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




Ferro-Cement boat stats and new country projects

Home Forums Community General Chat Ferro-Cement boat stats and new country projects

This topic contains 21 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of ellmer - http://yook3.com ellmer – http://yook3.com 4 years, 7 months ago.

Viewing 7 posts - 16 through 22 (of 22 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #4803
    Avatar of Carl-Pålsson
    Carl-Pålsson
    Participant

    Pictures of a cement submarine:

    http://www.concretesubmarine.com/

    Very interesting link.

    One reason that ferrocement boats have not caught on, from what I’ve read, is due to the difficulty of evaluating the integrity of the hulls, which makes it difficult to get insurance.

    How about naval vessels? Are these really insured? I know that a lot of armies never insure their equipment because it makes no economical sense anyway.

    Actually,guys,most of you are wrong,…Ferrocement or ferro(as we sailors reffer to it)are DAMN good boats,….YES, if they are built right. As a sailor for 20 yrs. now I would buy a ferro anytime against any other boat. Why?Simple:wood will rot,fiberglass will blister,stell will rust and aluminum,oh well,its too expensive.None of the above w/ferro.Now for seasteading we are talking about structurelly reeinforced concrete,and its THE ONLY WAY TO GO.Why?Simple:its as strong as steel;no,wont crack that easy;its easy and cheap to built;wont deteriorate in time;its maintanance free;and,above all,IT WILL LAST FOR EVER.Dig.

    So why aren´t there more concrete ships? If it is so good everyone should be using it, right?

    #4804
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    Carl wrote:

    Pictures of a cement submarine:

    The ferro boatbuilding started around the ’70s,mainly due to the spike in oil prices @ the time as an alternative to wood , steel or fiberglass.Also ferro boatbuilding its a bit labor intensive.After the crises, the boatbuilding community in U.S concentrated on fiberglass as the main material to build boats and ferro was forgotten.It was also in part due to the conspiracy of the chemical companies to sell fiberglass,….Regardless,what i was trying to say is that for the purpose of seasteading,it is the best method of construction due to the qualities that I have enumarated above.

    http://www.concretesubmarine.com/

    Very interesting link.

    One reason that ferrocement boats have not caught on, from what I’ve read, is due to the difficulty of evaluating the integrity of the hulls, which makes it difficult to get insurance.

    How about naval vessels? Are these really insured? I know that a lot of armies never insure their equipment because it makes no economical sense anyway.

    Actually,guys,most of you are wrong,…Ferrocement or ferro(as we sailors reffer to it)are DAMN good boats,….YES, if they are built right. As a sailor for 20 yrs. now I would buy a ferro anytime against any other boat. Why?Simple:wood will rot,fiberglass will blister,stell will rust and aluminum,oh well,its too expensive.None of the above w/ferro.Now for seasteading we are talking about structurelly reeinforced concrete,and its THE ONLY WAY TO GO.Why?Simple:its as strong as steel;no,wont crack that easy;its easy and cheap to built;wont deteriorate in time;its maintanance free;and,above all,IT WILL LAST FOR EVER.Dig.

    So why aren´t there more concrete ships? If it is so good everyone should be using it, right?

    #7897
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Looking over the concretesubmarine site he is quoting 331 Euros per ton of displacement. His 60ton displacement model would cost $27k. That includes everything except engine and viewports. Cheap viewports only run $200. And you need to put in the cost of the engine. But this price includes ocean testing and they even drive it to you.

    A 60ton sub for even $50k sounds pretty nice to me.

    If you eliminate viewports completely he is quoting 600m as a possible dive depth. That should get you under plenty of waves.

    #7899
    Avatar of Thorizan
    Thorizan
    Participant

    60 feet under will get you away from all but the longest waves… and still provide a great deal of light.

    This may be worthy of pursuit.

    __________________________________________________
    There is no fate but what we make for ourselves. Each to his fate.

    #7900
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    At concretesubmarine he also has a whole section on undersea habitats, which is a natural extension from submarines. He says that you can get spherical concrete forms of almost unlimited size…he even has simple plans for a subsurface and deep-sea concrete module.

    So do the math. Figure a 30m diameter sphere with a 1m concrete hull thickness. Calculate the displacement. $484USD per ton of displacement. You won’t need engines and maybe just a few viewports. Shouldn’t be too much, eh?

    EDIT: Looking over the site some more, he has some numbers that are interesting. One of his designs is a 200ton live-onboard luxury yacht sub. This sub is 18.4m long and 4.6m in diameter and would cost over $98000USD. This is the minimum he suggests would be comfortable for long-term habitation. I’d probably go bigger…something like 25m long and 8m in diameter. This would be about 837 tons and would cost over $400000 USD. But that’s something I could live on year-round.

    #9092
    Avatar of J.L.-Frusha
    J.L.-Frusha
    Participant

    Hydraulic cement sets under water. Oil companys use it all the time, to protect underwater pipelines. They sometimes use a technique developed by my Great Grandfather… clamp a form together, run a chute to it from a ship and puor down the chute to fill the form.

    That’d solve part of your problem, at least in shallower waters, for undersea domes. It’ll also work for patching those pre-supposed cracks.

    Hydraulic cement uses volcanic ash and reacts with water, to harden the cement/concrete. Heck, even the ancient Romans used it…

    #9096

    boatsonline wrote:

    I have always had huge problems with concrete boats….

    There is a big difference between ferrocement boatbuilding and structural concrete cast with 200+ years of service free life span. What presents the frequently discussed problems is meshwire ferrocement when poorly executed in boatbuilding – Please check the studies section at concretesubmarine.com

    Well executed industrial marine floating structures has over-passed all service life expectations – structures built in ww2 are still in great shape today.

    Wil

Viewing 7 posts - 16 through 22 (of 22 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate