Pilot House
Initially,
I sketched a diamond shape for the raised pilot house, with twin lenses
facing forward, eye-like, protected by a centre ridge-spur on the pilot
house itself. However, sealing a complicated shape when retracted is
problematic. I applied a forward hinge to allow for retraction in an arc. A
trapezoid wedge was tried but the retracting geometry’s a royal pain.
I
settled for a wedge shape that’s rectangular in plan. The rear surface is
curved in a constant radius – it seals at every point in its travel. There
is no rear-facing port, which would present sealing difficulties in what
would need to be a finely-machined curvature. There’s no dazzling of the
helmsman by the lantern searchlight as a result.
The
pilot house sides each feature a smaller port. It would be easier to cast
and seal a glass port to a perfectly flat metal surface. The side seals deal
with a flat surface – much easier to seal. I envisage all the house edges
having a slight radius.
The
front panel has the largest port. The lens is flush but protected from
ramming damage by small strakes on the pilot house and the hull in front of
it. There might be four, though two (one on each edge of the port) might be
sufficient. I picture them continuing past the port to the top edge of the
pilot house, but no further.
|
|
The
ship’s wheel and relevant controls must not be as depicted in the de
Neuville drawing. It’s a bad rendition, lacking in side portals and various details
we know to be there, so it serves as a vague indicator only. I prefer not to
have a retractable or moveable ship’s wheel, with resulting complications.
In my proposal, the wheel must be below the retracted level of the pilot
house forward panel, as must also be the pushbuttons and other instruments.
During attack mode, the helmsman must either kneel or sit at his controls.
|
|
Attack Periscope
Since
a target warship may be under full steam and moving laterally to the Nautilus,
a blind rush might miss it. I considered a ‘vision trench’ and a
separate ‘attack peephole’ ahead of the pilot house for when it’s
retracted for attack. The heavy forward hinges of the pilot house and its
retractor mechanism and seal meant that this was untenable.
I
settled on an ‘attack periscope’ with its outlet on the surface of the
pilot house, ahead of the main port. The attack periscope port housing is
not flush with the pilot house surface but extends proud of it. It too,
might be protected by two smaller strakes on either side. When the pilot
house is extended for normal navigation, the periscope is detached and
stored nearby, next to the instrument binnacle and pushbutton control panel.
During
preparations for conflict, the pilot house is retracted and the attack
periscope is installed in position. The periscope is fixed in place and does
not swivel. As explained above, the helmsman now either kneels or sits at
his controls. He can still operate the ship’s wheel with his arms, while
his face is pressed close to the periscope lens. It should provide a narrow
but adequate view of the target, hence about a 30-degree to 45-degree vision
should be designed for. Given the Nautilus’ manoeuvrability, its
heading could be adjusted to keep the target centred. Once the submarine is
at flank speed (acting as its own torpedo) slight changes in aim can be
assisted by gradations inscribed on the periscope eyepiece.
As
noted elsewhere, the nautical periscope was around for a decade or so before
Verne began his manuscript. Even had he decided that it wasn’t a ‘mature’
enough technology, it must be remembered that Arronax never witnessed the
attack configuration of the pilot house. He might well have not noticed the
attack periscope stowed away among the controls and instruments.
Lantern and Deck
The
layout of the deck behind the pilot house has been more or less standardised.
There is the hatch; the dingy; and the main hatch; all enclosed by the
railings when they are extended. I see the top of the hull as cylindrical
but flattened-in slightly to make this deck. A low, raised edge at the
railing perimeter seems advisable to protect from wavelets even during a calm
sea. There may be inscribed on the hull plates a texture to prevent the crew
from slipping on a wet surface.
Retractable
dingy davits or launching ramp I will leave to the experts; my miniature
will not go beyond marking the outline and raised hull-bulge of the tender
boat (pinnace?).
Retractable
fishing net arms may be stowed about here, hinged to allow for a simple
extension outwards at about 90-dregrees to the hull centreline. The nets may
be broad but shallow, extending sideways from the hull and nowhere near the
propeller.
