1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




Eat like a Whale.

Home Forums Archive Infrastructure Eat like a Whale.

This topic contains 9 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of ellmer - http://yook3.com ellmer – http://yook3.com 3 years, 8 months ago.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1362
    Avatar of elspru
    elspru
    Participant

    Whale’s are huge animals,

    and they live on foraging in the ocean,

    we can learn to eat like them.

    using filter feeders,

    balleen whale filter, long, spongey, fronds

    and following annual migrations of whales.

    humpback migration routes, food near arctic and antarctic latitudes,

    Could additionally provide support for the whales,

    and be the shepherds of the whales,

    though mainly subsisting on filter-food,

    keeping them safe from whalers.

    Presumably we can use concrete submarines,

    The ballast tanks can have raw input,

    and filter feeders on the output chamber,

    that is easily accessible for collecting food.

    Alternatively we could keep our floatation or respiratory-system seperate from our digestive-system.

    we could also have suction pumps and filter the water like shellfish.

    various shellfish

    For slow-moving filter-feeding collection,

    can take the example of the whale-shark.

    whale-shark open mouth, gill filters visible

    Wikipedia has more about different kinds of filter feeding

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_feeder

    Anyhow, feeding ourselves is quite viable.

    while we are in our feeding areas,

    we can garden the area,

    introducing beneficial species,

    as well as adding various nutrients.

    #11589

    A very interesting post. Whales have to tell us a lot not only where our protein and food sources might come from – we can also learn a lot about locomotion of heavy structures over long distances with incredible low energy needs.

    Whale energetics studies suggest that a whale is using very little energy to cross those enormous distances – our own discussion about “station keeping” brought up that energy cost would be a major problem. The reason for this is that a whale moves his body below the surface and moving a submerged body needs at least 5 times less energy than doing it on the surface.

    In yachting terms a whale is a semisubmerged 200 ton displacement boat powered with not more than a 25-50 horsepower engine. If you look at naval engineering guidelines a 200 ton yacht would be typically powered with a 600 hp engine. Just think in the cost difference to run a 20 Hp or a 600Hp engine 24hours a day full time not only in fuel but also replacement parts etc…

    We also have seen long investigations what kind of structural rigidness a seastead must have – has anybody studied the structural rigidness of a whale body ? and whales do not fall apart in heavy weather…! nor experience forces “similar to their total weight” – as mentioned in the wave movements tech section.

    Whales also do already what SABmiller is pretending to do with a floating brewery – use seasonal resources globally.

    Finally i want to mention that nature has never developed a long distance swimming animal that swims on the surface, the ocean surface is one of the few places on the planet that is completly empty – all animals are either below it (fish whales) or above it (birds) – maybe this is so for GOOD reasons because climate and ocean have their most violent interchance on this layer.

    Maybe we should look again at the possibility of “submerged or partially submerged living space bubbles” that can be seen as a technical reproduction of a whale, when seaching for the best option to colonize the oceans. Especially when we want the option of mobility , seasonal resources, combined with low operation and station keeping cost.

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

    #11590
    Avatar of Pastor_Jason
    Pastor_Jason
    Participant

    Maybe we should look again at the possibility of “submerged or partially submerged living space bubbles” that can be seen as a technical reproduction of a whale, when seaching for the best option to colonize the oceans. Especially when we want the option of mobility , seasonal resources, combined with low operation and station keeping cost.

    Well said. Still a HUGE fan of sub-steads. I recall that you don’t need to get very far under the surface to see the benefits of reduced wave motion (1/3 of the wave height below the surface should suffice). That distance still provides TONs of ambient light and snorkles can make the environment very hospitable. Wait for a good day and surface to take in some fun R&R time… it’s a dream come true.

    Live Well!

    -Jason

    #11592

    You see the benefit of tremendously reduced wave motion of your “living space bubble” already if you have it still on the surface but “sub like deep ballasted” – waves going trough wash over and do not lift parts of the hull – so you do not do no roll. I had situations with the 20 ton prototype that a storm came up – people from other boats called SOS – trees fell down – i did not notice the weather change at all. This was on the surface on the anchor place (as in the photo) not fully submerged.

    20 ton prototype without ballast (still without sail)

    personal submarine yacht

    20 ton prototype hull on anchor place ballasted with sail (entrance tower)

    submarine yacht anchorplace

    Light conditions in snorkel mode 20 ton prototype

    You get probably the best of all when you have the hull submerged to a depth that equals its diameter – this means that locomotion cost is 5 times lower than on surface – light is fine – noticable wave movement is cero – snorkel solution is easy, temperature inside the hull is 25 degree (caribbean) no aircon needed, no humidity accumulation as air circulation trough snorkel is on 24/7

    We expect sea sickness free “leave coffee cup on the table living conditions” in ANY sea conditions in snorkel mode for Ians 200 ton hull.

    video links ( inside hull )

    The nice thing is you can build that kind of “living space bubble” at a cost of about 331 Euro per cubic meter what is within the parameters of the land based urban living space market.

    The elevated platform solutions discussed so far for seasteading bring up a living space cost that is a multiple of this.

    We also could concentrate in building a “factory” in a place where work cost is low and deliver the hulls worldwide to high price countries. So fabricating that kind of “floating bubble living space” makes sense as a business plan.

    Those living space bubbles also can do things that a whale can not do – for example anchor, deploy a propeller and extract energy from the ocean current flowing along.

    They also have a store capacity a yacht can only dream of. For example the 18m hull above has a store capacity of 100 tons – so what about world wide trade – buying at low price countries moving the goods at low energy cost and sell them at high price countries.

    This would open hundereds of niches where a single family could draw a living from …

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

    #11599
    Avatar of Melllvar
    Melllvar
    Participant

    elspru wrote:

    Whale’s are huge animals,

    and they live on foraging in the ocean,

    we can learn to eat like them.

    I’m not sure I’d recommend eating what the whales are eating. Studies of samples taken from whales worldwide (including the deep ocean, arctic and other places far from human settlements) indicate that the entire oceanic food chain is full of heavy metal toxins:

    Physorg wrote:
    The researchers found mercury as high as 16 parts per million in the whales. Fish high in mercury such as shark and swordfish – the types health experts warn children and pregnant women to avoid – typically have levels of about 1 part per million.

    The whales studied averaged 2.4 parts of mercury per million, but the report’s authors said their internal organs probably had much higher levels than the skin samples contained.

    “You could make a fairly tight argument to say that it is the single greatest health threat that has ever faced the human species. I suspect this will shorten lives, if it turns out that this is what’s going on,” he said.

    Though it was impossible to know where the whales had been, Payne said the contamination was embedded in the blubber of males formed in the frigid polar regions, indicating that the animals had ingested the metals far from where they were emitted.

    “I don’t see any future for whale species except extinction,” Payne said. “This is not on anybody’s radar, no government’s radar anywhere, and I think it should be.”

    Why such a problem for people too? Because so many people rely on fish for their primary source of protein:

    The wrote:
    Ultimately, he said, the contaminants could jeopardize seafood, a primary source of animal protein for 1 billion people.

    Nature wrote:
    Currently, one-third of the world’s 6 billion people rely on fish and other aquatic products for at least one-fifth of their annual protein intake, and catches by subsistence and artisanal fisheries make up more than half of the essential protein and mineral intake for over 400 million people in the poorest countries in Africa and south Asia. Fisheries and aquaculture directly employ over 36 million people worldwide, 98 per cent of whom are in developing countries. Taking into account ancillary occupations and their dependents, there are approximately 520 million fisheries-dependent people. Fisheries and aquaculture also support global trade worth over 78 billion dollars in 2008.

    I’ve also read that the number of people dependent on fisheries is expected to rise to somewhere around 1/3rd to half the world’s population over the next 30 or 40 years, but I couldn’t find that link right away. This post isn’t meant to shoot down elspru’s idea so much as to bring attention to the problem, since it’s directly related to seasteading.

    #11606
    Avatar of elspru
    elspru
    Participant

    Melllvar wrote:

    I’m not sure I’d recommend eating what the whales are eating. Studies of samples taken from whales worldwide (including the deep ocean, arctic and other places far from human settlements) indicate that the entire oceanic food chain is full of heavy metal toxins:

    Well whales eat at the lowest branch of the foodchain,

    mainly microscopic organisms and such.

    So of all seafood it is the cleanest.

    Physorg wrote:
    Though it was impossible to know where the whales had been, Payne said the contamination was embedded in the blubber of males formed in the frigid polar regions, indicating that the animals had ingested the metals far from where they were emitted.

    So thereby we know frigid polar regions are safe.

    Quite obviously, we would want to avoid eating near dirty cities.

    bring attention to the problem, since it’s directly related to seasteading.

    large proprotions of fish eaters already have so called “toxic” levels of mercury.

    it was also found that a hundred years ago, fish had these “toxic” levels.

    So my assumption is that science simply has too low a limit on many heavy metals.

