 7. The pod-like escape vessel ultimately proposed by Jenkins is inspired by numerous enclosed life-boats to be found in the 19th Century patent record and illustrated in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Henry’s 1898 lifeboat incorporates a deep, removable keel
Figure 9: Numerous options exist to inspire Jenkins to propose an escape pod.
To add a little drama to Chetworth’s escape from his stricken vessel, Jenkins proposes that it be ejected from the deck of a ship by some dramatic compulsion. Ever searching for resources in the problem space that can be used to resolve problems, the gale-force winds that Jenkins imagines serve to yank the escape pod from the deck of Chetworth’s ship. US417755, Aerial Apparatus, awarded to David Thayer of Boston in 1889 and illustrated in Figure 9, serves to inspire Jenkins. My invention relates to an aerial apparatus of novel construction, by means of which a car or carriage, together with its appurtenances, passengers, instruments, and appliances, may be sustained at any convenient elevation in the air and moved onward through the same from place to place, as desired, said apparatus being also adapted for towing or moving vessels and vehicles over water, land, and ice.
Figure 10: Theyer proposes a kite to tow marine vessels, lifting them clear from the surface of the sea.
Finally, we reach Chetworth’s suggestion of ejecting the ship engine entirely to lighten the vessel and remain afloat. The ejection of the propulsion system in the event of a potential failure is a mainstay of some science fictions. However, in patent US19047 awarded To John Charles Fred Erick Salomon and George W. Morris of Baltimore in 1858 and illustrated in Figure 10 this option is suggested. In their words, they have invented a new and improved method of lightening sea-going steam-vessels when in danger of foundering at sea by so constructing parts of the hull of the vessel within water-tight bulk-heads and the supports of the boiler's engine in the same bulk-head that when the hour of danger arrives the detachable support and bottom may be suddenly removed and the boiler and engine dropped into the sea, and thus the vessel relieved of a considerable part of its weight becomes more buoyant, and may be sustained and floated above water for a considerable length of time or till relief from other vessels may be afforded.
Figure 11: Releasing steam vessels from the burden of their engines and boilers by means of unshipping or detaching certain portions of the frames…and thus freeing such vessels of the boiler and engine by dropping them into the sea.