The
main hatch is rectangular, with similar sealing challenges as the pilot
house. As a ventilator, the main hatch may be boosted in efficiency by the
use of ducted fans (not depicted by Verne) which would reduce the need to
engineer yet another sealed opening.
The
lantern is easier to deal with than the pilot house. It can be extended to a
height clear of the pilot house if desired. I initially designed the lenses
in a diamond arrangement, with twin forward-facing lenses but aimed
outwards, away from the direct line of the pilot house. One can picture the
irritation of the helmsman to see his own pilot house shadow extended out in
the direction he wants to go. I revised this scheme to provide for a
pentagonal arrangement, with a light-house-like ability to cast a
searchlight in almost any direction. Twin searchlight beams facing forward
and slightly to the sides are again proposed.
|
|
The
lantern is mounted on a cylindrical base and therefore much easier to seal.
When retracted, the cylinder still seals while the prismatic structure is
enclosed within the hull. The top of the lantern may be flush with the deck
around it and I see no urgent need to provide a separate cover for it. Yes,
the slight depression will create some turbulence but this would not be a
consideration during a ramming attack.
There
may be an additional lens on the top surface of the lantern, allowing for a
vertical shaft of light. If Captain Nemo wanted to exercise his more evil
streak, he might operate this vertical searchlight even during an attack. It
might keep the warship’s sailors off-balance by serving as a sort of
eerie, terror-inspirer; simultaneously showing and hiding the position of
the Nautilus.
In
similar fashion, the ‘horns of Jericho’ ducted sirens were attached to
the undersides of the wings of a Stuka dive bomber. The characteristic howl
as the World War II plane dive-bombed was calculated to inspire paralysis
and terror among any enemy troops or civilians targeted.
The ‘Blow Nostrils’
and Ballast Vents
The
‘blow nostrils’ make more sense being near the engine room, therefore
towards the rear of the boat.
I read Stuart Weir’s exceptional paper, and it brought up the subject of
the vents or outlets for ballast. Referring to it, they’re visible as a
line of ports in the upper hull of the USS Albacore, but seem absent
from later nuclear subs. I’ve sketched them in my preliminary design. How
do submarines take on or ‘blow ballast’ when the inlets/outlets seem to
be missing?
Propeller and Control
Surfaces
Regarding
the propeller and the control surfaces of the Nautilus, I can’t see
how so many designers ignore the sheer size of the prop. It cannot fit other
than on the mid-line of the hull. At first, I was content to have a bottom
rudder ahead of the prop then I noticed something that seemingly no one else
has. Observe the de Neuville drawing of Nemo showing an elevation of the Nautilus
to Arronax. The rudder obviously encompasses the prop and extends behind
it. The overall outline mimics the fins on the head of a squid. If you
decide that the sub is pointing the other way in the drawing, then we have
the problem of an enormous, clumsy, conical (comical?) nose cone.
Nemo
is both a naval architect and a marine naturalist and in both of these
pursuits, he is clearly inspired by the sea. I see a design reference to a
sometimes fast-moving aquatic creature as quite plausible.
At
first, my Nautilus elevation design tried to adopt the squid-type
fins by not enclosing the propeller but the tail definitely tapers, so my
outline sketch is my latest interpretation.
The
tail fins also serve to protect the propeller somewhat. I agree a propeller
shroud would be even better protection in the case of a ramming attack but
it’s not mentioned in the text and where do you draw the line on
improvements?
The
diving planes I’ve cheated slightly forward of the mid-point of the hull.
They’re protected from damage with a fixed leading edge and pivot directly
behind it.
Power and Drive
Obviously,
the Goff Nautilus reflected the new-found concern with atomic power
and this is totally in line with a Vernian outlook. Electricity was the new
wonder energy of the 19th century and was anticipated with the
same optimism and awe as atomic energy was in the first half of the 20th
century. In science fiction, there seemed nothing that either of these
forces might not do. High-tension electricity could even produce X-rays and
such research led to the discovery of the electron and of radioactivity.
