| Revision as of 18:26, 12 October 2011 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,350 editsm Signing comment by 85.210.49.20 - "→No use whatsoever...: new section"← Previous edit |
Revision as of 21:22, 27 November 2011 edit undoBrad101 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,813 edits Archiving 27 threads to archive 1Next edit → |
| Line 20: |
Line 20: |
|
{{WikiProject Arctic|class=FA|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Arctic|class=FA|importance=low}} |
|
{{Talk Spoken Misplaced Pages|Arctic Balloon Expedition 1.ogg|Arctic Balloon Expedition 2.ogg}} |
|
{{Talk Spoken Misplaced Pages|Arctic Balloon Expedition 1.ogg|Arctic Balloon Expedition 2.ogg}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
==Navigation== |
|
|
It looks like there's a pretty good idea of the route they took, judging from that map -- which I'm guessing comes from the diaries? But I've started to wonder what navigation equipment were they using to get their position? And how many readings did they make in the three-day period before the crash on 14 July? In other words, how approximate is the solid line on the map? —] (]) 00:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: Hi there. The ''Med Örnen mot polen'' volume of 1930 remains the fullest resource on that. The Swedish original, at least, has a whole chapter on the instruments and the observations. The author of that chapter has no concept of writing for an amateur, but I believe the gist is that the expedition had a sextant, chronometers, and something called a "universal instrument". Compass isn't mentioned, though of course they had one, so maybe it was part of the universal thingy. They used them all the time, and kept several journals. The official point of the expedition was, after all, to map the place, and Frænkel was basically along for the purpose of making observations and measurements full time. From the balloon they were able to see the sun a lot of the time, and they could see several terrestrial points, called Vogelsang North and Gray Hoek, and something else. They could get latitude and longitude all right, and they noted them at least once an hour. The solid line is pretty good, I reckon. Of course the dotted line isn't, for many reasons, though they did keep up the frequent astronomical observations. ] | ] 02:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
::(I can't face putting this stuff into the article though. I'd have to ''learn'' the ''terms''! And it would get longer still, it's already indecent. ] | ] 02:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC).) |
|
|
:::Thanks for satisfying my curiousity. Maybe you could sneak a tiny bit of that into the image description page - but it's probably not important in the article. Lucky for us it wasn't overcast much during those three days, I guess... —] (]) 03:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Geography == |
|
|
|
|
|
The text says that from the landing point, the two depots were about the same distance. On the map, however, Cape Flora looks substantially further (three gridlines down and two across, compared to two lines down and one across for Seven Islands). Am I missing something? ]] 23:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I find something to ask about, and someone else has gotten there first. I concur - was it a terrain thing? Or was "approximate" very very approximate? ]<sup>]</sup> 00:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Ah, yes. No, you're not missing anything. The explorers thought the distances were about equal, we can see that they're not. Very likely they had bad position info about either or both depots. (I mean, there was a reason they were there to ''map'' the place. For instance, Kvitøya at the time appeared on maps as two substantial islands some ways apart, White's Island and Gillis' Land or something, because somebody had taken a bad bearing once.) They could also have really meant approximately. Or they could have taken some wild guesses about likely winds and currents into account — you've seen how Andrée was likely to throw out wild guesses about that sort of thing, and then immediately become convinced that he was speaking fact. None of my sources discuss the distance, they just say it was about the same — I guess, just repeating Andrée's statement that it was, without looking closely at a map. So my discussing it in the article would be original research, I guess, besides being a bit of a waste of spece, as I wouldn't get anywhere. What do you think? Maybe I'd best just avoid saying anything about the distances at all? One thing I can state with confidence, though, Killer, is that it wasn't a terrain thing. They had no means, absolutely none, of knowing anything about the terrain until they were standing on it. Nobody'd been there. And besides, it moved. ] | ] 00:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
:::well, I was thinking if one direction looked fairly level, and in the other there was a huge iceberg or mountainous area, they might make a decision based on that. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The lead == |
|
|
|
|
|