    For instance I regularly eat several 100 percent more vitamin A then recommended,

    simply because the recomended level is far too low, if considering people that eat salad.

    since the limit was created based on synthetic vitamin A which is detrimental to health,

    and also nutritional guidelines were devloped in collaboration with cash-crop agribusiness.

    Being a third-generation scientist, I’m highly skeptical of science,

    since I am very aware of the limitations.

    What we can do, to be healthy,

    is observe and communicate with healthy related animals,

    and emulate their behaviour, and accept their suggestions.

    of course we can run test and scientific experiments,

    to make sure our methods are optimal.

    calm aware desire choice love express intuit move

    #11607

    The methods of substance analyzing are so sensitive now that you can not only – literally – detect a teaspoon of sugar in a olympic pool, you can also detect ANY substance you are searching for in ANY sample you take anywhere on the planet.

    This is frequently used for “media hype” of all kind. I have to agree on the point that the cleanest food on the planet is in the lowest (accumulation free) steps of the foodchain far from polluting continents. If we can not eat THAT any more – we are finished.

    But you have a point that Orcas eating marine animals from the top of the food chain are in the worst position due to accumulation – so are we (humans) – eating meat – human milk analyze brings up “equally horrible results”. (beware of media hype breast feeding is still a good thing…)

    So far from making it worse eating krill will certainly be a step to improve our current nutritional situation. Dismiss the oceanic food chain completly is probably overdoing things a bit as the land based food chain is not any better. Only thing we can do is “relaxing on toxic declaration” or die of starvation – i personally prefer to eat.

    Wil

    #11608
    Avatar of Melllvar
    Melllvar
    Participant

    elspru wrote:
    Well whales eat at the lowest branch of the foodchain,

    mainly microscopic organisms and such.

    So of all seafood it is the cleanest.

    Yes, this is true. The reason whales have 2-16 times the amount found in sharks and swordfish (to oversimplify the article’s numbers) is due to the longer life-span and passing it on to their children. These are problems humans face also.

    elspru wrote:

    Physorg wrote:

    Though it was impossible to know where the whales had been, Payne said the contamination was embedded in the blubber of males formed in the frigid polar regions, indicating that the animals had ingested the metals far from where they were emitted.

    So thereby we know frigid polar regions are safe.

    Quite obviously, we would want to avoid eating near dirty cities.

    [/quote]

    Actually, that’s the opposite of what the article said. It claimed that such large amounts of heavy metal toxins found in whale tissues formed while feeding in the most remote areas of the ocean implies either wind/currents are sweeping toxins throughout the entire world or the toxins have already spread through the food chain, including to the most fundamental levels (i.e. krill, plankton, etc.). Also, there’s a big difference between Vitamin A and heavy metal toxins.

    @everyone:
    My main issue isn’t so much that we all need to immediately stop eating seafood (although I’ve already cut back, because of this and the BP spill and the government’s clearly lying about the oil presence), so much as wondering: if things are this bad now, how bad will they be in another 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? If anything the lesson is pig out now on lobster and snapper while you still can, because it’s only going to get worse as the rest of the world industrializes and the population continues to grow.

    I don’t really have a solution. It’s naive to think humans will magically stop polluting, and the fluid nature of the oceans makes it difficult, if not entirely impossible, to localize or contain the pollutants. It’s a problem I’d like to see seasteaders solve, honestly. The best I can think of off the top of my head would be to engineer and alter the ecosystem by introducing organisms which would eliminate the undesirable pollutants, all while maintaining a healthy ecological balance with the pre-existing ecosystem. I don’t think the technology or ecological understanding for that is likely to come around in the next few decades though.

    #11748
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    20 ton prototype without ballast (still without sail)

    personal submarine yacht

    Sorry for being off topic but looking at this picture would you say that was a hazard, boats could crash into it without seeing it especially at night.

    #11749

    ssteve, the photo shows the hull of the prototype (20tons) without ballast – the boat when ballasted has only a sail (tower of 1.2m height) above the waterline (not yet installed on the photo above).

    It also has 2 snorkel tubes that are extremly good visible – as they stick high above the waterline. So i would say a skipper who will not see that might also overlook an oil tanker. The real problem in collision is not visibility but the lazy guy sleeping under deck instead being at watch. In case of a crash i do prefer to be in a sub instead in the surface boat the sruface boat has a better chance to leak and sink.

    It is not that the sub is a hazard – the hazard is the guy bumping into something that combines the visibility of a buoy and a reef marker…

    Wil

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)

The forum ‘Infrastructure’ is closed to new topics and replies.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate