MovieChat Forums > Master of the World Discussion > That thing'll never fly, Orville!

That thing'll never fly, Orville!


The design of the Albatross in the movie is fairly faithful to Jules Verne's description in the novels. Despite the ship's vague resemblance to a dirigible or Zeppelin, the Albatross is actually a heavier-than-air machine that uses its helicopter-like overhead blades to generate lift. Simply put, that is AERODYNAMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! Those tiny pinwheels couldn't possibly provide one-tenth the lift needed to keep a craft weighing several tons aloft. And what is the power source? In the movie, Robur says the Albatross runs on electricty, produced by a moving metal bar cutting across "magnetic force lines." In other words, he's describing an electrical generator. But what powers the generator?

reply

It's never stated, but for a device like this to be even remotely feasible if working primarily according to Robur's description of the technology, there would have to be some extremely efficient batteries involved. It couldn't hover without them; it would have to be in constant motion to be conceivable at all.

...But yeah, in principle, though probably not in practice, a flying device could maybe generate some useful power by using the planet Earth itself as the magnetic component of a magneto-like device. The principle isn't unknown in other technologies; for example, a typical hybrid car generates (or conserves, if you prefer) significant amounts of power by taking it from its own braking system, in effect behaving a little bit more like a perpetual motion machine than if it didn't utilize the car's own inertia as part of its power system.

Which doesn't exactly answer the question of how you get the thing off the ground and moving forward in the first place, does it? I haven't read Jules Verne's original stories, but I'd bet Verne had no idea how to address these questions, either. Unlike science fiction writers of the John Campbell school, Verne didn't strain to be scientifically accurate. His "science fiction" was all about the human adventure. His near-contemporary H.G. Wells had a better grasp of the "science" side of science fiction.

"I don't deduce, I observe."

reply

Verne didn't strain to be scientifically accurate. His "science fiction" was all about the human adventure. His near-contemporary H.G. Wells had a better grasp of the "science" side of science fiction.

Actually it was the opposite. Jules Verne's stories were adventures that happened to feature advanced scientific concepts, but the science was usually firmly grounded in what was known at the time. For example, in Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, the Nautilus is described as being electric-powered, using advanced batteries that only need recharging every few months. (The implication of atomic power was an invention of the Disney movie.) When Verne wrote about a journey to the moon, he launched his spacecraft from a giant gun propelled by ordinary explosives. Compare that to the fanciful anti-gravity substance "Cavorite" in H.G. Wells' First Men in the Moon. Unlike Verne, Wells wrote about concepts like time travel and invisibility, which belong more to the realm of fantasy than science fiction. For Verne, it was all about the technology. For Wells, the story was usually a vehicle for social comment, and it didn't matter if the science was a bit dodgy.



All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?

reply

I see your point, but I meant my statement about Wells in a different way than you took it, and I'm way too preoccupied to explain it now.

My greater point was more something like:

Hey! This is a really cool movie! It shouldn't matter that the technology would probably never work!

"I don't deduce, I observe."

reply

"""In the movie Robur does say that the Albatross is made from a highly compressed paper-like material. """

However, Robur claims his ship is indestructable?

I'm also wondering how many tons of explosives are they carrying? Enough to destroy every World army.

reply

In the movie Robur does say that the Albatross is made from a highly compressed paper-like material.

reply

None of you have ever made Cavorite then.

reply

Hey, if you could whip me up a batch, I'd be glad to buy it from you.

reply

Just get me off the ceiling and you can what's left in the pot.

reply

Simply put, that is AERODYNAMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!






I remember back in college one of my biology professors explaining about there were exhaustive engineering studies done that show conclusively, without-a-doubt, that honeybees CAN NOT FLY!

These published reports proved that it is physically, aerodynamically impossible for the little stingers to get off the ground and fly around and pollinate our crops and fruit trees.

Fortunately for us humans, honeybees can't read.

"For as goes the honeybee, so go we!"

reply

I remember back in college one of my biology professors explaining about there were exhaustive engineering studies done that show conclusively, without-a-doubt, that honeybees CAN NOT FLY!