It occurs to me that the lead, even in the short version, dedicates a healthy chunk of space to the failure of the drag rope system to allow steering -- which might be somewhat off-point, given that the lack of steering turned out to not really be a factor in the failure of the expedition, since the rapid hydrogen leakage made it a moot point. What do you think? —] (]) 04:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Well, I'm not sure, I'll think about it. The expedition was doomed twice over, because the balloon leaked and because it couldn't be steered. Andrée ought to have known both things, and I ought to have put both of them in the Lead, I think, regardless of which factor actually did for them. (In other words, I certainly ought to put the leakage thing, which I just removed, right back.) Another consideration is that the factor that didn't have time to bring down disaster on them, the lack of steering, is the more intrinsically interesting. I mean, ''if'' somebody could figure a good system for steering a balloon driven by the wind, it would revolutionise the whole thing. Being able to make a non-leaky surface is a more trivial problem, which surely ''had'' been solved by then; the lord knows what the eminent and highly-regarded Lachambre was doing, failing at it. Perhaps he had simply gone insane like the whole lot of them. ] | ] 05:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
::I definitely see where you're coming from; I agree the steering holds more interest than the leaking -- although you could juice up the leaking angle with a mention of the (well-proven?) cheating Andrée was doing with the secret topping-ups, perhaps. Or would that tip the lead toward the Andrée-as-scoundrel angle too much? Hm. —] (]) 17:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yeah, no man who got played by ] can be all bad. Anyway, I think we're ready to go. Three... two... one... we're on FAC. ] | ] 00:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
==Tone etc.== |
|
|
|
|
|
I really like the tone of this article, although I have to say, it could be ''toned down'' in some places, this for example: "Andrée neglected many early signs of the dangers of his balloon plan." made me laugh out loud, I don't know why and I don't know how you'd word it less humourously, but o___O - I loved this: "It must be at least somewhat steerable." - '"it had really been doing all along" (p. 47)' could this reference be made more explicit and could Andree be turned into Andrée all the way through? Even without these its FA material though :) Great work! - ] 10:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Lol, thanks. I ''think'' he's Andrée everywhere except in quotes, where I follow the original spelling. Likely enough I've missed the little flydropping over the e in places where I meant to use it, though—if you see it missing in a non-quote, could you please just supply it? About having really been at the mercy of the ice drift all along, it's just an aside Kjellström drops, after describing the way the drift was first stopping them from getting to Cape Flora, and then, when they turned nearly 180°, the drift devilishly did the same, and remained set against them. I've just described that as well, when I quote Kjellström, so I'm not sure how I'd make it clearer. Any suggestion? |
|
|
:You call that tone? ;-) Me, I could have sworn people would object to the sarcasm "the little boat (not designed by Andrée) was apparently a functional and safe conveyance" (this after mentioning how bad the sleds that he'd designed were). But not a peep so far. :-) I really appreciate your tone remark, actually. It's nice to have stuff noticed! ] | ] 11:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
::Haha! I'm glad it was deliberate, I purposely kept my comment as vague as possible because no-one else had commented and I wasn't sure if it was just your writing style - but yes, it does seem a bit sarcastic and definately seems like you're slating Andrée. Although I like this and I'm not going to butcher your prose by trying to fix it. Might be nice to fill in a stub for ], the only redlink on the page. This is the first time that an article has been both a ''damned fine'' piece of encyclopaedic work ''and'' made me laugh. Normally I just get to laugh at the bad stuff :( - ] 11:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I loved the little boat- please don't fix it! ]] 11:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Thank you both, that's very flattering. I hesitate to make a Lachambre stub myself—I'm very suspicious of the French and English Google hits for him, as they have a sinister similarity with the hair-raisingly inaccurate Anglophone Andrée pages I've come across. (Most of the Lachambre Google hits ''are'' inaccurate Andrée pages, if it comes to that.) ] | ] 14:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
As much as I abhor the use of ]s, why do you have '']s'' instead of '']s'' - which I understand is the usual American spelling? If its to prevent having to dab, then ignore this :) PS. I created a substub on Henri from a small reference in some journal I found. - ] 15:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Heh, yes, I saw the link turn blue between two saves—thank you! I don't know why I have metres. ] did them. Or did ] change them? Guys, are you there? ] | ] 15:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
::Um, I think KC did a couple that way, and I played along, thinking that the whole article ''was'' commonwealth English (and no doubt the "metres" were what made Wayward copyedit in that direction too, since I know he respects that sort of thing...) In any case, they should be "meters", certainly. —] (]) 21:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Do we really have to say ] and ] when the ] spellings are ] and ]? And do we need to spell out that "kg" means ] each time when ] is always abbreviated "lb"? -- ] ] 22:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::The answer to the first question is a certain "yes": if the article is going to use American spellings, then it should be consistent. That really is how we spell over here. The second point, well, I admit I'm just blindly following the rule from the MOS: |
|
|