Verne reflected this view and anticipated that batteries could be improved
to the extent he depicted.
Metallic
sodium is too violent for everyday use – as sodium hydroxide (lye) it’s
storable but highly corrosive. To overcome the low energy density of
electrical batteries, the proposal for a fuel-cell arrangement makes more
sense. Its elements need replenishment as per the text.
Similarly,
I don’t rule out Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR or ‘cold fusion’).
Anomalous amounts of heat are released in LENR not explainable through
chemical processes. The LENR catalysts remain and there are other
‘elements’ that require replenishment. Such cells are LENR rather than
chemical batteries.
Their
heat could be used directly to power a steam turbine to drive the propeller
and happily, this parallels a nuclear submarine's ‘atomic kettle.’ A
high-speed turbine can be geared down to prop-shaft speeds. The known
benefits of steam propulsion were certainly ‘mature’ enough for Verne.
Alternately, the steam created by a LENR could drive pistons in a ‘walking
beam’ type steam engine to drive the propeller. If you add a step to the
LENR process with steam to turbine; to electrical generator; to current
switched into electromagnets; then you can have the piston-style,
solenoid-based, reciprocating engine drive and Verne can have his lovely
gears and levers.
Even
more exotic forms are possible. Verne mentions mercury as vital to his power
generation, so we might mention the mercury-vortex engines speculated to
power several varieties of flying saucer. High electrical energy in a
spinning mercury-based fluid is thought to produce field-propulsion and is
referenced by alleged contactee George Adamski and – of all
things – by the Vimanika Shastra and other ancient Sanskrit
documents dealing with the flying ‘vimanas’ of prehistoric India. A
torsion physics-based push on a flywheel might be all the drive needed. If
old, secret scrolls came into Nemo’s possession when he was still a
Northern Indian (Parsee?) prince, well —
If you
want to go really wild, there’s always Hans Coler’s device for
transducing electrical energy from the quantum vacuum itself. Coler was a
German engineer working for the Kriegsmarine during World War II.
Speculation exists that his device was incorporated into later U-boats to
vastly extend their range for secret missions. Coler and his patents were
acquired by the United States Navy in the early postwar period and it may
well be that in an unobtrusive corner of the top-secret engine room of a
nuclear submarine, there rests a Coler coil. Who knows? If Nemo had stumbled
on this Coler principle, it would have been a once-in-a century discovery,
with the secret dying with him.
Attack Method
I
believe that the Nautilus’ oeuvre as a weapon rests on her ability to
split open a ship’s keel by cutting across it with her upper hull –
Goff’s reinforced design wins out here. To whack a ship on her backbone –
at her strongest point – is a bit problematic and a high-risk
strategy, but that’s the novel we have.
I
picture a subtly barbed spur and serrated upper prow ridges (two sides
emerging from the initial triangular ram). A full-on ramming is only
possible with a wooden ship. Passing through the rigging and between the
masts of a sinking ship is also no issue (my impression of that Hildebrand
engraving).
However,
with an ironclad as the prey, there’s none of this ‘needle through
sailcloth’ business. The submarine only ends up embedding itself in the
warship’s hull and may make its self-extraction difficult if not
impossible. It may even seal up the hole it makes, thus preserving its
enemy’s ability to stay afloat. (Such collisions of surface ships have
taken place in the 19th century.) Once an enterprising gunner on
deck is able to point a cannon downwards at the helplessly wedged Nautilus,
it’s all over for Captain Nemo.
It
should be noted again that Prof. Arronax was not an eyewitness of any
attack. Nemo tells him that he was satisfied with crippling the Abraham
Lincoln’s navigation ability by damaging her propeller(s) and rudder –
an attack perfectly within the submarine’s ability to cut athwart the
warship’s centreline and inflict damage with a ‘soft’ ramming by using
its upper hull.
In
any case, ramming anything with a submarine is a bad idea – Nemo should be
protecting himself with Mark 48 torpedoes in forward tubes – but again,
where do you draw the line on improvements?
This page and its contents © Copyright 2024 Igor Spajic
All rights reserved.
|
|