27th May 1889
From: Uriah Chetworth, Chetworth House, Cornwall
To: Archibald Jenkins, Oriel College, Oxford
Archie,
We prepare for our next Scientific expedition. On this next occasion, we intend to venture into the dark jungles of South America to catalogue those flora and fauna that inhabit the canopy of the highest tree cover. Many undiscovered vegetations, insects and even higher creatures hide within this cover at such heights above the jungle floor, about which the Royal Society possess a very great interest. As you well know, despite my great enthusiasm for the sciences I merely employ my resources to act as omnibus driver for those clever fellows who have devoted their lives to the study of the natural world. As a consequence, the Society made overtures to my secretary with a request to support their interest in these jungle heights, and propose a number of volunteers who wish to accompany our next expedition.
The trouble I find with these academic chaps is their long residence behind their laboratory benches does seem to sap their stamina for the rigours of the outside world. You know well the type from our presentations upon return from overseas, locked in their laboratories, sallow of face and weak of limb who may well be willing to take a stroll in nature, but are perhaps not best suited for the rigours of a long trek and vertiginous climb.
To reach these boughs we can project a hook into the canopy with little problem through support of firearm and grapple. However, hoisting such gentlemen into the heights may prove a difficult task, and I would prefer that they do so under their own power. To ascend a bare rope can place great demand upon the limbs, particularly if we consider the great height of trees to be found in the South Americas. Furthermore, not only will this ascent be long, and demand frequent rest and recuperation, observation and experimentation will require these gentlemen remain suspended betwixt ground and treetop for some time as they perform their scientific machinations.
Short of training all of these academics to become both strong of limb and become expert in the mountaineering arts, a good proportion of whom may certainly fail should we try, can we devise some mechanism that might help these gentlemen ascend into this verdant vault?
I have completed the proposition of value upon the enclosed papers, in which the need to climb trees to make experiments is desired, but those impediments to experimenters as they make such a long and arduous journey are described. Of note, as those exploring the canopy must grip the rope to stop and rest suspended by only this thread, this perch offers little respite to the climber, nor can experiments and observations be made thus suspended. By what means might this climber arrest his ascent and perform observation and experiment unhindered by the need to cling to a secure line?
One might be motivated to concede defeat in the face of these enfeebled scholars, to simply construct a tall scaffold up which they might climb as easily as they ascend to their slumber each night, and upon which they might stand as they would before their students in the theatres in which they teach. However, we intend to foray deep into the jungle. Therefore, the construction of scaffold or platform amongst the canopy is an encumbrance that our mobile expedition simply cannot endure.
In anticipation of your support,
Lord Uriah Chetworth
Plate 1: Chetworth’s attempt at Value Proposition. In a different hand, Jenkins later addition can be seen to offer a strategy for pain relief and a name to the idea.
15th June 1889
From: Archibald Jenkins, Oriel College, Oxford
To: Uriah Chetworth, Chetworth House, Cornwall
Uriah,
You do not wish to hoist these gentlemen into the heavens with block and tackle, nor can we afford the encumbrance of materials to construct a scaffold that they might climb with grace. To ascend under their own power will indeed demand a portable mechanism to support this climb. We might start by describing the interaction between our companions and the ascent they must make. We consider those climbers and their equipment, the limbs with which they must power this climb, the rope that they must ascend and the tree itself. There is more to this tableau besides this meagre accounting. However, I feel that this is all that we may need to consider to resolve this problem.
I offer a table, labelled ‘1’ inscribed with a circle, that might indicate how each element might benefit or harm every other[1]. Those interactions in which those elements of the first column might harm the operation of those described in the top row are struck through with a line and are labelled 1 and 2. The mass of equipment will tire a climber’s limbs and may place undue strain upon the rope. Those intersections in which the elements described in the first column might benefit those in the top row are written free of annotation and are labelled 3, 4, 5 and 6. A climber might grasp the rope to fix it to the body, indicated as a beneficial relationship and numbered 4. The limbs also lift the climber and equipment, as desired, annotated with the number 3. In turn, the rope supports these limbs and ultimately the tree supports the rope itself, to prevent the whole package from taking a tumble to the ground.
I have found this matrix the best means to describe the relationship between those beneficial and harmful interactions. I then transform this accounting into a triangular symbology that I annotate with the number ‘2’ inscribed within a circle. These triangular interactions are no mere repetition of the table we have assembled, for they also describe the physical mechanism that administers the interaction between each element[2].
The mass of man and equipment tires the man and strains the rope. The strength of the climber ascends the rope, whilst the strength of the rope and tree lift the whole from the jungle floor.