:::''Spell out source units in text. Use digits and unit symbols for converted values and for measurements in tables. For example, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long".'' |
|
|
::I guess the idea is that the part outside the parent is part of the main text, and abbreviations are generally discouraged in the prose, while the part in the parens -- the conversion -- is an aside that should be kept short. —] (]) 22:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Sundman's interpretation== |
|
|
Hi, Andrew Levine. Your edit summaries insist that I'm misunderstanding the structure of a sentence I wrote. If there was any ambiguity about what the subject of the verb "carry over" was in my original sentence (I think there wasn't), I still showed, by using the form "carries", not "carry", that "interpretation" was the intended subject. I'm a little surprised you'd '''re'''revert after I'd explained what I meant, effectively telling me "No, you didn't" or "Well, you oughtn't to have". It seems a little imperious. Also, "interpretation" is IMO preferable to "interpretations", because Sundman's interpretation of certain features of the culture he's writing about is all of a piece, it's closely interconnected, and therefore an interpretation, rather than three interpretations. ] | ] 21:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
==An earlier interpretation== |
|
|
As early as 1931 the Swedish essayist Frans G. Bengtsson wrote an interpretation that is very close to Sundman's (and yours), and I suspect Sundman has borrowed a lot from it. His Andrée is a rather imature young man that is full of naive admiration for science and goes around bragging about what he will do with it - and discovers too late, at the time of the first fiasco, what he has set in motion. |
|
|
|
|
|
==Lachambre's book== |
|
|
Searching ] for ], I found (besides the ''Military Affairs'' article already referenced by ] in the Lachambre article) the following book mentioned in one of those recent books sections of ''The Geographical Journal'' (1898, p. 457): |
|
|
*Henri Lachambre & Alexis Machuron: ''Andrée. Au Pole Nord en Ballon''. Paris: Librairie Nilsson, . Size 7 1/2 x 5, pp. 250. Portraits and illustrations. |
|
|
*Henri Lachambre & Alexis Machuron: ''Andrée and his Balloon''. London: A. Constable & Co, 1898. Size 8 x 5 1/2, pp. 306. Portraits and illustrations. |
|
|
|
|
|
The bibliography notes: "This book, by the constructors of the balloon, describes all the preliminary arrangements and the departure of the expedition, with great detail and numerous illustrations." |
|
|
|
|
|
] has a stub on the German Misplaced Pages (]), where the book is claimed to have influenced ]. ] 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Numerous illustrations and all out of copyright, droool? I've never written ''any'' article with such an embarrassment of riches of great pictorial material. It would also be interesting to read it, of course. I wouldn't use it as a factual source, as it can hardly help being self-serving: the affair was embarrassing for Lachambre. And he was there, at Danskøya, for the abortive 1896 launch, he'll have known all about Ekholm's criticisms. Let me see...ha! KB has the Swedish, French, English, and Italian first editions. :-) You're very clever, Tups. I never thought to check the recent books sections of ''The Geographical Journal''. ;-) ] | ] 07:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
== De döda på Vitön == |
|
|
{{Resolved}} |
|
|
Would it be possible to provide an English translation for "De döda på Vitön"? I couldn't find one |
|
|
|
|
|
<s>Also, (I wrote the first comment in this section) how am I supposed to particpate in discussion? I noticed it didn't save my name (not an ego thing, just wondering if I'm doing it right...)</s> ] 02:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hi and welcome! Type four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) where you want to sign, and it automagically gets turned into a timestamped signature. —] (]) 02:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<s>Thanks. I went back and edited it to include. How do I go back and "cross it out", now that you have answered my question? (I've seen folks do that too...) </s>] 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:With the strikeout tag <s>, and its closing tag </s>. If I hadn't escaped the angle-brackets in that sentence, it would have come out thusly: "With the strikeout tag <s>, and it's closing tag </s>" —] (]) 04:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::''De döda på Vitön'' (="The Dead on Kvitøya") hasn't been published in any other language than Swedish, sorry; I've checked the Swedish and Danish national libraries, both of which would definitely have any existing translation. It wasn't even published in Danish, although Tryde was a Dane who no doubt wrote in that language. It's natural, if you think about it: it's a whole ''book'' about a single, rather minor aspect of the Andrée expedition: the question of what killed them. (That's a minor question, for my money, since they were doomed, they ''were'' going to be soon dead, if not from one cause, then from another.) Where was there a possible market for such a book? -Sweden, nowhere else. ] | ] 13:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
:::I thought ] was asking for just a translation of the title; if so, I have obliged by adding it to the article. —] (]) 15:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Thanks. (That's what I was asking for.) ] 17:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
Nice article. But there is nothing here concerning by whom or when their bodies where discovered. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Bravo == |
