ALL SCI-FI Forum Index ALL SCI-FI
The place to “find your people”.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Master of the World (1961)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies and Serials from 1950 to 1969
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17020
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Thanks, guys. Very Happy

I have so many vivid mental images of the vacuum tank Zeppelin I described from my own version of a movie based on this novel, along with a conversation I had with several friends on an evening at a Red Lobster restaurant in 1982 when a member of our groups named Rod Bennett (a published author whose unique sci-fi novel is available on Amazon) described his ideas for a version of Tarzon at the Earth's Core which involved a vacuum tank Zeppelin.

I have a high-quality cassette recording of that evening I made on this device —



— along with dozens of others similar recordings I've made over the years which allow me to relive these remarkable evenings in Stereophonic Sound whenever I wish!

Rod Bennett's version of Tarzan at the Earth Color was based on the King Arthur legend, with David Innes as King Arthur and Abner Perry as Merlin. It was a fascinating concept, presented over dinner at a great restaurant . . . and I can revisit that great night just by popping in the cassette tape and donning my stereo headphones!

I'm the world's only "practical time traveler"! Very Happy

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The one fact you all seem to overlook is that the propellers were just an augmentation to the lift from the obviously present airbag. They did not provide the lift, just directional impulse to the craft as well as added upward movement.

The type of airship you propose would always have more mass (weight) in it's structure than even a zero mass in it's tanks could overcome. Hydrogen....being the lowest mass substance would always be the ideal ingrediant for the airtanks. Although even better would be hydrogen nuclie stripped of it's electron shell which would be slightly lighter, but very difficult to maintain or create.

In any regard, as ERB would say "It makes for a great yarn!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17020
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gord Green wrote:
The type of airship you propose would always have more mass (weight) in it's structure than even a zero mass in it's tanks could overcome. Hydrogen....being the lowest mass substance would always be the ideal ingredient for the air tanks. Although even better would be hydrogen nuclei stripped of it's electron shell which would be slightly lighter, but very difficult to maintain or create.

Professor Green, please tell you aren't seriously suggesting that tanks with helium or hydrogen in them would weight LESS than tanks with nothing at all in them!

The only reason Zeppelins and blimps have hydrogen or helium in the air bags is to equalize the air pressure inside and outside the flimsy fabric bags. And the only reason a lighter-than-air ship rises is because the total weight of the ship is less than an equal volume of air.

If you could do without the hydrogen OR the helium, you could reduce the total weight of the ship. And if a gas was discovered which had no mass at all, it could be used to equalize the pressure without adding any weight to the ship at all.

The next best thing to a mass-less gas would be to have tanks so strong (and yet just as light as the normal airbags), the tanks would need no gas at all to balance the 14 pounds per square inch which the atmosphere exerts on their exterior.

So, your suggestion that lightweight vacuum tanks would not be lighter than helium-or-hydrogen filled tanks is clearly illogical. After all, a vacuum in the tanks means there is nothing in them — and I'm sure we all agree that nothing weights LESS than nothing! Very Happy

As for the true nature of the Albatross, I couldn't find any mention online that it included "lighter than air" technology in addition to the propellers. In fact, the Wikipedia article called Robur the Conqueror provides this info about the airship.

Bear in mind that even though the info below in reference to the novel, not the movie, it does show that elements of the novel were used in the design of the Albatross.
_____________________________

Members of the Weldon Institute are all firm believers that mankind shall master the skies using "lighter than air" craft, and that "heavier than air" craft such as airplanes and helicopters would be unfeasible. The institute has been constructing a giant dirigible called the Go-ahead, and are having a heated discussion of where to place its propeller (in front to pull it, or behind to push it) when Robur appears at the meeting and is admitted to speak to them.

He chastises the group for being balloon-boosters when "heavier than air" flying apparatuses are the future. When asked if Robur himself has "made conquest of the air," he states that he has.

_____________________________

So, Verne's idea for the Albatross was clearly a heavier-than-air ship.