We now reach the hardest part of our journey. Our triangular interactions present us with six pieces to a puzzle. These pieces must be connected together much as the pieces of a jigsaw might be assembled. However, do not be fooled. The pieces of our puzzle are few in number but will prove almost impossible to fit together onto the flat of a paper page. Here no small measure of creativity will be required. To this end, Uriah, I leave this task to you.
I feel sure that you will enjoy the challenge.
Archibald Jenkins
Plate 2: Jenkins begins by stating the beneficial or harmful interactions within the problem, to allow the construction of the Substance-Field symbology.
1st July 1889
From: Uriah Chetworth, Chetworth House, Cornwall
To: Archibald Jenkins, Oriel College, Oxford
Archie!
My word, such a puzzle with which you present me! It took me some days of mental strife to figure an arrangement that might offer some means to describe the ascent of our guests. I am sorry to inform you that I must concede some defeat as the limitations of the flat page forced upon me no small compromises to be made. Oh, could we sketch such a molecule onto a page of three dimensions, might we fit this puzzle together perfectly!
Alas, only the Almighty can assemble our World with such perfection. Mere men must suffice with the best result that can be practically wrought. I offer my own effort appended upon an additional page and, following your numbering scheme, I indicate my effort with the number three, inscribed within a circle. Note my imperfection, as the practical arrangement of this puzzle on the page must force me to twice present the influence that the mass of equipment might provoke. This duplication seems inevitable, considering the limits placed upon us by the page itself.
I note that your numbering schema associates each element within the problem with the physical mechanism that administers each interaction. The rope is labelled ‘3’, hence the strength of rope that supports the climber’s limbs you label ‘3.1’. The equipment which encumbers our climber is labelled ‘1’, and that mass exhibited by this equipment that will tire the limbs of our climber so is labelled ‘1.1’. I assume from this schema that should this equipment further pain our climber through additional impediments, such as the presentation of inconvenient volume or perhaps a slick texture that is difficult to grasp, these features too would be labelled in turn ‘1.2’ and ‘1.3’? As a consequence of such a numerical cypher, this allows us to navigate this map of influence with ease.
Now that I have indeed managed to wrangle a comprehensive, but perhaps imperfect description of our problem from the puzzle pieces that you offer, what are we to do with this information? I assume that our first act should be to trim[3] that feature that ails us so. I observe that the mass of equipment, labelled ‘1.1’ tires the limbs of our poor, inexperienced climber, so we should aim to remove this harm from our illustration. To achieve this respite, we must trim the strength employed by these limbs, numbered ‘2.1’ by your cypher. This decimation of our illustration results in a new system, which I have sketched for you and label with the number four inscribed within a circle.
In this butchery of our symbology, I have trimmed away undesirable functions as I have seen you so often do in the past, to now present ourselves with an incomplete system. We trim away the strength of the limbs required to resist gravity, but the necessary functions once offered by these limbs must remain. Our climber must find the strength to lift our equipment and must find the strength to fix himself to the rope that suspends him aloft. These functions must remain on our illustration, for without them our climber would surely fall to the earth. In this act of trimming, we present ourselves with the fundamental problem that we must resolve. We must find some means to replace this loss.
What are we to do?
Lord Uriah Chetworth
Plate 3: Chetworth unburdens the climber, but must continue to support the equipment and fix the rope to the body.
15th July 1889
From: Archibald Jenkins, Oriel College, Oxford
To: Uriah Chetworth, Chetworth House, Cornwall
Uriah,
Well done in your effort to solve my puzzle! It is not often that one can complete this task without some compromise, so your effort is as fine as I could have achieved myself. Despite these exertions, note that we have yet to engage in any effort of design. We have not yet made resort to nut nor bolt nor have attempted to fashion material to suit our purpose. We merely wish to describe our problem with precision and describe the strategy that we must adopt to realise our solution. With these properly described, can we then move to the practical means by which we construct our resolution to the problem originally stated.
You have indeed adopted the correct approach in your identification of the primary harm and thus trimmed this from the problem. This is an essential first step, the resolution to which a menagerie of potential strategies is available for our exploitation that can similarly be described using our triangular symbology. Such standardised solutions will fit into our problem much as a reagent molecule might fit a chemical structure to transform a plain element into a useful material, or as an antidote might neutralise a poison. In this particular case, I have two in mind that may help our cause.
First, the solution to our problem must exhibit a lightness and scale to offer a convenient package with which to venture a long journey into the jungle. This practical objective might be realised if we were to insist that components perform more than a single function, and offer the strength required to cling to the rope from an element that already resides within our problem[4].