|
|
|
|
|
Beautifully done all the way around. Bravo. ] 02:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: :-) Thank you. Are you keeping an eye on it tonight, Geogre? I'm (yawn) s'posed to be in bed. ] | ] 02:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
== Great Article == |
|
|
|
|
|
A thums up to the authors of this article as it was very interesting. --] |
|
|
|
|
|
: I second that. One of the best of its type that I have read on Misplaced Pages. ] 12:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
And thirded. A really well written, informative read. Two thumbs up. ] 15:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Fourthed. An excellent, informative and well-written article. ] 10:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== congrtz on da good aticle == |
|
|
|
|
|
man dis is somer onf the bestr artricle i havwe every seen on wikpedia....i thought tha you did a bery good job tpyihis artivle please kep making article s this good b ecuase iot makes wikipedia look really good have a nicve dfay |
|
|
|
|
|
:Heh heh. :-D Very kind, both of you! ] | ] 07:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
I was just going to say the same thing. I didn't know a thing about Andrée before.. it was very interesting and well-written! -- ] 11:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Discovery in the 30ies == |
|
|
|
|
|
Kudos to everyone who has helped make this a FA! An exciting article about an exciting story. But the part of the story that recounts how the remains of the explorers were found in the 30ies is underdeveloped. The in polish that is in the external links section seems to have some info on that (I don't understand polish). Could this part be more elaborated? --] 09:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks.:-) I don't understand Polish either; I don't believe that site has any info that's not available in my books, though (see reference section), so that's moot. It's linked for the sake of the photos, which are exceptionally high quality (the web is full of miserable thumbnails of Strindberg's pics). You're not the first to ask for a fuller treatment of the finding of the bodies, compare featured article candidates discussion . I've been meaning to expand it, I just haven't gotten round to it. Perhaps because I don't personally find it a very fascinating aspect of the story... I've understood that it's missed, though. I will, I will! ] | ] 10:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
::I think the story of the finding is an exciting one too. I found these two articles in the : (Aug. 6, 1930) and (Sept 6, 1930). I can try and sew a small paragraph from these two but I am intimidated by the prospect of tinkering with a FA that's on the Main Page. --] 10:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Oh, no, please don't be, do tinker! It's exactly because we (=], the FA director) hope for helpful tinkering that the Main Page article is not protected from editing. It's hoped that the helpfulness will balance the PENIS edits, that of course articles get a lot of also, on their day in the sun. I'd appreciate it if you input the paragraph you have in mind. ] | ] 13:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
::::Done. --] 17:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Oh, btw, I don't know if the ordering of the sections is correct now. Please see if it should be mended. --] 17:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Ooh, looks nicely done at first glance - kudos. See, that didn't hurt too badly, did it? ]<sup>]</sup> 17:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Another novel based on this balloon journey == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure I read another (American?) novel based on this ballon journey (other than The Flight of the Eagle). It involved a woman on the trip disguised as man, and was quite 'psychological', otherwise it was clearly based on the Andree expedition (including death by polar bear meat) - it was a good read. Has anyone else come across this? what was the title? |
|
|
:LOL. A disguised woman in the triple sleeping-bag and nobody noticed? Quite a thought. I've never heard of it, but I'll keep a lookout from now on. ] | ] 15:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
:Found it! See http://www.physics.upenn.edu/~heiney/harris/balloonist.html for info and pics of the cover.--] 09:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Well done - I have found a Sundman interview (from New Zealand!) mentioning both novels, see below. -- ] ] 12:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Links== |
|
|
] gives the United States as the example of whether a link is relevent to the content. IMHO, the same consideration applies here, because Russia and Canada are not specifically relevent - neither had anything to do with the expedition directly. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Newspaper article== |
|
|
Pittsburgh Post, 1898. Not sure if you saw this one, Bishonen - it highlights how much Andree mis-stated how the 1896 excursion went, and how ignorant people were (at least Pittsburgh reporters were) about the conditions near the North Pole. It might be useful, I post the link here: http://ku-prism.org/polarscientist/andreemystery/June191898Pittsburgh.htm I accidentally stumbled across this trying to find the fictional story above (woman disguised as man) ]<sup>]</sup> 15:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Legacy== |
|
|