That same article does clarify some things about the movie version of the airship in the section from which the following excerpt was taken.
_____________________________

The name Albatross is retained, though the novel's description and early illustrations that suggest a flush-decked clipper ship with propellers on its masts instead of sails, is replaced by a more contemporary design resembling a classic airship, or dirigible; though still given propellers for lift. The vessel is described in the film as being a 'heavier than air machine of several tons,' a statement later explained as the vessel 'is made entirely of straw paper, mixed with dextrin and clay, and squeezed in a hydraulic press...'
_____________________________

So, if the characters in the movie refer to it as being "heavier than air", the propellers would be essential to holding the ship aloft, even if it had gas bags to help — which means it would have to refuel the engines periodically. Therefore, the claim that it "never needs to land" would therefore be incorrect. Very Happy

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1877

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

See also my post of Jun 09, 2016.
_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17020
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Well, silly me! You had this question thoroughly covered way back one year (and one page) ago, but I'd gotten about it! Embarassed

Still, I had fun researching the subject (even though I was reinventing the wheel, so to speak), so I guess it wasn't a complete waste of time.

I must admit, however, that your supporting material was far more convincing than my little excerpts from Wikipedia, so I salute the thoroughness of your arguments. Very Happy

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bud Brewster wrote:
The next best thing to a mass-less gas would be to have tanks so strong (and yet just as light as the normal airbags), the tanks would need no gas at all to balance the 14 pounds per square inch which the atmosphere exerts on their exterior.

Yes, that would be true if it was actually possible. Structural engineering knows of NO material capable of maintaining its rigidity to do this. Possibly if the atoms in a carbon fibre material could be compressed to a degree where the strength could be attained to resist the external air pressure it could be done. However this would also drasticly increase the mass (weight) of the structure as well.

So.......If we're arguing in this vein.....Why not just fill the tanks with Angels!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17020
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gord Green wrote:
So.......If we're arguing in this vein.....Why not just fill the tanks with Angels!

Well, of course you're right, it is absolutely impossible. I got carried away. Embarassed

Gee, you'd think I'd have learned from the lessons of history, eh? Like that silly Robert Fulton, who thought boats could be powered by steam engines! Lord, what a folly that was! Or Bill What's-his-name and his claim that EVERYBODY would have a computer someday!

I mean, damn, not everybody has a huge garage that could hold one of those things! Shocked

The next thing you know, somebody will claim we can carry around phones that also work as computers . . . and cameras! Rolling Eyes

No sir, my only excuse is that I love the elegant concept of a vacuum tank Zeppelin so much my zeal kidnapped my logic, then tied it up, and locked it in a closet! Shocked

I'm just glad I came to my senses before I started spouting nonsense like, "What if we used a force field inside the tank to reinforce the material and hold back the air pressure?"

Hey . . . wait a minute . . . Confused

Maybe that's not as crazy as steam boats and home computers!

I just discovered a Wikipedia article called Vacuum airships which says that the idea has been around for over three hundred years. The article says: "First proposed by Italian Jesuit priest Francesco Lana de Terzi in 1670, the vacuum balloon would be the ultimate expression of displacement lift power."

Despite Frankie's religious proclivities, he didn't think of putting angles in the tank, so you're one up on him there, Professor Green! Score one for our side! Very Happy

The article also states that replacing the helium or hydrogen in the air tanks with a vacuum would definitely be better at lifting the airship. How much better? This much:
____________________________

Every liter of vacuum can lift 1.280 g.

Every liter of hydrogen can lift 1.190 g.

Every liter of helium can lift 1.102 g.
____________________________

Concerning that pesky problem about finding the strong material needed to resist the air pressure, I learned that a great deal of serious work has been done over the years to discover something as strong as the fictional metal Harbenite described by ERB in Tarzan at the Earth's Core to construct his wonderful vacuum tank Zeppelin. For example, the Wikipedia article at the link above includes these intriguing paragraphs.
____________________________

In 1983, David Noel discussed the use of geodesic sphere covered with plastic film and "a double balloon containing pressurized air between the skins, and a vacuum in the center".

In 1982—1985 Emmanuel Bliamptis elaborated on energy sources and use of "inflatable strut rings".

In 2004—2007 Akhmeteli and Gavrilin address the choice of materials ("beryllium, boron carbide ceramic, and diamond-like carbon" or aluminum) in a honeycomb double layer craft to deal with the buckling issues.

