The reason why Africa is still lagging behind can actually be glimpsed through this movie. African brothers who are accustomed to relying on the sky for food, in the famine years, relying on a semi-illiterate child, built a wind turbine to achieve pumping irrigation, and finally helped people through the famine year, although this story shows at the beginning It's a real thing, and the movie ends with the image data of the character prototype, but it still feels hard to believe. From the perspective of the Chinese working people’s mindset, it is nothing more than artificial irrigation. For thousands of years before the invention of electric power, Chinese ancestors have always done this. Where water resources are rich, water tankers are used, and where wind resources are rich, they are used. Where there is no wind, water conservancy and wind power, manpower is used, and manpower treadmills to fetch water for irrigation have been used for thousands of years before the popularization of modern technology and equipment. Especially in northern China, where the weather is dry and the winter is cold, only one season can be harvested a year. Even so, the same area of land has nourished more people than Africa. If the waterwheel can no longer solve the problem, dig a reservoir to build a canal, in short, fight against the sky, the earth, and the forces of nature. In Africa, making a windmill is worth making a movie. Does this mean how smart this kid is, or how lazy and numb other people are?
In addition, this kind of electric power design scheme in the movie may not be very feasible. I don't know if the screenwriter deliberately simplified the plot in order to make it clear. First of all, the power of this permanent magnet DC generator for bicycle lighting is too low, that is, about 5 watts, and the voltage is unstable. It is very difficult to supply power to the battery through this generator. Adding a voltage regulator, these are not qualified. Even if these conditions are met, the battery is used to pump water with the water supply pump. This efficiency is okay if it is occasionally watering three or five pots of ornamental flowers. Irrigating the farmland that feeds the whole village is really a fantasy.
From a film perspective, it is still worth recommending, especially the thoughts expressed in the film are commendable. To change the destiny requires scientific knowledge, whether it is a person, a family, a village, or Or it seems the fate of a country. It takes more than just a boy's upward mobility, but requires everyone to work together. From the movie, we can see that the people of Malawi are living under pressure, fraudulent extortion by foreign companies (tobacco companies forced to buy and sell), the local government's corruption and violence (beating local chiefs, blocking famine news), The people under the famine began to rob the weaker women and children in order to fill their stomachs. There is only one way to solve these problems, which is to let all children go to school and have an education. Whether a country is strong and civilized or not depends on the cultural level of the citizens of the country.
Regarding religion, at the beginning of the movie, the protagonist’s family prayed before the meal, which should be Christian. The people who walked on stilts with feathers at the funeral were doing various religious ceremonies, which should be local indigenous beliefs. At the end of the chief’s funeral, many Muslims appeared. Suffering is the fuel for the spread of religion, and religion is the narcotic for suffering. None of these can really solve the problem, only diligence and science can solve the problem.
-----------------split line--------------
After reading many comments later, it seems that there is still a bit of deviation in expressing opinions, which has caused misunderstandings. Please explain
1 I am very supportive of innovation and education. I believe that this is the only way to change the destiny of mankind. I am just opposed to exaggerating, especially the labeling of real people and real things. For example, Einstein is a great scientist. If a film tells the story of Einstein, this film tells Einstein to engage in academic research and expand the boundaries of human knowledge, this is right. But in order to show Einstein's greatness, it is nonsense to say that Einstein personally participated in the creation of the atomic bomb and ended World War II ahead of schedule. This is nonsense and it is wrong.
2 To be sympathetic to the people in poor countries is like seeing people who are actually able to work but choose not to work, and instead live by begging (excluding those who sell art and beggars). I express their experience Sympathy, but will not give charity. In China, there is a shortage of jobs that can make you rich, but there is no shortage of jobs that can make a living. With the same money, it makes more sense to buy bottles of mineral water for sanitation workers.
3 Regarding whether the story of this movie is reasonable, I personally feel that the key lies in how much water the irrigation system invented by the protagonist can provide, as shown in the figure below
Now let’s take a look at the story of the three values of A, B, and C under various values. First, B+C must be greater than or equal to A, otherwise the story is not true (the ending of the story is that people have passed through the year of famine) . Now look at the relationship between B and C, divided into three situations:
1. B is far greater than C;
2. The difference between B and C is not bad;
Three, C is much larger than B
There is also a hidden condition. In the comments, there is a debate about whether the value of C is large or small. We put aside the dispute and leave it alone, but the value of B should be estimable.
With a labor force of about 20 people, the approximate water intake for artificial irrigation can be estimated.
Now look at these three situations one by one
B is far greater than C. In this case, whether there is C or not is of little significance. What we are facing now is the threat of life and death. Picking one more bucket of water will make you live, and one less bucket of water will starve to death. The bargaining person is really hopeless. C is optional, what's the point of this movie?
The big difference between B and C. In this case, electric pumping still has a certain meaning, but it does not solve practical problems like a real generator and a real water pump. The symbolic meaning is greater, especially for no artificial irrigation habits. In terms of local villagers, but if this is the case, the scene of the movie pumping the water out of the movie is like the last-second rescue in Hollywood, which is too exaggerated.
C is much larger than B, really? The power of more than 20 people is far below 12W? really? The water flow in the movie is this effect
According to the power calculation formula P=FV, in the pumping scene, it is to overcome the gravity of the water to do work. Even if the mechanical loss is not considered, according to the 12W engine power, assuming there is no loss in charging and discharging, the actual power is 6W, and the concept of 6W is 1 second 6 grams of water are pumped up from a well with a depth of 1 meter (assuming that the water level of the well in the village is 1 meter above the ground, which is actually far more than that). The water flow rate of this power is enough to fill a bottle of Coke (small bottle). It takes 1 minute and 40 seconds, and you can see the difference by comparing the water flow on the graph.
View more about The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind reviews