Wasn't ]'s poetic novel "Anna's book" also based on this expedition? ] 18:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes - "Anna Charlier faces months of anxiety and fear when her fiance, Nils Strindberg, joins a Swedish balloon expedition to the North Pole" and Per Olof Sundman on ''Anna's Book'' (1983): "Although MacBeth claims to have solely used the Andrée men's diaries as his material, Sundman commented that there were a number of turns of phrase in MacBeth's novel which indicated that he had in fact used the English translation of Ingenjör Andrées luftfärd (translated by Mary Sandbach) as his source of inspiration." (with the footnote: "See also "En ballongseglats mot döden", p. 2. The other novel mentioned there by Sundman as being (very loosely) based on the Andrée story is The Balloonist (1976) by MacDonald Harris") -- ] ] 12:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Estonia Disaster Quote is Unclear == |
|
|
|
|
|
It's unclear that this quote was made significantly in the future, where a date of 1994 makes sense. The first thing that popped into my head is that this date must be wrong, because 1994 doesn't make sense when talking about something that occurred in 1930. Please someone add some dated information to indicate that this is a contemporary quote. |
|
|
:I see your point. I've simply deleted the second sentence from that quote - I don't think it was neccessary to carry the point. —] (]) 23:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::...And I put it back. See section below. —] (]) 04:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== End of diary == |
|
|
|
|
|
This is a great article. It may be disrespectful or grim, but I'm curious what the incoherent end of the journal said. ] 23:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have it on good authority that the final diary entry was "So long and thanks for all the fish" ] 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 81.131.87.205 , did you edited the wrong version == |
|
|
It seems to me that the last editor, 81.131.87.205, bases his/hers edits on an older version. By this a lot new information added the last day is lost. To me it seems to be the best solution to revert the last edit. Some other opinions? ---] 09:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Where has the national mourning gone?== |
|
|
What happened to that fascinating peice about national mourning and the Estonia disaster at the end with all the Main page editing, has it been deleted by some fool in eror? I thought it gave a very thoughtful and rather moving perspective. One can't beat a good funeral, lots of black and weeping (I change the plans for my own on a daily basis) There's still a photo that illustrates the funeral - it seems a litle lost without the text referring to it - rather like bowing to an empty hearse. It was just short but telling and moving (I weep). There was a quote from somebody Enlgish I think, probably a good thing with all the Swedish sources, can some-one re-insert it. ] | ] 21:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:My removal of the second half of that quote seems to have inspired the removal of the remainder of it, perhaps, and I'm certainly not convinced I was right about even removing that much. I too think it should come back. —] (]) 22:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I concur. Bring back the massively morbid melancholia. (I didn't think it was morbid, but the alliteration appealed to me.) ]<sup>]</sup> 00:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It's back. —] (]) 04:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::*Omnes gentes plaudite manibus jubilate Deo in voce exultationis ] | ] 07:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Örnen / Eagle == |
|
|
|
|
|
I added the actual name of the balloon, ''Örnen'', the first time it is mentioned in the text. Throughout the text, it is referred to as ''Eagle'' rather than ''Örnen''. Do the sources about the expedition in English language, maybe primarily the translations of the diaries from the expedition, refer to the ballon as ''Eagle'' or ''Örnen''? The 11th edition of EB does unfortunately not mention the balloon's name . Are there any other sources saying the name of the balloon was referred to as ''Eagle'' in the English language before the film "The Flight of the Eagle"? // ] 09:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Of the contemporary news clips at I found one that mentions both ''Ornen'' and ''Eagle'' and two mentioning only ''Eagle'' so yes the translation of the name is old but most news items on the expedition does not mention the name. The article by Dave Mullington at balloonlife.com mentions ''Eagle'' once as a translation, then says ''Ornen'' throughout the text. I see no strong case for either version but an easy way out is to change some of the mentioning of the name of the balloon to "the balloon", lessening the impression that ''Eagle'' was the actual name. // ] 10:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Optimistic homing pigeons == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why was it an optimistic hope that pigeons bred in Norway would return home? That is the bases of all use of ]. Was the distance in fact too long, was it too cold, is there any other reason to deem the trust in homing pigeons as optimistic - or is it just an opinon? // ] 16:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:It was proven to be optimistic thnking, since none of the pigeons made it back to their home. —] (]) 16:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::There was only sea beneath them, that's why it was optimistic. It was horrendously far (check a map). Pigeons can perhaps travel farther than that, but not over open sea with no food and no water and no rest. It says it all that the one pigeon found had managed to locate a ship, where it landed to seek these things (in vain). It's not just an opinion. It was a silly publicity stunt by ''Aftonbladet'', as foolishly optimistic as Andrée's own assertion that if snow fell on the balloon, it would "blow off". ] | ] 17:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