____________________________

Wow! I get all goose-pimply when people use words like "beryllium, boron carbide ceramic, and diamond-like carbon"! It's like a sweet-talking blond after I've had few drinks. Wink

A Russian site devoted to vacuum airships discusses a brilliant approach to the design, which supports the vacuum containers from outside the tanks!






Unfortunately my Russian is a but Rusky . . . I mean, rusty . . . but the pictures are spectacular! Note the revolutionary design! (This Russian Revolution is more fun than the last one . . . )

Instead of filling the vacuum tank with a web-work of supports which push against the external air pressure from the inside, this design surrounds the tank with a sturdy structure which pulls the air tank outward!

Damn . . . why didn't I think of that? Sad

Notice how the sections between each support bow inward because of the air pressure.






The glass-nosed observation port at the front of the tear-drop passenger gondola (shown above) is something I've always pictured on the vacuum tank Zeppelin in Tarzan at the Earth's Core.

And dig the cool dude in the picture below, sitting on the upper-rear deck with his feet propped up! Cool








It took me a moment to figure out that in the picture below, the small "rail car" behind the larger passenger section is used to carry crewmen and passengers from the front passenger section to the rear section!

Brilliant. Very Happy














"Gwendolyn, my darling, you'll never guess what I have a sudden urge to shout."

"I'm sure I don't know, Reginald. What DO you have the urge to shout?"






"I'M THE KING OF THE WORLD!"

"Really? How strange. Please don't do that, darling. It's not dignified."

"Perhaps you're right, my dear. Let's go in for dinner."







_____

_____


NOW do you guys see why the idea of vacuum tank airships gets me so worked up? Very Happy
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:17 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sir, your argument....and those pictures... are both elegant!

The first airship I ever saw was a blimp sometime around '51 and I was mesmerised by the size and simple grace demonstrated by it's flight.

The main problem with airships is their size and lightness of constuction is very sensitive to wind shears.

That's why the tanks you propose have to be extremely strong as well as extremely light.

Let them be made by Angels or demons...Men's invention can overcome them both.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Every liter of vacuum can lift 1.280 g.

Every liter of helium can lift 1.190 g.

Every liter of helium can lift 1.102 g.


Should that second one be "hydrogen"?

It points out that to equal the hydrogen lift the structure can not exceed .09g per liter of gas. Close.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1877

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bud Brewster wrote:
Every liter of vacuum could lift 1.280 g.

Every liter of helium can lift 1.190 g.

Every liter of helium can lift 1.102 g.

The second line should be hydrogen rather than helium.

In other words, hydrogen can lift about 8% more than helium, and a vacuum could lift about 7.6% more than hydrogen. To obtain the same lift from helium as from hydrogen, the gas bag needs to be 8% greater in volume, or 2% larger in length, height, and width.

That Russian vacuum dirigible looks like it would be paying a penalty in speed due to all the non-aerodynamic ridges, much like the hideous exoskeleton of the Ulysses submarine from Atlantis: The Lost Empire.

_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17020
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

___________________________

Thanks guys. I fixed the hydrogen / helium error. I worked on the wording of the post and the preparation of the pictures (size, color, contrast, etc.) for so long I think I got a bit lightheaded. Rolling Eyes

Gord Green wrote:
The first airship I ever saw was a blimp sometime around '51 and I was mesmerised by the size and simple grace demonstrated by it's flight.

When I was about six years old I was playing in the backyard of the little house we lived in, about two miles from the end of the main runway of the Atlanta airport, where my father worked as a Delta aircraft mechanic for 35 years.

I used to visit the landing gear shop where he worked in the 1950s, located in this hanger.



___


The planes went right over our house on final approach — very low, very loud, and very beautiful to a kid who loved planes.

And on that day in 1954 when I was six, a dirigible went right over the house, headed for the airport, so low and so large I was flabbergasted. It was probably one of the U.S. Army or Navy blimps, but I do remember that it was huge and gray all over.

Maybe it was this one. God, what a memory that is . . .



___
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bud, that last picture looks like THE MACON, or it's sister ship THE AKRON two of the Navy's early blimps. Beautiful ship with a tragic history. Google it to read the story.