Actually, it's BUMBLEBEES that supposedly violate the laws of aerodynamics. That myth has been around since the 1930s.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1076/is-it-aerodynamically-im possible-for-bumblebees-to-fly







All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?

reply

That was a good article. Thanks a lot. Just goes to show how mis-information gets enhanced and unknowingly passed down. Even with the best intentions.

Makes you wonder how much mis-information gets passed down, knowingly, with the worst intentions.

Oh Well, gotta go, Fox News is on!

reply

Come to think of it, this particular professor was always throwing out odd ball things at us to get discussions going, was one of the most brilliant people I have known, and NEVER stated that he believed or supported the bee studies/reports, just that they had been done.

Crap! After 35 years it just dawns. He got us again!

And here we were on that damned square earth debate for almost a week.





reply

..................And what is the power source? In the movie, Robur says the Albatross runs on electricty, produced by a moving metal bar cutting across "magnetic force lines." In other words, he's describing an electrical generator. But what powers the generator?




Robur was describing a D'arsonval Generator powerful enough to propel his ship! I still remember the science experiment when I was in grade school(back when they still taught science.) A magnet had a needle suspended above it. The needle would start spinning from the magnetic force lines emanating from the magnet and consequently cut back across the magnetic force lines while it spun. Two pieces of aluminum foil carefully placed within a fraction of an inch of the opposite ends of the needle, while it was spinning, would register a small current on the meter connected to the foil strips. It's tricky. In a class of about 40, paired in two's, only two teams got their projects to spin, and only one picked up any current readings, but it is possible.

Add a little Verne, a little Sci-Fi, a hitherto fore undiscovered metal alloy for the magnet that holds an unbelievable amount of magnetic charge (thus the paper ship,) and a little Steam Punk, and Viola!, a continuous, uninterrupted source of electricity for the Albatross. Its the magnet that powers the ship.

Unless, of course, Robur was using the earths magnetism as his power source, then the pickup "needle" has to be made of that hitherto fore undiscovered metal alloy.

The technological principles are sound, just not possible on a large scale, even today.











reply

^^ Any device that produces useful amounts of electric current has to have energy put into it in order to get electricity out of it. What you're describing sounds like perpetual motion, or getting "something for nothing," which the laws of thermodynamics say is impossible.



All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?

reply

I agree, perpetual motion is the first thing that came to my mind, thinking back about that classroom project, all those years ago in grade school.


However the key word, as you said, is USEFUL! Something, after all, had to MAGNETIZE the magnet, to spin the needle, to get the current from. We used to magnetize screwdrivers in electrical shop, in high school, by wrapping a multiple coil of wire around the metal tip, connect both ends of the wire to a simple electrical appliance plug, and quickly shove it into the outlet, tripping the breaker.

The current surge would align the magnetic polarity of the previously random iron atoms in a straight line resulting in a magnetic tip. Not a very strong magnetic tip to be sure, and the magnetism did fade over time. I imagine when industry magnetizes tools commercially, it must really require a lot of juice.

So a LOT of current had to go in to the magnet, to magnetize it, to get a minute bit back out of the spinning "mass of metal". Not efficient at all, and not practically feasible, and definitely NOT perpetual motion. Energy goes in, not so much comes back out. It just works.......barely.

But remember, this is 150 year old Sci-Fi, even if it were impossible, it wouldn't matter. It didn't have to be efficient, just be somewhat feasible, and if not that, at least imaginable. We can all hope that something that dosn't work very good (or even exist,) today, can be made to work better (or invented)tomorrow.

If I remember correctly, Nemo's Nautilus ran on electricity derived from sea water. The was proven to be possible, in the last 50 years I think, just not efficient. More juice has to go into the extraction process than you get back, so the premise of the Nautilus' power supply was sound, it just couldn't work like it was implied.

So again, I agree, no free ride from Mother Nature, "something for nothing," is indeed impossible....


so far!



reply