::: OK. The current wording is much better. // ] 17:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is a minor point in the article and I do not find it terribly crucial, but still. |
|
|
|
|
|
According the the Gränna museum website used as reference in the article, at the 1896 expedition 30 pigeons were released from Dansköya by the ''Aftonbladet'' reporter who was with the expedition all summer at the launching site, but none arrived to Norway. According to the ship captain's diary many of those pigeons did not even want to leave the island, but remained nearby the ship. I agree with the conclusion on the museum website that everyone at the time must have known that the chance that pigeons or buoys would arrive to the civilisation were slim. I suppose the chance was still worth it to take for ''Aftonbladet'' since the newspaper would have loved a news bill saying they hade a message from Andrée. The cost of breeding and bringing these pigeons must, in comparison, have been minor. It might be me who do not understand the nuances, but IMO the word "optimistic" might bring the impression that the decision to bring the pigeons was based on a foolish belief that most of these pigeons would arrive safely. // ] 19:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The Svea test journeys == |
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding the test flights, there are two things in the article which I will try to correct: |
|
|
1. In the article it says: |
|
|
''«The main purpose of Andrée's Svea flights was to test and perfect the drag-rope steering technique that he had invented and wanted to use on his projected North Pole expedition.»'' |
|
|
In the book ''Med Örnen mot polen'' (1930) it says (p. 38) that he first used the drag-rope on the sixth of the nine journeys, and it even seems that the sixth journey was the only journey on which drag ropes were used, as on page 45 it says that his only argument for the steerability was his journey in the 14 july 1894. |
|
|
It also seems that he had not thought about testing his idea when he started the testing. On page 42 it is indicated the impulse for testing this technique in practice was a discussion that he had with ] the 19 march, 9 months after the first flight with Svea. |
|
|
2. It also says ''«Moreover, his drag ropes would persistently snap, fall off, become entangled with each other, or get stuck to the ground, which could result in pulling the often low-flying balloon down into a dangerous bounce.»'' This is not mentioned in ''Med Örnen mot polen'', but it says on page 61 that some people thought that drag-ropes might get stuck, which made Andrée use the screw holds, although he thought it was unnecessary, as he did nod not share the belief that the ropes might get stuck. ] 17:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The page "Andrées färder" on the website of Svenska ballongfederationen (Swedish Ballooning Federation) used as a reference says says ''Under några färder gjorde han försök att styra ballongen med hjälp av en släplina'' (during some of the voyages, he tried steering the ballon with a guiding rope /drag-rope). The website specifically mentions drag-ropes on Svea voyage number three and six. According to as user at svwiki, it says in ''Med Örnen mot polen'' that Andrée was in the middle of the Svea test flight when he started to try out the drag ropes (]. I changed the wordings in article accordingly. // ] 17:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Oops, double posting with Battra above. Well, I guess it looks better to leave it than to strike it through... // ] 17:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Good, you changed the article so I didn't have too. The book apparently was wrong in saying that drag-rope was used the first time on the sixth journey, since it was used at least on the third journey too. Anyway, it seems the the possibilities to steer the baloon was mainly studied on the sixth journey. Then a kind of sail was also used. ] 18:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thanks, Habj. Sven Lundström, ''Vår position är ej synnerligen god...'', p. 13, mentions "several" drag rope journeys, presumably meaning more than two. Battra, it may be worth mentioning that I actually use ''Med Örnen mot polen'' as little as possible as a source, and only where it's confirmed by other books, because it's such a whitewash job. It's a hagiography of the dead heroes. It's extremely valuable for the full diary transcripts, but the background stuff, which comprises two thirds of the text, well... that's persistently skewed to make Andrée's judgement look good. The mastermind behind the book is Gurli Linder, Andrée's mistress, who when he didn't return made it her mission for the rest of her life to polish his halo and to keep any criticism at bay (see Lundström, p. 174). Anyway, the hand-picked writers in ''Med Örnen'' aren't going to mention any mishaps, or any situation making Andrée look undignified. The "bounce" thing comes from Lundström, though I can't put my hand on the page reference right now. The unreliability of ''Med Örnen'' isn't my opinion (though I do think it's common sense), it comes (mainly) from Sven Lundström. Lundström is a specialist, in that he's the curator of the Grenna museum, and his account is a hundred times more neutral in tone that ''Med Örnen''. I'm sure, though, that it's true that Andrée did