Last edited by Gord Green on Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17020
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

orzel-w wrote:
That Russian vacuum dirigible looks like it would be paying a penalty in speed due to all the non-aerodynamic ridges, much like the hideous exoskeleton of the Ulysses submarine from Atlantis: The Lost Empire.

The non-aerodynamic shape would indeed affect the speed and the fuel efficiency of the engines, but we should also consider the fact that this vessel is designed to allow passengers to stroll around on the various decks and balconies, ocean-liner style.

With that in mind, it would be quite unseemly to have Lady Gwendolyn and Lord Reginald blown right off the deck! Shocked






That being the case, the speed would remain well below the top speed of the Hindenburg (85mph) most of the time.

Also take note that this airship is not designed the carry a large amount of cargo or a great number of passengers. So, what we seem to have here is a wealthy person's "flying yacht", designed to offer a "God's eye" view of the world, cruising slowly over its most scenic wonders while the privileged passengers dine on champagne and caviar.






Getting to its destination is less important than providing an enjoyable journey. Very Happy

And despite the fact that the complex structures surrounding the vacuum tanks would indeed offer more wind resistance than the smooth fabric fuselage of a regular dirigible, the designers seemed to have made every effort to minimize this, using the "open spokes" we see in the rings that encircle the vacuum tank.

Adding a more aerodynamic covering around the vacuum tanks (made of fabric) would require additional metal supports beneath the fabric — all of which would add to the crucial weight of the ship.






Therefore, I submit that the less-the-perfect aerodynamics would be acceptable in view of the deliberately low cruising speed and the important weight considerations for this plush "sight-seeing" vehicle.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:18 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1877

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bud Brewster wrote:
I worked on the wording of the post and the preparation of the pictures (size, color, contrast, etc.) for so long I think I got a bit lightheaded. Rolling Eyes

Would you henceforth prefer to be addressed as "Hydrogenhead", "Heliumhead", or "Air(less)head"?

Bud Brewster wrote:
The non-aerodynamic shape would indeed affect the speed and the fuel efficiency of the engines, but we should also consider the fact that this vessel is designed to allow passengers to stroll around on the various decks and balconies, ocean-liner style.

That being the case, the speed would remain well below the top speed of the Hindenburg (85mph) most of the time.

Also take note that this airship is not designed the carry a large amount of cargo or a great number of passengers. So, what we seem to have here is a wealthy person's "flying yacht".

Getting to its destination is less important than providing an enjoyable journey.

Your mention of an ocean liner is quite apt, I think. If there were to be any ocean crossings in this craft, I would think that those portions of the journey would need to be made at "full steam", seeing as how a lot of water stretching to the horizon is pretty boring stuff. That would be a trade-off between getting across expeditiously and taking breaks for a stroll in the fresh air.

Bud Brewster wrote:
And despite the fact that the complex structures surrounding the vacuum tanks would indeed offer more wind resistance than the smooth fabric fuselage of a regular dirigible, the designers seemed to have made every effort to minimize this, using the "open spokes" we see in the rings that encircle the vacuum tank.

Adding a more aerodynamic covering around the vacuum tanks (made of fabric) would require additional metal supports beneath the fabric — all of which would add to the crucial weight of the ship.

I'm considering the aerodynamic penalty of the gas(less)bag itself, more than the rigid supporting structure. But your mention of an extra layer of fabric over the vacuum bag for aerodynamics sounds like a cure for that problem (which could probably be accomplished within the same structure), although that much fabric still adds considerable weight.
_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scotpens
Starship Captain


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 871
Location: The Left Coast

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gord Green wrote:
Bud, that last picture looks like THE MACON, or it's sister ship THE AKRON two of the Navy's early blimps. Beautiful ship with a tragic history. Google it to read the story.

The Macon wasn't a blimp. A blimp has no rigid internal structure and maintains its shape only by the pressure of its lifting gas. The Macon and its sister ship Akron were rigid airships built by the Goodyear-Zeppelin partnership to test the concept of "flying aircraft carriers."

Navy patrol blimps, which were in service up until 1961, were about 200-250 feet long. The Akron and Macon each had an overall length of 785 feet. That's a bit of a difference!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies and Serials from 1950 to 1969 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group