Second, we might find the strength that our climber may need to fix himself to the rope from the environment[5]. Should the climber find some respite from the need to cling to the rope, he might find an opportunity to rest and gather his strength to continue the climb. If an environmental strength might be found to support the weight of equipment during this respite, the climber may become rested further.
I offer the conflation of these two strategies in a modification of your completed jigsaw puzzle. The strategy that we must understand before we turn to our toolbox to construct a practical solution, I have attempted to illustrate in a further modification to our diagram which I label with the number ‘5’, once more circled.
The need to fix the rope in place relative to our climber could be offered by the mass of man and equipment already present in the system. The desire to support the equipment, particularly during periods of rest, might also be transferred from the man, and in this case, we transfer it directly to the rope itself through some appropriate mechanism. With this hypothetical solution before us can we offer practical some realisation of this strategy?
We have trimmed the climber’s grip upon the rope and must replace this grip with some mechanical means. In accordance with our strategy, this clamping mechanism must gather its strength from the mass of man and equipment. Here we make our creative leap but in truth our preparations to determine a suitable solution strategy transform this leap into mere short step in the correct direction. A mechanical jaw is held closed by two levers operated by the weight of equipment or climber. I offer an illustration of such a device appended with the encircled label ‘6’ on the enclosed papers. Two arms project away from one another, of sufficient width and strength upon which a climber may stand. To stand upon these projections will drive a clamp closed upon the rope to grip the rope tightly. Should the climber wish to relieve himself of his equipment they might be hung beneath the mechanism and too offer a downwards force that again forces the clamp closed upon the rope. With the mass of equipment employed so, the climber may even leave this perch and foray into the canopy and be rest assured that his vehicle will remain in place aloft to be available upon his return.
As illustrated in my final paper[6] included in this correspondence, upon this bar our climber, perhaps far from his physical peak, a result of many years inhabiting laboratory or library, may rest without exertion whilst suspended high above the ground prior to further efforts once he has caught his breath. Between each rest the climber may inch his way aloft, taking as long or as short as his physical impediments might permit.
Rest complete, and with equipment recovered from beneath the mechanism, the climber grips the rope tightly and draws the legs upwards. This action will open the jaws of the mechanism, which will release the rope and allow the whole device to slide upward some small distance. The clamping mechanism might be motivated to bias towards closure by recourse to a spring, allowing our climber to easily close the jaws upon the rope once more with his legs, and drive his body upwards from this firm foundation, ever inching towards the heavens.
One might consider this operation somewhat similar to a ladder made from rope, of which your seafaring skills make you most familiar. However, if we consider the boundary placed upon the total payload you must carry into the jungle, and the need to project a rope into the canopy, we might consider this new mechanism superior to this ladder as it encumbers the user with only a single step that travels upwards with the climber, and might be stored securely on a small backpack, leaving an unadorned rope to sail into the canopy to find purchase with a suitable grapple. As a consequence we have trimmed all of the steps from a ladder, bar a single remainder that acts in place of the whole.
Does this resolution to the problem inflicted upon you by the feebleness of your academic accompaniment meet with your approval?
Your friend
Archibald Jenkins
Plate 4: Jenkins employs gravity to grip the rope
Plate 5: The weight of climber and equipment lock the platform to the rope, allowing the climber to rest.
30th August 1889
From: Uriah Chetworth, Chetworth House, Cornwall
To: Archibald Jenkins, Oriel College, Oxford
My dear Archie,
My word, have we resolved in short order our puzzle, and with a formality that exposes every step of our cognition. Your mechanism is, as ever, as ingenious as it is practical. Immediately upon receiving your correspondence I made to the manufactory on the grounds of the house and at once instructed my machinists to begin construction of a prototype. By that very afternoon, my fine fellows had completed this task and I had in my hands an instantiation of your design, ready to test.
Of course, never would I demand that another take a risk that I myself would not endure. So, with rope in hand, I made to the tallest tree on the grounds of Chetworth House to test the contraption. I must admit, it does take some short period to adopt the correct coordination of arms and legs to operate the device. However, before long I was exercising arms and legs, much as a one might bend and flex to perform the breaststroke at sea, to swim up the rope to the height of this tree with ease.
Aloft, I locked the mechanism in place with a knapsack I carried with me weighted with a good supply of brandy and cheese. With the device locked by the weight of these supplies, I discovered under these circumstances that I could relieve the weight from my legs and sit upon the outstretched bars, as one might the rough wooden crosspiece of a swing that I had hung from this very tree as a boy.