think the screw holds unnecessary. His ropes had gotten stuck and caused bounces quite frequently before, but he figured, in his irrepressible way, that that would never happen on ''ice''. Did you notice the bit about how he thought drag ropes especially good in the Arctic, because of the low friction (=ice)? I think he must have been picturing something like Lake Mälaren on a good day for skating, poor man. ] | ] 18:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Hmm, but wouldn't the supposedly low friction make it difficult to steer the balloon...? I agree that ''Med örnen mot polen'' hardly is unbiased, as it is full av patriotism and heroism and is missing the criticism that has come after the book (1930). If serious problems with the drag-ropes really was "forgotten" it might be good to take the book with more than a pinch of salt of course, though I hope that the quotations given in the "background part" are not falsified at least. ] 20:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Slightly off topic, but that is exactly my thought also regarding the low friction. // ] 09:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Right. The whole point of drag ropes is that they work (insofar as they work at all) ''by'' friction, and here, when it suits him, Andrée is suddenly citing ''low'' friction as an advantage. I thought that was amusing and characteristic, as also his other arguments at that point — his whole snow job at the Vetenskapsakademien. Er, Habj, I don't quite see how your sentence (uh, not a real sentence) about the stability of the latent image is relevant to the subject at hand. It seems more like a general observation or random factoid. ] | ] 01:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
::::: Er, I removed it from the article about Andrée where it fitted worse since it is certainly not about Andrée himself... anyone who does not like it here, remove it. *shrug* // ] 02:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Watch out! I'm about to defend Andrée! Just because it's low-friction doesn't mean it's no-friction, and the amount of friction needed to steer might be quite low. Take for example ]s, gliding over a low-friction surface and steering just fine, or for that matter, regular sail boats in fairly-low-friction water. OK, now I'll stop defending Andrée and point out that ice boats have runners and sailboats have a keel, and those are devices designed to selectively ''increase'' friction perpendicular to the direction of travel, which really helps when it comes to steering. Andrée's plan steers at best as a keel-less sailboat, which is pretty much... hardly at all, yes. —] (]) 03:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== little contradiction? == |
|
|
|
|
|
The first paragraph of the part "On foot on the ice" stated ''Strindberg took about 200 photos with his seven-kilogram (15 lb) camera over the course of the three months they spent on the pack ice, one of the most famous being his picture of Strindberg and Frænkel contemplating the fallen Eagle (see image above)'', but the description of this photography states that it pictures Andrée and Frænkel, and that Strindberg was that photographer. It seems logical that it was Andrée and not Strindberg on the picture, so I corrected the article. ] 12:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Phonograph recording? == |
|
|
In the biography of Nils Strindberg written by Tyrone Martinsson it is mentioned on page 166-167 that “Svenska Hjälpföreningen” in New York had set up a phonograph recoding session in which Nils Strindberg and S.A Andrée took part (among others), Nils speech is typed out in the book (from one of his letters to his brother, written 30 April 1897). In his speech he talks about the expedition. Andrées speech is not texted, only Oscar Strindberg mentions that Andrée talked about his American sympathies. |
|
|
The phonograph recoding was to be played at an affair to benefit poor Swedes living in America, a charity event if you will. This is mentioned by Nils father Oscar in a letter. |
|
|
Does anyone know if such a recording still exists? I know these phonograph recordings were very fragile so the odds are probably against it. |
|
|
(] 16:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)) |
|
|
:Well, it might exist, no doubt. But I've never heard of any extant version, and I read some ten books and articles when I researched this page, so the odds are I probably would have. Also, Martinsson is an academic writing his dissertation; I think the whereabouts of any extant version is the kind of thing that he would naturally tend to mention in it. ] | ] 18:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
::The New York Public Library (www.nypl.org) has an outstanding collection -- better than most research universities -- and its catalog can be searched online, I believe. That would be in special collections, but the record, if it survives, would be either there or in the Library of Congress. NYPL does an excellent job of archiving, so, if it ever entered their possession, it's likely to exist and be playable. ] 19:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== thumb sizing == |
|
|
|
|
|
Someone reverted my slightly ] application of the wikipedia ] to thumbnail ], with the comment that it wasn't discussed. I'm a bit surprised by this, as I wouldn't have guessed discussion was warranted to follow the rules. |
|
|
|
|
|
The reverter's summary indicates my edit ''makes most of the images too tiny to be discerned at a normal screen resolution''. Well, yes: a thumbnail isn't meant to show detail. One is supposed to click on the thumbnail to see it at higher resolution. Also, it could be that your thumbnail size setting is too small. (Click on '']'', then ''Files'' and select a larger ''Thumbnail size''.) One of the reasons for the existence of this preference is to accommodate slow internet connections. That becomes even more important for an image-intensive page like this. — ] 08:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's not "the rules", it's a recommendation, so I'll discuss a little all the same. The recommendation says "the default thumbnail width can be set in the preferences, so it is recommended ''not'' to specify "px", in order to respect the users' preferences (unless, for a special reason, a specific size is required regardless of preferences, or a size is specified outside the range of widths 120–300px that can be set in the preferences)". I take your point that it's up to the user to set their image size preferences, even though I suppose most wikipedians, and practically all passing readers, simply use the default setting, as Uppland does. But there is indeed a special reason to set the ''lead image'' in pixels: its proportions. I myself have a good big thumbnail size set in my preferences, 250 px, but even with that width, the lead image becomes absurdly tiny. When I originally designed this featured article, I set that famous photo of Andrée and Frænkel with the crashed balloon on the polar icecap at 400 px. Being so low and wide, it doesn't look especially big like that at the most common screen resolutions. If it has to be a default thumb, I'd sooner not see it in the article at all. When it was on the front page, the FA director ] agreed with me that this lead image couldn't be treated like other front page article images (these are always set at 100px), and I exchanged it for —a suitably cropped, nice square image for the purpose. I do think, though, that the present image is far and away the best choice for the lead. It's very famous and very haunting, and was the first picture from the disastrous expedition to be published, in 1930, and it's reproduced all over the place; for instance, it's in the logo of the Andrée Museum. I'd sooner you simply removed it, rather than have it as a toy balloon crashed in somebody's wintry backyard. ] | ] 15:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
==Tiny little holes, snow-cpas and icing== |
|
|
I find the emphasis on the loss of gas a bit overweight compared to other reasons for loss of ''buoyancy''. |
|
|
|
|
|
OK, so the balloon was bleeding gas. Fair enough. But if Ekholm's calculations are correct, and even considering that gas loss was far more severe, the discrepancy of 17 days and less than 3 days is striking. |
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding snow, I once read (don't know where) that Andrée had a moveable "cap" put on top of ''Örnen'' so that snow build-up could be shaken off. It is not mentioned in the article; was it actually there? |
|
|
|
|
|
Which brings me to the third point, the effect of waterlogging or icing. This is very much understated in the article, but the one explicit mention of waterlogging ''seems'' to suggest that this contributed to the early demise to a considerable part (It might be possible to do a crude calculation, to the order of magnitude perhaps, of the weight the balloon would accumulate by soaking up fog). I think that an explicit reference to icing/waterlogging was even made before the landing, as per the diaries; this could be checked out. |
|
|
|
|
|
That is not to say that the expedition would not have failed in any case, but based on the little "semi-hard" data on gas loss, it would seem that they could have made it twice as far as they did (82°N or so) before trouble started in earnest. By Ekholm's estimate applied to the travel speeds before the bumpy part of the balloon ride began would suggest that the buoyancy at the "ground" rate of gas loss was just shy of sufficient to make it from 80°N to 80°N trans-Pole. |
|
|
|
|
|
It is not clear how good Ekholm's data is - or is it clear? The text is ambiguous as regards to whether the "anomalies" (i.e. Andrée cheating his way to an early death) are affecting the "17 days" figure. In any case, it is neither clear how one can be so sure about the rate of gas loss. So it might be petter to make it a bit less explicit and use a neural terminology like "loss of buoyancy" more often, because ''that'' way it is certainly correct. ] (]) 23:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==An Artists Impression?== |
|
==An Artists Impression?== |
I've fixed the link in my starting post (see above), this points to the publishers webpage. I've checked the site and both the original version of this graphic collection & a subsequent release entitled 'A Compendium of Illustrations' are out of print. The terms of use seem to require permission to be obtained before the picture can be used. Graham1973 (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Apparently an anon thinks there are weasel words in the "S. A. Andree's scheme" section. There's plenty of opinion in it, but as far as I can see, the opinions are discussed as such, and are sourced. I've removed the template, pending some argument on this talkpage from the anon. Bishonen | talk 10:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC).
How can the balloon gondola be in the museum? They must have left it where it crashed. Perhaps a Swedish speaker could look it up on the museum's website? PhilUK (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
...but this is one of the most fascinating, well-researched and well-written articles on Misplaced Pages. Superb work all round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.49.20 (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