There suspended aloft I consumed the brandy and cheese, to watch a glorious summer’s sun set upon the grounds of the estate, satisfied at yet another problem well solved. Of course, the tale does not end there, for once I had near consumed an entire bottle of fine brandy, I once more had to operate the mechanism to make my descent. I can assure you that after such a fill, despite the operation of this mechanism being in some small part impeded by my inebriation, this mechanism can indeed be employed to make descend despite the coordination of the limbs being somewhat less in concert than they might have been on the ascent.
I feel sure that this mechanism will provide some considerable utility beyond carriage into the jungle canopy, and may be of use to those tradesmen the hands of whom must be free whilst they work at height. Perhaps this device may even afford some means to escape from some of those buildings that seem to spring up and ever grow from those metropolitan areas. If this device does find some utility in the trades, then this may offer us some means to supplement the finance our next expedition. I have made overture to some local businesses who may find this of interest, and fully expect an agreeable outcome.
In anticipation of such a success, I enclose some small remuneration of your contribution to this venture with which I hope you can entertain some employment between lectures. Many thanks for your efforts, and I do hope the studies are going well.
You patron and benefactor,
Lord Uriah Chetworth
Plate 6:Chetworth funded his activities with a talent for the entrepreneurial
Historical context
Archibald Jenkins did not invent the portable rope climbing device. A platform with which an individual might more easily climb a rope is an invention registered for patent protection on at least three separate occasions. These inventions were unlikely provoked by a need to climb into the canopy of the South American Jungle. One might safely assume that the growth in height of buildings throughout the 19th century provoked those of an ingenious nature to determine how those who reside in the upper floors might escape down the outside of the building.
A United States patent referenced 306, 939 with the title ‘Clamp for climbing ropes, rods etc’ and dated October 21st 1884 is granted to Silas C. Matteson. The design illustrated by Matteson provides the strongest inspiration for that penned by Archibald Jenkins some fictional years earlier. Matteson describes his invention as, an apparatus for ascending and descending ropes, rods or similar objects, consisting of two arms or bars hinged together at their inner ends and having an aperture for the passage of the rope or rod through the said hinged ends, and provided with foot straps at their ends, the cylindro-segmented jaw secured to the under side of the inner of one of the bars having the teeth at the lower edge of the inner side, and having the laterally-projecting curved arms at the lower ends of its side edges, and the cylindro-segmented jaws having teeth at the inner side of its lower end, secured upon the inner end of the other arms and fitting between the ends of the arms of the other jaw, as and for the purpose shown and set forth.
In 1897, United States citizen Ernest N. Money of Jacksonville, Florida offers a similar invention for climbing ropes, with a patent numbered 580,794. This invention is specifically described as a means of escape from a burning building. Money’s design improves upon Matteson’s by not only presenting a device that clamps to the rope driven by the weight from the feet, but also by offering a complimentary mechanism to be operated by the hands. However, Money suggests that this hand operated device may not always be necessary to ascend or descend the rope. Money describes his apparatus, as follows. In a fire-escape, the combination with a rope or cable, of a gripping device for the hands consisting of a pair of pivoted jaws provided upon opposite sides of said rope and provided with sharpened teeth upon the inner faces and hand-grips rigidly mounted upon said jaws; and a foot gripping device consisting of a pair or pivoted jaws provided upon opposite sides of said rope provided with sharpened teeth upon the inner faces and laterally -extending foot rests rigidly mounted upon said jaws, and provided with means for confining the feet of a person thereon, substantially as described.
A year later, Willian E. Burke, a citizen of the United States from Wiota, Wisconsin, offers a further example of a rope climber, dated February 15th, 1898, identified as 598,976. Burke not only describe his device as offering a means of escape from a burning building, but also as a mechanism with which all classes of workmen, such as painters, carpenters or miners, might scale heights or depths. Burke also notes the portability of the device, suggesting that it may be carried by traveling men or others in their hand-satchels and is always ready for use.
Footnotes
[1] A table that cross references the interaction between system components offers a good first step to detecting the benefits and harms within a system. This is distinct from the cross reference of benefits themselves, necessary in the detection of contradictions.
[2] This is the first step in constructing Altshuller’s Substance-Field. An appropriate Substance-Field diagram is a necessary step prior to selecting an appropriate strategy from the 76 Standard Solutions offered by the TRIZ methodology.
[3] Always consider trimming a system of extraneous material a worthwhile first consideration.
[4] This strategy is derived from standard solution 3.1.4 of Altshuller’s framework in which we demand system simplification. Achieve all functions but reduce or trim components. Integrate several components into one but still deliver all of the functions desired.
[5] Standard solution 5.2.2 within Altshuller’s framework suggests that a solution may become more ideal if we employ fields that are present in the environment to resolve our problem. To raise functions up to the super system or the environment will always drive a solution towards the Ideal Final Machine.
[6] See Plate 5.